J
Justin_Mary
Guest
So you don’t believe it’s efficacious to pray to the Saints?
- Status
R
ReaderT
Guest
Of course I believe it’s fine but that’s not at issue here
M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
In his book The Great Heresies, Hilaire Belloc states that Islam is a Christian heresy.
If you read the Koran, there are suras in it which are taken almost verbatim from the Gospels, some of the early heretical literature etc.
If you read the Koran, there are suras in it which are taken almost verbatim from the Gospels, some of the early heretical literature etc.
G
glencor63
Guest
@snarflemike
I think the abuses were worse than we can comprehend and persisted for a very long time. I think of proto-Protestant groups trying to reform, like the Lollards in 14th century England. That’s 200 years earlier. There is a story online about a Catholic that went to live with some Amish. He was asked if Catholics still had to pay the priest to forgive their sins and if a priest can still pay to become a bishop.
“Leon was curious about the Catholic Church, as I was about his church. But I was a bit shocked when he asked me, in the most innocent way, if Catholics could still pay a priest to forgive their sins. When I explained to him that the church left that practice behind over 400 years ago, he followed up by asking if a priest can pay to become a bishop. It was becoming apparent that at least the Amish I met were living with a 16th-century understanding of Catholicism.”
The Catholic Church was corrupt! Many saints attempted to reform, but to no avail. It wasn’t until entire nations left the Catholic faith that the magnitude of what was happening became clear. The Thirty Years War woke the magisterium up to the reality that the Reformation was not going to be reversed. The reforms needed to happen centuries earlier.
To this day, I don’t think Catholics truly understand what people gave up to revolt against the Renaissance Catholic Church. Protestants have martys and this is one of the reasons why the division is so entrenched. They not only disagree with the Catholic Church theologically, but many feel a sense of obligation to not dialogue with the magisterium because of their ancestors. Many Protestants, especially Evangelicals don’t regard Christians prior to the Reformation as their spiritual ancestors. They see no continuity. They don’t own the Middle Ages as a part of their heritage. I fear today’s corruption and the anger of the laity is not fully appreciated by the magisterium. They seem to sit by as millions of Catholics leave the Church.
I think the abuses were worse than we can comprehend and persisted for a very long time. I think of proto-Protestant groups trying to reform, like the Lollards in 14th century England. That’s 200 years earlier. There is a story online about a Catholic that went to live with some Amish. He was asked if Catholics still had to pay the priest to forgive their sins and if a priest can still pay to become a bishop.
“Leon was curious about the Catholic Church, as I was about his church. But I was a bit shocked when he asked me, in the most innocent way, if Catholics could still pay a priest to forgive their sins. When I explained to him that the church left that practice behind over 400 years ago, he followed up by asking if a priest can pay to become a bishop. It was becoming apparent that at least the Amish I met were living with a 16th-century understanding of Catholicism.”
The Catholic Church was corrupt! Many saints attempted to reform, but to no avail. It wasn’t until entire nations left the Catholic faith that the magnitude of what was happening became clear. The Thirty Years War woke the magisterium up to the reality that the Reformation was not going to be reversed. The reforms needed to happen centuries earlier.
To this day, I don’t think Catholics truly understand what people gave up to revolt against the Renaissance Catholic Church. Protestants have martys and this is one of the reasons why the division is so entrenched. They not only disagree with the Catholic Church theologically, but many feel a sense of obligation to not dialogue with the magisterium because of their ancestors. Many Protestants, especially Evangelicals don’t regard Christians prior to the Reformation as their spiritual ancestors. They see no continuity. They don’t own the Middle Ages as a part of their heritage. I fear today’s corruption and the anger of the laity is not fully appreciated by the magisterium. They seem to sit by as millions of Catholics leave the Church.
Last edited:
M
mdgspencer
Guest
.
Why was there no Reformation there?
I guess they were lucky. Protestantism didn’t come and war against them.
As I recall from my reading in history, when Protestantism appeared in Europe, the Orthodox didn’t want to have anything to do with them. They knew Protestantism was far from benign.
I think, actually, that the culture of Europe gave grounds for the appearance of Protestantism. In the East that culture didn’t exist.
Why was there no Reformation there?
I guess they were lucky. Protestantism didn’t come and war against them.
As I recall from my reading in history, when Protestantism appeared in Europe, the Orthodox didn’t want to have anything to do with them. They knew Protestantism was far from benign.
I think, actually, that the culture of Europe gave grounds for the appearance of Protestantism. In the East that culture didn’t exist.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
There were heresies in East too- though Reformation as itself was successful (for lack of better word in my mind right now) just because it allowed states to control Church in their territory-something very attractive to European rulers. For Orthodox world, state Church was always the idea (and they got many schisms because of this notion too), and Caesaropapism played it’s part too. Simply speaking, main secular advantage of Reformation was already somewhat present in Orthodox world.
Plus, in Ottoman Empire, Ecumenical Patriarch was used as sort of figure to keep Orthodox Christians in check. If you disobeyed of Schismed from EP, Ottoman government would not approve (like with Melkite Schism) and interfere. Hence, no secular support for Reformation would have ever occurred there.
Plus, in Ottoman Empire, Ecumenical Patriarch was used as sort of figure to keep Orthodox Christians in check. If you disobeyed of Schismed from EP, Ottoman government would not approve (like with Melkite Schism) and interfere. Hence, no secular support for Reformation would have ever occurred there.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I was actually thinking of Byzantine rite Lutheranism.
P
poche
Guest
In 1600 the patriarch of Moscow instituted a series of liturgical reforms. This led to a resistance that gave rise to a group known as the Old Believers.
D
dochawk
Guest
The Old Believers are more akin to SSPX than Protestants . . .
Oh, and there are two major groups, though I’m blanking on the names–those that believe that the priesthood ended at that time, and only have reader services, and those with priests.
hawk
Oh, and there are two major groups, though I’m blanking on the names–those that believe that the priesthood ended at that time, and only have reader services, and those with priests.
hawk
T
twf
Guest
I suppose for the reader service only group, the assumption is there will be no priesthood or Eucharist until Christ returns?
D
dochawk
Guest
That is my understanding, yes.
D
dochawk
Guest
From wikipedia:
A
AlbMagno
Guest
That sounds very prostestant 
P
phil19034
Guest
R
ReaderT
Guest
I’m saying the whole paradigm is wrong, and legalistic. We don’t get to Heaven because we pay some kind of toll fee.
P
phil19034
Guest
Of course. Anyone who says you get to Heaven because of a “toll fee” is wrong and preaching heresy.phil19034:
I’m saying the whole paradigm is wrong, and legalistic. We don’t get to Heaven because we pay some kind of toll fee.
Indulgences do NOT help you to get saved. They just help when in purgatory (which everyone in Purgatory is saved and will go to Heaven after they are “purified by fire, as taught by St Paul.
T
twf
Guest
No, just by successfully passing through toll houses, right? Lol.
Here’s an interesting article written from the Orthodox perspective that attempts to reconcile our respective beliefs on this issue: Aerial Toll Houses, Merits, and Orthodoxy – Orthodox Christian Theology
I still think you’re being unfair to Catholicism. We both agree that Christ alone saves us. Yet We also both agree that cooperation with Christ is necessary to receive that salvation.
Here’s an interesting article written from the Orthodox perspective that attempts to reconcile our respective beliefs on this issue: Aerial Toll Houses, Merits, and Orthodoxy – Orthodox Christian Theology
I still think you’re being unfair to Catholicism. We both agree that Christ alone saves us. Yet We also both agree that cooperation with Christ is necessary to receive that salvation.
Last edited:
E
EnglishTeacher
Guest
I don’t see that idea in the passages you quoted.
Farther up in that passage, it says, “The ‘treasury of the Church’ is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ’s merits have before God.” Then it goes on to say that in the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, who followed in Christ’s footsteps, etc. So what it is saying is that this treasury consists of the merit of Christ our Redeemer. Through his grace and all-sufficient merit, he allows our prayers and good works to be transformed in him, so that those prayers and actions can play a role even in the salvation of others. Obviously it is Christ who saves, but by his grace (and entirely by his grace), he allows us to play a role if we cooperate with that grace. This is part of what it means to be the Body of Christ, the communion of the saints.
So no, it is not that anyone pays off their debt and puts in a surplus. Christ has paid our debt, and he allows us also to be a part of his master plan in ways that we will not fully be aware of this side of heaven.
I am no theologian (clearly), and I feel that I am not expressing it fully. But perhaps you get the idea?
Last edited:
R
ReaderT
Guest
This seems to be the very attitude I see in many Catholics:
“How will you get to heaven?”
“By dying in a state of grace.”
As if the “state of grace” is their admission in, their fare - the whole idea is foreign to us. I wonder how you view a person who is in a “state of grace” by never committing any mortal sins but doesn’t care all that much otherwise - do they go to heaven too?
Thank you for the article, which I’ll read.
I don’t believe that’s what the Theologians of your church have taught. Thomas Aquinas for example was of the opinion that many Christians, especially the Saints and martyrs, amassed more merit than they were required to, and that these “opera supererogationis” (“works above and beyond”) could benefit others. This is all in the Summa and Contra Impugnantes ( C. impug. 4 ad 5 & 2a2ae, 88.2)
T
twf
Guest
Yes, and I would understand that within the context of Col. 1:24…St. Paul speaks of his own sufferings making up for what is “lacking” in the afflictions of Christ. That’s Scripture. Of course, fundamentally, nothing is lacking in the afflictions of Christ. Likewise, nothing is lacking in the merits of Christ, which are freely given to us. It is in a secondary, derivative sense that we who are “in Christ”, who have been given the “power” to be sons of God (Jn 1:12), are said to merit by cooperating with God’s work.
The article I posted quotes an Orthodox account of the prayers of St. Basil making up for what was lacking in someone else’s works…take a look.
Regarding being in a state of grace…it is Christ who sustains that “state”. The “state of grace” isn’t simply an absence of mortal sin, but rather charity, divine life, within our souls.
- Status