Toll-House Doctrine?

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Thanks for this response. The first paragraph, I would say, is more a matter of different terms (eg “hades” vs “purgatory”) than different concept. .

Er…I was under the impression that Catholics believe that, after death, a person immediately goes to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. As far as I am aware, Orthodoxy teaches that one everyone goes to Hades, and that this is equivalent to the ancient Jewish concept of Sheol which is mentioned clearly throughout the scriptures and illustrated visually in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In Hades we receive a foretaste of what our final state will be. Only after the Judgement will enter what what is known as Heaven and Hell. If my assessment is correct, then Purgatory is in no way equivalent to Hades, and the concept of Hades is no longer a widely held belief among Catholics. Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I believe ‘the church’ need to be careful in attempting to articulate in detail what has not been illuminated in detail by Holy Tradition. There is a reason to allow certain things to simply rest in the cloud of mystery.

I completely agree! After all, the Church is not omniscient.

 

[Ghosty]

Zabdi:

Er…I was under the impression that Catholics believe that, after death, a person immediately goes to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. As far as I am aware, Orthodoxy teaches that one everyone goes to Hades, and that this is equivalent to the ancient Jewish concept of Sheol which is mentioned clearly throughout the scriptures and illustrated visually in the story of Lazarus and the rich man.

If this were strictly true, I don’t think we in the East would pray that our deceased loved ones are placed among the Saints.

Here is the text of a Byzantine Memorial Service from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/MEMORIAL_SERVICE.asp

I won’t quote it here, since it’s pretty much constantly asking that the dead be brought into the dwelling place of the Saints; just a cursory reading of the text and you’ll see this many times.

So while we must admit that there is a waiting period before final judgement, when we are Resurrected and our relationship with God is fully consumated Body and Soul (this belief is common to both East and West), the Byzantine tradition also admits in its own Liturgy that there is some distinction in the “dwelling places” of the Blessed and the Damned, else we wouldn’t ask that the departed dwell with the Blessed (they would already be dwelling with them in the same Hades, after all).

So even if we don’t make hard distinctions between the place where the Blessed dead await, and the Damned dead await, we must admit that the Liturgies seem to refer to them at the very least as distinct parts of Hades, and not precisely the same place. If the Latins have seized upon this distinction and made more detail out of it, it certainly doesn’t depart from the fundamental core of the Faith in any way.

Chrisb:

Historically, Purgatory was a ‘place and state’ and thus the distinction between the ‘cleansing’ and ‘punitive’ fires in Medieval Theology of the West.

Actually, there was no distinction between these fires in the Medieval West. I’d like to see your evidence to the contrary. The Summa Theologica (specifically, Supplement, Appendix II, found here) says that they are the same fire, and this text was the rule of Medieval Western theology.

I continue not to see how this can be considered anything but a theological opinion of the Latin Church. It is clearly not a ‘dogma’ nor a consensual teachings of the Fathers.

The Fathers (East and West) taught that the dead can be cleansed after death, and fire was actually the most common depiction of this cleansing; to this day we in the Byzantine tradition still pray for the cleansing of the dead, and if you haven’t then perhaps you’ve just never attended a memorial service. It wasn’t the detailed account we find among some later Latin theologians, but these later folks were simply elaborating (perhaps imprudently) on what they had learned from the Fathers.

The most that can be said is that it is the theological opinion of some in the Latin Church that Purgatory is “physically distinct” from Hell, but that is not the opinion of the greatest Latin theologians (such as Aquinas), nor of the Latin Councils, and it was never taught in any Church-wide Catechisms. The modern Latin theological climate is simply more tolerant of agnosticism on the subject, but in the fundamentals it has never changed, and has never broken with what the Fathers taught, and what the Eastern Orthodox (and Catholics) still practice.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Chrisb:

Actually, there was no distinction between these fires in the Medieval West. I’d like to see your evidence to the contrary. The Summa Theologica (specifically, Supplement, Appendix II, found here) says that they are the same fire, and this text was the rule of Medieval Western theology.

Please note the repeated articulation of Purgatory as a distinct ‘place’ in the words of our Angelic Doctor, Ghosty. He, clearly, understand Purgatory as a place and yes I concede that our Angelic Doctor affirmed the ‘material’ fire as being the ‘same’ in both places but clearly he and others are making Purgatory a distinct ‘place’ separating the ‘cleansing’ fires with the ‘punitive’ fires. This casts the works of St. Gregory of Nyssa into grave disarray and removes any opinions of the possibly of ‘apokatastasis’. This is very ‘real’ issue with what the Western Church has ‘dogmatized’. These are no longer simply opinions or views but ‘dogma’.

The Fathers (East and West) taught that the dead can be cleansed after death, and fire was actually the most common depiction of this cleansing; to this day we in the Byzantine tradition still pray for the cleansing of the dead, and if you haven’t then perhaps you’ve just never attended a memorial service. It wasn’t the detailed account we find among some later Latin theologians, but these later folks were simply elaborating (perhaps imprudently) on what they had learned from the Fathers.

That is really a problem though… to so carelessly handle the mysteries of our faith and literally ‘cut’ out the proper place of Orthodox Theology is simply unacceptable.

The most that can be said is that it is the theological opinion of some in the Latin Church that Purgatory is “physically distinct” from Hell, but that is not the opinion of the greatest Latin theologians (such as Aquinas), nor of the Latin Councils, and it was never taught in any Church-wide Catechisms. The modern Latin theological climate is simply more tolerant of agnosticism on the subject, but in the fundamentals it has never changed, and has never broken with what the Fathers taught, and what the Eastern Orthodox (and Catholics) still practice.

Perhaps you should read him again?

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

If this were strictly true, I don’t think we in the East would pray that our deceased loved ones are placed among the Saints.

Here is the text of a Byzantine Memorial Service from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

goarch.org/en/Chapel/liturgical_texts/MEMORIAL_SERVICE.asp

I won’t quote it here, since it’s pretty much constantly asking that the dead be brought into the dwelling place of the Saints; just a cursory reading of the text and you’ll see this many times.

So while we must admit that there is a waiting period before final judgement, when we are Resurrected and our relationship with God is fully consumated Body and Soul (this belief is common to both East and West), the Byzantine tradition also admits in its own Liturgy that there is some distinction in the “dwelling places” of the Blessed and the Damned, else we wouldn’t ask that the departed dwell with the Blessed (they would already be dwelling with them in the same Hades, after all).

So even if we don’t make hard distinctions between the place where the Blessed dead await, and the Damned dead await, we must admit that the Liturgies seem to refer to them at the very least as distinct parts of Hades, and not precisely the same place. If the Latins have seized upon this distinction and made more detail out of it, it certainly doesn’t depart from the fundamental core of the Faith in any way.

Thanks for the link!

Yes, I agree that the Blessed dead and Damned dead are in different place. Lazarus, while also in Hades, was clearly separated from the rich man by a gulf. It would have been impossible for the rich man to go to the Bosom of Abraham.
Ghosty;3972820::

If the Latins have seized upon this distinction and made more detail out of it, it certainly doesn’t depart from the fundamental core of the Faith in any way.

It doesn’t depart from the core of the Faith, as Heaven and Hell could be used as names for the parts of Hades, but what reason is there to “make more detail out it”. How can you “make more detail out” of Revelation unless God reveals more detail? I mean it may not be an erroneous detail to add, but what reason is there to add detail to what God says? Regardless, I can see your point about it not being totally different. (Though I still maintain that Hades is not equivalent to Purgatory.)
Ghosty;3972820::

So while we must admit that there is a waiting period before final judgement, when we are Resurrected and our relationship with God is fully consumated Body and Soul (this belief is common to both East and West)…

I understood that there is a waiting period in the West, but I wasn’t sure if they believe that we have a foretaste now and experience the fullness later. Terminology-wise it’s a bit confusing because I hear most use Heaven and Hell for both the temporary state and the final state. I think that use of the term “Hades” in the East makes that distinction a lot clearer, but I suppose it only makes a difference to me because of my ignorance of Catholic theology.

 

[Ghosty]

Please note the repeated articulation of Purgatory as a distinct ‘place’ in the words of our Angelic Doctor, Ghosty. He, clearly, understand Purgatory as a place and yes I concede that our Angelic Doctor affirmed the ‘material’ fire as being the ‘same’ in both places but clearly he and others are making Purgatory a distinct ‘place’ separating the ‘cleansing’ fires with the ‘punitive’ fires.

But that’s the point, he didn’t distinguish between the fires, only the “place” in terms of where the souls rested in that same fire.

The Byzantine Liturgies, incidently, make the very same distinction as I’ve pointed out, seperating the “resting place” of the Saints (where there is only peace of the soul) from that of the other departed. Again, if all the dead dwell in precisely the same “place”, then there would be no need to pray, as we do in the Byzantine tradition, that our departed loved ones find rest in the same place as the Blessed (“May the Lord God place his soul where the righteous repose,” from the link in my previous post).

At the very least, your insistence that there is a huge divide between East and West on the question of “place” is refuted by the very prayers we in the Byzantine tradition use to commemorate the dead. Both traditions have utilized the concept of “place”, and even distinct places for different “groups” of the dead prior to the Resurrection, and neither tradition has dogmatized this issue.

Such insistence is purely polemical, and doesn’t reflect the nuances of either tradition, and certainly doesn’t reflect the actual Liturgical life of the Byzantine East. We could argue all day that the Byzantine tradition doesn’t refer to “place”, or doesn’t distinguish between the “places” of the dead awaiting the Final Judgement, but when our Liturgical prayers on Sunday speak of different places we must admit that our polemics are contrary to the lived tradition of our Faith.

Ultimately, all this talk of “place” is merely a way of conveying a very difficult and obscure (in the sense that we don’t see what’s actually going on in the afterlife) concept; it’s not dogmatized anywhere, and never has been, and is simply a tool to help us understand, in some small way, the need to pray for the cleansing of the dead, and to bring them comfort in the next life.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Christy74]

As far as I am aware, Orthodoxy teaches that one everyone goes to Hades, and that this is equivalent to the ancient Jewish concept of Sheol which is mentioned clearly throughout the scriptures and illustrated visually in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In Hades we receive a foretaste of what our final state will be. Only after the Judgement will enter what what is known as Heaven and Hell. If my assessment is correct, then Purgatory is in no way equivalent to Hades.

Yes that is what is taught in the Orthodox (at least the Greek, Serbian and Russian) and in the Melkite Chuches. I don’t know about other Churches though because I haven’t gone to any others.

Life After Death is a great book which explains the Eastern Christian belief re: the after life. I bought it at St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in AZ. It also goes into detail about the Council in the 1400’s (can’t remember the name off hand) and how that Eastern Fathers involved were just floored at the concept the Western Fathers had come up with this Purgatory idea and goes into detail about the Scriptures and conversations the Fathers of that Council had, etc. It was really eye opening.

What I got from it is that Purgatory kind of merciful because in Eastern Christian’s eyes, if, after death, you end up in a hot, uncomfortable place then you are experiencing the foretaste of Hell where you will end up once your soul is reunited with your transformed body after the Final Judgement whereas in the Roman Catholic view if you end up in a hot uncomfortable place then you are in Purgatory and will end up in Heaven at some point before or immediately after the Final Judgement which is when Purgatory will be put out of existence.

I think that the Eastern Christian view is correct. For one thing, because of the fruits that belief enstills. It motivates people to be very careful and watchful over their Salvation and to constantly strive for God. But the Roman Catholic view means that one doesn’t have to be so careful, but just has to be “good” enough by being without “mortal” sin rather than actually striving for perfection and deification while on earth. I work at a Roman Catholic Bookstore and I hear people say *all *the time, “Oh no! I’m not trying to get to Heaven, I just want to make it to Purgatory!” The truth is known by it’s fruit, right?

 

[Ghosty]

It doesn’t depart from the core of the Faith, as Heaven and Hell could be used as names for the parts of Hades, but what reason is there to “make more detail out it”. How can you “make more detail out” of Revelation unless God reveals more detail? I mean it may not be an erroneous detail to add, but what reason is there to add detail to what God says? Regardless, I can see your point about it not being totally different. (Though I still maintain that Hades is not equivalent to Purgatory.)

It’s just a quirk of Latin tradition, I suppose. There’s a strong tendency in the Latin tradition to say “beyond this point is Divine Mystery, but based on what we know and can see, what can we theorize about the reality behind the curtain?” Such things, like the details of Purgatory (where it is, whether it has real fire, whether souls can be Purgated elsewhere if God decides, ect) are never dogmatized, but there is a lot of discussion over history about the likelyhood of different details. Personally I think of it as a cultural idiosycracy, like American men memorizing and discussing sports statistics.

I understood that there is a waiting period in the West, but I wasn’t sure if they believe that we have a foretaste now and experience the fullness later. Terminology-wise it’s a bit confusing because I hear most use Heaven and Hell for both the temporary state and the final state. I think that use of the term “Hades” in the East makes that distinction a lot clearer, but I suppose it only makes a difference to me because of my ignorance of Catholic theology.

I agree that the Hades distinction makes it much clearer!

As for the “waiting period”, the terminology can get confusing because the Latin tradition emphasizes the soul’s ability to experience God directly after death, assuming the soul is prepared to “be a Saint”. Such souls, even those of the Saints who we believe are with God now in such a way, are awaiting the fullness of the experience that will arive when they receive back their bodies and the world is remade and Glorified.

So in a sense there is a “foretaste” of the greatness to come, but in Latin tradition that foretaste is actually a direct experience of God (which is the big “reward” of Heaven anyway), with the completion of the experience extending to the body and the whole world being the Glory to come. It’s easy for the Latin tradition to emphasize the “you’ll see God when you die” aspect over the “you’ll get the full experience of Glory at the Resurrection”, but the recognition of the latter is definitely present in Latin theology.

This actually raises a question in my mind that I’ve never heard discussed: does the Byzantine tradition generally hold that the Saints who are “with God” are not yet actually with God? My impression from the prayers and such is that the Saints really are “with God” in a way that other souls might not be, but now I realize I’m not sure of the teaching. Anyone know the answer?

Christy74:

I work at a Roman Catholic Bookstore and I hear people say *all *the time, “Oh no! I’m not trying to get to Heaven, I just want to make it to Purgatory!” The truth is known by it’s fruit, right?

Of course, making it to Purgatory IS making it to Heaven, it just means that some things are dealt with after death. We Melkites implicitely believe the same thing, in that we pray for the cleansing and forgiveness of the dead; if they’re already assured to be either in Heaven or Hell (or experiencing the foretastes of them), there would be no place for such prayer, and these ancient Liturgies should be removed from the Byzantine tradition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

While this might be true, and fair, it is also the duty of the Church to point out and even condemn heresy. Truth is truth, error is error. If the Confession of Dositheos contains heresy then it should be condemned, if it is orthodox then (as far as I’m concerned) there should be no EO objections (which I often do encounter) to concepts like purgatory, transubstantiation, original sin, etc.

Well these are tricky issues. For example, if by transubstantiation, you simply mean the belief that the Eucharist is literally transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then no Orthodox Christian should object. However, if you mean the doctrine as Roman Catholics view it, with the philosophy behind how the transformation occurs, then most Orthodox will say that isn’t a dogma. It’s not that the mechanism couldn’t be right, it just that it was never affirmed at an Ecumenical Council as dogma. An individual certainly may hold an opinion on the mechanisms of transubstantiation, bu it should not be promoted as an official teaching.

Also, we believe in Original Sin. We just don’t believe in Original Guilt and disagree on the specifics regarding what causes the sinful condition of mankind. Also, we generally avoid speculating about the exact means by which the sinfulness is inherited by individuals.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

This actually raises a question in my mind that I’ve never heard discussed: does the Byzantine tradition generally hold that the Saints who are “with God” are not yet actually with God? My impression from the prayers and such is that the Saints really are “with God” in a way that other souls might not be, but now I realize I’m not sure of the teaching. Anyone know the answer?

I read once that they are indeed in His presence, just not to the full extent of His presence they will experience in Heaven. I guess they don’t have the full course yet, but still have a sample, if that makes sense. I’m trying to remember where I read it, but the source eludes me.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Personally I think of it as a cultural idiosycracy, like American men memorizing and discussing sports statistics.

I always wished I could do that! Sadly, I never had the motivation to keep up with games and changing statistics. Quite odd actually, considering that I enjoyed both watching sports and knowing random statistics. How these things work, only God knows.

 

[Ghosty]

However, if you mean the doctrine as Roman Catholics view it, with the philosophy behind how the transformation occurs, then most Orthodox will say that isn’t a dogma.

This is off-topic, but the Latin teaching of transubstantiation doesn’t go into the “how”, but rather simply explains the reality of the transformation in Aristotlean terms.

In short, the teaching is that the “substance” (the “what”) is transformed (hence transubstantiate), while the “accidents” (the appearance and other properties) remain. There is no attempt to explain how at all, other than to say that God does it, and we know this through Faith.

Back to the regular topic!

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

This is off-topic, but the Latin teaching of transubstantiation doesn’t go into the “how”, but rather simply explains the reality of the transformation in Aristotlean terms.

In short, the teaching is that the “substance” (the “what”) is transformed (hence transubstantiate), while the “accidents” (the appearance and other properties) remain. There is no attempt to explain how at all, other than to say that God does it, and we know this through Faith.

Back to the regular topic!

Peace and God bless!

Q: How does God transform it?

A: God makes the substance into his Body and Blood while allowing the accidents to remain the same.

That’s what I meant by “they say how”. In my previous post, I probably should have put that “we believe in Real Presence”, as opposed to “we believe in transubstantiation”.

Regardless, I agree: this is completely off-topic. I’ll try not to diverge.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Historically, Purgatory was a ‘place and state’ and thus the distinction between the ‘cleansing’ and ‘punitive’ fires in Medieval Theology of the West. Since Vatican II popular views of Purgatory has been moving to a more, dare I say, ‘orthodox’ interpretation?

I disagree with this, especially considering the Confession of Dositheos lifted much of its definitions directly from the documents of Trent.

My problem, rests in the underpinnings necessary to maintain the doctrine in it’s dogmatic language… venial sin, mortal sin, satisfaction, rigid distinction between ‘cleansing’ fire and ‘punitive’ fire, etc, etc.

I personally don’t recall ever reading anything dogmatic as far as a “rigid distinction” between cleansing and punitive. Terms like venial sin, mortal sin, satisfaction, etc are necessary concepts, for if there is no distinction you would have to say venial sin alone damns (and at that point the concept of purgatory doesn’t exist).

I continue not to see how this can be considered anything but a theological opinion of the Latin Church. It is clearly not a ‘dogma’ nor a consensual teachings of the Fathers.

The concept of purgatory is a dogma of the Catholic Church, how rigidly it is defined in all its aspects is not dogmatized (as far as I am aware).

I believe ‘the church’ need to be careful in attempting to articulate in detail what has not been illuminated in detail by Holy Tradition. There is a reason to allow certain things to simply rest in the cloud of mystery.

The Church holds the power to articulate almost anything dogmatic, even if Tradition does not give details the Church can further define things. The Church can more fully define things without in any way undermining the Mystery. The Ecumenical Councils dealing with Christological issues are a perfect example of this. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that the EO should stay consistent and call a spade a spade. If teachings/concepts like purgatory, transubstantiaion, etc are errors or “Latin inventions,” then the EO need to likewise lable documents like the Confession of Dositheos.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Er…I was under the impression that Catholics believe that, after death, a person immediately goes to Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. As far as I am aware, Orthodoxy teaches that one everyone goes to Hades, and that this is equivalent to the ancient Jewish concept of Sheol which is mentioned clearly throughout the scriptures and illustrated visually in the story of Lazarus and the rich man. In Hades we receive a foretaste of what our final state will be. Only after the Judgement will enter what what is known as Heaven and Hell. If my assessment is correct, then Purgatory is in no way equivalent to Hades, and the concept of Hades is no longer a widely held belief among Catholics. Of course, I could be wrong.

The Confession of Dositheos quoted above says clearly that the souls go either to Heaven, Hell, or Hades. It indicates only some soul’s go to Hades (as well as the remedies for those souls).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes that is what is taught in the Orthodox (at least the Greek, Serbian and Russian) and in the Melkite Chuches. I don’t know about other Churches though because I haven’t gone to any others.

Life After Death is a great book which explains the Eastern Christian belief re: the after life. I bought it at St. Anthony’s Greek Orthodox Monastery in AZ. It also goes into detail about the Council in the 1400’s (can’t remember the name off hand) and how that Eastern Fathers involved were just floored at the concept the Western Fathers had come up with this Purgatory idea and goes into detail about the Scriptures and conversations the Fathers of that Council had, etc. It was really eye opening.

What I got from it is that Purgatory kind of merciful because in Eastern Christian’s eyes, if, after death, you end up in a hot, uncomfortable place then you are experiencing the foretaste of Hell where you will end up once your soul is reunited with your transformed body after the Final Judgement whereas in the Roman Catholic view if you end up in a hot uncomfortable place then you are in Purgatory and will end up in Heaven at some point before or immediately after the Final Judgement which is when Purgatory will be put out of existence.

I think that the Eastern Christian view is correct. For one thing, because of the fruits that belief enstills. It motivates people to be very careful and watchful over their Salvation and to constantly strive for God. But the Roman Catholic view means that one doesn’t have to be so careful, but just has to be “good” enough by being without “mortal” sin rather than actually striving for perfection and deification while on earth. I work at a Roman Catholic Bookstore and I hear people say *all *the time, “Oh no! I’m not trying to get to Heaven, I just want to make it to Purgatory!” The truth is known by it’s fruit, right?

Well these are tricky issues. For example, if by transubstantiation, you simply mean the belief that the Eucharist is literally transformed into the Body and Blood of Christ, then no Orthodox Christian should object. However, if you mean the doctrine as Roman Catholics view it, with the philosophy behind how the transformation occurs, then most Orthodox will say that isn’t a dogma. It’s not that the mechanism couldn’t be right, it just that it was never affirmed at an Ecumenical Council as dogma. An individual certainly may hold an opinion on the mechanisms of transubstantiation, bu it should not be promoted as an official teaching.

But thats just it…The Confession actually employs the very term “Transubstantiation” and uses terminology like “accidents” and “substance”. To use a term like transubstantiation (a very “Latin” term) WITHOUT a theological definition behind it is irresponsible theology.

Also, we believe in Original Sin. We just don’t believe in Original Guilt and disagree on the specifics regarding what causes the sinful condition of mankind. Also, we generally avoid speculating about the exact means by which the sinfulness is inherited by individuals.

Yes, but the Confession gives a very Catholic view of Original Sin, so the popular “original guilt” objection is a non-issue, unless of course you want to say the Confession is in error. (I have actually been told that Russian Metropolitan Philaret actually had the audacity to go through that Confession and “edit out” teachings that he thought were “too latin.”)

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

Yes, but the Confession gives a very Catholic view of Original Sin, so the popular “original guilt” objection is a non-issue, unless of course you want to say the Confession is in error. (I have actually been told that Russian Metropolitan Philaret actually had the audacity to go through that Confession and “edit out” teachings that he thought were “too latin.”)

I read the decree dealing with Original Sin. There is nothing about it that is distinctively Catholic. It only talks about those aspects which we agree on. Not delving into the differences and pointing them out is not equivalent to a statement that no differences exist.

But thats just it…The Confession actually employs the very term “Transubstantiation” and uses terminology like “accidents” and “substance”. To use a term like transubstantiation (a very “Latin” term) WITHOUT a theological definition behind it is irresponsible theology.

As I said, only the Seven Ecumenical Councils proclaim dogma. Seeing as this was not a declaration by one of those seven, it is not doctrinally binding and simply expresses the opinion of those portions of the Church which participated. Anyone may believe in metousiosis, but no one must.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I read the decree dealing with Original Sin. There is nothing about it that is distinctively Catholic. It only talks about those aspects which we agree on. Not delving into the differences and pointing them out is not equivalent to a statement that no differences exist.

I would like to know what significant differences do exist then between the Catholic and Dositheos declarations on Original Sin. I have read EO Catechisms and works like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Fr Pomanzansky) which shy away, if not reject, the view Catholicism and Dositheos present.

As I said, only the Seven Ecumenical Councils proclaim dogma. Seeing as this was not a declaration by one of those seven, it is not doctrinally binding and simply expresses the opinion of those portions of the Church which participated. Anyone may believe in metousiosis, but no one must.

We are talking past eachother here.
My point is that truth is truth, and error is error, regardless by who and where it is taught.
Your point is that one is free to accept XYZ but is not bound to accept XYZ.
My point is that I regularly see EO condemn and reject certain terms/conceps (eg “transubstantiation”) as Latin inventions (to put it mildly), yet if this is an error they need to stay consistent and likewise condemn documents like Dositheos as errors. That is all I’m trying to get across.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

I would like to know what significant differences do exist then between the Catholic and Dositheos declarations on Original Sin. I have read EO Catechisms and works like Orthodox Dogmatic Theology (Fr Pomanzansky) which shy away, if not reject, the view Catholicism and Dositheos present.

As I understand, Catholics believe in Original Guilt and and believe held in some way culpable for the Fall. They therefore tend to see the deprivation of Grace caused by the Fall as a result of God withdrawing the gift of Grace as punishment.

As I understand, the Orthodox view is that when Adam sinned, the distrust of God that was introduced into Man’s character created a gulf in the relationship with God. Also, this distrust naturally produces lust and pride, which in turn generates further acts of sin. Thus, it is as if this this distrust were a contagion which naturally spreads and infects us with sin. Even if we choose to try to do good and restore our relationship with God, the mere fact that the distrust existed in the first place bars us from achieving the closeness which was possible before the distrust was introduced. (This is also true of, and easily seen in, relationships between individuals.) The deprivation of Grace then is a result of this contagion and not God. God never ceased to offer us Grace, and indeed never would, being All-Loving and Ever-Benevolent.

Whether the difference between the Catholic and Orthodox views is significant or minor could be debated. However, it definitely has different implications about the benevolence of God and the reason for which we needed the supernatural events performed in the Incarnation.

We are talking past eachother here.
My point is that truth is truth, and error is error, regardless by who and where it is taught.
Your point is that one is free to accept XYZ but is not bound to accept XYZ.
My point is that I regularly see EO condemn and reject certain terms/conceps (eg “transubstantiation”) as Latin inventions (to put it mildly), yet if this is an error they need to stay consistent and likewise condemn documents like Dositheos as errors. That is all I’m trying to get across.

My point is that truth is truth, and error is error, as well. I just have an additional point that man is not omniscient, and therefore cannot know every truth. Sometimes you have to admit that we don’t know something for sure, and just leave it as a matter of opinion. You seem to expect us to give a definite statement of validity or falsehood for everything. Sorry for our Church not being omniscient. I wasn’t aware that the Orthodox Church was supposed to assume the role of God.

 

[Zabdi_Premjit]

…they need to stay consistent and likewise condemn documents like Dositheos as errors. That is all I’m trying to get across.

They don’t condemn Dositheos as error because it is not right to condemn based on opinion alone. It’d be like a Catholic who believes the Theotokos never died condemning all Catholics who believe she did. As a Catholic, you can certainly believe that it is an error to state that she died, but you wouldn’t be justified in condemning that statement because the dogma of the the Catholic Church does not address that issue. Rather, it only states that she was assumed into heaven, body and soul. As long as one believes in the assumption, it doesn’t matter whether you believe she died or not. Likewise, the Orthodox dogmata only address the Real Presence, not metousiosis.

I hope you understood that. I mean, the difference between opinion and dogma isn’t exactly a complex concept.