Why Catholic and not Orthodox?

[sidbrown]

Orthodoxy doesn’t teach “purgatory”. There is no “temporal punishment” to be paid in the next life after a sin is forgiven. There is no “treasury of merit” or excess merit earned by the saints to be applied in the form of indulgences. The dead experience a foretaste either of heaven or of hell according to the state in which they find themself at death. At the resurrection our souls will be reunited to our bodies and our state will be fixed. Until then prayers for the dead are beneficial to their souls and a positive change in state is possible.

That is what I thought and that is why I prefer the Catholic teaching on Purgatory. It makes more sense to me to has a temporal punishment for smaller or venial sins and it also makes more sense to me to have some sort of temporal punishment for larger sins which have been imperfectly forgiven. I say that because to me, it seens reasonable that not everyone who has committed serious sin and who says Lord, Lord will go directly to heaven right away.

 

[trophybearer]

That is what I thought and that is why I prefer the Catholic teaching on Purgatory. It makes more sense to me to has a temporal punishment for smaller or venial sins and it also makes more sense to me to have some sort of temporal punishment for larger sins which have been imperfectly forgiven. I say that because to me, it seens reasonable that not everyone who has committed serious sin and who says Lord, Lord will go directly to heaven right away.

That it makes more sense to you, one person, doesn’t make it correct.

 

[sidbrown]

That it makes more sense to you, one person, doesn’t make it correct.

Yes. You are right. I do not deny that. I am only responding to the question of the thread as to the reason you are Catholic and not Orthodox. For me, one of the reasons I would not convert to Orthodox has to do with the fact that for me, the teaching on Purgatory makes sense and seems reasonable. If anyone could show me why it is not a reasonable teaching, then I would have to study some more on this issue.
Still, you are right in what you have said. I am only one person in this world, and I have been wrong before and I have tried to correct my mistakes, sometimes I have been successful, but othertimes not so much.

 

[trophybearer]

Yes. You are right. I do not deny that. I am only responding to the question of the thread as to the reason you are Catholic and not Orthodox. For me, one of the reasons I would not convert to Orthodox has to do with the fact that for me, the teaching on Purgatory makes sense and seems reasonable. If anyone could show me why it is not a reasonable teaching, then I would have to study some more on this issue.
Still, you are right in what you have said. I am only one person in this world, and I have been wrong before and I have tried to correct my mistakes, sometimes I have been successful, but othertimes not so much.

Tell me about it!

 

[Vico]

… For me, one of the reasons I would not convert to Orthodox has to do with the fact that for me, the teaching on Purgatory makes sense and seems reasonable. If anyone could show me why it is not a reasonable teaching, then I would have to study some more on this issue. …

The Orthodox do not accept temporal fire only eternal fire. Eastern Catholics do not debate about purgatory yet have a different tradition, such as “waiting for Theosis”.

But, per Ludwig Ott, there are only two de fide dogmas:

1. A place of purification exists.
2. Our prayers can help souls there.

It seems that the arguments are not usually about dogmas, but the elaborated views.

The Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the (Latin) Catholic Church:

"1031 The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

‘As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.’ 608"

606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439) DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563) DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.
Abbreviations:
DS Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)
PL J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Latina (Paris, 1841-1855)

(Challoner-Douay-Rhiems)
1 Cor 3:15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
1 Pet 1:7 That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
Saint Gregory on purgatory:
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/gregory_04_dialogues_book4.htm#C39

 

[trophybearer]

The Orthodox do not accept temporal fire only eternal fire. Eastern Catholics do not debate about purgatory yet have a different tradition, such as “waiting for Theosis”.

But, per Ludwig Ott, there are only two de fide dogmas:

1. A place of purification exists.
2. Our prayers can help souls there.

It seems that the arguments are not usually about dogmas, but the elaborated views.

The Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the (Latin) Catholic Church:

"1031 The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

‘As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.’ 608"

606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439) DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563) DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.
Abbreviations:
DS Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)
PL J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Latina (Paris, 1841-1855)

(Challoner-Douay-Rhiems)
1 Cor 3:15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
1 Pet 1:7 That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
Saint Gregory on purgatory:
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/gregory_04_dialogues_book4.htm#C39

There’s no “waiting for theosis” or “final theosis”. Theosis is never ending.

 

[sidbrown]

The Orthodox do not accept temporal fire only eternal fire. Eastern Catholics do not debate about purgatory yet have a different tradition, such as “waiting for Theosis”.

But, per Ludwig Ott, there are only two de fide dogmas:

1. A place of purification exists.
2. Our prayers can help souls there.

It seems that the arguments are not usually about dogmas, but the elaborated views.

The Catholic teaching in the Catechism of the (Latin) Catholic Church:

"1031 The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

‘As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.’ 608"

606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439) DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563) DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.
Abbreviations:
DS Denzinger-Schonmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum (1965)
PL J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Latina (Paris, 1841-1855)

(Challoner-Douay-Rhiems)
1 Cor 3:15 If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
1 Pet 1:7 That the trial of your faith (much more precious than gold which is tried by the fire) may be found unto praise and glory and honour at the appearing of Jesus Christ.
Saint Gregory on purgatory:
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/gregory_04_dialogues_book4.htm#C39

In any event, the Catholic teaching on Purgatory seems reasonable to me.

 

[Ridgerunner]

For years I didn’t think about the question a whole lot; perhaps because Orthodoxy seemed overwhelmingly “foreign” to me in a number of ways, but also because of my understanding about the history of the schism. Nevertheless, I had a significant respect for Orthodoxy, and felt much more “related” to it than to Protestantism.

I currently find myself in approximately the same frame of mind about it, but perhaps with greater understanding after study of some of the writings of the early Churth Fathers and secular history. As to the latter, I came to the belief that the schism was primarily due to political and cultural issues, not theological issues.

Further, there is something I find troubling about Orthodoxy’s structure (aside from its divisions with the Oriental Orthodox). Orthodoxy considers that while mesne authority in faith and morals is vested in the bishop. More ultimately, it belongs to councils. There is, however, a seeming barrier to wordwide ecumenical councils; one that prevents Orthodoxy from availing itself of further definition of the faith. While different Orthodox will avoid the question, at least some have said that Orthodoxy feels itself unwilling or unable to have such councils because it cannot or will not be complete without the Bishop of Rome. That troubles me some. It seems to me the Church should be able to have an ultimate authority; whether Pope or Council, that can actually speak.

But I will also confess that while I really do admire aspects of Orthodox liturgies and its approach to worship, I find, (perhaps tardily in life) how thoroughly Western (thus Roman) I really am. The East really is East and the West really is West, and while the twain may meet in some respects, a person who is one can never truly be the other in the same way.

So, while I know more about it all than I once did, (and in good part due to information provided by Orthodox persons) my fundamental reasons now are not greatly different from what they were to begin with. However, after being involved in a number of discussions on CAF with Orthodox, and many, many more with Protestants in the area in which I live, I now think there is more potential for ultimate reunion with at least some Protestant groups than there is with Orthodoxy. I don’t enjoy thinking that, but I do think it.

 

[trophybearer]

For years I didn’t think about the question a whole lot; perhaps because Orthodoxy seemed overwhelmingly “foreign” to me in a number of ways, but also because of my understanding about the history of the schism. Nevertheless, I had a significant respect for Orthodoxy, and felt much more “related” to it than to Protestantism.

I currently find myself in approximately the same frame of mind about it, but perhaps with greater understanding after study of some of the writings of the early Churth Fathers and secular history. As to the latter, I came to the belief that the schism was primarily due to political and cultural issues, not theological issues.

Further, there is something I find troubling about Orthodoxy’s structure (aside from its divisions with the Oriental Orthodox). Orthodoxy considers that while mesne authority in faith and morals is vested in the bishop. More ultimately, it belongs to councils. There is, however, a seeming barrier to wordwide ecumenical councils; one that prevents Orthodoxy from availing itself of further definition of the faith. While different Orthodox will avoid the question, at least some have said that Orthodoxy feels itself unwilling or unable to have such councils because it cannot or will not be complete without the Bishop of Rome. That troubles me some. It seems to me the Church should be able to have an ultimate authority; whether Pope or Council, that can actually speak.

But I will also confess that while I really do admire aspects of Orthodox liturgies and its approach to worship, I find, (perhaps tardily in life) how thoroughly Western (thus Roman) I really am. The East really is East and the West really is West, and while the twain may meet in some respects, a person who is one can never truly be the other in the same way.

So, while I know more about it all than I once did, (and in good part due to information provided by Orthodox persons) my fundamental reasons now are not greatly different from what they were to begin with. However, after being involved in a number of discussions on CAF with Orthodox, and many, many more with Protestants in the area in which I live, I now think there is more potential for ultimate reunion with at least some Protestant groups than there is with Orthodoxy. I don’t enjoy thinking that, but I do think it.

If you find the division between us and the OO problematic you have to realize that we, Catholics and Orthodox, are coming from the same place with regards to the OO. that schism happened while East and West were united. We’ve both not been in communion with them for the same amount of time. That shouldn’t be counted against us any more than against you.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If you find the division between us and the OO problematic you have to realize that we, Catholics and Orthodox, are coming from the same place with regards to the OO. that schism happened while East and West were united. We’ve both not been in communion with them for the same amount of time. That shouldn’t be counted against us any more than against you.

I don’t count it against anyone. But one can’t help observing how similar the EO and OO are and, being geographically adjacent to one another, and given how (to a Westerner anyway) the points of division seem so miniscule, the continued division is puzzling. Realizing there is a long history to it, and further realizing the theological differences between the EO and OO surely seem more significant to them than they do to me, one is inclined to view it against the background of the national divisions within EO itself. One is thus put to consider whether there is something inherently centripetal within Orthodoxy, in a world in which Christian unity seems a particularly worthy goal.

I will say that sometimes one is tempted toward hope of re-unification. The present Patriarch of Constantinople does not seem as intent on continued division as some. Even the present Patriarch of Moscow, who is as near to a central head of the vast bulk of EO as seems possible, seems less intent on it than his predecessor.

On the other hand, however, the continued (and paradoxical, considering the Orthodox emphasis on the necessity of councils to determine things) refusal of the EO to consider Catholic sacraments valid notwithstanding Catholic acceptance of the validity of EO sacraments, does not incline one to optimism. The seeming impossibility of having ecumenical councils from the EO point of view (and possibly the OO) tempts one, then, to think of reunification as a futile aspiration,

 

[Hesychios]

You know that Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

With permission of their own religious authorities, which would be whom in this case?

… While Catholics who refuse to acknowledge Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The whole thing is a big game.

So brother David, what do you think of Orthodox “in communion with Rome”?

Are you one?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

With permission of their own religious authorities, which would be whom in this case?

… While Catholics who refuse to acknowledge Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The whole thing is a big game.

So brother David, what do you think of Orthodox “in communion with Rome”?

Are you one?

I think you are aware of my thinking on that term, many of my closest friends prefer that term and I am starting to see their point but I am not ready to use it for myself yet.

I use the term Byzantine Catholic.

As for the other, I leave it to their conscience.

 

[Vico]

There’s no “waiting for theosis” or “final theosis”. Theosis is never ending.

I mean the particular judgment, after which the soul experiences a foretaste of the blessedness which awaits it after the resurrection.

 

[sidbrown]

*… While Catholics who refuse to acknowledge Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are excommunicated latae sententiae.
*
So if a Catholic thinks that in the event of a reunion between EO and RC, the papal universal jurisdiction as it exists in the RCC would not extend to the EO Church, then he is automatically excommunicated? I didn’t know about this. Is this written down somewhere?

 

[Vico]

You know that Orthodox Christians are welcome to receive communion in the Catholic Church.

…

… While Catholics who refuse to acknowledge Papal Universal Jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility are excommunicated latae sententiae.

The whole thing is a big game.

…

I want to interject here, that there is a difference between material and formal schism, heresy, or apostacy. Latae sententiae only applies to Catholics that are in formal violation. It does not apply to those that are ignorant and not morally responsible for that ignorance, also called invincible ignorance***.*** The Catholic Church does not assume the moral culpability of members of Churches in schism from Rome.

See (Latin) 1983 Catholic Code of Canon Law 1321, 1322, 1323, 1364, and Catechism 2089.

Orthodox are not in formal schism or heresy due to invincible ignorance (if they did not leave the Catholic Church to become Orthodox). So there is no latae sententiae for Orthodox and they are not referred to as schismatics by the Catholic Church.

 

[sidbrown]

I want to interject here, that there is a difference between material and formal schism, heresy, or apostacy. Latae sententiae only applies to Catholics that are in formal violation. It does not apply to those that are ignorant and not morally responsible for that ignorance, also called invincible ignorance***.*** The Catholic Church does not assume the moral culpability of members of Churches in schism from Rome.

See (Latin) 1983 Catholic Code of Canon Law 1321, 1322, 1323, 1364, and Catechism 2089.

Orthodox are not in formal schism or heresy due to invincible ignorance (if they did not leave the Catholic Church to become Orthodox). So there is no latae sententiae for Orthodox and they are not referred to as schismatics by the Catholic Church.

Yes, but suppose a Catholic beleives that the exercise of universal papal jurisdiction as it is practiced in the Roman Catholic Church today would have to be modified once a reunion between EO and RC took place. Would then that Catholic be subject to a latae sententiae excommunication from the Catholic Church? Is this written down somewhere or is it something that comes from the top of someone’s head with no official authority?

 

[Vico]

Yes, but suppose a Catholic beleives that the exercise of universal papal jurisdiction as it is practiced in the Roman Catholic Church today would have to be modified once a reunion between EO and RC took place. Would then that Catholic be subject to a latae sententiae excommunication from the Catholic Church? Is this written down somewhere or is it something that comes from the top of someone’s head with no official authority?

One would have to take a stand against a clear dogma of the Church, with understanding of it and the penalty, to have latae sententiae excommunication.

In my opinion, it is not a heresy to believe that there will be or need to be changes to discipline or government, as long as those changes do not modify the powers of the Pope or bishops, or definition of the Church. I believe the dogmas below cover the issue of power, from Ludwig Ott book of dogmas (de fide):

The Church founded by Christ is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Christ gave His Church an hierarchial constitution.

By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.

According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time.

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome.

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.

---

So, do you think what you have in mind is a heresy?

 

[sidbrown]

One would have to take a stand against a clear dogma of the Church, with understanding of it and the penalty, to have latae sententiae excommunication.

In my opinion, it is not a heresy to believe that there will be or need to be changes to discipline or government, as long as those changes do not modify the powers of the Pope or bishops, or definition of the Church. I believe the dogmas below cover the issue of power, from Ludwig Ott book of dogmas (de fide):

The Church founded by Christ is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Christ gave His Church an hierarchial constitution.

By virtue of Divine Right the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.

According to Christ’s ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Church and for all time.

The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the bishops of Rome.

The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.

---

So, do you think what you have in mind is a heresy?

I thought that Pope John Paul II, said that in the discussions on reunion with the Orthodox Church, he would not rule out any discussions on the place of the Pope in the reunited Church. And in fact, these discussions are underway as reports have been leaked to the news media.

 

[Vico]

I thought that Pope John Paul II, said that in the discussions on reunion with the Orthodox Church, he would not rule out any discussions on the place of the Pope in the reunited Church. And in fact, these discussions are underway as reports have been leaked to the news media.

Dogma is not something negotiable. The structure of the Eastern Orthodox churches is many autonomous Churches, united by common faith, but not agreeing on jurisdictional issues. You may be aware of the disagreement between Moscow Patriarchate and the Ecumenical Patriarchate on jurisdictional issues. The Eastern Orthodox consider that any unity must be based on common faith, that Catholic and Orthodox do not hold a common faith, and that the Patriarch of Rome has the primacy of honor (not jurisdiction).

There is a joint Orthodox-Catholic commission that is studying the papal primacy of the first millenium, and later developments. Meetings were in Cyprus, and Istanbul, and another will be at the Vatican.

I could comment if you showed me either the statement of Pope John Paul II, or the news media leak.

 

[Hesychios]

Dogma is not something negotiable.

Well, there’s the rub.

Here we have, let us say, a hypothetical situation wherein Latin Catholics who know the difference and enough canon law do not believe in the Papal dogmas of 1870AD. They are excommunicated latae sententiae, is that not so?

While at the same time their neighbors who are Orthodox and do not believe in the Papal dogmas (if otherwise disposed) can present themselves for communion in the very same parish. Up the street live an Old Catholic family belonging to the Polish National Catholic church who also do not believe in the Papal dogmas, and they can attend and receive. This is OK as per the Catholic church.

And upon seeing this, some Catholics who do not believe in the Papal dogmas and otherwise qualify to be excommunicated latae sententiae are saying to themselves “I don’t feel that I can call myself a Catholic, I think I will declare myself Orthodox, in communion with Rome and then I can receive the sacraments with a clean conscience without believing in these difficult dogmas”. This, even though they do not have an Orthodox bishop over them, do not confess to an Orthodox priest and are not otherwise in good standing with an Orthodox diocese or church.

Likewise, some of the area Orthodox will see this warm welcome and the convenient Catholic parish down the street which they would like to attend but absolutely do not believe in the Papal dogmas and declare “I think I will declare myself Orthodox, in communion with Rome and then I can receive the sacraments with a clean conscience”.