Will Orthodox and Catholics Reconcile?

[Hesychios]

The whole part concerning indulgences, i.e., I do not believe that the Church allowed the selling of indulgences (as it was condemned in the past), although I am pretty sure some ecclesiastics did.

I didn’t call it a sale.

I called it a donation, which was split between Rome and the local bishop after Tetzel’s costs were deducted. I also said that the indulgence in question was conditioned on the donation, a quid pro quo. It was not given freely.

Do you believe that?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I know this thread is just a bunch of baiting, but it has some serious issues

Yes, Christ did say remarriage was adultery, that is why one must give an appropriate penance. However Christ also said that one who leads another into sin is themselves guilty of great sin, and the number of people who have made mistakes but are unable to be rejoined to your Church because of your love of the law has created a multitude of sins. I doubt there are many who don’t know a fallen Catholic, whose sins are apparently too great to be allowed to ever partake of the Eucharist again.

Yes, Christ said remarriage (while a spouse is still living) is adultery (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18). And He also said to the woman caught in adultery, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11). Source: Orthodox Study Bible.

The Orthodox Churches say, in giving permission to remarry, “Go, and sin perpetually.”

It is out of love for souls that the Church forbids remarriage, unless it can be proven in a Church Tribunal that the marriage was invalid from its beginning. The wages of sin is death of the soul and banishment from heaven. The Church’s duty is to help us avoid sin and lead us to heaven, not give us permission live in sin and lead us to perdition.

You wrote, “However, Christ also said that one who leads another into sin is themselves guilty of great sin.” The Orthodox Churches are doing precisely that by permitting remarriage after divorce. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

This concerns me when unification of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches is being discussed. Moral issues have to be a consideration, don’t y’think?

There is also the matter of contraception – now permitted after centuries of teaching that artificial methods of birth control are gravely sinful. Flip-flop. It used to be a sin, but now it’s not. Flip-flop.

The Orthodox have caved in to society’s pressures and abandoned Christian morality, much like the Protestants. That was my conclusion, and that’s part of why I’m Catholic and not Orthodox. I don’t wish to offend anyone – I’m just explaining and expressing my concerns.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[UniversalistGuy]

UniversalistGuy;6972397:

An Orthodox poster suggested before that you need a basic primer on Orthodoxy so perhaps you didn’t study it properly before you became a Catholic. I guess that’s what happened. You say you’re an industrial strength Catholic. So can you tell me what the overarching principle is that unites Catholics or not? Maybe there isn’t one? If there is no overarching principle that unites the Catholics how can you attack the Orthodox for not having what you ain’t got yourself?

The overarching principle (ecclesiologically) that unites all Catholics is the papacy, i.e., it is he, as head of the (visible) Church, with whom we are (must be) in communion with. Theologically-speaking, all Catholics should adhere to the beliefs set out in the catechism of the Catholic Church, so a common faith unites us, i.e., these are the teachings of the Church if you’re interested in learning about the faith (you can buy a copy for less than 10$).

Thank you much. I didn’t understand that Catholics thought of the pope as a principle but if they do I can see why the other guy would be mad at the Orthodox for not having one and saying that the Orthodox Church doesn’t exist. I think of a principle as a truth that is the base to build other truths on. I never thought of a principle as a person before. I guess a person can be a principle. But it doesn’t seem right because it means that the Catholics would have to see everybody who didn’t bow down to the pope, like me, as unprincipled.

p.s. Have you been doing your own research concerning Catholicism? If so, what have you learned?

I’ve learned that the Catholic Church has no women priests, has got indulgences and seven sacraments and believes in purgatory and believes in venial sins that don’t matter much and mortal sins that can send you straight to hell. I’ve got a big problem with the whole idea of hell. I don’t see how anything could be so bad that it needs to be punished with torment for all eternity. Purgatory is more reasonable than hell but I don’t see why people can’t just go straight to heaven if God is all about love and forgiveness.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Huh??? I have nerver heard or read that. In fact, everything I know about Orthodoxy goes the other way!

Perhaps you’ve read the threads showing the evidence that the Orthodox allow two divorces, three marriages.

But here’s a true story. I enrolled in RCIA a couple years ago. Every candidate needs a sponsor. I asked two men whom I knew, but for this and that reason they could not serve as my sponsor. So, a sponsor was assigned to me. He was divorced. And remarried. His current wife was my assigned co-sponsor. Here’s the best part: he had three children by his prior marriage. No, no, here’s the best part: his current marriage was a valid Catholic marriage because his prior marriage was annulled by the Los Angeles bishops!

That’s right, he “married” a woman and lived with her and had three natural children with her, but it wasn’t a “real marriage.” Nope. He got it annulled, and he married someone else, and my local Roman Catholic parish held him out as a model Catholic. Yep.

One can’t know the details of why the Church found that the first marriage was invalid. Neither time nor children make an invalid marriage valid. Catholics cannot validly marry except in the presence of a priest as witness for the Church. Coerced marriages are not valid. Perhaps there was some other impediment. We can’t judge because we lack the necessary facts, which is as it should be. It’s between him, his former spouse, and the Church. A valid, sacramental bond of marriage can’t be broken by anyone – neither Church nor State. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder”

Peace,
JimDandy

If you are under the umbrella of Peter, you’re Catholic. Thanks be to God.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[josie_L]

I didn’t call it a sale.

I called it a donation, which was split between Rome and the local bishop after Tetzel’s costs were deducted. I also said that the indulgence in question was conditioned on the donation, a quid pro quo. It was not given freely.

Do you believe that?

No, you didn’t call it a sale, but I can read between the lines, anyways, I would like a source please.

p.s. So then you are aware that not all indulgences require alms (for the remission of sins forgiven), that’s good to know.

 

[josie_L]

Thank you much. I didn’t understand that Catholics thought of the pope as a principle but if they do I can see why the other guy would be mad at the Orthodox for not having one and saying that the Orthodox Church doesn’t exist. I think of a principle as a truth that is the base to build other truths on. I never thought of a principle as a person before. I guess a person can be a principle. But it doesn’t seem right because it means that the Catholics would have to see everybody who didn’t bow down to the pope, like me, as unprincipled.

Catholics do not “bow” down to a person, but we are obedient to the office of Peter, i.e. the pope is the direct successor to St. Peter (chief of the apostles). And no, we do not view people who are outside of this communion as unprincipled (please read the online document “Lumen Gentium”, it is a papal encyclical). Just so you know even the Orthodox are obedient to the their shepherds, i.e., bishops/patriarchs.

to be continued. . .

 

[jam070406]

No, you didn’t call it a sale, but I can read between the lines, anyways, I would like a source please.

p.s. So then you are aware that not all indulgences require alms (for the remission of sins forgiven), that’s good to know.

Eastern Orthodox had something similar called “absolution certificates”



At the beginning of the eighteenth century, for example, Dositheos Notaras (1641-1707), Patriarch of Jerusalem, stated that, “This practice was confirmed by ancient Tradition that was known to all, that the Most Holy Patriarchs would grant certificates for the remission of sins to the faithful people.”

newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Indulgences

 

[Hesychios]

… So then you are aware that not all indulgences require alms (for the remission of sins forgiven), that’s good to know.

I know that Pius V condemned the practice of requiring alms for an indulgence.

So theoretically it should not be happening at all in this age.

 

[jam070406]

The practice of issuing indulgences, having existed at first unofficially, got its official confirmation at the Constantinople Council of 1727. That Council was called in response to increasing Latin propaganda, spreading mainly in Syria, Mesopotamia, Palestine, and Egypt, and it was also the continuation of the Constantinople Council of 1722.[4] That Council published “The Confession of Faith”[5], the text of which was compiled by the Patriarch of Jerusalem Chrysanthus (+ 1731), and was signed by these patriarchs: Paisius II of Constantinople, Sylvester of Antioch, and Chrysanthus of Jerusalem, as well as hierarchs located at that time in Constantinople and participating in the Council

Thus, in the 13th clause of the document it is said: “The power of the forgiveness of sins, which is termed by the Eastern Church of Christ “Absolution Certificates” when given in writing, but by the Latins “Indulgences,” is given to the Holy Church by Christ. These Absolution Certificates are issued in the whole Catholic Church by the Four most holy Patriarchs: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.”

In their polemic with Latinity, the Greeks didn’t cast doubts so much on the phenomenon of indulgences, but rather on the Roman Popes ascribing exclusively to themselves this right to forgive sins Thus, in the 13th clause of the council’s Confession, it is said, "to say, then, that the power to issue (indulgences) is possessed only by the Roman Pope is a plain lie.[7]"

pravoslavie.ru/english/041125153738.htm

(emphasis mine)

 

[Hesychios]

Eastern Orthodox had something similar called “absolution certificates”

That’s true.

I think it was inspired the western practice, but was not adopted everywhere in Orthodoxy. It did not show up in the east until after the Council of Trent in the west, which is when the Roman Catholic church was cleaning up it’s act.

The main theoretical difference is it is not an indulgence for remission temporal punishment. Orthodox believe that there is no temporal punishment for a sin already forgiven in confession. Catholics (correct me if you disagree) believe that there is still some ‘satisfaction’ due to God for a sin forgiven.

Thus, if the temporal punishment has not been expiated in this life it will ‘roll over’ into the next. Fortunately, for Catholics, the church has this ‘Teasury of Merits’ from which to draw, which can be applied against the need for a temporal punishment.

What did happen at some time (which is the time you reference) is that these certificates were handed out for the forgiveness of sins outright. In other words it was a dispensation from having to make a confession. There might have been some reason to use such a system when it was difficult and dangerous to approach a priest for confession in some Muslim controlled areas, but it was probably largely abused and needed to be stopped.

Eventually the church condemned the practice.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Why are you telling me about how wrong you think non-Catholics are? And why are you sending me to a Methodist website to check out what they think about the Bible? I asked you to tell me the overarching principle that unites the Catholics after you stated that you’d studied Orthodoxy and found out there is no overarching principle that unites them.

My first paragraph related to a previous post directed to your question that posited Christ as the uniting principle. I stated that all Christians worship Christ, but pointed out that – nevertheless – there are thousands of denominations that conflict and compete with each other and with the Catholic Church (and with the Orthodox Churches as well). And I pointed out one area of conflict – the Bible. The Methodist website I linked to has factual and historical information about the various collections of writings different Christian groups call “the Bible.” It was nothing more than an invitation for you to learn about the several Bibles in case you had an interest. I was simply saying that, lamentably, Christ has not been the unifying factor among the churches even though all Christians follow Christ. I’m sorry you found my post offensive.

My second paragraph illustrated some of the problems I found within Orthodoxy. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to agree with me.

An Orthodox poster suggested before that you need a basic primer on Orthodoxy so perhaps you didn’t study it properly before you became a Catholic. I guess that’s what happened. You say you’re an industrial strength Catholic. So can you tell me what the overarching principle is that unites Catholics or not? Maybe there isn’t one? If there is no overarching principle that unites the Catholics how can you attack the Orthodox for not having what you ain’t got yourself?

I answered your question. Perhaps you overlooked it? Here it is again:

– quote – The center of unity among all 22 Rites of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is St. Peter – and his successors – of whom there have been 265, including Benedict XVI. --end quote–

The Orthodox poster you refer to above would likely think I had “studied properly” only if I had become Orthodox. But I would have had to choose to become culturally Greek, or Russian, or Romanian, or Ethiopian, or Egytian (Coptic), or . . . I did not see the One True Church in that nationalistic, ethnic element that separates all Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches. No one speaks for Orthodoxy. They need a Pope.

Thank you for writing. Again, my apologies if somehow I offended you.

Peace, Jim Dandy

 

[UniversalistGuy]

My first paragraph related to a previous post directed to your question that posited Christ as the uniting principle. I stated that all Christians worship Christ, but pointed out that – nevertheless – there are thousands of denominations that conflict and compete with each other and with the Catholic Church (and with the Orthodox Churches as well). And I pointed out one area of conflict – the Bible. The Methodist website I linked to has factual and historical information about the various collections of writings different Christian groups call “the Bible.” It was nothing more than an invitation for you to learn about the several Bibles in case you had an interest. I was simply saying that, lamentably, Christ has not been the unifying factor among the churches even though all Christians follow Christ. I’m sorry you found my post offensive.

My second paragraph illustrated some of the problems I found within Orthodoxy. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to agree with me.

I answered your question. Perhaps you overlooked it? Here it is again:

– quote – The center of unity among all 22 Rites of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is St. Peter – and his successors – of whom there have been 265, including Benedict XVI. --end quote–

The Orthodox poster you refer to above would likely think I had “studied properly” only if I had become Orthodox. But I would have had to choose to become culturally Greek, or Russian, or Romanian, or Ethiopian, or Egytian (Coptic), or . . . I did not see the One True Church in that nationalistic, ethnic element that separates all Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches. No one speaks for Orthodoxy. They need a Pope.

Thank you for writing. Again, my apologies if somehow I offended you.

Peace, Jim Dandy

Thank you for your kind and courteous post.

 

[searn77]

My first paragraph related to a previous post directed to your question that posited Christ as the uniting principle. I stated that all Christians worship Christ, but pointed out that – nevertheless – there are thousands of denominations that conflict and compete with each other and with the Catholic Church (and with the Orthodox Churches as well). And I pointed out one area of conflict – the Bible. The Methodist website I linked to has factual and historical information about the various collections of writings different Christian groups call “the Bible.” It was nothing more than an invitation for you to learn about the several Bibles in case you had an interest. I was simply saying that, lamentably, Christ has not been the unifying factor among the churches even though all Christians follow Christ. I’m sorry you found my post offensive.

My second paragraph illustrated some of the problems I found within Orthodoxy. I wouldn’t expect the Orthodox to agree with me.

I answered your question. Perhaps you overlooked it? Here it is again:

– quote – The center of unity among all 22 Rites of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is St. Peter – and his successors – of whom there have been 265, including Benedict XVI. --end quote–

**The Orthodox poster you refer to above would likely think I had “studied properly” only if I had become Orthodox. ** But I would have had to choose to become culturally Greek, or Russian, or Romanian, or Ethiopian, or Egytian (Coptic), or . . . I did not see the One True Church in that nationalistic, ethnic element that separates all Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches. No one speaks for Orthodoxy. They need a Pope.

Thank you for writing. Again, my apologies if somehow I offended you.

Peace, Jim Dandy

This is wrong. The reason he didn’t think you understood properly is because you presented false information. The Orthodox didn’t add to the bible, the Russians do accept other EO for the sacraments, and all the EO are united in their same faith. The EO and OO are two different Churches. For some reason outsiders think we must be the same Church since we both use the word “Orthodox.” Although I personally believe that the EO and OO should unite because I do believe we have the same faith, this is just my opinion and doesn’t exclude the fact that the EO and OO are two different Churches, just like how the RC and EO are two different Churches.

And also you don’t have to become culturally anything to become EO, just like I wouldn’t have to become Roman to worship at a Roman Catholic church, or Romanian to worship at a Romanian Catholic church, or Coptic to worship at a Coptic Catholic church. You can keep your culture while worshiping God at any of these churches, in fact I think it would be difficult to try and abandon your culture for the historic culture of your particular church. The important aspect of the EO is the faith, not the culture. And the faith is what unites all EO as it has been doing for the past 2000 years.

 

[prodromos]

Perhaps you’ve read the threads showing the evidence that the Orthodox allow two divorces, three marriages.

I’m sorry, but I seem to have missed the evidence showing the Orthodox Church allows two divorces. Can you direct me to it?

John

 

[Nine_Two]

No, this is wrong, i.e., Rome did not authorize Priests to sell indulgences but there were abuses:

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.”

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp*

I guess my definition of “buy” is that you give some sort of payment and receive a good or service in return. These people “donated” “money” in “exchange” for an “indulgence” which they would not have received had they not made that “donation”.

They paid for a good/service. I call that buying.

 

[josie_L]

I know that Pius V condemned the practice of requiring alms for an indulgence.

So theoretically it should not be happening at all in this age.

When I used the word “require” I did not mean that people were obliged but that they were encouraged to give alms for an indulgence. This is from the text I posted earlier:

Again, it is easy to see how abuses crept in. **Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, alms giving would naturally hold a conspicuous place, while men would be induced by the same means to contribute to some pious cause such as the building of churches, the endowment of hospitals, or the organization of a crusade. It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. **To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded. Looked at in this light, it might well seem a suitable condition for gaining the spiritual benefit of an indulgence. Yet, however innocent in itself, this practice was fraught with grave danger, and soon became a fruitful source of evil.

p.s. Can you please give the source I asked for?

 

[Nine_Two]

As you should know … Martin Luther accepted the Church’s teachings on Mary :tsktsk:

He did not, however hold them as “doctrine”.

 

[Nine_Two]

The whole part concerning indulgences, i.e., I do not believe that the Church allowed the selling of indulgences (as it was condemned in the past), although I am pretty sure some ecclesiastics did.

When was it condemned pre-Luther? I’d like a source on that one.

 

[josie_L]

I guess my definition of “buy” is that you give some sort of payment and receive a good or service in return. These people “donated” “money” in “exchange” for an “indulgence” which they would not have received had they not made that “donation”.

They paid for a good/service. I call that buying.

They gave a donation/alms in which they received a spiritual benefit (all acts of charity can engender a spiritual benefit).

 

[josie_L]

When was it condemned pre-Luther? I’d like a source on that one.

I already gave it.