OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: stanley123 on June 16, 2011, 01:48:29 AM

Title: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 16, 2011, 01:48:29 AM
After a few months of being an Orthodox Catechumen starting on November 21, 2010. I was received into the  Holy Orthodox Catholic Church by Chrismation on May 15, 2011 with the Archangel Raphael as my Patron Saint.
Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer, but I was wondering about it: When you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it required to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc.?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 16, 2011, 01:53:42 AM
I was a Catholic formerly and I converted to Orthodoxy last year. I was finally received into the Orthodox Church by the sacrament of Chrismation on Holy Saturday.
I had a question but don't feel like you have to answer it. Anyway, when you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it asked to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc., or was it just a simple prayer? I heard that some Orthodox require it, whereas others don't. Also, was there a general or particular  confession, and was this confession before or after the chrismation, if there was a confession?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: katherineofdixie on June 16, 2011, 09:23:14 AM
I had a question but don't feel like you have to answer it. Anyway, when you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it asked to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc., or was it just a simple prayer? I heard that some Orthodox require it, whereas others don't. Also, was there a general or particular  confession, and was this confession before or after the chrismation, if there was a confession?

FWIW, I have attended quite a few chrismations, both of former RCs and others, and the individuals have only been asked if they renounce Satan and unite themselves to Christ. They also recite the unaltered Nicene Creed. Generally speaking, a confession prior to the service is customary. There is also an absolution during the service and prayers to "Remove far from him his former delusion and fill him with the faith, hope and love which are in Thee; that he may know that Thou art the only true God with Thine Only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Thy Holy Spirit."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 16, 2011, 11:43:39 PM
I had a question but don't feel like you have to answer it. Anyway, when you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it asked to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc., or was it just a simple prayer? I heard that some Orthodox require it, whereas others don't. Also, was there a general or particular  confession, and was this confession before or after the chrismation, if there was a confession?

FWIW, I have attended quite a few chrismations, both of former RCs and others, and the individuals have only been asked if they renounce Satan and unite themselves to Christ. They also recite the unaltered Nicene Creed. Generally speaking, a confession prior to the service is customary. There is also an absolution during the service and prayers to "Remove far from him his former delusion and fill him with the faith, hope and love which are in Thee; that he may know that Thou art the only true God with Thine Only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Thy Holy Spirit."
Thanks for this information. In which Orthodox Church was this?
I found out that there was at least one Orthodox Church which required a converting  Catholic to renounce specific errors of the Roman Church.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: katherineofdixie on June 17, 2011, 09:35:20 AM
Thanks for this information. In which Orthodox Church was this?
I found out that there was at least one Orthodox Church which required a converting  Catholic to renounce specific errors of the Roman Church.

That may be part of the process with the priest - I wouldn't know, since that would be a private conversation between the catechumen and the priest. But I have attended chrismations primarily in the OCA, and a couple in the Antiochian and GOA.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: pensateomnia on June 17, 2011, 09:56:23 AM
I had a question but don't feel like you have to answer it. Anyway, when you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it asked to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc., or was it just a simple prayer? I heard that some Orthodox require it, whereas others don't. Also, was there a general or particular  confession, and was this confession before or after the chrismation, if there was a confession?

FWIW, I have attended quite a few chrismations, both of former RCs and others, and the individuals have only been asked if they renounce Satan and unite themselves to Christ. They also recite the unaltered Nicene Creed. Generally speaking, a confession prior to the service is customary. There is also an absolution during the service and prayers to "Remove far from him his former delusion and fill him with the faith, hope and love which are in Thee; that he may know that Thou art the only true God with Thine Only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Thy Holy Spirit."
Thanks for this information. In which Orthodox Church was this?
I found out that there was at least one Orthodox Church which required a converting  Catholic to renounce specific errors of the Roman Church.

According to the canons, heterodox Christians must always renounce the errors of their previous confessions (see especially Constantinople 7 and Trullo 95). In the ancient and medieval period, they were very formal about the renunciation and required one to sign an actual libellus. In fact, in some cases, all one had to do to become Orthodox was sign the libellus. No sacramental rite was necessary.

Nowadays, the convert often renounces these previous errors in less formal ways. I think the difference in practice you mention is pure accident. It all boils down to the book the priest happens to own. If it's a complete Euchologion/Trebnik, then it will include something like the rite of reception called for by the Great Synod of Constantinople in 1484, which has the priest ask the convert from Roman Catholicism a number of doctrinal questions. (Such is the case in Hapgood's famous English translation.) If it is a less complete Euchologion, the priest is likely to just look up the rite of Chrismation and follow that. Technically speaking, the rite of Chrismation is distinct from the rite of reception of a heterodox, although their similarity creates an equivalency in many people's minds.

In other words, it all boils down to the books, not official policy, in most cases. For example, I have seen both options performed scores of times in the same jurisdiction, sometimes even in the same parish depending on the priest. In general, though, I think this multiplicity of practice is far, far more common in the diaspora, where there are fifty or sixty different editions and translations of every liturgical book. In a place like Greece or Russia, for example, where ecclesiastical publishing is more centralized, there is not as much variety.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Agabus on June 17, 2011, 01:58:01 PM
I had a question but don't feel like you have to answer it. Anyway, when you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it asked to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc., or was it just a simple prayer? I heard that some Orthodox require it, whereas others don't. Also, was there a general or particular  confession, and was this confession before or after the chrismation, if there was a confession?

FWIW, I have attended quite a few chrismations, both of former RCs and others, and the individuals have only been asked if they renounce Satan and unite themselves to Christ. They also recite the unaltered Nicene Creed. Generally speaking, a confession prior to the service is customary. There is also an absolution during the service and prayers to "Remove far from him his former delusion and fill him with the faith, hope and love which are in Thee; that he may know that Thou art the only true God with Thine Only begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and Thy Holy Spirit."
Thanks for this information. In which Orthodox Church was this?
I found out that there was at least one Orthodox Church which required a converting  Catholic to renounce specific errors of the Roman Church.

According to the canons, heterodox Christians must always renounce the errors of their previous confessions (see especially Constantinople 7 and Trullo 95). In the ancient and medieval period, they were very formal about the renunciation and required one to sign an actual libellus. In fact, in some cases, all one had to do to become Orthodox was sign the libellus. No sacramental rite was necessary.

Nowadays, the convert often renounces these previous errors in less formal ways.
At my reception into the Church, I had to renounce all former errors and delusions (I paraphrase somewhat). I think that sort of blanket statement covers "everything that falls outside the scope of Holy Orthodoxy."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: mabsoota on June 17, 2011, 05:13:39 PM
welcome, rar padre pio.
i don't remember (coptic orthodox church) renouncing anything except the devil and all his works. which i suppose includes any heresies. maybe others can correct me if my memory is at fault.
many years  :)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 17, 2011, 06:05:31 PM
This raises a question for me, I hope it isn't too off topic.

Since Orthodoxy does not teach that we are saved by our merits, which was the real aim of the Reformers to deny with Sola Fide, does this mean it is not a heresy which must be renounced at baptism? Does anyone have access to the long form text for Protestants being received into the Church or is there no single version?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Agabus on June 17, 2011, 06:18:26 PM
This raises a question for me, I hope it isn't too off topic.

Since Orthodoxy does not teach that we are saved by our merits, which was the real aim of the Reformers to deny with Sola Fide, does this mean it is not a heresy which must be renounced at baptism? Does anyone have access to the long form text for Protestants being received into the Church or is there no single version?
Sola Fide is still heresy, even if what we believe was not what was in the reformers' gunsights.

EDIT: Here is an Orthodox response (to Evangelicals) about the Orthodox view of Sola Fide (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/fr-ernesto-obregon-an-orthodox-view-of-the-issues-in-sola-fide).
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 17, 2011, 07:21:39 PM
This raises a question for me, I hope it isn't too off topic.

Since Orthodoxy does not teach that we are saved by our merits, which was the real aim of the Reformers to deny with Sola Fide, does this mean it is not a heresy which must be renounced at baptism? Does anyone have access to the long form text for Protestants being received into the Church or is there no single version?
Sola Fide is still heresy, even if what we believe was not what was in the reformers' gunsights.

EDIT: Here is an Orthodox response (to Evangelicals) about the Orthodox view of Sola Fide (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/fr-ernesto-obregon-an-orthodox-view-of-the-issues-in-sola-fide).
Well thanks a lot for tearing that wound open, pal!

I was just starting to make peace with the whole faith/works issue LOL!

I kid, I'm not mad at you. Just... frustrated.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: mabsoota on June 18, 2011, 06:45:35 AM
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 18, 2011, 06:12:56 PM
^Most Orthodox jurisdictions do not require specific renunciations (other than heresy in general).  However, as a professor of mine at St. Tikhon's once told us, he regrets not bringing in others into Orthodoxy without the specific affirmations and renunciations in many years of his pastorate.   They have to know what they are getting into and what they are subscribing to, and also affirm it.   I recall years ago (early to mid-1990's) a person who told me that, after 10 years of being Orthodox, he still did not subscribe to the Orthodox understanding of predestination.   He went into some detail.  I suppose I was just in shock.   There is room to roam in the pasture so long as you are still within the bounds set by the fathers, but not outside of these bounds.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 18, 2011, 06:25:43 PM
^Most Orthodox jurisdictions do not require specific renunciations (other than heresy in general).  However, as a professor of mine at St. Tikhon's once told us, he regrets not bringing in others into Orthodoxy without the specific affirmations and renunciations in many years of his pastorate.   They have to know what they are getting into and what they are subscribing to, and also affirm it.   I recall years ago (early to mid-1990's) a person who told me that, after 10 years of being Orthodox, he still did not subscribe to the Orthodox understanding of predestination.   He went into some detail.  I suppose I was just in shock.   There is room to roam in the pasture so long as you are still within the bounds set by the fathers, but not outside of these bounds.
thank you Father.
BTW, what is the Orthodox understanding of predestination?
Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 18, 2011, 06:38:17 PM
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
I guess what bothers me most is the sense I get that Orthodoxy sees works as existing independently of faith (for example the references in the article linked to by Agabus to Patriarch Jeremias II's teaching that the virtues in the Sermon on the Mount can exist without faith and to the quote from Saint Basil that only the virtuous receive grace). If all pleasing of God flowed ultimately from faith, if works were just some sort of "product" or essential result of faith-I'd be fine... though I'd also consider that Sola Fide in all but name.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: akimori makoto on June 18, 2011, 08:41:03 PM
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
I guess what bothers me most is the sense I get that Orthodoxy sees works as existing independently of faith (for example the references in the article linked to by Agabus to Patriarch Jeremias II's teaching that the virtues in the Sermon on the Mount can exist without faith and to the quote from Saint Basil that only the virtuous receive grace). If all pleasing of God flowed ultimately from faith, if works were just some sort of "product" or essential result of faith-I'd be fine... though I'd also consider that Sola Fide in all but name.

Of course virtues can be acquired independently of faith -- haven't you witnessed this yourself in others?

I think it is completely Orthodox for me to say that to the exent that we struggle, the grace within us is manifested enabling greater virtue. Virtue, however, is not salvation -- to equate the two would be Pelagianism, wouldn't it? Even the most virtuous person needs a saviour, because we are called to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect, to be partakers of the divine nature and to taste of the living waters of everlasting life. None of these are possible except through faith and by grace.

I don't think it's right to reduce virtue to a mere "symptom" of faith/grace. Remember, in the sermon on the mount, the Lord said "blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God", not "blessed are those that have seen God, for they shall become merciful". Same deal with the rest of the beatitutdes. You're right -- as far as I can see, to say that virtues are mere signs of faith is tantamount to confessing sola fide.

The grace becomes active in us to the extent that we struggle to bring it out and live in accordance with the divine power.

It helps to always bear in mind that grace is God's activity in us and, since his energies are uncreated, grace is our experience of God himself. The virtues are our struggle to co-operate with that saving grace, through faith.

Does this help?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 18, 2011, 11:02:50 PM
^Most Orthodox jurisdictions do not require specific renunciations (other than heresy in general).  However, as a professor of mine at St. Tikhon's once told us, he regrets not bringing in others into Orthodoxy without the specific affirmations and renunciations in many years of his pastorate.   They have to know what they are getting into and what they are subscribing to, and also affirm it.   I recall years ago (early to mid-1990's) a person who told me that, after 10 years of being Orthodox, he still did not subscribe to the Orthodox understanding of predestination.   He went into some detail.  I suppose I was just in shock.   There is room to roam in the pasture so long as you are still within the bounds set by the fathers, but not outside of these bounds.
thank you Father. BTW, what is the Orthodox understanding of predestination? Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view). 

Regarding Purgatory, there is no specific renunciation of it.  Only, in the broader renunciations the "doctrines of the Latin confession" that are "contrary ot the Word of God, and to the true Tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils." 
 it may seem like a hair-splitting difference to some.  But the Orthodox position is that the Biblical Hades was transformed into purgatory.  The Orthodox do not believe that there are any specially created temporal fires--all fires that transform are God's energy, not created fire, as is the RC position.   

So I would only ask if what you really believe when you say "purgatory" is the older Orthodox-Catholic understanding of Hades:

Council at Constantinople of 1772:
"We the pious, following the truth and turning away from such innovations, confess and accept two places for the souls of the dead, paradise and hades, for the righteous and sinners, as the holy Scripture teaches us. We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes."  It continues:   
"None of the teachers of the Church have handed down or taught such a purgatory, but they all speak of one single place of punishment, hades, just as they teach about one luminous and bright place, paradise. But both the souls of the holy and the righteous go indisputably to paradise and those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God. For on behalf of such souls, that is of the moderately and forgivably sinful, there are in the Church prayers, supplications, liturgies, as well as memorial services and almsgiving, that those souls may receive favour and comfort. Thus when the Church prays for the souls of those who are lying asleep, we hope there will be comfort for them from God, but not through [created] fire and [expiative] purgatory, but through divine love for mankind, whereby the infinite goodness of God is seen."

When we speak of hell, we have to be specific.  Before the general resurrection, there are two "places" (place-states):  Paradise and Hades, but as it says, there are many "abodes" of Hades.   But strictly speaking, eternal "hell" (Gehenna) is a "place" of the post resurrectional state.   We are not there yet.  Incidentally, the Orthodox call what the bible calls the deepest part of Hades:  Tartarus.  This is where the wicked are confined until the General Resurrection.     
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 18, 2011, 11:12:44 PM
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view).      
The Roman view on the omniscient knowledge of God, is, I think, the same, but I don't think it goes under the name of predestination.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 18, 2011, 11:13:18 PM
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
I guess what bothers me most is the sense I get that Orthodoxy sees works as existing independently of faith (for example the references in the article linked to by Agabus to Patriarch Jeremias II's teaching that the virtues in the Sermon on the Mount can exist without faith and to the quote from Saint Basil that only the virtuous receive grace). If all pleasing of God flowed ultimately from faith, if works were just some sort of "product" or essential result of faith-I'd be fine... though I'd also consider that Sola Fide in all but name.

Yes, but the context is that Patriarch Jeremiah ultimately pointed out that works apart from faith and faith apart from works could not save.  Only synergy with God's grace can save, and this synergy manifests itself, as St. Paul says, in "faith working though love," of which love is the summation of all virtue and commandment, as our Lord taught.  St. Paul spoke of works of the (Mosaic) law in contrast to grace, not works of grace in contrast to grace.  
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 18, 2011, 11:15:08 PM
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view).      
The Roman view on the omniscient knowledge of God, is, I think, the same, but I don't think it goes under the name of predestination.

Predestined is a Scriptural word.  It must be dealt with.  I am sure that the CCC deals with it.  
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 18, 2011, 11:23:09 PM
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view).      
The Roman view on the omniscient knowledge of God, is, I think, the same, but I don't think it goes under the name of predestination.

Predistined is a Scriptural word.  It must be dealt with.  I am sure that the CCC deals with it. 
Yes, you are right. I was thinking of the term as used by the Calvinists.
http://www.cuf.org/faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=147


Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 18, 2011, 11:42:34 PM
^Most Orthodox jurisdictions do not require specific renunciations (other than heresy in general).  However, as a professor of mine at St. Tikhon's once told us, he regrets not bringing in others into Orthodoxy without the specific affirmations and renunciations in many years of his pastorate.   They have to know what they are getting into and what they are subscribing to, and also affirm it.   I recall years ago (early to mid-1990's) a person who told me that, after 10 years of being Orthodox, he still did not subscribe to the Orthodox understanding of predestination.   He went into some detail.  I suppose I was just in shock.   There is room to roam in the pasture so long as you are still within the bounds set by the fathers, but not outside of these bounds.
thank you Father. BTW, what is the Orthodox understanding of predestination? Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view). 

Regarding Purgatory, there is no specific renunciation of it.  Only, in the broader renunciations the "doctrines of the Latin confession" that are "contrary ot the Word of God, and to the true Tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils." 
 it may seem like a hair-splitting difference to some.  But the Orthodox position is that the Biblical Hades was transformed into purgatory.  The Orthodox do not believe that there are any specially created temporal fires--all fires that transform are God's energy, not created fire, as is the RC position.   

So I would only ask if what you really believe when you say "purgatory" is the older Orthodox-Catholic understanding of Hades:


You are confusing the anthropology of a pious belief with the formal theology of the Catholic Church.

That is unfortunate for both of us because it ends the conversation when you or Father Ambrose, NZ or others insist.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 19, 2011, 12:23:58 AM
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
I guess what bothers me most is the sense I get that Orthodoxy sees works as existing independently of faith (for example the references in the article linked to by Agabus to Patriarch Jeremias II's teaching that the virtues in the Sermon on the Mount can exist without faith and to the quote from Saint Basil that only the virtuous receive grace). If all pleasing of God flowed ultimately from faith, if works were just some sort of "product" or essential result of faith-I'd be fine... though I'd also consider that Sola Fide in all but name.

Of course virtues can be acquired independently of faith -- haven't you witnessed this yourself in others?

I think it is completely Orthodox for me to say that to the exent that we struggle, the grace within us is manifested enabling greater virtue. Virtue, however, is not salvation -- to equate the two would be Pelagianism, wouldn't it? Even the most virtuous person needs a saviour, because we are called to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect, to be partakers of the divine nature and to taste of the living waters of everlasting life. None of these are possible except through faith and by grace.

I don't think it's right to reduce virtue to a mere "symptom" of faith/grace. Remember, in the sermon on the mount, the Lord said "blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God", not "blessed are those that have seen God, for they shall become merciful". Same deal with the rest of the beatitutdes. You're right -- as far as I can see, to say that virtues are mere signs of faith is tantamount to confessing sola fide.

The grace becomes active in us to the extent that we struggle to bring it out and live in accordance with the divine power.

It helps to always bear in mind that grace is God's activity in us and, since his energies are uncreated, grace is our experience of God himself. The virtues are our struggle to co-operate with that saving grace, through faith.

Does this help?
Ironically, this is a point where on a Protestant once accused me of heresy.

I believe that the works of unbelievers can be good relative to those of other people-giving to charity is better than murder, etc. but before God's eyes all our righteousness is still as filthy rags. Truly good works can only be done by faith and by the Spirit.

I agree, virtue is not salvation though in the practical sense it impacts it by helping or hindering our closeness to God.
i think if u join an OO church u don't have to denounce anything.
i looked up the baptism service and there is no denouncing except of the devil.

as for the orthodox - protestant debate, the main thing to understand is that we orthodox consider salvation as a 'life long' activity, not a 'one off' experience.
so if you are 'being saved' it no longer makes sense to ask if you can 'loose' your salvation. protestants discuss this interminably between themselves whether or not you can 'loose your salvation'.
but as we know it is a process, not something we 'have' and can keep or can loose.

if i am still studying at college, i don't worry if i can 'loose' my degree, it is still something, i am working on, and i can get better at it as i study.

if u read romans and james, it is clear both faith and works are needed. so it is not necessary to debate which is more important.
when you make a cake, is it more important to add flour, or more important to add sugar? surely without both flour and sugar, it is not a cake!

i don't know if this will help, but hopefully it won't make u more confused  ;)
I guess what bothers me most is the sense I get that Orthodoxy sees works as existing independently of faith (for example the references in the article linked to by Agabus to Patriarch Jeremias II's teaching that the virtues in the Sermon on the Mount can exist without faith and to the quote from Saint Basil that only the virtuous receive grace). If all pleasing of God flowed ultimately from faith, if works were just some sort of "product" or essential result of faith-I'd be fine... though I'd also consider that Sola Fide in all but name.

Yes, but the context is that Patriarch Jeremiah ultimately pointed out that works apart from faith and faith apart from works could not save.  Only synergy with God's grace can save, and this synergy manifests itself, as St. Paul says, in "faith working though love," of which love is the summation of all virtue and commandment, as our Lord taught.  St. Paul spoke of works of the (Mosaic) law in contrast to grace, not works of grace in contrast to grace. 
Ok, thanks for clearing this up.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 19, 2011, 05:46:22 PM
^Most Orthodox jurisdictions do not require specific renunciations (other than heresy in general).  However, as a professor of mine at St. Tikhon's once told us, he regrets not bringing in others into Orthodoxy without the specific affirmations and renunciations in many years of his pastorate.   They have to know what they are getting into and what they are subscribing to, and also affirm it.   I recall years ago (early to mid-1990's) a person who told me that, after 10 years of being Orthodox, he still did not subscribe to the Orthodox understanding of predestination.   He went into some detail.  I suppose I was just in shock.   There is room to roam in the pasture so long as you are still within the bounds set by the fathers, but not outside of these bounds.
thank you Father. BTW, what is the Orthodox understanding of predestination? Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.
The Orthodox understanding of predestination is that God sees all things simultaneously, including our decisions.   There is no determinism, but rather omniscient knowledge ("foreknowledge" from our point of view). 

Regarding Purgatory, there is no specific renunciation of it.  Only, in the broader renunciations the "doctrines of the Latin confession" that are "contrary ot the Word of God, and to the true Tradition of the Church, and to the decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Councils." 
 it may seem like a hair-splitting difference to some.  But the Orthodox position is that the Biblical Hades was transformed into purgatory.  The Orthodox do not believe that there are any specially created temporal fires--all fires that transform are God's energy, not created fire, as is the RC position.   

So I would only ask if what you really believe when you say "purgatory" is the older Orthodox-Catholic understanding of Hades:


You are confusing the anthropology of a pious belief with the formal theology of the Catholic Church.

That is unfortunate for both of us because it ends the conversation when you or Father Ambrose, NZ or others insist.

Huh?  Fr. Ambrose does not even agree with me on this point.  He is confused altogether on the topic.  My point is that, if "purgatory" (temporal fires, expiation, etc.) is indeed a theologoumenon (not a dogma) from the Vatican's POV, then there may be less of a gap than otherwise thought.   If indeed, "purgatory" is not temporal fires and expiation, but simply just a term in the Latin language to refer to that "part" of Hades in which the sinners who are not wicked are indeed being purified by God's very energy, then now we are in a different place of relations than was St. Mark of Ephesus who was under the impression that temporal fires and expiation was indeed a necessary doctrinal part of the equation from Rome's point of view.     
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2011, 12:11:10 AM
So I would only ask if what you really believe when you say "purgatory" is the older Orthodox-Catholic understanding of Hades:

Council at Constantinople of 1772:
"We the pious, following the truth and turning away from such innovations, confess and accept two places for the souls of the dead, paradise and hades, for the righteous and sinners, as the holy Scripture teaches us. We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes."  It continues:   
"None of the teachers of the Church have handed down or taught such a purgatory, but they all speak of one single place of punishment, hades, just as they teach about one luminous and bright place, paradise. But both the souls of the holy and the righteous go indisputably to paradise and those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God. For on behalf of such souls, that is of the moderately and forgivably sinful, there are in the Church prayers, supplications, liturgies, as well as memorial services and almsgiving, that those souls may receive favour and comfort. Thus when the Church prays for the souls of those who are lying asleep, we hope there will be comfort for them from God, but not through [created] fire and [expiative] purgatory, but through divine love for mankind, whereby the infinite goodness of God is seen."

When we speak of hell, we have to be specific.  Before the general resurrection, there are two "places" (place-states):  Paradise and Hades, but as it says, there are many "abodes" of Hades.   But strictly speaking, eternal "hell" (Gehenna) is a "place" of the post resurrectional state.   We are not there yet.  Incidentally, the Orthodox call what the bible calls the deepest part of Hades:  Tartarus.  This is where the wicked are confined until the General Resurrection.     
Are the souls in the lighter part of Hades guaranteed to get out and go to Heaven at some point or is it just hoped they will? My understanding is that RC Purgatory is only for the saved awaiting Heaven, so even if the Orthodox view is just "the temporary part of Hell" I don't think that's really equivalent.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 20, 2011, 04:10:50 AM
The renunciations pronounced by Roman Catholics are given in

message 54
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31882.msg504317.html#msg504317
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 20, 2011, 04:14:36 AM
Huh?  Fr. Ambrose does not even agree with me on this point.  He is confused altogether on the topic.

What is it that I am confused about?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 20, 2011, 04:20:37 AM
The renunciations pronounced by Roman Catholics are given in

message 54
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31882.msg504317.html#msg504317
But I thought  it was said above, that not every Orthodox Church requires these renunciations. Some would, others would not. Or did I misunderstand and it is true that every Orthodox Church would require them of a converting Catholic?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 20, 2011, 04:29:24 AM
The renunciations pronounced by Roman Catholics are given in

message 54
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31882.msg504317.html#msg504317
But I thought  it was said above, that not every Orthodox Church requires these renunciations. Some would, others would not. Or did I misunderstand and it is true that every Orthodox Church would require them of a converting Catholic?

To avoid any appearance of generalising I can say that these are the renunciations required in the Russian Orthodox Church when a Catholic is received by Chrismation.

I know they are not required in the local Greek Diocese since the Metropolitan receives all Catholics by Baptism.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 20, 2011, 04:33:14 AM
The renunciations pronounced by Roman Catholics are given in

message 54
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31882.msg504317.html#msg504317
But I thought  it was said above, that not every Orthodox Church requires these renunciations. Some would, others would not. Or did I misunderstand and it is true that every Orthodox Church would require them of a converting Catholic?
The Service Book directs that the bishop/priest can ask for a general or a specific renunciation
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA455&dq=%22without+specific+renunciation%22&hl=en&ei=9wT_Tf-EOOLa0QG0mJCuAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22without%20specific%20renunciation%22&f=false
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Ansgar on June 20, 2011, 05:43:49 AM
This Pascha, a young man was recieved into the church. He had to renounce specific lutheran dogmas before the chrismation.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: pensateomnia on June 20, 2011, 09:11:01 AM
The renunciations pronounced by Roman Catholics are given in

message 54
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31882.msg504317.html#msg504317
But I thought  it was said above, that not every Orthodox Church requires these renunciations. Some would, others would not. Or did I misunderstand and it is true that every Orthodox Church would require them of a converting Catholic?

I thought everyone was quite clear. There have been many practices over the years, depending on the location and time.

Such is also true of how the Roman Catholic Church has received former Orthodox (sometimes by rebaptism, sometimes by signing a libellus, sometimes by confession, sometimes by incardination, sometimes by a kind of quasi-conversion arranged through political agreements, e.g. in the Latin Kingdom of Cyprus).

If you look across history, you can never speak in terms of monolithic policies but only in trends conditioned by time and place.

That said, I think it's safe to say that something like what Fr. Ambrose linked to has been the norm across the Orthodox world for about the last 500 years. The norm meaning over 50% of the time.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2011, 10:04:01 AM
So I would only ask if what you really believe when you say "purgatory" is the older Orthodox-Catholic understanding of Hades:

Council at Constantinople of 1772:
"We the pious, following the truth and turning away from such innovations, confess and accept two places for the souls of the dead, paradise and hades, for the righteous and sinners, as the holy Scripture teaches us. We do not accept a third place, a purgatory, by any means, since neither Scripture nor the holy Fathers have taught us any such thing. However, we believe these two places have many abodes."  It continues:   
"None of the teachers of the Church have handed down or taught such a purgatory, but they all speak of one single place of punishment, hades, just as they teach about one luminous and bright place, paradise. But both the souls of the holy and the righteous go indisputably to paradise and those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God. For on behalf of such souls, that is of the moderately and forgivably sinful, there are in the Church prayers, supplications, liturgies, as well as memorial services and almsgiving, that those souls may receive favour and comfort. Thus when the Church prays for the souls of those who are lying asleep, we hope there will be comfort for them from God, but not through [created] fire and [expiative] purgatory, but through divine love for mankind, whereby the infinite goodness of God is seen."

When we speak of hell, we have to be specific.  Before the general resurrection, there are two "places" (place-states):  Paradise and Hades, but as it says, there are many "abodes" of Hades.   But strictly speaking, eternal "hell" (Gehenna) is a "place" of the post resurrectional state.   We are not there yet.  Incidentally, the Orthodox call what the bible calls the deepest part of Hades:  Tartarus.  This is where the wicked are confined until the General Resurrection.     
Are the souls in the lighter part of Hades guaranteed to get out and go to Heaven at some point or is it just hoped they will?

I was wondering the same thing.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 20, 2011, 10:14:13 AM
Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.

It's truly a great gulf that seperates Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

If I ever leave the Catholic Church (not that have any intention of doing so, I'm just speaking hypothetically) I expect that I'll join the PNCC or a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction, not the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 20, 2011, 11:14:48 AM
Anyway, as a Roman Catholic, there are a whole lot of things that I like about the Orthodox Church, but I would not renounce a belief in Purgatory. It just seems reasonable to me that for lesser sins, there would be a punishment lesser than eternal fire in hell.

It's truly a great gulf that seperates Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
Actually Catholicism=Orthodoxy.  There is a great gulf between it and Scholasticism (as rationalizing Purgatory into existence).
If I ever leave the Catholic Church (not that have any intention of doing so, I'm just speaking hypothetically) I expect that I'll join the PNCC or a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction, not the Orthodox Church.
you can't leave the Catholic Church to join the Orthodox Church.  As for your choices, I don't see the PNCC continuing to go it alone (IIRC its Canadian diocese already has run down the path to catch up with the New Old Catholics and the Episcopalians), so either it will have more churches like the Nordic Catholic Church, will end up Orthodox, submit to the Vatican, or slide down with the New Old Catholics into Protestantism with all that entails.  As for the Continuing Anglican jurisdiction, what really are they continuing?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on June 20, 2011, 11:28:55 AM
This raises a question for me, I hope it isn't too off topic.

Since Orthodoxy does not teach that we are saved by our merits, which was the real aim of the Reformers to deny with Sola Fide, does this mean it is not a heresy which must be renounced at baptism? Does anyone have access to the long form text for Protestants being received into the Church or is there no single version?
Sola Fide is still heresy, even if what we believe was not what was in the reformers' gunsights.

EDIT: Here is an Orthodox response (to Evangelicals) about the Orthodox view of Sola Fide (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/fr-ernesto-obregon-an-orthodox-view-of-the-issues-in-sola-fide).
Well thanks a lot for tearing that wound open, pal!

I was just starting to make peace with the whole faith/works issue LOL!

I kid, I'm not mad at you. Just... frustrated.  :laugh:

Just curious: what did you think of Fr. Ernesto Obregon's article on justification?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 20, 2011, 11:37:49 AM
Just wondering, why the emphasis on what former Roman Catholics have to accept or publicly 'renounce' but never any parallel interest on what former Protestants have to accept or renounce? It seems to me that many who join us from the Protestant world have as big a problem in shedding heterodox views that stem from the Reformation (such as the Solas and other doctrines)  as do Romans who have problems shedding views on issues like purgatory or the Immaculate Conception?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2011, 11:52:09 AM
This raises a question for me, I hope it isn't too off topic.

Since Orthodoxy does not teach that we are saved by our merits, which was the real aim of the Reformers to deny with Sola Fide, does this mean it is not a heresy which must be renounced at baptism? Does anyone have access to the long form text for Protestants being received into the Church or is there no single version?
Sola Fide is still heresy, even if what we believe was not what was in the reformers' gunsights.

EDIT: Here is an Orthodox response (to Evangelicals) about the Orthodox view of Sola Fide (http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/fr-ernesto-obregon-an-orthodox-view-of-the-issues-in-sola-fide).
Well thanks a lot for tearing that wound open, pal!

I was just starting to make peace with the whole faith/works issue LOL!

I kid, I'm not mad at you. Just... frustrated.  :laugh:

Just curious: what did you think of Fr. Ernesto Obregon's article on justification?
He makes some good points, but I think the crux (every time I say that word relating to theology, the irony really gets to me...) of my problem is summed up by his quote of Saint Philaret
Quote
Question 1. What must the orthodox-catholic Christian do to gain eternal life?
Response. Right faith and good works. For whoever has these two is a good Christian and has certain hope of eternal salvation, as Scripture says: “You see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” A little later in the same place: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” Elsewhere St. Paul says the same thing: “Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith.” The same thing in another place: “Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. ”

Q. 2. Should a Christian first believe and then do good works in life
R. Since “without faith it is impossible to please God”, as St. Paul teaches, “he that comes to God must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.” Therefore, so that a Christian may please God and his works may be accepted by him, first it is necessary that he have faith in God and then he must form his life according to this faith.
If faith is required for works, but both are required for salvation, then to me this really just says that "Calling upon the name of the Lord" doesn't actually save us. What saves us is really our works and faith is just part of doing them correctly.

I can appreciate the distinction between forensic and medicinal models of salvation, but the forensic is also present in Scripture and when you try to introduce works into that, we lose big time.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2011, 11:54:44 AM
Just wondering, why the emphasis on what former Roman Catholics have to accept or publicly 'renounce' but never any parallel interest on what former Protestants have to accept or renounce? It seems to me that many who join us from the Protestant world have as big a problem in shedding heterodox views that stem from the Reformation (such as the Solas and other doctrines)  as do Romans who have problems shedding views on issues like purgatory or the Immaculate Conception?
This thread broke off from a thread in the Convert Issues forum regarding Catholic renunciations.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 20, 2011, 12:33:31 PM
Just wondering, why the emphasis on what former Roman Catholics have to accept or publicly 'renounce' but never any parallel interest on what former Protestants have to accept or renounce? It seems to me that many who join us from the Protestant world have as big a problem in shedding heterodox views that stem from the Reformation (such as the Solas and other doctrines)  as do Romans who have problems shedding views on issues like purgatory or the Immaculate Conception?
This thread broke off from a thread in the Convert Issues forum regarding Catholic renunciations.

I know that, but I think my question is valid, we seem to obsess on the Papacy while not much is said about the doctrinal baggage of others.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2011, 12:43:27 PM
Just wondering, why the emphasis on what former Roman Catholics have to accept or publicly 'renounce' but never any parallel interest on what former Protestants have to accept or renounce? It seems to me that many who join us from the Protestant world have as big a problem in shedding heterodox views that stem from the Reformation (such as the Solas and other doctrines)  as do Romans who have problems shedding views on issues like purgatory or the Immaculate Conception?
This thread broke off from a thread in the Convert Issues forum regarding Catholic renunciations.

I know that, but I think my question is valid, we seem to obsess on the Papacy while not much is said about the doctrinal baggage of others.
Stress related to the whole attempted-reconciliation-palooza? I've seen a lot of a harping on Anglican issues here too and it seems like it's for similar reasons.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 20, 2011, 04:44:15 PM
 There is a great gulf between it and Scholasticism (as rationalizing Purgatory into existence).
It seems better to go to Purgatory for a lesser sin, than to go to eternal damnation in hell. At least in Purgatory, you get to go to some place in heaven eventually. Of course, the Roman teaching is that you would go to hell for serious (mortal) sins which you did not repent of.
  
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 20, 2011, 04:59:01 PM
 There is a great gulf between it and Scholasticism (as rationalizing Purgatory into existence).
It seems better to go to Purgatory for a lesser sin, than to go to eternal damnation in hell. At least in Purgatory, you get to go to some place in heaven eventually. Of course, the Roman teaching is that you would go to hell for serious (mortal) sins which you did not repent of.
  
But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ozgeorge on June 20, 2011, 06:18:49 PM
But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?
Says who?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: akimori makoto on June 20, 2011, 07:54:29 PM
After a few months of being an Orthodox Catechumen starting on November 21, 2010. I was received into the  Holy Orthodox Catholic Church by Chrismation on May 15, 2011 with the Archangel Raphael as my Patron Saint.
Just out of curiosity, and you don't have to answer, but I was wondering about it: When you converted by chrismation to the Orthodox Church, was it required to renounce the errors of the Roman Church, such as papal infallibility, purgatory, etc.?

When my mother was received into the Church by chrismation, she was not required to make any renunciation but to recite the creed without the filioque.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 20, 2011, 07:56:11 PM
Quote from: akimori makoto
When my mother was received into the Church by chrismation, she was not required to make any renunciation but to recite the creed without the filioque.

I've been in church for two people's chrismations. They happened as you have described.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2011, 02:27:45 AM
Quote from: akimori makoto
When my mother was received into the Church by chrismation, she was not required to make any renunciation but to recite the creed without the filioque.

I've been in church for two people's chrismations. They happened as you have described.

So some priests require renunciations, while others don't.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: akimori makoto on June 21, 2011, 02:36:31 AM
Quote from: akimori makoto
When my mother was received into the Church by chrismation, she was not required to make any renunciation but to recite the creed without the filioque.

I've been in church for two people's chrismations. They happened as you have described.

So some priests require renunciations, while others don't.

Seems so, and there are probably good pastoral reasons for insisting or not insisting on the renunciation in particular cases.

In my mum's case, she had been baptised Roman Catholic at the insistence of her nominally Roman Catholic father but raised in the Orthodox faith by her pious Orthodox mother. In such a case, I don't see that insisting that the person renounce doctrines never before affirmed would be meaningful in any way. It would probably be a good idea to have someone previously on fire for Roman Catholicism to renounce the Roman Church's doctrines, however.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 21, 2011, 03:06:27 AM
Quote from: akimori makoto
When my mother was received into the Church by chrismation, she was not required to make any renunciation but to recite the creed without the filioque.

I've been in church for two people's chrismations. They happened as you have described.

So some priests require renunciations, while others don't.

These standards are set by the bishop.  Often at the annual priests' seminars such things will be discussed by the clergy and the bishop will tell his clergy what he prefers.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2011, 05:06:19 AM
But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?
Says who?
The RCC, I thought.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2011, 08:19:27 AM
But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?
Says who?
The RCC, I thought.

That's not an official Catholic teaching. At the very least, baptism of desire needs to be taken into consideration.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: bogdan on June 21, 2011, 08:48:23 AM
Even if a bishop doesn't require the liturgical renunciation, if it really troubles you, you can still confess your erroneous beliefs as sins in your first confession. That's what I did. It accomplishes the same thing. (And converting itself is an implicit renunciation of former beliefs; though I think it helps the convert to be specific about it.)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2011, 09:37:58 AM
That's not an official Catholic teaching. At the very least, baptism of desire needs to be taken into consideration.
Oh, ok.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 21, 2011, 03:22:03 PM
That's not an official Catholic teaching. At the very least, baptism of desire needs to be taken into consideration.
Oh, ok.
You might want to check on the RCC teaching of "Baptism of desire".
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2011, 07:49:50 PM
I know what it is I was just thinking it only applied to Muslims and Christians who practiced baptism, for some reason.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 21, 2011, 08:45:12 PM
Volnutt, I noticed that in your earlier post

But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?

you added the qualifier "(as an adult)", so I take it you're familiar with the theory (not official teaching) of "Limbo of Children". The basic theory was that babies are incapable of Baptism of Desire, so if they die unbaptized, they go to Limbo.

Even so, I wouldn't really worry about this theory, as it's not official teaching.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 21, 2011, 08:52:25 PM
Volnutt, I noticed that in your earlier post

But if you die unbaptized (as an adult) you're going to Hell even if all you had were minor sins, correct?

you added the qualifier "(as an adult)", so I take it you're familiar with the theory (not official teaching) of "Limbo of Children". The basic theory was that babies are incapable of Baptism of Desire, so if they die unbaptized, they go to Limbo.

Even so, I wouldn't really worry about this theory, as it's not official teaching.
Actually, I just added that to avoid a rabbit trail on the fate of babies. I know Limbo is only a theory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 21, 2011, 10:47:08 PM
Huh?  Fr. Ambrose does not even agree with me on this point.  He is confused altogether on the topic.

What is it that I am confused about?

Well, I was referring to the following thread, but is one in which the torn fabric was resewn:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33295.msg527816.html#msg527816

Sorry I brought it up again.  I "took the bait" on this one. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 21, 2011, 11:02:04 PM
Huh?  Fr. Ambrose does not even agree with me on this point.  He is confused altogether on the topic.

What is it that I am confused about?

Well, I was referring to the following thread, but is one in which the torn fabric was resewn:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33295.msg527816.html#msg527816

Sorry I brought it up again.  I "took the bait" on this one. 

Dear Father, I was not @baiting@ you but I was understandably interested in what it was that you considered me altogether confused about.

Thank you for the link.  If you look at message 22 you will note that the Holy Fathers were themselves not agreed but it is maybe inappropriate to say they were 'confused.'

THe confusion is not in me but in the number of conflicting schemata which contempory Orthodox Christians have constructed for the manifold states of the afterlife, with their confused terminology, etc.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 08:58:00 AM
Huh?  Fr. Ambrose does not even agree with me on this point.  He is confused altogether on the topic.

What is it that I am confused about?

Well, I was referring to the following thread, but is one in which the torn fabric was resewn:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33295.msg527816.html#msg527816

Sorry I brought it up again.  I "took the bait" on this one. 

Dear Father, I was not @baiting@ you but I was understandably interested in what it was that you considered me altogether confused about.

Thank you for the link.  If you look at message 22 you will note that the Holy Fathers were themselves not agreed but it is maybe inappropriate to say they were 'confused.'

THe confusion is not in me but in the number of conflicting schemata which contempory Orthodox Christians have constructed for the manifold states of the afterlife, with their confused terminology, etc.

???  I was not saying that you were baiting me.  The bait was in the post I was responding to.   There are some points in which there is patristic variance, but certainly on the main points, solidarity.   
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 09:21:36 AM
It doesn't sound anything like RC Purgatory though, just sounds like gradations of punishment in eternal Hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 09:36:20 AM
just sounds like gradations of punishment in eternal Hell.

Hades is a place-state of souls prior to the resurrection.  Eternal hell (Gehenna) is a state of body and soul after the resurrection. 

If “gradations” is what it sounds like to you, you are not reading close enough.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 09:46:31 AM
just sounds like gradations of punishment in eternal Hell.

Hades is a place-state of souls prior to the resurrection.  Eternal hell (Gehenna) is a state of body and soul after the resurrection. 

If “gradations” is what it sounds like to you, you are not reading close enough.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.
So will they absolutely be saved at the end or is it only a hope they will? Purgatory as I understand it is for the righteous to be purified of their remaining venial sins before entering Heaven.

This just sounds like an end-of-time "second chance" for someone who wasn't quite as bad as Hitler.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 10:40:18 AM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 10:42:40 AM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 10:56:14 AM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?
Sounds like he's saying suffering for everyone but the Saints.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 11:03:37 AM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
I know my opinion means bupkiss, but I say if you're going to play around with universalism, you should just go all out. Bragging about how loving your God is for possibly, maybe, once-in-a-blue-moon letting someone out of Hell in contrast to the "bloodthirsty God of Protestantism;" and then turning around and saying that some people happen to also be so evil that they'd never accept God no matter how many chances and suffering they're given, smacks of inconsistency and perhaps even hypocrisy to me. I think I'm going to have to side with the Copts on this one.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: podkarpatska on June 22, 2011, 11:06:38 AM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
I know my opinion means bupkiss, but I say if you're going to play around with universalism, you should just go all out. Bragging about how loving your God is for possibly, maybe, once-in-a-blue-moon letting someone out of Hell in contrast to the "bloodthirsty God of Protestantism;" and then turning around and saying that some people happen to also be so evil that they'd never accept God no matter how many chances and suffering they're given, smacks of inconsistency and perhaps even hypocrisy to me. I think I'm going to have to side with the Copts on this one.

??? I don't think anyone was bragging or denigrating anyone else's belief here. Why the anger?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 11:12:32 AM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?
Sounds like he's saying suffering for everyone but the Saints.

Where are the Saints residing?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 11:15:17 AM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?
Sounds like he's saying suffering for everyone but the Saints.

Where are the Saints residing?
Whatever the intermediate state version of Heaven is called.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 11:17:42 AM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
I know my opinion means bupkiss, but I say if you're going to play around with universalism, you should just go all out. Bragging about how loving your God is for possibly, maybe, once-in-a-blue-moon letting someone out of Hell in contrast to the "bloodthirsty God of Protestantism;" and then turning around and saying that some people happen to also be so evil that they'd never accept God no matter how many chances and suffering they're given, smacks of inconsistency and perhaps even hypocrisy to me. I think I'm going to have to side with the Copts on this one.

I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.

~St Maximus the Confessor

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 11:20:12 AM
??? I don't think anyone was bragging or denigrating anyone else's belief here. Why the anger?
I was talking about the apologetics in general I've seen from the Orthodox. Sorry, I shouldn't have been projecting.

All this River of Fire and Christus Victor stuff just really tares me in two. On the one hand, it's refreshing and on the other I feel like I'm betraying the holiness of God. *sigh*
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 11:24:31 AM
I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.

~St Maximus the Confessor


But if God's love truly outweighs His justice, what's stopping Apokatastasis from being true that it might be preached as doctrine? Are some people so wicked as to defeat His love?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 22, 2011, 11:28:48 AM
I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.

~St Maximus the Confessor


But if God's love truly outweighs His justice, what's stopping Apokatastasis from being true that it might be preached as doctrine? Are some people so wicked as to defeat His love?

Yes.  Or there'd be NO evil in the world in the FIRST place...
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 11:41:14 AM
If eons in Gehenna can convince anyone to love God with all their heart, soul, strength, and mind and their neighbor as themselves (which I doubt) I can't imagine why it wouldn't convince everyone given enough time; especially if Gehenna is nothing but the sweet mercies of God.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 05:53:06 PM
I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.

~St Maximus the Confessor


But if God's love truly outweighs His justice, what's stopping Apokatastasis from being true that it might be preached as doctrine? Are some people so wicked as to defeat His love?

It is not about punishment.  It is about the state of one's heart.   Example:  The older I get, the more I hate driving.   An eternity of that will have me hate it even more.   I remember the couple who divorced following their 50th wedding anniversary in the news some years ago.  They decided to keep giving it another decade at 40.  However, at the end, they realized that they just hated each other and as the years piled on it got worse.  Familiarity bred contempt.  
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 05:55:51 PM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
I know my opinion means bupkiss, but I say if you're going to play around with universalism, you should just go all out. Bragging about how loving your God is for possibly, maybe, once-in-a-blue-moon letting someone out of Hell in contrast to the "bloodthirsty God of Protestantism;" and then turning around and saying that some people happen to also be so evil that they'd never accept God no matter how many chances and suffering they're given, smacks of inconsistency and perhaps even hypocrisy to me. I think I'm going to have to side with the Copts on this one.

I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.
~St Maximus the Confessor

Is this an actual quote from St. Maximus or one of those "wonderful" internet catch-phrases ascribed to him? 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: HandmaidenofGod on June 22, 2011, 05:58:19 PM
Is this an actual quote from St. Maximus or one of those "wonderful" internet catch-phrases ascribed to him? 

Don't you know Father, if it's on the internet, it HAS to be true!  :laugh:  ;D
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 06:35:28 PM


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

“those of the sinners go to hades, of whom the profane and those who have sinned unforgivably are punished forever, and those who have offended forgivably and moderately hope to gain freedom through the unspeakable mercy of God”


I see that this contains the teaching that sins may be forgiven after death.  But does it go far enough?.  As Metropolitan Hilarion points out the patristic teaching (at least as he understands it) is that souls may be delivered from hell itself.  We recall how dismayed he was when he discovered that the Copts, a few years back, removed from the Third Kneeling Prayer of Pentecost, the petition that souls be released from hell. The Copts decided that release from hell is an erroneous teaching.   

It appears to me that we have, on this matter, a division among the faithful. some believing in salvation from hell, some denying it.  So when we speak of confusion we see that it extends even to today's quite competent theologian-bishops such as Metropolitan Hilarion although perhaps we ought not to view it as confusion but as an allowable diversity in an area where we really know very little.  I have not read the Metropolitan's book on this topic and would be very interested what patristic teachings he adduces to substantiate the belief in release from hell.
I know my opinion means bupkiss, but I say if you're going to play around with universalism, you should just go all out. Bragging about how loving your God is for possibly, maybe, once-in-a-blue-moon letting someone out of Hell in contrast to the "bloodthirsty God of Protestantism;" and then turning around and saying that some people happen to also be so evil that they'd never accept God no matter how many chances and suffering they're given, smacks of inconsistency and perhaps even hypocrisy to me. I think I'm going to have to side with the Copts on this one.

I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.
~St Maximus the Confessor

Is this an actual quote from St. Maximus or one of those "wonderful" internet catch-phrases ascribed to him? 

It was what I was taught as a student.  It stuck firmly in my heart forever.  And for me, since it came from my spiritual father in the monastery, it became part of the tradition I received and carries the integrity of his spiritual authority.  But I don't have a textual reference.  Would love to have one though. Can anyone give a reference?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 22, 2011, 07:54:15 PM
I am going to side with Saint Maximus.....


One should pray that Apokatastasis [universal salvation] is true, but one would be foolish to teach it as doctrine.

~St Maximus the Confessor


But if God's love truly outweighs His justice, what's stopping Apokatastasis from being true that it might be preached as doctrine? Are some people so wicked as to defeat His love?

It is not about punishment.  It is about the state of one's heart.   Example:  The older I get, the more I hate driving.   An eternity of that will have me hate it even more.   I remember the couple who divorced following their 50th wedding anniversary in the news some years ago.  They decided to keep giving it another decade at 40.  However, at the end, they realized that they just hated each other and as the years piled on it got worse.  Familiarity bred contempt.  
But why? Why should some be clay to be hardened and some wax to be melted? At least Calvinism has an answer (God made them that way). Is the human soul just completely random??

But, since I've come to realize this is really just a problem I have with free will itself, no point in me continuing to single out Orthodoxy, so thanks for helping me realize that, Father.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 08:56:10 PM

ut why? Why should some be clay to be hardened and some wax to be melted?


Apokatastasis still exercises its fascination on Eastern Christians, although it is not an approved belief.   In the first centuries it seems to have been widespread among Christians.  Saint Augustine tells us that it was a widely held early Christian belief.

"Some, nay, very many" (nonnulli, quam plurimi), pity with human feeling, the everlasting punishment of the damned, and do not believe that it is so."  

~St Augustine. Enchiridion, chapter 112.

A Catholic site I referenced in an earlier thread has a list of about 12-15 Church Fathers who supported universal salvation.

And an interesting quote from Saint Martin of Tours which backs up Saint Augustine's statement that in the early Church there was a belief in the possibility of universal salvation, even including for the devil.

“If thou, thyself, wretched being, wouldst but desist from attacking mankind, and even, at this period, when the day of judgment is at hand, wouldst only repent of your deeds, I, with a true confidence in the Lord, would promise you the mercy of Christ.

Chapter XXII.

Martin preaches Repentance even to the Devil.

Now, the devil, while he tried to impose upon the holy man by a thousand injurious arts, often thrust himself upon him in a visible form, but in very various shapes. For sometimes he presented himself to his view changed into the person of Jupiter, often into that of Mercury and Minerva. Often, too, were heard words of reproach, in which the crowd of demons assailed Martin with scurrilous expressions. But knowing that all were false and groundless, he was not affected by the charges brought against him. Moreover, some of the brethren bore witness that they had heard a demon reproaching Martin in abusive terms, and asking why he had taken back, on their subsequent repentance, certain of the brethren who had, some time previously, lost their baptism by falling into various errors. The demon set forth the crimes of each of them; but they added that Martin, resisting the devil firmly, answered him, that by-past sins are cleansed away by the leading of a better life, and that through the mercy of God, those are to be absolved from their sins who have given up their evil ways. The devil saying in opposition to this that such guilty men as those referred to did not come within the pale of pardon, and that no mercy was extended by the Lord to those who had once fallen away, Martin is said to have cried out in words to the following effect: “If thou, thyself, wretched being, wouldst but desist from attacking mankind, and even, at this period, when the day of judgment is at hand, wouldst only repent of your deeds, I, with a true confidence in the Lord, would promise you the mercy of Christ.” O what a holy boldness with respect to the loving-kindness of the Lord, in which, although he could not assert authority, he nevertheless showed the feelings dwelling within him! And since our discourse has here sprung up concerning the devil and his devices, it does not seem away from the point, although the matter does not bear immediately upon Martin, to relate what took place; both because the virtues of Martin do, to some extent, appear in the transaction, and the incident, which was worthy of a miracle, will properly be put on record, with the view of furnishing a caution, should anything of a similar character subsequently occur.

Source :: Sulpitius Severus "On the Life of St. Martin" Chapter XXI
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 09:00:38 PM
I think that one of the 'marks' of an Orthodox Christian psyche is an attraction to the temptation to believe in universal salvation (apokatastasis.)  While the West tends towards restrictive salvation which reaches its culmination in the horrific teaching of Calvin's double predestination,  the East has been tempted in the other direction - towards universal salvation.

The Orthodox have always been attracted to the idea of "universal salvation", that all will finally be recapitulated in Christ, both the earth-born and (possibly) the demons.  You will find this in the Early Church.  We know from Saint Augustine that it was a widely held teaching of what he calls the "fathers of the Church."  As you may imagine Saint Augustine was inclined to the opposite belief.   

It resurfaces in the writings of the 20th century Parisian school of Russian theology.  Russia's young theologian-bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is very sympathetic to the teaching and has delivered lectures on it and written on it, drawing on Saint Isaac the Syrian.

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 09:10:04 PM

Dear Father,

Would you have a look at message 64.  I confess that I find your after-life cosmography confusing.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 09:15:56 PM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?

I don't know if you are understanding rightly.  God can release them whenever He wants, but they shall attain to eternal life only at the General Resurrection.   My guess is that part of what troubles you is that you have adopted the modernistic outlook on the meaning of the word "suffering."  It is really not such a bad thing.   Can even be redemptive. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 09:26:02 PM

In other words, at the great Judgment, those who have sinned unforgivably will suffer eternal Gehenna in the body.  Those who have sinned forgivably, after suffering in the soul in Hades, hope to gain FREEDOM, that is, that they shall be released and attain to eternal life at the General Resurrection.  They suffer in Hades in the soul prior to the Great Judgment, when restored as a whole person body and soul, shall, having been cleansed by God’s purifying presence (not by created fires), shall obtain the life of the resurrectional age to come.



So after death there is only suffering, until the time when the Saviour returns?

Am I understanding rightly?

I don't know if you are understanding rightly.  God can release them whenever He wants, but they shall attain to eternal life only at the General Resurrection.   My guess is that part of what troubles you is that you have adopted the modernistic outlook on the meaning of the word "suffering."  It is really not such a bad thing.   Can even be redemptive. 


Are all the dead undergoing this suffering, understood of course other than through a modernist lens of "suffering"?  When you say that this post-mortem suffering can be redemptive do you mean it can redeem a soul form hell?

Are the Saints undergoing suffering?   Given the confusion that has enveloped the anglophone Orthodox world since Fr Seraphim Rose's writings most convert Orthodox can't or won't answer that.  They are reluctant to say that the Saints are in a separate place apart from the rest of the dead awaiting the Resurrection.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 10:09:30 PM
Quote
Irish Hermit said:  I confess that I find your after-life cosmography confusing.

You may find me confusing but I find you easily confused.  

Quote
Are all the dead undergoing this suffering

What a silly question.  I think the answer to this question is in my original post on the subject.  By the way, it is not “my” cosmography but rather that of the Council of 1772, and that of the holy fathers:  

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg588443.html#msg588443

Quote
When you say that this post-mortem suffering can be redemptive do you mean it can redeem a soul form hell?

All synergiea is redemptive, Father, and is only experienced as “suffering” when the soul is not in a full state of receptivity.  

Quote
Given the confusion that has enveloped the anglophone Orthodox world since Fr Seraphim Rose's writings most convert Orthodox can't or won't answer that. They are reluctant to say that the Saints are in a separate place apart from the rest of the dead awaiting the Resurrection.

I don’t know anyone who is reluctant to say that the Saints do not have “suffering.”  As for those who are reluctant to say that the Saints are in a separate place apart from the rest of the dead awaiting the Resurrection, Fr. Seraphim, of whom you are apparently not a big fan, is not the originator of this idea.   But there is no need for such an idea.  As St. John of Damascus clearly teaches us, our soul, as with our body, is always in a “place,” as it is also “corporeal” relative to God’s incorporeality which supercedes “place,” yet “incorporeal” only in reference to the course corporeality of our bodies.  Therefore, to say “state” is fine just so long as it is understood that it is also in a place (although, in the age to come, this has a distinct meaning from what we understand it to mean now).   We do not need to know where this place is, as God is present everywhere.  
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 22, 2011, 10:20:44 PM
All synergiea is redemptive, Father, and is only experienced as “suffering” when the soul is not in a full state of receptivity.  

Just one point here:  Consider the soul fully open and longing for God, yet still here in this life under His providence.  Many of the saints and holy fathers refer to this state of the spiritual life as a special kind of "suffering"...

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 22, 2011, 10:36:52 PM
Quote
Irish Hermit said:  I confess that I find your after-life cosmography confusing.

You may find me confusing but I find you easily confused.  


I am not confused, FatherHLL. I refuse tro be drawn in to the confusion. Confusion prevails more and more as people in the last few decades proffer their personal beliefs and preferences about the afterlife as fact.

There is, my dear brother,  no agreed teaching in Orthodoxy about the details of the afterlife. Beyond a very broad outline we are "looking through a glass darkly." For example, Saint John Maximovitch says that the damned go to Gehenna. Other modern teachers see Gehenna as the Lake of Fire and not yet in existence.  It is the Lake of Fire which will be created in the future on Judgement Day. And again, other people will tell you it is already in existence but uninhabited.   So that raises a question or two.

In the 1970s when Fr Seraphim and The Orthodox Word had made sure that we all had the schema of the afterlife firmly fixed in our brains, at least according to Fr Seraphim's ideas, I could have rattled off the difference between hell and hades and gehenna, sheol and tartarus in 10 seconds.  

But when I learned through my spiritual father at the monastery in Serbia that this schema cannot be found in the Fathers, that they do not teach much about the afterlife very precisely, that they interchange terms constantly and that it is not possible to draw up any consistent schema based on the Fathers - well, what was the point of adopting any one schema and insisting that it was *the* one?    

So it is not a case of "simply not knowing".   It is more a case of refusing to be drawn into the confusion.  

It is a case of giving up and admitting with Saint Paul that at the very best we can only "see through a glass darkly" and all our speculative systems about the afterlife are pretty much based on the pride of the human mind which cannot bear to admit that it does not know something and so to fill the vacuum it spins theories of its own.

Again, I see the profound wisdom of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad who warned people in their 1980 Resolution on the toll houses that there is great spiritual danger in creating conjectures about the afterlife.  After all, if even such a Saint as Saint John of San Francisco has his own theories, are we ourselves really qualified to pick and chose between dissonant theories?

But what do I know; I am young in the faith and poorly instructed.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 22, 2011, 11:01:09 PM
All synergiea is redemptive, Father, and is only experienced as “suffering” when the soul is not in a full state of receptivity.  

Just one point here:  Consider the soul fully open and longing for God, yet still here in this life under His providence.  Many of the saints and holy fathers refer to this state of the spiritual life as a special kind of "suffering"...

M.

Thank you Mary.  Yes, I am aware of this, which is why I put "suffering" in quotes, conforming to its usage for the sake of conversation as put forward in the conversation I was responding to.   
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 22, 2011, 11:24:48 PM
Quote
Irish Hermit said:  I confess that I find your after-life cosmography confusing.

You may find me confusing but I find you easily confused.  


I am not confused, FatherHLL. I refuse tro be drawn in to the confusion. Confusion prevails more and more as people in the last few decades proffer their personal beliefs and preferences about the afterlife as fact.

There is, my dear brother,  no agreed teaching in Orthodoxy about the details of the afterlife. Beyond a very broad outline we are "looking through a glass darkly." For example, Saint John Maximovitch says that the damned go to Gehenna. Other modern teachers see Gehenna as the Lake of Fire and not yet in existence.  It is the Lake of Fire which will be created in the future on Judgement Day. And again, other people will tell you it is already in existence but uninhabited.   So that raises a question or two.

In the 1970s when Fr Seraphim and The Orthodox Word had made sure that we all had the schema of the afterlife firmly fixed in our brains, at least according to Fr Seraphim's ideas, I could have rattled off the difference between hell and hades and gehenna, sheol and tartarus in 10 seconds.  

But when I learned through my spiritual father at the monastery in Serbia that this schema cannot be found in the Fathers, that they do not teach much about the afterlife very precisely, that they interchange terms constantly and that it is not possible to draw up any consistent schema based on the Fathers - well, what was the point of adopting any one schema and insisting that it was *the* one?    

So it is not a case of "simply not knowing".   It is more a case of refusing to be drawn into the confusion.  

It is a case of giving up and admitting with Saint Paul that at the very best we can only "see through a glass darkly" and all our speculative systems about the afterlife are pretty much based on the pride of the human mind which cannot bear to admit that it does not know something and so to fill the vacuum it spins theories of its own.

Again, I see the profound wisdom of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad who warned people in their 1980 Resolution on the toll houses that there is great spiritual danger in creating conjectures about the afterlife.  After all, if even such a Saint as Saint John of San Francisco has his own theories, are we ourselves really qualified to pick and chose between dissonant theories?

But what do I know; I am young in the faith and poorly instructed.
To all these questions, Father, I have to say: what diference does it make?  What would we doing differently if any or all of it is true?  If Hell was the Lake of Fire in existence now into which all the damned suffer for all eternity, what would we do differently?

As you say, Father, profound wisdom on the spiritual danger of dissonent theories, that don't really matter on this side anyways.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 23, 2011, 06:36:55 AM
I think that one of the 'marks' of an Orthodox Christian psyche is an attraction to the temptation to believe in universal salvation (apokatastasis.)  While the West tends towards restrictive salvation which reaches its culmination in the horrific teaching of Calvin's double predestination,  the East has been tempted in the other direction - towards universal salvation.

The Orthodox have always been attracted to the idea of "universal salvation", that all will finally be recapitulated in Christ, both the earth-born and (possibly) the demons.  You will find this in the Early Church.  We know from Saint Augustine that it was a widely held teaching of what he calls the "fathers of the Church."  As you may imagine Saint Augustine was inclined to the opposite belief.  

It resurfaces in the writings of the 20th century Parisian school of Russian theology.  Russia's young theologian-bishop Hilarion Alfeyev is very sympathetic to the teaching and has delivered lectures on it and written on it, drawing on Saint Isaac the Syrian.


I'm actually attracted to it myself and have known other Protestants who are, it just feels perverse being so having been taught all my life it's an offense to God's justice. Traditional Jews still speak of Hitler with an eternal curse and rather celebrate his death, I have a hard time not following them in this.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 24, 2011, 08:37:47 AM
Back to the issue of Orthodoxy and Purgatory-is this accurate? http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,437.msg7950.html#msg7950

Quote from: Asteriktos
There are two main takes on that Pauline passage. The first one says that the passage deals with trials and tribulations in this life. This would match up well with other biblical passages, such as James 1:2-4 and Wisdom 3:1-8. This is the position I would take. Another take on this passage was given by Saint John Chrysostom, and later used by Saint Mark of Ephesus at the false reunion council of Florence. This take on the passage says that by "saved" the passage means that while the "works" would be obliterated, the people would be "saved" from being totally wiped out of existence. In other words, they would be saved for hell. The term saved does not mean the same thing in every passage in which it is used, and a number of saints argued that saved here does not deal with our going to heaven, but only our being saved from non-existence.

As to purgation/purification itself, Orthodox are not bound by any one view on the subject. When one considers the Orthodox position that we (and even Saints) will be growing closer to God for all eternity, the need to be "purified" is put in perspective.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 24, 2011, 11:58:33 AM
Back to the issue of Orthodoxy and Purgatory-is this accurate? http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,437.msg7950.html#msg7950

Quote from: Asteriktos
There are two main takes on that Pauline passage. The first one says that the passage deals with trials and tribulations in this life. This would match up well with other biblical passages, such as James 1:2-4 and Wisdom 3:1-8. This is the position I would take. Another take on this passage was given by Saint John Chrysostom, and later used by Saint Mark of Ephesus at the false reunion council of Florence. This take on the passage says that by "saved" the passage means that while the "works" would be obliterated, the people would be "saved" from being totally wiped out of existence. In other words, they would be saved for hell. The term saved does not mean the same thing in every passage in which it is used, and a number of saints argued that saved here does not deal with our going to heaven, but only our being saved from non-existence.

As to purgation/purification itself, Orthodox are not bound by any one view on the subject. When one considers the Orthodox position that we (and even Saints) will be growing closer to God for all eternity, the need to be "purified" is put in perspective.

I'll also be interested to hear what Orthodox posters say to your question

All I can really say is that I recall hearing something along those lines, except that I person I heard it from said that "will live" would be a better translation than "will be saved".
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 24, 2011, 12:47:17 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 26, 2011, 11:29:44 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 26, 2011, 11:41:26 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 26, 2011, 11:50:29 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 26, 2011, 11:58:57 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
The book: Read Me or Rue It, by Father Paul O’Sullivan, was published with the approval of the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. According to the approval given by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon:
“We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It ...
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory. As a consequence, they do little or nothing to avoid it themselves and little to help the Poor Souls who are suffering there so intensely, waiting for the Masses and prayers which should be offered for them. “
What does this book say about Purgatory?: Purgatory  “is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm





Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 12:14:22 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
The book: Read Me or Rue It, by Father Paul O’Sullivan, was published with the approval of the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. According to the approval given by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon:
“We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It ...
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory. As a consequence, they do little or nothing to avoid it themselves and little to help the Poor Souls who are suffering there so intensely, waiting for the Masses and prayers which should be offered for them. “
What does this book say about Purgatory?: Purgatory  “is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm
Well, obviously that view of Purgatory still exists today and is permissible to believe since it does not directly contradict Catholic doctrine, but the Catholic Church does not require one to believe in what the nature of Purgatory is...one only has to believe that there is a Purgatory. People are free to believe all sorts of things about it. You can believe it is a torturous, hellish place where people are painful expiated of their remaining venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin, or you can believe otherwise. I choose to believe otherwise.

It seems there is an extreme lack of understanding on this forum, even amongst Catholics, as to what the difference between dogma, doctrine, and theological opinion are. Just because someone writes a book on Purgatory that states something about Purgatory doesn't make it true. Even if it has a nihil obstat and an imprimatur that doesn't make it true, it just means it doesn't directly go against Church teaching. That doesn't mean every word of it is doctrinally binding though either.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 27, 2011, 12:30:06 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.

As I understand it we admit that there is a temporal state of consciousness between death and the final judgment, yes (otherwise the saints would be incapable of interceding for us), but that this time is for the purging of sins is not something that most Orthodox would believe. We have a different understanding of prayers for the dead than the Roman Catholics do, I think. The Orthodox understanding is usually something like this: because God receives prayers outside of the bounds of time, prayers said for the faithful in repose may be efficacious for their salvation; however, we do not affirm that the prayers are actually going to work (for us, that's a matter of hope), which seems rather different from what I've been told of the Catholic understanding of indulgences for those in purgatory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 01:32:39 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.
Only if you are a scholastic.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 01:38:27 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
The book: Read Me or Rue It, by Father Paul O’Sullivan, was published with the approval of the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. According to the approval given by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon:
“We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It ...
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory. As a consequence, they do little or nothing to avoid it themselves and little to help the Poor Souls who are suffering there so intensely, waiting for the Masses and prayers which should be offered for them. “
What does this book say about Purgatory?: Purgatory  “is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm
Well, obviously that view of Purgatory still exists today and is permissible to believe since it does not directly contradict Catholic doctrine, but the Catholic Church does not require one to believe in what the nature of Purgatory is...one only has to believe that there is a Purgatory. People are free to believe all sorts of things about it.
How about it doesn't exist?

You can believe it is a torturous, hellish place where people are painful expiated of their remaining venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin, or you can believe otherwise. I choose to believe otherwise.

It seems there is an extreme lack of understanding on this forum, even amongst Catholics, as to what the difference between dogma, doctrine, and theological opinion are. Just because someone writes a book on Purgatory that states something about Purgatory doesn't make it true. Even if it has a nihil obstat and an imprimatur that doesn't make it true, it just means it doesn't directly go against Church teaching. That doesn't mean every word of it is doctrinally binding though either.
seems your magic "magisterium" doesn't mean much of anything.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 01:59:22 AM

I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion.

Here is the teaching of the holy Apostle Peter, delivered to the Catholic Church quite recently in 1967, through the lips of Pope Paul VI.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 02:03:47 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.
Only if you are a scholastic.
No, only if you appeal to common sense. People in heaven don't need prayer, prayer does no good for people in hell, ergo there must be an intermediate state.

How about it doesn't exist?
Saying it doesn't make it so.


seems your magic "magisterium" doesn't mean much of anything.
The Magisterium has not dogmatically defined the nature of Purgatory. The only thing about Purgatory we are bound to believe is that it exists. Anything else is just the speculation of theologians.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 06:55:23 AM
But the Orthodox believe prayer can do good for those in Hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 08:49:00 AM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.
Only if you are a scholastic.
No, only if you appeal to common sense. People in heaven don't need prayer, prayer does no good for people in hell, ergo there must be an intermediate state.
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" I Cor. 1:20  That's the problem with your schoalsticism, the arrogance to speak in God's silence. Ergo, you are wrong. Again.
How about it doesn't exist?
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Saying it ex cathedra doesn't make its existence so.

seems your magic "magisterium" doesn't mean much of anything.
The Magisterium has not dogmatically defined the nature of Purgatory. The only thing about Purgatory we are bound to believe is that it exists. Anything else is just the speculation of theologians.
And the difference between that and the speculation of your magisterium?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 27, 2011, 12:26:35 PM
Yes that's interesting too but I was mostly thinking about the claim that there is no official answer of whether there is an Orthodox Purgatory.
I would say the short answer is yes. The Orthodox believe that there is an intermediate state that the souls of the dead are in where the prayers of the Church are efficacious for them. That is really all Catholics dogmatically believe about Purgatory, anything else is just theological opinion. However, you would be hard-pressed to find any Orthodox that would be comfortable using the term Purgatory since A. it is associated with Roman Catholicism, and B. it often conjures up images of middle ages Roman Catholic theology which often viewed Purgatory as a hellish place where the souls undergoing purgation literally experienced physical pain and suffering and were burned by a literal fire. You will still hear of "fire" used in reference to Purgatory, but the modern understanding is that it is a purifying, cleansing fire...not a painful, torturous one.
Before your A or B is the fact that Purgatory doesn't appear in the prayers of the Church.
The word Purgatory, no, but the very fact that the Church prays for the dead indicates an intermediate state that is neither heaven nor hell.
Only if you are a scholastic.
No, only if you appeal to common sense. People in heaven don't need prayer, prayer does no good for people in hell, ergo there must be an intermediate state.

Before the last judgment and general resurrection, everything is an intermediate (i.e. temporary) state, eg paradise and hades, because they are 'places' for the soul awaiting the resurrection from the dead.  It is only after we are united as whole persons in the resurrection of the dead that we enter into our eternal state.   
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 27, 2011, 12:47:26 PM
It is a known fact that beginning in the 12th century, and lasting for centuries, the Greek "Hades" began to be translated into Latin as purgatorium  (Catholic for a Reason, pp.294-5; ed. Scott Hahn & Leon Suprenant).   It only became a seen as a "second place--seperate from Hades" when the tendency changed in recent centuries to translate hades as "infernus" or in English "hell," yet retaining the usage of the word purgatorium as the intermediate state.   The result has been that hades is redefined as gehenna or proto-gehenna rather than its previous meaning of being the intermediate state of sinners before the general resurrection.   Whereas purgatory was hades previously in 12th-13th c. Latin thinking, now it is distinguished from it.       



Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 27, 2011, 01:24:14 PM
It is a known fact that beginning in the 12th century, and lasting for centuries, the Greek "Hades" began to be translated into Latin as purgatorium  (Catholic for a Reason, pp.294-5; ed. Scott Hahn & Leon Suprenant).   It only became a seen as a "second place--seperate from Hades" when the tendency changed in recent centuries to translate hades as "infernus" or in English "hell," yet retaining the usage of the word purgatorium as the intermediate state.   The result has been that hades is redefined as gehenna or proto-gehenna rather than its previous meaning of being the intermediate state of sinners before the general resurrection.   Whereas purgatory was hades previously in 12th-13th c. Latin thinking, now it is distinguished from it.       

All of this can be categorized as pious belief rather than as a part of the doctrinal deposit of faith.

The doctrine is that we pray for the dead, and that there is a place/state of purgation available during the particular or partial judgment relating to unforgiven sins and bad habits, and the restoration of divine justice, aided by the suffering-soul who was responsible for the disorder in the first place, either by blind acts or by acts of purpose.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 04:37:58 PM
Well, obviously that view of Purgatory still exists today and is permissible to believe since it does not directly contradict Catholic doctrine, but the Catholic Church does not require one to believe in what the nature of Purgatory is...one only has to believe that there is a Purgatory. People are free to believe all sorts of things about it.
How about it doesn't exist?

No, that doesn't fall under the all-sorts-of-things that people are free to believe. However, it might be allowable to believe that purgatory is really a temporary stay in hell.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 27, 2011, 04:39:18 PM
Saying it doesn't make it so.

Hey that's my line.  >:(

 ;D
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 06:10:27 PM
No, that doesn't fall under the all-sorts-of-things that people are free to believe. However, it might be allowable to believe that purgatory is really a temporary stay in hell.
Yes, but in Purgatory you will get out after X amount of time/prayers/Masses (where X is an unknown/not precisely known number). It's a set method, even it can't be "clocked."

Whereas in Orthodoxy, if I'm understanding FatherHLL correctly, "how" one gets out or even if any given individual will ever get out is something known even in theory only to God, so we must pray for all "just in case."

Another example of RC exactitude versus EO broad outlines.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 06:44:58 PM
No, that doesn't fall under the all-sorts-of-things that people are free to believe. However, it might be allowable to believe that purgatory is really a temporary stay in hell.
Yes, but in Purgatory you will get out after X amount of time/prayers/Masses (where X is an unknown/not precisely known number). It's a set method, even it can't be "clocked."

Whereas in Orthodoxy, if I'm understanding FatherHLL correctly, "how" one gets out or even if any given individual will ever get out is something known even in theory only to God, so we must pray for all "just in case."

Another example of RC exactitude versus EO broad outlines.
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 07:12:05 PM
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
What's vague about it? There are things God tells us and things He doesn't. Do you have an explanation for exactly how prayer interacts with His sovereignty or just how it is that one person comes to believe and another doesn't?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 07:34:15 PM
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
What's vague about it? There are things God tells us and things He doesn't. Do you have an explanation for exactly how prayer interacts with His sovereignty or just how it is that one person comes to believe and another doesn't?
The Orthodox belief in the state of the soul after death is vague and less developed than the Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Cavaradossi on June 27, 2011, 07:40:52 PM
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
What's vague about it? There are things God tells us and things He doesn't. Do you have an explanation for exactly how prayer interacts with His sovereignty or just how it is that one person comes to believe and another doesn't?
The Orthodox belief in the state of the soul after death is vague and less developed than the Catholic teaching.

Why does it have to be as well developed? What bearing does our understanding of the state of the soul after death have to do with our ultimate salvation through theosis? All we need say is that the state between death and the judgment is that it is a conscious state; otherwise, the saints would not be able to intercede for us. Anything else is needless speculation.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 08:25:01 PM
[size=10py]Whereas in Orthodoxy, if I'm understanding FatherHLL correctly, "how" one gets out or even if any given individual will ever get out is something known even in theory only to God, so we must pray for all "just in case."

Another example of RC exactitude versus EO broad outlines. [/size]

Unless the Catholic Church has altered its teaching in recent years and proclaimed that it knows who is in hell and therefore cannot be prayed for, then it continues to pray for all.  No Catholic would presume to say that Nero is in hell, nor Luther, nor Hitler nor Stalin nor Fr Marcial Maciel.  All the dead may and should be prayed for.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 27, 2011, 09:55:07 PM
No, that doesn't fall under the all-sorts-of-things that people are free to believe. However, it might be allowable to believe that purgatory is really a temporary stay in hell.
Yes, but in Purgatory you will get out after X amount of time/prayers/Masses (where X is an unknown/not precisely known number). It's a set method, even it can't be "clocked."

Whereas in Orthodoxy, if I'm understanding FatherHLL correctly, "how" one gets out or even if any given individual will ever get out is something known even in theory only to God, so we must pray for all "just in case."

Another example of RC exactitude versus EO broad outlines.
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
That's that other gospel the Vatican has preached to you.  The one that Apostles preached does not speak where He has not, nor when He says not to reveal:"And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying to me: Seal up the things which the seven thunders have spoken; and write them not." Rev. 10:4.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 10:42:55 PM
The Orthodox belief in the state of the soul after death is vague and less developed than the Catholic teaching.
Ok, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. As St. Augustine says, Scripture doesn't contain great amounts of detail on Natural History or celestial movement because the Spirit willed to make us, "Christians, not mathematicians."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 10:46:44 PM
Unless the Catholic Church has altered its teaching in recent years and proclaimed that it knows who is in hell and therefore cannot be prayed for, then it continues to pray for all.  No Catholic would presume to say that Nero is in hell, nor Luther, nor Hitler nor Stalin nor Fr Marcial Maciel.  All the dead may and should be prayed for.

I did not know that, thanks.


So Wyatt, is the RC being vague and therefore not Spirit-led about who's in Hell and who isn't?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 27, 2011, 10:51:25 PM
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
What's vague about it? There are things God tells us and things He doesn't. Do you have an explanation for exactly how prayer interacts with His sovereignty or just how it is that one person comes to believe and another doesn't?
The Orthodox belief in the state of the soul after death is vague and less developed than the Catholic teaching.

Here are three quotes from widely differing centuries (5th, 17th and 20th) which show the same unanimous teaching on life after death...  The simplicity is breathtaking.
 
The teaching of Saint Augustine of Hippo:
 
 
"During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death
and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it
enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has
earned by the life which it led on earth."  
Augustine, Enchiridion, 1099 (A.D. 421).

 
The 1980 Resolution of the ROCA Synod of bishops on the toll house belief...

"Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve:

In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind
that it has not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from
the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much
a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of
a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness.
To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal
to us is not beneficial to our salvation..."

Interestingly enough, this is almost a word for word repetition of what Saint Augustine said 1500 years earlier!

 
 
 The Synod of Constantinople of 1672:
 
"We believe that the souls of the departed are in either repose or torment
as each one has wrought, for immediately after the separation from the body
they are pronounced either in bliss or in suffering and sorrows, yet we
confess that neither their joy nor their condemnation are yet complete.
After the general resurrection, when the soul is reunited with the body,
each one will receive the full measure of joy or condemnation due to him
for the way in which he conducted himself, whether well or ill."
 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 27, 2011, 10:57:48 PM
I tend to believe that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, is not cryptic and vague.  ;)
What's vague about it? There are things God tells us and things He doesn't. Do you have an explanation for exactly how prayer interacts with His sovereignty or just how it is that one person comes to believe and another doesn't?
The Orthodox belief in the state of the soul after death is vague and less developed than the Catholic teaching.

Here are three quotes from widely differing centuries (5th, 17th and 20th) which show the same unanimous teaching on life after death...  The simplicity is breathtaking.
 
The teaching of Saint Augustine of Hippo:
 
 
"During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man's death
and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it
enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has
earned by the life which it led on earth."  
Augustine, Enchiridion, 1099 (A.D. 421).

 
The 1980 Resolution of the ROCA Synod of bishops on the toll house belief...

"Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, the Synod of Bishops resolve:

In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind
that it has not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from
the fact that the degree of a soul's blessedness depends on how much
a man's life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of
a man's posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness.
To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal
to us is not beneficial to our salvation..."

Interestingly enough, this is almost a word for word repetition of what Saint Augustine said 1500 years earlier!

 
 
 The Synod of Constantinople of 1672:
 
"We believe that the souls of the departed are in either repose or torment
as each one has wrought, for immediately after the separation from the body
they are pronounced either in bliss or in suffering and sorrows, yet we
confess that neither their joy nor their condemnation are yet complete.
After the general resurrection, when the soul is reunited with the body,
each one will receive the full measure of joy or condemnation due to him
for the way in which he conducted himself, whether well or ill."
 

Those all sound like descriptions of Purgatory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 27, 2011, 11:13:11 PM
Not to me. There's no indication that the living can lesson someone's suffering by doing a bunch of pious things for them, no hint of buying indulgences during one's life (it's all based on deeds whereas indulgences make up for earned suffering), and no distinction per se between the saved and the damned.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: bogdan on June 28, 2011, 12:03:11 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

In Orthodoxy, we believe people will experience a foretaste of their eternal destination. A semi-righteous person would experience some bliss. A saint would go right to heaven. An unrepentant sinner experiences a measure of torment. In the final judgment God will show mercy as he will, and then all will experience the full measure of their reward, good or bad. But there doesn't seem to be a general process of movement from torment to bliss as with purgatory.

I do dispute Volnutt though; we do believe that commemorating the dead atthe liturgy and doing good works in their name helps them. But we don't know exactly how, or whether it affects their destination.

(At least that's how I understand it.)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 12:06:33 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

In Orthodoxy, we believe people will experience a foretaste of their eternal destination. A semi-righteous person would experience some bliss. A saint would go right to heaven. An unrepentant sinner experiences a measure of torment. In the final judgment God will show mercy as he will, and then all will experience the full measure of their reward, good or bad. But there doesn't seem to be a general process of movement from torment to bliss as with purgatory.

I do dispute Volnutt though; we do believe that commemorating the dead atthe liturgy and doing good works in their name helps them. But we don't know exactly how, or whether it affects their destination.

(At least that's how I understand it.)
Ok, thanks.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 07:20:05 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Makes all that ascetic stuff sound like bunko then, don't it?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 07:27:29 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Makes all that ascetic stuff sound like bunko then, don't it?

Hmmm... not one of your more insightful comments.   If you were being paid a stipend to destabilise the Orthodox on the internet I'd deduct dollars from your bonus this week!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 08:48:47 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Suffering does not cause purification, but may be part of the process. It's kind of like a drug addict. Just because one suffers doesn't mean they are recovering from their addiction, but there is usually some suffering involved in recovering.

Suffering can bring one closer to God, or drive them away, so it would be wrong to say that suffering equals being purified.

Quote
I do dispute Volnutt though; we do believe that commemorating the dead atthe liturgy and doing good works in their name helps them. But we don't know exactly how, or whether it affects their destination.

(At least that's how I understand it.)

We may not know exactly how, or even if the individual's heart is open to God at all (I doubt someone can be purified against their will), but this is what we ask for when we pray for them.

Quote from: http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/liturgy/liturgy.html
Litany for the Deceased

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



(This litany is offered only if there are remembrances for the deceased.)

Priest:
Have mercy upon us, O God, according to Thy great mercy, we beseech Thee: hear us, and have mercy.

People:
Lord, have mercy. (three times)

Priest:
Furthermore we pray for the repose of the soul(s) of the servant(s) of God (name-s of the deceased), departed from this life, and that Thou wilt pardon all his (or her or their) sins, both voluntary and involuntary.

People:
Lord, have mercy. (three times)

Priest:
That the Lord God will establish his (or her or their) soul(s) where the just repose.

People:
Lord, have mercy. (three times)

Priest:
The mercies of God, the Kingdom of Heaven, and the remission of his (or her or their) sins, we ask of Christ, or King Immortal and our God.

People:
Grant this, O Lord.

Priest:
Let us pray to the Lord.

People:
Lord, have mercy. (one time)

Priest:
O God of spirits, and of all flesh, Who hast trampled down death by death, and overthrown the Devil, and hast bestowed life upon Thy world: do Thou Thyself, O Lord, grant rest to the soul(s) of Thy departed servant(s), (name-s of the deceased), in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow and sighing have fled away. As the gracious God, Who lovest mankind, pardon every transgression which he (or she or they) has (or have) committed, whether by word, or deed, or thought. For Thou alone art without sin, and Thy righteousness is to all eternity, and Thy word is truth. For Thou art the Resurrection, and the Life, and the Repose of Thy departed servant(s) (name-s of the deceased). O Christ our God, and unto Thee we ascribe glory, together with Thy Father, Who is from everlasting, and Thine All-Holy, and Good and Life-Giving Spirit, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.

People:
Amen.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 09:08:07 AM
I believe what it comes down to is: the Orthodox are unwilling to say that a person's ultimate destination (heaven or hell) is set at death and can no long be affected by his/her free will.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:22:35 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Suffering does not cause purification, but may be part of the process. It's kind of like a drug addict. Just because one suffers doesn't mean they are recovering from their addiction, but there is usually some suffering involved in recovering.


'Suffer the little children to come unto me.'

What does suffer mean? 

Again we are deep in that modern conviction that anything that hurts is evil and must be dispensed with immediately. 

Grace causes purification.  If that is the case, and there is naught but grace, why do the desert fathers teach ascetic practice, sometimes severe ascetic practice?

Is not the glory of God painful to the naked eye?  Or so it is said....

What does it mean to suffer and does not the imagery of fire include both the burning away of impurities and the fire that does not consume.

Anything NOT to sound Catholic.

Sad.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:36:05 AM
I believe what it comes down to is: the Orthodox are unwilling to say that a person's ultimate destination (heaven or hell) is set at death and can no long be affected by his/her free will.

The paralysis of the human will at death is a bizarre Roman Catholic doctrine.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 09:42:10 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Suffering does not cause purification, but may be part of the process. It's kind of like a drug addict. Just because one suffers doesn't mean they are recovering from their addiction, but there is usually some suffering involved in recovering.


'Suffer the little children to come unto me.'

What does suffer mean? 

Again we are deep in that modern conviction that anything that hurts is evil and must be dispensed with immediately. 


That is a really irrelevant quote from the words of our Saviour.

Surely we all know that "suffer" here has an older meaning of the word which is "permit, allow."

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I would have thought we would all have been aware of this meaning of "suffer"?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:46:07 AM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Suffering does not cause purification, but may be part of the process. It's kind of like a drug addict. Just because one suffers doesn't mean they are recovering from their addiction, but there is usually some suffering involved in recovering.


'Suffer the little children to come unto me.'

What does suffer mean? 

Again we are deep in that modern conviction that anything that hurts is evil and must be dispensed with immediately. 


That is a really irrelevant quote from the words of our Saviour.

Surely we all know that "suffer" here has an older meaning of the word which is "permit, allow."

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I would have thought we would all have been aware of this meaning of "suffer"?

Yes.  That was my point.  The more ancient meaning of suffering is indulgence.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 01:59:16 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 02:16:13 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

What makes you think that everyone who is saved must suffer purgatory?  There are clearly those who go right to heaven.   Is that a "free" ride, or is it a graced ride...earned by grace, virtue and the desire and effort to live a beatitudinal life.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 28, 2011, 02:24:05 PM
Elijahmaria is right. We do not believe that everyone who is saved must undergo Purgatory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 02:47:09 PM
Ok.

In reading those quotes, however, you assume that because it says the dead are suffering, this automatically means they will go to Heaven when it's done. Since the Orthodox believe free will can still function after death, this is not necessarily so. A soul who remains rebellious could pile on suffering infinitely, I would think.

In addition, the sources quoted lack the "quid pro quo" of Catholic notions of purgatory (A certain number of years for each sin and a certain number of years subtracted for each indulgence or meritorious work). I've seen nothing to make me think Orthodox suffering is so, to use what is perhaps an overused description, "judicial."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 03:40:51 PM
And there's no indication that the suffering purifies the person's passions and they will eventually go to heaven, which I understand as the point of purgatory.

Suffering does not cause purification, but may be part of the process. It's kind of like a drug addict. Just because one suffers doesn't mean they are recovering from their addiction, but there is usually some suffering involved in recovering.


'Suffer the little children to come unto me.'

What does suffer mean? 

Again we are deep in that modern conviction that anything that hurts is evil and must be dispensed with immediately. 


That is a really irrelevant quote from the words of our Saviour.

Surely we all know that "suffer" here has an older meaning of the word which is "permit, allow."

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

I would have thought we would all have been aware of this meaning of "suffer"?

Yes.  That was my point.  The more ancient meaning of suffering is indulgence.
???
indulgence

mid-14c., "freeing from temporal punishment for sin," from L. indulgentia  "complaisance, fondness, remission," from indulgentem  (nom. indulgens ), prp. of indulgere  "be kind, yield," of unknown origin. Sense of "gratification of another's desire or humor" is attested from late 14c. That of "yielding to one's inclinations" (technically self-indulgence ) is from 1640s. In British history, Indulgence  also refers to grants of certain liberties to Nonconformists under Charles II and James II, as special favors rather than legal rights; specifically the Declarations of Indulgence  of 1672, 1687, and 1688 in England and 1669, 1672, and 1687 in Scotland.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/indulgence

suffer

early 13c., "to undergo, endure" (pain, death, punishment, judgment, grief), from Anglo-Fr. suffrir , from O.Fr. sufrir , from V.L. *sufferire , variant of L. sufferre  "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under," from sub  "up, under" + ferre  "to carry" (see infer). Replaced O.E. þolian, þrowian . Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from late 13c.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 03:53:01 PM
Quote
indulgence

mid-14c., "freeing from temporal punishment for sin," from L. indulgentia  "complaisance, fondness, remission," from indulgentem  (nom. indulgens ), prp. of indulgere  "be kind, yield," of unknown origin.
suffer

early 13c., "to undergo, endure"... Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from late 13c.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering

These are the meanings involved in a Catholic understanding of suffering as a means of purification and setting things right with the world.  That is the teaching of purgatory.  If you don't understand the language of piety and pastoral work and theology as it is employed by the Catholic Church over the centuries then you are bound to get things quite neatly confused, be it with malice or in ignorance.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 04:03:03 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 04:10:34 PM
Quote
indulgence

mid-14c., "freeing from temporal punishment for sin," from L. indulgentia  "complaisance, fondness, remission," from indulgentem  (nom. indulgens ), prp. of indulgere  "be kind, yield," of unknown origin.
suffer

early 13c., "to undergo, endure"... Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from late 13c.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering

These are the meanings involved in a Catholic understanding of suffering as a means of purification and setting things right with the world.  That is the teaching of purgatory.  If you don't understand the language of piety and pastoral work and theology as it is employed by the Catholic Church over the centuries then you are bound to get things quite neatly confused, be it with malice or in ignorance.

This seems to be the case among at least some of your faithful, and not just the uneducated. I once heard someone call a Catholic radio show and ask about someone they knew who died of cancer, and the host replied that the individual's time in purgatory would be eihter shortened or not needed because of how painful their death was. This seems to imply that all suffering has the affect of purifying someone, and that is just not the case, there are many people who turn themselves against God because of something God "did to them" or someone they know.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 04:15:17 PM
This seems to imply that all suffering has the affect of purifying someone, and that is just not the case, there are many people who turn themselves against God because of something God "did to them" or someone they know.
So, would you say that some in Hell would take this mindset?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 04:16:44 PM
Quote
indulgence

mid-14c., "freeing from temporal punishment for sin," from L. indulgentia  "complaisance, fondness, remission," from indulgentem  (nom. indulgens ), prp. of indulgere  "be kind, yield," of unknown origin.
suffer

early 13c., "to undergo, endure"... Meaning "to tolerate, allow" is recorded from late 13c.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/suffering

These are the meanings involved in a Catholic understanding of suffering as a means of purification and setting things right with the world.  That is the teaching of purgatory.  If you don't understand the language of piety and pastoral work and theology as it is employed by the Catholic Church over the centuries then you are bound to get things quite neatly confused, be it with malice or in ignorance.
Here I thought the Vatican, like the Catholic Church in the West, spoke Latin, and in England used English.  Didn't know it invented its own language.  Something like Vaticanto?

You said "Yes.  That was my point.  The more ancient meaning of suffering is indulgence."  Since Vaticanto obvious borrowed both the terms indulgence and suffering from the pre-existing languages of Latin and English, you are quite neatly confused on their ancient meaning.

You started this tangent with confussion with the plain English of
"'Suffer the little children to come unto me.'"

What does suffer mean?  

Again we are deep in that modern conviction that anything that hurts is evil and must be dispensed with immediately.
While the last point can be argued true (though it's a ancient conviction), "What does suffer mean?" is answered for the verse from the dictionary, not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 04:22:03 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

It is pietistic and pastoral.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 04:22:52 PM
This seems to imply that all suffering has the affect of purifying someone, and that is just not the case, there are many people who turn themselves against God because of something God "did to them" or someone they know.
So, would you say that some in Hell would take this mindset?
I've never been there and have no real desire to, so I can't say for certain, but this is certainly not impossible. I would say that if their suffering is eternal, then it's probably not having a very purifying affect on them.

But then again, as I said, I hope not to find out the experience of hell for certain.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 04:24:07 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

It is pietistic and pastoral.

That doesn't really tell me why time is used and what it is meant to express.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 04:24:21 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 04:26:48 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

It is pietistic and pastoral.
Then why the "numbers game" of knocking of such and such an amount of time for saying so many Masses, etc. That's like the textbook definition of legalism.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 04:29:22 PM
This seems to imply that all suffering has the affect of purifying someone, and that is just not the case, there are many people who turn themselves against God because of something God "did to them" or someone they know.
So, would you say that some in Hell would take this mindset?
I've never been there and have no real desire to, so I can't say for certain, but this is certainly not impossible. I would say that if their suffering is eternal, then it's probably not having a very purifying affect on them.

But then again, as I said, I hope not to find out the experience of hell for certain.
I suppose it makes more sense than either of the extremes, though (the Protestant view that no one in Hell repents and the Apokacastasis view that everyone will given enough time).
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 04:30:01 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

It is pietistic and pastoral.

That doesn't really tell me why time is used and what it is meant to express.

Time is used because that is how ordinary people mark out the stages of their lives.  We tend to see everything in blocks of time spent doing this and that...

So when one speaks of what happens after death, it is not unusual to speak in terms that are commonly associated with stages of life on this side of the grave.

That is why I said it is pastoral.

It is pietistic because we can then think of our prayers and fasting and sacrifices and acts of mercy and alms-giving as means for making a difficult stage in the life of a loved one or the life of a brother or sister in Christ as brief as possible.

None of those specific pastoral elements of purgation and indulgence are doctrine or theology.  They are based in doctrine and theology but the expression is pietistic and pastoral.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 04:30:41 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 04:33:19 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.

Makes it easy, I guess.  I can tell from your convert section here that you never have to explain anything... :laugh:...
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 04:44:09 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.

Makes it easy, I guess.  I can tell from your convert section here that you never have to explain anything... :laugh:...
never what we mean by "suffering."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 04:56:28 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 05:01:45 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.

Makes it easy, I guess.  I can tell from your convert section here that you never have to explain anything... :laugh:...
never what we mean by "suffering."

Lost opportunity, from my point of view.

But the fact remains that if you do not know what the papal Church means by her words then you have no right to insist on your own meanings.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 05:02:18 PM
So according to the RC, are the following statements dogma?:

Purgatory is a "third place" neither Heaven nor Hell.

Purgatory is only for the saved.

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 05:03:47 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.

This is not at all representative of Catholic teachings or understandings.  You might know what you are talking about but it is meaningless to me in terms of Catholic teaching on purgation...for example..."the intent is rehabilitation"....that has no part in purgation.  There's more but I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 05:04:04 PM

Lost opportunity, from my point of view.

Yours or the papal church's?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 05:10:25 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.

Makes it easy, I guess.  I can tell from your convert section here that you never have to explain anything... :laugh:...
never what we mean by "suffering."

Lost opportunity, from my point of view.

But the fact remains that if you do not know what the papal Church means by her words then you have no right to insist on your own meanings.
Not my meanings. Mr. Webster's.

I know quite well what the Vatican means by the words it uses, and the those it doesn't, and those in between those lines.

and, btw, Douay-Rheims used the words of others to translate the Gospel verse you tried to proof text from.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 05:13:03 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.

This is not at all representative of Catholic teachings or understandings.  You might know what you are talking about but it is meaningless to me in terms of Catholic teaching on purgation...for example..."the intent is rehabilitation"....that has no part in purgation.  There's more but I'll leave it at that.
By intent, I mean, "reason it exists in the first place." God allows the dead to suffer for their own good, as opposed to making us all robots or something. I'm aware the suffering is essentially self-inflicted. I just don't think it will always result in ultimate repentance. Human psychology is more complex than that.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 05:15:11 PM
So according to the RC, are the following statements dogma?:

Purgatory is a "third place" neither Heaven nor Hell.

Purgatory is only for the saved.

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

Not precisely, no.  Some of the points you list here are heresy.  But my point here initially is that teachings do not need to be dogmatized or defined in order to be true or real.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

The first point is an assertion that may simplify for the ignorant but it does not illuminate or tell us anything about the state of being where we find ourselves after death.

The second point comes close to being papal Catholic teaching in that the Church does teach that the state of the soul is fixed at the time of death:  the "time of death" however is not defined.  Earthly "death" is ill-defined in any event, so it is often conjectured that there is room for change on either side of that mystical line between this life and the next, we just don't know anything about it really or how it works.  We have some ideas from the lives of the saints and those who have considered these questions, but in the main we pray for the dead.

Praying for the dead is the dogma...why?...because it has been revealed to us.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 05:16:24 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.

This is not at all representative of Catholic teachings or understandings.  You might know what you are talking about but it is meaningless to me in terms of Catholic teaching on purgation...for example..."the intent is rehabilitation"....that has no part in purgation.  There's more but I'll leave it at that.
By intent, I mean, "reason it exists in the first place." God allows the dead to suffer for their own good, as opposed to making us all robots or something. I'm aware the suffering is essentially self-inflicted. I just don't think it will always result in ultimate repentance. Human psychology is more complex than that.

That is precisely why I raised the question of what is "suffering"...

Also my initial reaction was against the term "rehabilitation"...rehabilitation has no place in the underlying theology of purgation.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 05:32:53 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

I won't try to get into all the different answer to this question; but one answer is that it's a matter of theologumenon, and therefore should not be a problem.

This brings me to a question of my own, which I've had no success finding an answer to. I don't want to divert this thread by asking it again, but you can find it here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37225.msg590487.html#msg590487
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 05:40:54 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.

This is not at all representative of Catholic teachings or understandings.  You might know what you are talking about but it is meaningless to me in terms of Catholic teaching on purgation...for example..."the intent is rehabilitation"....that has no part in purgation.  There's more but I'll leave it at that.
By intent, I mean, "reason it exists in the first place." God allows the dead to suffer for their own good, as opposed to making us all robots or something. I'm aware the suffering is essentially self-inflicted. I just don't think it will always result in ultimate repentance. Human psychology is more complex than that.

That is precisely why I raised the question of what is "suffering"...

Also my initial reaction was against the term "rehabilitation"...rehabilitation has no place in the underlying theology of purgation.
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

1. Because we are unrepentant.

2. Because God wants us to be moved to repentance.

Hence, rehabilitation.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 05:48:54 PM
But my point here initially is that teachings do not need to be dogmatized or defined in order to be true or real.
True on paper, but if it's only a theolgumenon then the answer is, for all intents and purposes, unknowable to us.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.
Then what do you call buying a indulgence or saying a Mass for the dead? Sounds like works to me.

The first point is an assertion that may simplify for the ignorant but it does not illuminate or tell us anything about the state of being where we find ourselves after death.
Fair enough, I guess.

The second point comes close to being papal Catholic teaching in that the Church does teach that the state of the soul is fixed at the time of death:  the "time of death" however is not defined.  Earthly "death" is ill-defined in any event, so it is often conjectured that there is room for change on either side of that mystical line between this life and the next, we just don't know anything about it really or how it works.  We have some ideas from the lives of the saints and those who have considered these questions, but in the main we pray for the dead.

Praying for the dead is the dogma...why?...because it has been revealed to us.
Well, if that's the case then I guess the Orthodox and Catholic views are "close enough."
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 05:55:40 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 05:57:45 PM
Suffering is suffering, it's the purpose that is in question. Both sides seem to agree that the intent is rehabilitation but Orthodoxy unlike Catholicism holds it won't always work in light of people's free choice AFAICT.

This is not at all representative of Catholic teachings or understandings.  You might know what you are talking about but it is meaningless to me in terms of Catholic teaching on purgation...for example..."the intent is rehabilitation"....that has no part in purgation.  There's more but I'll leave it at that.
By intent, I mean, "reason it exists in the first place." God allows the dead to suffer for their own good, as opposed to making us all robots or something. I'm aware the suffering is essentially self-inflicted. I just don't think it will always result in ultimate repentance. Human psychology is more complex than that.

That is precisely why I raised the question of what is "suffering"...

Also my initial reaction was against the term "rehabilitation"...rehabilitation has no place in the underlying theology of purgation.
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

1. Because we are unrepentant.

2. Because God wants us to be moved to repentance.

Hence, rehabilitation.

That is not what purgation is about for Catholics.  Not at all.  It is not meant to batter us into submission.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 06:00:51 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 06:07:47 PM

.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.

If free will cannot be exercised then grace is irristible.

We see this with babies and young children at Baptism and then the ongoing reception of the Eucharist.  They cannot "resist" the ocean of grace which is poured upon them.

We see it also in old age and dementia (as well as the mentally incapacitated) when the bountiful grace of Holy Communion and union with Christ is poured upon those who cannot resist it.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 06:11:57 PM
The fact that it's all Jesus' merits is immaterial to the discussion, we still have to (apply, access, pick whatever term you like) them to the current situation by our will.

That is not what purgation is about for Catholics.  Not at all.  It is not meant to batter us into submission.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. What you call battering, I call letting us deal with the natural consequences of our sins until we learn to hate them and love God.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 06:16:26 PM
The fact that it's all Jesus' merits is immaterial to the discussion, we still have to (apply, access, pick whatever term you like) them to the current situation by our will.

That is not what purgation is about for Catholics.  Not at all.  It is not meant to batter us into submission.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. What you call battering, I call letting us deal with the natural consequences of our sins until we learn to hate them and love God.

Read the gospel story of Lazarus the Beggar and Dives.  After death is a little late.  That is revealed to us.  I would prefer to give a gospel story precedence over someone like Father Ambrose who has a "distaste" for never being able to say he's sorry...after he's already in the soup!!...so to speak.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 06:16:57 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary

Blimey!  The merits available for the Pope to reassign to the holy souls in Purgatory are not only the merits of Christ on the Cross but all the supererogatory merits of all the Saints.

And of course he may also disburse these merits to those alive on earth, using the same system of indulgences.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 06:19:13 PM

.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.

If free will cannot be exercised then grace is irristible.

We see this with babies and young children at Baptism and then the ongoing reception of the Eucharist.  They cannot "resist" the ocean of grace which is poured upon them.

We see it also in old age and dementia (as well as the mentally incapacitated) when the bountiful grace of Holy Communion and union with Christ is poured upon those who cannot resist it.

That is what the communion of saints is for.  Baptismal grace for infants is not irresistible...It is mediated!!

Did we ask Jesus to redeem us?...Hell no!!  Those graces are mediated.

We still at some point need to give our assent...preferably before we breathe our last. 

For those who are incapacitated...there is a different story.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 06:20:43 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary

Blimey!  The merits available for the Pope to reassign to the holy souls in Purgatory are not only the merits of Christ on the Cross but all the supererogatory merits of all the Saints.

And of course he may also disburse these merits to those alive on earth, using the same system of indulgences.

There are NO merits but the merits of Jesus.  Period.  Doctrine.  Catholic Doctrine...

Blimey!...I thought you were Catholic once.  Didn't get too far I think.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 06:23:17 PM
The fact that it's all Jesus' merits is immaterial to the discussion, we still have to (apply, access, pick whatever term you like) them to the current situation by our will.

That is not what purgation is about for Catholics.  Not at all.  It is not meant to batter us into submission.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. What you call battering, I call letting us deal with the natural consequences of our sins until we learn to hate them and love God.

Read the gospel story of Lazarus the Beggar and Dives.  After death is a little late.  That is revealed to us.  I would prefer to give a gospel story precedence over someone like Father Ambrose who has a "distaste" for never being able to say he's sorry...after he's already in the soup!!...so to speak.
Well if that's the case, then "Purgatory" is essentially deathbed repentance. You're in Protestant-country now.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 06:27:33 PM

Read the gospel story of Lazarus the Beggar and Dives.  After death is a little late.  That is revealed to us.  I would prefer to give a gospel story precedence over someone like Father Ambrose who has a "distaste" for never being able to say he's sorry...after he's already in the soup!!...so to speak.


Sorry!  Christ speaks of the sin which may not be forgiven after death, which we take as meaning that other sins may.  Your own Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of sins being forgiven after death.

All sins, even the worst, apart from the sin against the Holy Spirit, may be forgiven after death.  This is the teaching of sacred Scripture.

The history of Judas Maccabeus is an important one in this matter.   It proves that the West is wrong when it believes that grave sin, mortal sin, cannot be forgiven after death.  The text of Maccabees demonstrates that it can. 

To give some context to the incident in Maccabees... What had happened was that many of the dead Jewish soldiers were found to have small idols in their clothing.  They had been worshipping idols, seeking their protection in warfare,  and the text says that this idolatry is the reason God allowed them to be slain in battle.

So the surviving soldiers began to offer profound prayers that this dreadful sin would be forgiven and Judas Maccabeus decided to send a large quantity of silver to the Jerusalem temple for prayers for the forgiveness of these idolaters.

The whole incident substantiates not just prayers for the dead but the Orthodox hope and belief that sin, very serious sin (mortal sin if you will), may be forgiven by God after death.

This remains the tradition among the Orthodox.


2 Macc 12: 39-46
King James Version
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Kjv2Mac.html


 And upon the day following, as the use had been, Judas and his company came to take up the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen in their fathers' graves.  Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain.  All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, Betook themselves unto prayer, and besought him that the sin committed might wholly be put out of remembrance. Besides, that noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain. And when he had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachms of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection:  For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favour laid up for those that died godly, it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin.

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 06:32:47 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary

Blimey!  The merits available for the Pope to reassign to the holy souls in Purgatory are not only the merits of Christ on the Cross but all the supererogatory merits of all the Saints.

And of course he may also disburse these merits to those alive on earth, using the same system of indulgences.

There are NO merits but the merits of Jesus.  Period.  Doctrine.  Catholic Doctrine...

Blimey!...I thought you were Catholic once.  Didn't get too far I think.
Father is Catholic, once he got far away from the Vatican, which teaches "merits of the saints" (in fact, the Divine Liturgy of WRO have to delete the references to that from the Vatican version).
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 06:33:39 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary

Blimey!  The merits available for the Pope to reassign to the holy souls in Purgatory are not only the merits of Christ on the Cross but all the supererogatory merits of all the Saints.

And of course he may also disburse these merits to those alive on earth, using the same system of indulgences.

There are NO merits but the merits of Jesus.  Period.  Doctrine.  Catholic Doctrine...

Blimey!...I thought you were Catholic once.  Didn't get too far I think.


Pshaw!  I suggest you study the teaching on the "supererogatory works" and "superfluous merits" of the Saints.

Never too late to learn something. :laugh:
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 06:48:13 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm

Forgive me for butting in, but can someone provide me with a reference for the heresy assertion?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 28, 2011, 06:59:19 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 07:16:31 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?


In the Orthodox world there were just two bishops who opposed birth control and that included Natural Family Planning.

The bishops were:

1. Bishop Augustinos of Florina, Greece, recently deceased

2. Bishop Artemije of Kosovo, Serbia, now involuntarily retired by the Serbian Synod.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 08:13:41 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Oddly enough, Ultramontanists who embrace Orthodoxy are not called upon in the rite of reception to renounce Humanae Vitae and the Corban factories a/k/a the Marriage Tribunals of the Vatican, but this is the two differences that Ultramontanists love to bring up at any opportunity.  Don't want to talk about the little things like corrupting the Orthodox Creed into which the Catholic Church baptizes.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 28, 2011, 08:19:07 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?


In the Orthodox world there were just two bishops who opposed birth control and that included Natural Family Planning.

The bishops were:

1. Bishop Augustinos of Florina, Greece, recently deceased

2. Bishop Artemije of Kosovo, Serbia, now involuntarily retired by the Serbian Synod.
Father, I seem to recall recently a bishop or someone in some offical capacity in the Patriarchate of Moscow who dimissed/condemned Humanae Vitae (and its artifical distinction of ABC and NFP) but not by name (I seem to recall it was quite clear what he was refering to).  Do you recall something along these lines?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:01:06 PM

Suffering in Purgatory is lessened in direct proportion to meritorious works done here on behalf of the sufferers.

The last point you offer is in fact the heresy of works so it is not Catholic teaching in any event.

Does the Apostle Peter speak heresy to the Roman Catholic Church?   This is what he proclaimed in 1967 through the august lips of Pope Paul VI.

"Following in the footsteps of Christ,[16] the Christian faithful have always endeavored to help one another on the path leading to the heavenly Father through prayer, the exchange of spiritual goods and penitential expiation. The more they have been immersed in the fervor of charity, the more they have imitated Christ in His sufferings, carrying their crosses in expiation for their own sins and those of others, certain that they could help their brothers to obtain salvation from God the Father of mercies.[17] This is the very ancient dogma of the Communion of the Saints..."

"This treasury also includes the truly immense, unfathomable and ever pristine value before God of the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, who following in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by His grace have sanctified their lives and fulfilled the mission entrusted to them by the Father. Thus while attaining their own salvation, they have also cooperated in the salvation of their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body."

etc., etc.

Apostolic Constitution
INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINE
His Holiness Pope Paul VI
Promulgated on January 1, 1967
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_pa06id.htm


All of those "merits" are the merits of Jesus Christ which we participate in by grace and an act of the will.   That certainly was not mentioned in Volnutt's List.

Mary

Blimey!  The merits available for the Pope to reassign to the holy souls in Purgatory are not only the merits of Christ on the Cross but all the supererogatory merits of all the Saints.

And of course he may also disburse these merits to those alive on earth, using the same system of indulgences.

There are NO merits but the merits of Jesus.  Period.  Doctrine.  Catholic Doctrine...

Blimey!...I thought you were Catholic once.  Didn't get too far I think.


Pshaw!  I suggest you study the teaching on the "supererogatory works" and "superfluous merits" of the Saints.

Never too late to learn something. :laugh:

All merit comes from Jesus, the Christ.   There is nothing else without that.  So pthhhhhhhhhh....to you too   :)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:03:35 PM
The fact that it's all Jesus' merits is immaterial to the discussion, we still have to (apply, access, pick whatever term you like) them to the current situation by our will.

That is not what purgation is about for Catholics.  Not at all.  It is not meant to batter us into submission.  That is called an irresistible "grace"...which nullifies free will.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. What you call battering, I call letting us deal with the natural consequences of our sins until we learn to hate them and love God.

Read the gospel story of Lazarus the Beggar and Dives.  After death is a little late.  That is revealed to us.  I would prefer to give a gospel story precedence over someone like Father Ambrose who has a "distaste" for never being able to say he's sorry...after he's already in the soup!!...so to speak.
Well if that's the case, then "Purgatory" is essentially deathbed repentance. You're in Protestant-country now.

Purgatory has nothing to do with repentance or rehab....
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 09:08:59 PM
If everyone who will be saved must suffer purgatory then what about those who are alive to be transformed "instantly" at the Second Coming. Must be nice to get a free ride like that.

I don't know, but I'm not aware of anything that says that the "changing in the twinkling of an eye" was necessarily painless or not either way.

A question for Catholics - does the use of time for measuring purification refer to a literal time span, or is it just a unit of measurement for how much needs to be accomplished?

It is pietistic and pastoral.

That doesn't really tell me why time is used and what it is meant to express.

Time is used because that is how ordinary people mark out the stages of their lives.  We tend to see everything in blocks of time spent doing this and that...

So when one speaks of what happens after death, it is not unusual to speak in terms that are commonly associated with stages of life on this side of the grave.

That is why I said it is pastoral.

It is pietistic because we can then think of our prayers and fasting and sacrifices and acts of mercy and alms-giving as means for making a difficult stage in the life of a loved one or the life of a brother or sister in Christ as brief as possible.

None of those specific pastoral elements of purgation and indulgence are doctrine or theology.  They are based in doctrine and theology but the expression is pietistic and pastoral.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 09:13:27 PM
Then what do you call buying a indulgence or saying a Mass for the dead? Sounds like works to me.

Please be careful. Orthodoxy rejects the first, but does the second. We commemorate and pray for the departed at every divine liturgy and we also have memorial services for them.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2011, 09:16:54 PM
Buying indulgences was stopped hundreds of years ago.  :P But everything is still the same, right?  ::) Sigh...
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 09:18:40 PM
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

It's kind of like pouring an antiseptic onto an open wound.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: akimori makoto on June 28, 2011, 09:20:40 PM
Buying indulgences was stopped hundreds of years ago.  :P But everything is still the same, right?  ::) Sigh...

Whether or not the purchase of indulgences has ceased, the doctrine enabling such a practice is arguably the same today.

I am not saying this to be inflammatory, just guessing at where Volnutt is coming from.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 09:24:26 PM
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

It's kind of like pouring an antiseptic onto an open wound.

That's not how the saints that I read see things.  It is more like the longing of the lover for the beloved...It is the fire that burns but does not consume...but purifies us and gives us form and beauty.

It's like those moments in life where we are confronted with such beauty and perfection that we weep...

Not everyone is moved in these ways.  But that is how I see it, and how I am moved.  Others as well, so I am told.  :)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2011, 09:30:04 PM
A thought: if, after death, you lose your sense of time, does it matter 'how long' you are in a place? I wonder.  :-\
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 09:31:18 PM
Buying indulgences was stopped hundreds of years ago.  :P But everything is still the same, right?  ::) Sigh...
Common misconception, they're still given just not for money.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2011, 09:39:26 PM
Which is why I said buying indulgences was stopped.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 28, 2011, 09:41:19 PM
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

It's kind of like pouring an antiseptic onto an open wound.

That's not how the saints that I read see things.  It is more like the longing of the lover for the beloved...It is the fire that burns but does not consume...but purifies us and gives us form and beauty.

It's like those moments in life where we are confronted with such beauty and perfection that we weep...

Not everyone is moved in these ways.  But that is how I see it, and how I am moved.  Others as well, so I am told.  :)

I thought it was due to the burning away of the passions that prevent us from clearly seeing God.

Perhaps I was mistaken.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 09:45:01 PM
Which is why I said buying indulgences was stopped.
And that's why your mockery is irrelevant. Indulgence selling was an abuse, indulgences are a doctrine.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 28, 2011, 09:50:39 PM
I wasn't mocking anyone. I said buying indulgences is not done anymore. I did not say there were no more indulgences.

I'm not going to dignify your insult anymore.  >:(
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 09:51:32 PM
Then what do you call buying a indulgence or saying a Mass for the dead? Sounds like works to me.

Please be careful. Orthodoxy rejects the first, but does the second. We commemorate and pray for the departed at every divine liturgy and we also have memorial services for them.
I know. I was talking about Catholicism.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 09:55:18 PM
I wasn't mocking anyone. I said buying indulgences is not done anymore. I did not say there were no more indulgences.

I'm not going to dignify your insult anymore.  >:(

My apologies, upon rereading my post, I see the confusion. I was referring to buying indulgences as works that the RC has excepted for lessening purgatory in the past just like they do Masses for the dead now.

And your "::)" really insulted me, but I'm sorry I responded in anger.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 09:58:46 PM
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

It's kind of like pouring an antiseptic onto an open wound.

That's not how the saints that I read see things.  It is more like the longing of the lover for the beloved...It is the fire that burns but does not consume...but purifies us and gives us form and beauty.

It's like those moments in life where we are confronted with such beauty and perfection that we weep...

Not everyone is moved in these ways.  But that is how I see it, and how I am moved.  Others as well, so I am told.  :)
I see.

Well, honestly, if that's what Purgatory is then I'd say prayer for the dead is not only a waste of time but possibly an outright lie on God's part.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 10:10:55 PM
You said the glory of God hurts. This raises two questions: Why does it hurt? Why does God let us see it then?

It's kind of like pouring an antiseptic onto an open wound.

That's not how the saints that I read see things.  It is more like the longing of the lover for the beloved...It is the fire that burns but does not consume...but purifies us and gives us form and beauty.

It's like those moments in life where we are confronted with such beauty and perfection that we weep...

Not everyone is moved in these ways.  But that is how I see it, and how I am moved.  Others as well, so I am told.  :)

I thought it was due to the burning away of the passions that prevent us from clearly seeing God.

Perhaps I was mistaken.

Not entirely.  Just missing the next part.  Christian Joy is a combination of the Cross and the Resurrection.  Sorrow/Elation..both/and.   Like wine pressed down and overflowing...

We don't emotionally flat line in the process of sanctification...We fill to bursting...and we burst open.  I think of it as a birthing...a spiritual natality.  It is not without its own fire and fire always burns...sometimes it does not consume.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 10:14:18 PM
I wasn't mocking anyone. I said buying indulgences is not done anymore. I did not say there were no more indulgences.

I'm not going to dignify your insult anymore.  >:(


Simony is a sin no matter where or when...
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 10:30:32 PM
I just had an idea: what if we instituted a Sale of Emoticons? Say, $5 apiece?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 10:34:28 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 10:43:26 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 28, 2011, 10:54:07 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(



Poor you...all that worry for nothing really.

With all the lying, false witness/gossip, idolatry, anger, jealousy, greed, sloth and gluttony in the world...a few sins of the flesh are hardly worth loosing sleep over.

I guess you might suggest that we ditch the Ten Commandments next...eh?...that makes us all vehicles of damnation.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 10:54:26 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(


I sympathize, but it should be asked, how did they get by in the early centuries when you were bared from the Eucharist for like ten years for masturbating? Surely this isn't much less conducive to damnation?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 11:00:27 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(



Poor you...all that worry for nothing really.

With all the lying, false witness/gossip, idolatry, anger, jealousy, greed, sloth and gluttony in the world...a few sins of the flesh are hardly worth loosing sleep over.

Perhaps you should rethink that logic.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 28, 2011, 11:00:46 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 28, 2011, 11:07:54 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(


I sympathize, but it should be asked, how did they get by in the early centuries when you were bared from the Eucharist for like ten years for masturbating? Surely this isn't much less conducive to damnation?

Ever read the Penitential of the Greek Saint Theodore of Tarsus?  He followed Saint Augustine as Archbishop of Canterbury.   Are there ever some tough penances handed out?!!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 28, 2011, 11:10:34 PM
I haven't. Just hearing about it makes me sympathize with the "infrequent communion" folks though :laugh:
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 29, 2011, 12:31:35 AM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 12:36:21 AM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.
:-[ :'( >:(
I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
  :-[ :'( >:(
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 12:38:20 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 12:52:47 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
Unfortunately your magisterium, arguing on the basis of natural law, can't make such a distinction.  Kuntsevych, for instance, didn't seem to think killing in the promotion of "the holy union" was a sin, much less a crime.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 29, 2011, 12:54:25 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.

I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 01:00:53 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 29, 2011, 01:35:04 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary." 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 01:56:36 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."  
Does Scripture not say that to whom much is given much will be expected? From the Catholic view, the one who knows stealing is wrong (has a well formed conscience) and freely chooses to do it anyway is in greater spiritual danger. Since the man was blessed with a well formed conscience, it only makes sense he will be just more harshly since he should know better. However, there are reasons outside of one's control that can cause them to either not know or not believe something is a sin. Is it someone's fault if they are ignorant of the sinfulness of an act? Obviously the example I gave is not necessarily the best one because hopefully most people know that stealing is wrong, but you get the idea.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 29, 2011, 02:18:43 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 29, 2011, 02:20:20 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."  
Does Scripture not say that to whom much is given much will be expected? From the Catholic view, the one who knows stealing is wrong (has a well formed conscience) and freely chooses to do it anyway is in greater spiritual danger. Since the man was blessed with a well formed conscience, it only makes sense he will be just more harshly since he should know better. However, there are reasons outside of one's control that can cause them to either not know or not believe something is a sin. Is it someone's fault if they are ignorant of the sinfulness of an act? Obviously the example I gave is not necessarily the best one because hopefully most people know that stealing is wrong, but you get the idea.
To Catholics much has been given in the teaching of artificial birth control as for example he has the teaching of a major papal encyclical on the matter.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 06:48:01 AM
What's more it seems like most people who use it have a really low view of the magistereum (thinking them a bunch of naive, gynophobic old men stuck in the Middle Ages).
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 06:51:02 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 07:32:51 AM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Speaking of rethinking the logic.  The very fact that you are adding disobedience to the mix by rejecting the Church's clear teaching puts one in striking distance for the Big "M"...

There are other mitigating factors I am sure but flat out it is willed and grave matter so objectively it is bad news for the soul.  When we seek to achieve orgasm more assiduously than we seek to achieve sanctity through humility and obedience, then we are fooling everyone but God.

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 07:36:38 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
Unfortunately your magisterium, arguing on the basis of natural law, can't make such a distinction.  Kuntsevych, for instance, didn't seem to think killing in the promotion of "the holy union" was a sin, much less a crime.

This is pretty baseless provocation.  The more I hear about that period the more a revere his episcopacy.  When Orthodox admit to lying about a man after he's been murdered because they know their vile tongues contributed to his death...and there's a record of those cases....then I tend not to be well disposed to those who seek to perpetuate the lies.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 07:39:05 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?
Bernie Madoff, is that you? :police:
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 07:40:14 AM
What's more it seems like most people who use it have a really low view of the magistereum (thinking them a bunch of naive, gynophobic old men stuck in the Middle Ages).
Use what?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 07:41:49 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  IF you are so compelled to mention the fact that a person's guilt is mitigated by many things that we cannot see...then you're on more solid ground.  Otherwise you present what appears to be an absurdity and that can be scandalous [in its traditional form].
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 07:45:21 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary." 

Absolutely!!...

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 07:48:39 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 07:49:00 AM
What's more it seems like most people who use it have a really low view of the magistereum (thinking them a bunch of naive, gynophobic old men stuck in the Middle Ages).
Use what?
Birth control.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 07:50:51 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Agreed. I was merely trying to exegete Wyatt's statement.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 08:33:40 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary."
I think what he is referring to is someone who was raised with the idea that stealing is not wrong, all their life they were told it's a right thing to do. Someone who honestly thinks it is right, who has no guile.

St. Paul speaks of the law of God written in the heart's of men.  We can be fairly sure that somewhere along the line the natural conscience of a man or woman will let them know that they are doing harm to another, or harm is being done to them in the same manner, and they will stand at that crossroads where they must choose to either follow that still small voice or reject and go on hell bent...

We are NOT products of our environment so totally that it over rides all natural inclination to seek the face of God.  That we ARE products of our environment is the Great Fallacy of the modern world...
Agreed. I was merely trying to exegete Wyatt's statement.

Ah...good!!!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 08:35:15 AM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
Unfortunately your magisterium, arguing on the basis of natural law, can't make such a distinction.  Kuntsevych, for instance, didn't seem to think killing in the promotion of "the holy union" was a sin, much less a crime.

This is pretty baseless provocation.  The more I hear about that period the more a revere his episcopacy.  When Orthodox admit to lying about a man after he's been murdered because they know their vile tongues contributed to his death...and there's a record of those cases....then I tend not to be well disposed to those who seek to perpetuate the lies.
Yes, those "lying Orthodox" have come up before:
(*)  Dimitry Pospielovsky is Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Western Ontario.  He is the author of The Russian Church Under The Soviet Regime, 1917-1982v (SVS Press, 1984) and is one of the foremost authorities on Russian Church History.


----------

The Orthodox Church And The History Of Russia...Professor Dimitry Pospielovsky



Page 96-97

The Polish government could ill afford continuous persecutions of the Orthodox.  A war with Turkey loomed on the horizon, and in 1621 the Cossacks presented an ultimatum to the Polish Crown, stating that unless all persecution of the Orthodox Church ceased, they would refuse to fight the Turks.  In response, the 1623 Sejm declared toleration of the Orthodox Church and permitted the legimitization of Orthodox bishops and the restoration of their dioceses.

But the joy of the Orthodox was short lived.  The legalization of the Orthodox Church resulted in a mass return to Orthodoxy of the uniates, particularly in Eastern Belorussia, where the unia had been imposed only recently, and where the fanatical Uniate bishop Josaphat Kuntsevich of Polotsk and Vitebsk responded with bloody attacks on Orthodox households and churches with the help of locally stationed regular troops at his disposal.  Even uniate bishop Metropolitan Rutskii in vain called on Josephat to exercise moderation.  Then the citizens of Vitebsk rose in revolt, lynched the bishop, and threw his body in the Dvina.  A few days later the body was recovered from the water by the Uniates, and Kuntsevitch was proclaimed a martyr-saint, highly revered by the UGCC to this day.

Roman Catholic revenge was immediate and brutal.  Ten citizens of Vitebsk were executed, the city lost its immunities granted under the Magdeburg Law, and all Orthodox churches, including those situated on the brotherhood lands, were closed and confiscated.  Everywhere in the commonwealth, the Orthodox lost the right not only to build but even to repair churches; and Pope Urban VII proclaimed that any Roman Catholic who dared to oppose the use of the sword against the Orthodox would be excommunicated.


The status of the Orthodox Church after Kuntsevich episode remained so tragic, that Job, the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kiev, secretly appealed to the Tsar micheal of Russia in 1625 to annex Rus' parts of the Commonwealth to Muscovy.
You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.

You mean the stuff that gathered dust in the Vatican, untill the Poles in Galicia got the bright idea of pushing the issue, part of the push to polanize Galicia?
116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
116 interviews recorded when?  I believe that the issue is that there is no objective materials of witnesses from both sides. The canonization, a considerable time after events was motivated by the desire of the Polish Roman Catholics to have another Polish saint for nationalistic reasons.
On that canonization:Religion and nationality in Western Ukraine: the Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenian National Movement in Galicia 1867-1900 By John-Paul Himka

http://books.google.com/books?id=j2yhkvCx60IC&pg=PA28&dq=canonization+kuntsevych&lr=&cd=1#v=onepage&q=canonization%20kuntsevych&f=false

The interviewing process came close enough to his death to have been taken from eyewitnesses to his death and witnesses to what precisely was happening in that region.  The canonization came near to 200 years later, but the interviews were already long in place and taken from those who were there.


So which story of his death do the eyewitness reports support?

1.  Bishop Kuntsevich and his ruffian mates came to a place where the Orthodox were preparing to celebrate Liturgy in the open air by a river.  Kuntsevich had seized all their churches.  One of his men attacked an Orthodox deacon.  By then the crowd had had enough of Kuntsevich and attacked him with clubs and sticks, killed him and threw his body in the river.

2.  Kuntsevich was at his episcopal palace.  A crowd of angry Orthodox arrived.  He came out out his palace.  Someone killed him with a sword.  Kuntsevich was carried back inside his house, covered in blood and dying.

Or maybe these are the lying Orthodox you speak of:
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Such stories would be more credible if they were not so embedded in fairy tales of how the Orthodox rushed to the "Union" of Brest of their own free will and without compulsion from the PL king's sword.

Some views:
Four hundred years Union of Brest (1596-1996): a critical re-evaluation ... By Bert Groen, William Peter van den Bercken
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=3#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
The Orthodox Church in the history of Russia By Dimitry Pospielovsky
http://books.google.com/books?id=2cP0wc_E6yEC&pg=PA97&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Religion and society in Russia: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries By Paul Bushkovitch
http://books.google.com/books?id=vB0OqzCU5i4C&pg=PA163&dq=Kuntsevich+Orthodox&lr=&cd=11#v=onepage&q=Kuntsevich%20Orthodox&f=false
Yes.  One has to wonder where some people put their common sense when reading these white washed historical revision put out by the RCC. Those that are nieve enough to believe them. If St Josephat was such a loving man, why would he ellicit such a reaction from the Orthodox?  Was it just a full moon?  Or the revision of the Union of Brest where its indicated that a group if illerate people undertood enough to think that RC theology was superior!  Or why they wouldn't want to accept the western Latin Rites if they were so superior!
You ought to read some of the documentation for the canonization of Ioasaphat Kuntsevich.


Read what the Roman Catholic Chancellor for Lithuania, Leo Sapiega, wrote of Josaphat.  I won't post it here because it may ignite a firestorm but there was a dark and malevolent side to Josaphat acknowledged even by the Roman Catholic authorities of his time.

See message 100 at

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7635.msg99840.html#msg99840

Irish Hermit,
I would like to recommend the book, Saint Josaphat Kuntsevych: Apostle of Church Unity by Fr. Demetrius E. Wysochansky, OSBM. It is the most comprehensive book on the life of Saint Josaphat in English. Included are Saint Josaphat’s replies to Sapiega, denying any involvement in harming Orthodox Christians.  
Also, the book goes on to say that Sapiega severely punished those who killed Saint Josaphat and the people of Vitebsk felt they were being punished by God for the death of this holy saint.

17 executions IIRC.  That the Polish state took out the stick isn't a suprise: the "Union," after all, was state policy, and Kuntsevich was still the King's man.  Odd that if Vitebsk felt he was so holy, that it remained so Orthodox.

Quote
The book also quotes from the sworn testimonies given by eyewitnesses to Saint Josapahat's holiness during the canonization process. Included are the testimonies of Orthodox Christians who persecuted him and yet defended his holiness.

Since the Orthodox officially ceased to exist in 1592, very odd that they were around to be eyewitnesses and swear testimony. Could Orthodox legally give testimony, being non-existent? Or is this "Orthodox in communion with Rome?"  The PL king only bent to reality in 1632, nearly two decades after the events.  Was perjury for the beatification part of the deal to relegalize the Orthodox?

Reply:  A very good question!  Especially since not only was the Orthodox Church non-existent but to claim to be Orthodox was still considered an act of treason against the state.  Did the Polish state grant some type of immunity to these people who suddenly admitted to being Orthodox?
Did the Polish government validate testimony from people who were 'enemies of the state'?


Ref:  The Council met in the city of Brest on October 6, 1596.  In order to prevent a parallel Orthodox council in any of the numerious Orthodox Churches in the city, the now Uniate Metropolitan of Kiev sealed all Orthodox Churches  on the day before the Council was to begin, except for the cathedral where the Council was to take place.  The Orthodox, nevertheless, converged on Brest as well, with prince Ostrozhskii and his private  army at the head.  Failing to find an open church, and after waiting in vain for an invitation from the Uniates, they accepted an offer of a Protestant church school for a separate Orthodox  Council.  The Uniate Council passed a resolution excommunicating all the Orthodox clergy and laity participating in the Orthodox Council.  The Orthodox in turn suspended all the clergy and lay participants in the Uniate Council and addressed a petition to the King, asking him to deprive "the traitors" of their dioceses and parishes.  But the Polish  King decided otherwise:  his edict of October 15, LEGALIZED ONLY THOSE BYZANTINE RITE CHRISTIANS WHO JOINED THE UNIA;  IT DECREED THE ORTHODOX CHURCH NULL AND VOID AND ALL ITS CLERGY EXCOMMUNICATED; WHILE CONTINUING MEMBERSHIP IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WAS DECLARED TO BE AN ACT OF TREASON AGAINST THE STATE.

I wouldn't put it Passed the catholic church after stitching him up,that dipping him in a vat of wax sculpting him, and walla it a miracle un-corrupted...... ;D

How sad to see Orthodox Christians still taking pot shots at Saint Josaphat. :(

It is fact based on sworn testimonies that Orthodox Christians regarded him as a holy man and that the accusations against him were completely false.

How can non-existent Orthodox (the Orthodox having ceased to exist in 1596  ::)) swear to anything, in particular as they had no legal standing? Is the sotry of the Orthodox joyfully flocking to submit to the Vatican also based on such "testimony?"


Quote
Plus, are we forgetting that Archbishop Meletius Smotritsky, who persecuted Saint Josaphat, converted as a result of his martyrdom?

Are we forgetting that someone trying to save his own neck can say all manner of things?
http://books.google.com/books?id=9FN9gT7CQw4C&pg=PA81&dq=Meletij+Smotritsky+Kuntsevich&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Meletij%20Smotritsky%20Kuntsevich&f=false
And then the Jews
If we discount Orthodox and Catholic propaganda the only neutral group, the Jews spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.

Not heard of "a pox on both their houses, divide and conquer"? IIRC, the Vatican didn't accept Jews testifying in court at the time.
In Poland Lithuania, the Orthodox at the time had nothing they could offer the Jews, whereas the Poles Lithuania could have then expelled or worse.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 08:38:09 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  
The one-size-fits-all of scholasticism strikes again.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 08:57:16 AM
Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:17:03 AM
Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 09:29:36 AM
I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 09:31:37 AM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 09:34:12 AM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

God judges not only acts but what is in the heart.  If a person is so warped as to not think that stealing is wrong, then he may be more sick and deep in sin than the other one.   The judgment is ultimately how far away we are from God.   So it is certainly possible that the one who has warped himself in sin and pathoi so much as to not believe stealing is wrong and consequently does not repent will face a greater judgment than the one who steals with full knowledge and repents.   As St. Basil the Great says:  "All that which is involuntary has its root in that which is voluntary." 

Indeed. In that case, the stealing isn't so much a sin as a symptom of an already-existing problem.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:35:36 AM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 29, 2011, 09:35:58 AM
I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.

 :) That's never stopped some of the posters here before.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:37:24 AM
I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
You mean the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 29, 2011, 09:37:40 AM
Quote from: ialmisry
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that not everybody in the Twentieth Century committed murder.  ::)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:41:47 AM
Quote from: ialmisry
Oh?  The course of the Twentieth Century would say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure that not everybody in the Twentieth Century committed murder.  ::)
Didn't say they did (I for one didn't). but there were plenty around who did, or haven't you heard?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: biro on June 29, 2011, 09:44:31 AM
Do you have to goad people in every post?  ::) Sigh...

I can't take it anymore.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 09:47:58 AM
I'm not sure the Orthodox have room to talk with Saint Theodosius burning gays and Saint Justinian persecuting heretics.
You mean the Emperors Theodosius and Justinian?
Yep.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 09:52:45 AM
Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.

And you trust that you are not...

I am trained as an historian, so my interest is in the truth, in so far as we can know it.  When you set your sources up against those collected during the canonization process, then maybe I'll pay attention to you.  Till then I think you are drawing blood for your own purposes and that has no credibility with me.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 10:17:09 AM
Old shibboleths!!

To clip is hip!  I don't buy the bias.
because you're snockered on the Kool-Aid.

And you trust that you are not...
Never touch the stuff.

I am trained as an historian,
well that makes two of us.

so my interest is in the truth,
the latest version of the Vatican's present truth, that is.
in so far as we can know it.
Your taking of pro-Brest fairy tales as the Gospel Truth belies that.
When you set your sources up against those collected during the canonization process, then maybe I'll pay attention to you.
Then ignore me.

As for sources from the canonization process, we have the well documented fraud in the service of a righteous cause known as the Nuremberg trials, and the circumstances of Kuntsevych's life and death are nowhere near as well documented, nor does his canonization qualify as a righteous cause.

The cause for canonization was taken up in 1628.  The map of the area looked like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth_1635.png)
Why, it looks as if Vitebsk (Witebsk on the map) and Polotsk (Połock on the map) were under the heel of the King of Poland. Wonder if that affected the testimony any.  Of course not. Haven't you read? Everyone rushed to embrace "the holy union" as Kuntsevych called it. That's why he was so popular with the populace that they had to kill him.

Till then I think you are drawing blood for your own purposes
Not drawing any blood.  Just listening to the blood crying out to heaven.

and that has no credibility with me.
because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 10:34:09 AM

because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.

Yes.  Essentially.  Because the process of canonization is never ever taken lightly and the mountains of data that are collected generally do not allow the kind of bias that you will find in secular histories.   Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.

So yes.  Indeed I do trust that process as much as I do not trust the secular process for writing, re-writing and re-processing secular history.  Yes.  I do believe Orthodox faithful lied about St. Josaphat's complicity in the thuggery.  I think they lied to themselves about their own...I think they still do in places.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Melodist on June 29, 2011, 02:45:28 PM
Then what do you call buying a indulgence or saying a Mass for the dead? Sounds like works to me.

Please be careful. Orthodoxy rejects the first, but does the second. We commemorate and pray for the departed at every divine liturgy and we also have memorial services for them.
I know. I was talking about Catholicism.

My point is that Orthodoxy is not based on "works" theology, and prayer is not just "something we do" or a "motion we go though" to try to get something out of God who owes us nothing.

I find it unfair to say it's "works" when Rome does it, but not when Orthodoxy does the same thing, unless you are being fair and calling it "works" when Orthodoxy does it too, which we don't believe in "works".
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 02:56:03 PM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 02:58:05 PM
I don't want to get into a conversation about contraception.  But this whole line of argumentation seems silly to me, e.g. that there are some mortal sins that are mortal except for those that people don't agree with   ::)
Say there are two people. One person steals something, but doesn't believe stealing is wrong, then shortly afterward dies and faces judgment. The other person steals something, knowing full well that stealing is wrong and offends God and believes it is wrong, but freely decides to do it anyway. He, too, dies and faces judgment. To keep things relatively simple lets assume that both individuals were Christians. Now, will God judge the one who didn't think stealing was wrong every bit as harshly as the person who KNEW it was wrong, but didn't care and did it anyway?

I hate to suggest that you don't know something about Catholic teaching but this talk of greater and lesser guilt is all well above our paygrade.

We don't judge the guilt of a sin.  We cannot do that, so it is idle speculation to do so in any context.  So your initial statement of 'If they don't know' is a loaded minefield.

Best to stick with being able to identify objective sin, its gravity and what SHOULD constitute an informed Catholic conscience.  IF you are so compelled to mention the fact that a person's guilt is mitigated by many things that we cannot see...then you're on more solid ground.  Otherwise you present what appears to be an absurdity and that can be scandalous [in its traditional form].
I certainly agree with you that no one can judge a soul except God. The point I was trying to make is that there is more than just the action itself which God judges. He looks into the heart of the person and judges the motivation behind the action, and takes into consideration such things as the person's knowledge and mental state when they commit the sin. It's very good and merciful of Him to do that.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 03:28:32 PM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 03:42:48 PM

because it doesn't have your Vatican's nihil obstat and imprematur.

Yes.  Essentially.  Because the process of canonization is never ever taken lightly and the mountains of data that are collected generally do not allow the kind of bias that you will find in secular histories.
 
Quote
Shortly before Simon went missing, Bernardine of Feltre, an itinerant Franciscan preacher, had delivered a series of sermons in Trent in which he vilified the local Jewish community. When Simon went missing around Easter, 1475, his father decided that he must have been kidnapped and murdered by Jews. According to his story, the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.

Giving a succinct background to the story, historian Ronnie Po-chia Hsia wrote: "On Easter Sunday 1475, the dead body of a 2-year-old Christian boy named Simon was found in the cellar of a Jewish family's house in Trent, Italy. Town magistrates arrested 18 Jewish men and five Jewish women on the charge of ritual murder--the killing of a Christian child in order to use his blood in Jewish religious rites. In a series of interrogations that involved liberal use of judicial torture, the magistrates obtained the confessions of the Jewish men. Eight were executed in late June, and another committed suicide in jail".[
The leaders of the Jewish community were arrested, and seventeen of them were forced to confess under torture. Fifteen of them, including Samuel, the head of the community, were sentenced to death and burned at the stake. Meanwhile, Simon became the focus of veneration for the local Catholic Church. The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany. However, there was initial skepticism and Pope Sixtus IV sent Bishop of Ventimiglia, a learned Dominican, to investigate.  The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? ::)

Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.
Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

In 1628 "the holy union," as Kuntsevych billed it, was so shown itself such a collosal failure that the King had called in 1626 for a council between those who submitted to the Vatican and those who remained Orthodox, something the Vatican denounced, but the King and the Vatican's "united" metropolitan promoted
Diversity and Dissent: Negotiating Religious Difference in Central Europe ... By Howard Louthan, Gary B. Cohen, Franz A. J. Szabo
http://books.google.com/books?id=KuzLNXpa-hYC&pg=PA124&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+rights&cd=6#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%20rights&f=false
A history of eastern Europe: crisis and change By Robert Bideleux, Ian Jeffries
http://books.google.com/books?id=Vzw8CHYQobAC&pg=PA132&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+legalize&hl=en&ei=N3kLTou6JqeGsgKX8PTOAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false
Litauen und Ruthenien: Studien zu einer transkulturellen ... edited by Stefan Rohdewald, David A. Frick, Stefan Wiederkehr
http://books.google.com/books?id=iB8vTQZSSSkC&pg=PA201&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+1596+1629+1633+Jerusalem&hl=en&ei=_HoLTof3BInjsQKUsdySAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%201596%201629%201633%20Jerusalem&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=iB8vTQZSSSkC&pg=PA197&dq=Sejm+Orthodox+1623&hl=en&ei=j3sLTv78DMGOsALwrpy2AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Sejm%20Orthodox%201623&f=false

In 1637 (the second Vatican commission), the newly legalized Orthodox Metropolitanate of Kiev was sweeping away that ecclesiastial organization in submissio to the Vatican.

Eastern Christianity By Michael Angold
http://books.google.com/books?id=vBy7CTYVBeMC&pg=PA308&dq=Rutsky+Kiev+Mohyla&hl=en&ei=9H0LTqaLKu7fsQKMypCoAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Rutsky%20Kiev%20Mohyla&f=false

Which was accelerating in 1643.  We have already dealt with how the Poles used the canonization process to their own political ends in Galicia in suppressing the Ruthenians and the Orthodox.

So yes.  Indeed I do trust that process as much as I do not trust the secular process for writing, re-writing and re-processing secular history.  Yes.  I do believe Orthodox faithful lied about St. Josaphat's complicity in the thuggery.  I think they lied to themselves about their own...I think they still do in places.
Like here (Orthodoxy in green):
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Religions_in_Poland_1573.PNG)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Religions_in_Poland_1750.PNG)
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 29, 2011, 05:26:09 PM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.
I don;t see how a Catholic could be ignorant of the teaching on ABC. Anyway, if a person refuses to listen to the truth, then he would be guilty because we have a serious obligation to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. Failure to fulfill that obligation is itself a moral fault. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on June 29, 2011, 05:29:49 PM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Not true. Catholics have an obligation to inform themselves of what is right and what is wrong according to Church teaching.
Apparently you disagree with Bishop Carlson and others who say that R.Catholics have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the RC Church. The Responsibility To Have a Well Informed Faith Life 
Bishop Robert J. Carlson
Diocese of Sioux Falls
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 06:42:01 PM
Canonization is for the souls of others, not the soul of the one being acknowledged as being holy.  It is not in ANYONE's best interest to lie about the individual concerned.
Quote
Thanks in no small measure to the efforts of Petro Mohyla, by the mid-seventeenth century the cult of St Volodymyr had become quite popular among the Orthodox. At the Orthodox-Uniate negotiations on the religious issue at the Diet of 1650 in Warsaw, Metropolitan Sylvestr Kosov demanded the return of churches and church property from the Uniates 'since their very foundation by St Volodymyr.'  In replying to Kosov, a Uniate bishop noted that the Uniate metropolitan 'would derive his faith not from Volodymyr but from Christ and St Peter, upon whom our church was founded' (Hrushevs'kyi, Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, vol. 9, pt. 2, p. 1512).  The Uniates, for their part, put a good deal of effort into developing and popularizing the cult of Iosafat Kuntsevych, and, as may be judged from the report of the Warsaw discussions of 1650, had iconic representations of him in their churches.
The Cossacks and religion in early modern Ukraine By Serhii Plokhy
http://books.google.com/books?id=NCzzxNisc1MC&pg=PA243&dq=The+Uniates,+for+their+part,+put+a+good+deal%22&hl=en&ei=2KcLTuvkK86lsQLMk5H0CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Uniates%2C%20for%20their%20part%2C%20put%20a%20good%20deal%22&f=false
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 07:53:07 PM
Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).
Obviously there are some sins that nearly everyone would be accountable for because they are written in the heart of every man. Murder would be one of these things that nearly everyone would be culpable for because nearly everyone's conscience, regardless of how poorly formed, would be able to tell them that murder is wrong. It's the less well-known and well understood sins that not everyone is culpable for (or as culpable for) such as contraception.
I don;t see how that would be possible. Catholics have a serious obligation to inform themselves of right and wrong and since the Pope has issued an encyclical Humanae Vitae, any ignorance in this matter would itself be a sin, would it not?
I don't see how ignorance could be a sin.

Good point. The ignorance, as such, isn't the sin.
Not true. Catholics have an obligation to inform themselves of what is right and what is wrong according to Church teaching.
Apparently you disagree with Bishop Carlson and others who say that R.Catholics have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the RC Church. The Responsibility To Have a Well Informed Faith Life 
Bishop Robert J. Carlson
Diocese of Sioux Falls
http://www.ewtn.com/library/bishops/informfa.htm

No, I agree that we have a responsibility to be well informed on the teaching of the Church. But I also acknowledge Wyatt's point that ignorance isn't sin (strictly speaking). I guess you could say it is the consequence of sin.

I don't think our positions are very far apart, if you look closely at what each of us has said.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 07:58:47 PM
Anyway, if a person refuses to listen to the truth, then he would be guilty because we have a serious obligation to inform ourselves of what is right and what is wrong. Failure to fulfill that obligation is itself a moral fault. 

I agree.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 08:45:30 PM

Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 08:57:11 PM

Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
I'm out of your shovel range, Sister No Answer nor Documentation.

So, do you believe those Jews who testified to Kuntsevych's holiness,
the Jews [who] spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
although they drank the blood of innocents like Simon of Trent?  Odd that your canonization congregation took their testimony, given what they found out the Jews do with Christian children at Passover, ::) as
Quote
the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.....The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany...The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? ::)
On "St." Simon, he must be as much a "saint," as Kuntsevych, even more so: his canoization took only a century, Kuntsevych's took nearly three.
Quote
Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.

What is the object of this infallible judgment of the pope? Does he define that the person canonized is in heaven or only that he has practiced Christian virtues in an heroic degree? I have never seen this question discussed; my own opinion is that nothing else is defined than that the person canonized is in heaven. The formula used in the act of canonization has nothing more than this:

"In honour of . . . we decree and define that Blessed N. is a Saint, and we inscribe his name in the catalogue of saints, and order that his memory by devoutly and piously celebrated yearly on the . . . day of . . . his feast."

(Ad honorem . . . beatum N. Sanctum esse decernimus et definimus ac sanctorum catalogo adscribimus statuentes ab ecclesiâ universali illius memoriam quolibet anno, die ejus natali . . . piâ devotione recoli debere.)

There is no question of heroic virtue in this formula; on the other hand, sanctity does not necessarily imply the exercise of heroic virtue, since one who had not hitherto practised heroic virtue would, by the one transient heroic act in which he yielded up his life for Christ, have justly deserved to be considered a saint. This view seems all the more certain if we reflect that all the arguments of theologians for papal infallibility in the canonization of saints are based on the fact that on such occasions the popes believe and assert that the decision which they publish is infallible (Pesch, Prael. Dogm., I, 552).

This general agreement of theologians as to papal infallibility in canonization must not be extended to beatification, not withstanding the contrary teaching of the canonical commentary known as "Glossa" [in cap. un. de reliquiis et venerat. SS. (III, 22) in 6; Innocent., Comm. in quinque Decretalium libros, tit. de reliquiis, etc., no 4; Ostiensis in eumd. tit. no 10; Felini, cap. lii, De testibus, etc., X (II, 20); Caietani, tract. De indulgentiis adversus Lutherum ad Julium Mediceum; Augustini de Ancona, seu Triumphi, De potestate eccl., Q. xiv, a. 4). Canonists and theologians generally deny the infallible character of decrees of beatification, whether formal or equivalent, since it is always a permission, not a command; while it leads to canonization, it is not the last step. Moreover, in most cases, the cultus permitted by beatification, is restricted to a determined province, city, or religious body (Benedict XIV, op. cit., I, xlii). Some, however, have thought otherwise (Arriaga, Theol., V, disp. 7, p. 6; Amicus, Theol., IV, disp. 7, p. 4, no 98; Turrianus on II-II, V, disp. 17, no 6; Del Bene, De S. Inquisit. II, dub. 254).
Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 29, 2011, 09:17:27 PM
not the misty "language of piety" you take refuge in.

I know...you want all that misty mystery for Orthodoxy...but you can't have it all, I fear.
We Orthodox say what we mean and mean what we say.
So what's your stance on birth control?
Not that you haven't been told it before:
Quote
XII. 3. Among the problems which need a religious and moral assessment is that of contraception. Some contraceptives have an abortive effect, interrupting artificially the life of the embryo on the very first stages of his life. Therefore, the same judgements are applicable to the use of them as to abortion. But other means, which do not involve interrupting an already conceived life, cannot be equated with abortion in the least. In defining their attitude to the non-abortive contraceptives, Christian spouses should remember that human reproduction is one of the principal purposes of the divinely established marital union (see, X. 4). The deliberate refusal of childbirth on egoistic grounds devalues marriage and is a definite sin.
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/3/14.aspx

Any particular reason you asked that, and not my views on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, atonement, mandated clerical celibacy, etc. you know, things that would involve you and me, and not something, since we are both male, wouldn't?

Is it really so surprising that he'd ask about birth control rather than those other topics? After all, the Orthodox positions on the filioque, Vatican supremacy, mandated clerical celibacy are pretty clear -- well, at least to us traditional Catholics; I won't try to speak for people like Dr. Hahn or Fr. Taft.


The great worry for me about the RC teaching on birth control is that in the States 97% of marrieds ignore it and use methods forbidden by their Church as grossly sinful.    This kind of turns the Catholic Church into a vehicle of damnation for a large number of people.
 :'( :'(

Let's not overstate the matter. People (whether Catholic or otherwise) who don't believe that it's a sin, are not committing mortal sin by doing it.

Are people who commit murder who don't believe that committing murder is a sin, or theft or adultery who don't believe that they are sins, committing mortal sin by doing it?   This is one of the most absurd teachings of the RC that should have people fleeing to Orthodoxy (until, of course, after having encountered our non-absurd teachings, are then scandalized by Orthodoxy's modern disorganized chaos in organization& administration, in which half of them go back to Rome).

If someone really doesn't know that murder is wrong, then he/she isn't sinning by committed murder. But, as Wyatt pointed out, that's extremely rare.

That is completely ridiculous.   Sin is any departure from synergeia with God in doing something contrary to His will, whether in knowledge or in ignorance.   I am glad to see that there are at least some Vatican bishops who have maintained a degree of sanity on that matter. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: LBK on June 29, 2011, 09:24:46 PM
Re ignorance of sin:

Orthodox pre-communion prayers are full of references to sins "known and unknown, committed in knowledge or in ignorance". Food for thought.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:27:10 PM
Re ignorance of sin:

Orthodox pre-communion prayers are full of references to sins "known and unknown, committed in knowledge or in ignorance". Food for thought.
before we take the Food for Life.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 09:35:18 PM
Bovine digested gastrointestinal efflux.

On you, Professor Cut 'n Paste.
I'm out of your shovel range, Sister No Answer nor Documentation.

So, do you believe those Jews who testified to Kuntsevych's holiness,
the Jews [who] spoke favorably of St.Josaphat and testified on his behalf.
although they drank the blood of innocents like Simon of Trent?  Odd that your canonization congregation took their testimony, given what they found out the Jews do with Christian children at Passover, ::) as
Quote
the Jews had drained Simon of his blood, supposedly for use in baking their Passover matzohs and for occult rituals that they allegedly practiced in private.....The local bishop, Hinderbach of Trent, tried to have Simon canonized, producing a large body of documentation of the event and its aftermath.  Over one hundred miracles were directly attributed to Saint Simon within a year of his disappearance, and his cult spread across Italy, Austria and Germany...The veneration was restored in 1588 by the Franciscan Pope Sixtus V. The 'saint' was eventually considered a martyr and a patron of kidnap and torture victims. His entry in the old Roman Martyrology for March 24 read:

Tridénti pássio sancti Simeónis púeri, a Judǽis sævíssime trucidáti, qui multis póstea miráculis coruscávit.
(Translated) At Trent, the martyrdom of the boy St. Simeon, who was barbarously murdered by the Jews, but who was afterwards glorified by many miracles.
The Pope removed Simon from the Calendar of Saints in 1965.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_of_Trent
Nah, no bias there: doesn't everyone know that the Jews eat baptized children at Passover? ::)

Sixtus V....where else have I seen that name before, besides "St. Simon the Holy Martyr"'s canonization....ah, yes:
Quote
Sixtus V was the first to distribute this administrative business among different congregations of cardinals; and in his Constitution "Immensa" (22 Jan., 1588) he generalized the idea, already conceived and partly reduced to practice by some of his predecessors, of committing one or another case or a group of cases to the examination, or to the decision, of several cardinals. By a judicious division of administrative matters, he established that permanent organization of these departments of the Curia, which since then have rendered such great services to the Church. The congregations at first established by Sixtus V were officially designated as:

1. for Holy Inquisition;
5. for sacred rites and ceremonies;

This congregation was established by Sixtus V in his Constitution "Immensa", to which frequent reference has already been made. The organization of the Congregation of Rites does not differ from that of other Roman congregations, there being a certain number of cardinals, assisted by a secretary and a surrogate (sostituto), and also by an adequate number of minor officials. Besides these, the Congregation of Rites, in view of special functions to which reference will be made further on, has a great number of prelates, officials, and consultors. The order of precedence among the consultors is determined by length of service in their office. The prelate-officials sit in the following order: first, after the secretary of the congregation, is the sacristan to His Holiness, after whom comes one of the Apostolic prothonotaries permanently attached to this office, next is the dean of the Rota, with the two oldest auditors, after these the master of the Sacred Palace, the promotor of the Faith, and the assessor, or sub-promotor. Although there are no ex-officio consultors, that is, no consultors who by reason of theft office in the Curia are entitled to sit among the consultors of this congregation, there are, nevertheless, certain religious orders — the Friars Minor, the Servites, the Barnabites, the Jesuits — which have obtained from different popes the privilege of being represented by one member each in this college of consultors.

The Congregation of Rites has a double function. It is charged with the direction of the Liturgy of the Latin Church, and therefore, with the supervision of the performance of the rites prescribed by the Church for the celebration of the sacred mysteries and other ecclesiastical functions and offices, and also, with the granting of all privileges, personal or local, temporary or perpetual, which relate to the rites or ceremonies of the Church. It is manifest that the duties of this congregation are of the highest importance: they are concerned with the solemnity of the worship offered to God, the maintenance of the Faith, and the development of devotion and of Christian sentiment among the faithful. The same congregation has another Charge of no less importance: the decision of causes of beatification and canonization of servants of God, and of the veneration of their relics.

In the process of beatification and canonization the most important official is the promotor of the Faith, whose chief duty it is to diligently examine the local investigations carried out by the authority of the bishops, or, at Rome, of the pope, and to bring out in them all that may in any way cast doubt upon the heroic virtue of the servant of God whose cause is under consideration. It is on account of this duty, which implies a systematic opposition to the proofs of sanctity, that the official in question has come to be popularly called "the devil's advocate". It is easy to see, however, that this office conduces to the splendour of the Church and to the honour of the Faith; for to declare a servant of God to be a saint is to propose him as a model to the faithful, and one cannot fail to see how necessary it is that this be done only in the case of one truly heroic, of whose virtue in the heroic degree the pontiff has acquired the greatest moral certainty that human means can establish. It is true that the assistance of the Holy Ghost cannot fail the head of the Church of Jesus Christ in a matter of this kind; but the sovereign pontiff is not on that account exempt from the obligation of acting in the premises with all the circumspection that human prudence requires. And in this effort to attain human certainty the pope is greatly assisted by the promotor of the Faith, who, after a preliminary study of the cause, has to propose objections in regard to the validity of the proceedings and the credibility of the testimony as well as all the objections possibly to be found in the life of the servant of God whose cause is being examined, and in the miracles alleged to have been performed by God at the intercession of that servant. These objections are presented in the three congregations, or meetings, held to consider the question of virtue, and in the other three which are held to consider the question of the miracles. The promotor of the Faith is always selected from among the Consistorial advocates, and always has the assistance of a sub-advocate who takes his place, upon occasion, and who in every instance acts in the name of the promotor. The latter official formerly had the power to appoint, and to remove, his assistant. Besides these two chief officials, the congregation has a special notary for that part of its functions which concerns canonization.

The congregations, or meetings held to consider the question of virtue, like those at which the question of miracles is considered, are generally three in number. The first of them is called the ante-preparatory, and is attended by the prelate-officials and the consultors, under the presidency of the cardinal relator of the cause, who does not vote, but who, upon the votes of the others who are present, determines whether the case deserves to go beyond this hearing. The second meeting, called the preparatory, is attended by all the cardinals of the congregation, by the prelate-officials, and by the consultors. At this meeting the cardinals do not vote, but, after hearing the votes of the others present, determine whether the cause may be carried to a discussion before the pope, which is done only when there is moral certainty of a successful issue. This meeting is the most interesting of all; in it the cause not infrequently falls to the ground. Assuming, however, that the cardinals do not throw out the case definitively, it very often happens that another preparatory meeting called nova preparatoria is required, to elucidate some point relating to the virtue of the servant of God or to the miracles in question. Sometimes there is even a third meeting for the same purpose. The regular third meeting is called the general congregation. It is held under the presidency of the sovereign pontiff himself and is attended by all the cardinals who form the Congregation of Rites, the prelate-officials, and the consultors, all of whom vote — the consultors and the prelate-officials first, and then, when the consultors have withdrawn, the cardinals. The pope decides definitively; as a rule, however, he does not pronounce his judgment at once, but takes time to deliberate and to implore Divine light upon the question. Besides the above meetings, others, called ordinary and special ordinary, are held for the purpose of examining the proceedings and the proof of the fame of sanctity which is necessary for the introduction of a cause of beatification. (See also BEATIFICATION AND CANONIZATION.)

Returning to the first duty of this congregation, which is the supervision and direction of the Liturgy, it may be said that the inspection, correction, and condemnation of liturgical books of whatever kind pertain to the Congregation of Rites (saving always the prerogatives of the Holy Office in matters of faith), as well as the approbation of new liturgical Offices and calendars, and especially the authoritative solution of all doubts which may arise on liturgical matters. Recourse must be had, therefore, to this congregation for all faculties, indulgences, and dispensations relating to liturgical functions. Thus, for example it is for the Congregation of Rites to grant the faculty to bless sacred vestments, the authorization to expose upon the altar the image of one who has been beatified, or to dedicate an altar to such a servant of God, the right to wear special insignia during choral offices, etc. In the performance of these functions, the Congregation of Rites is assisted by three commissions, established within its own body. The first of these is the Liturgical Commission, created for the revision of Decrees concerning rites. This work was begun and finished by Leo XIII, the congregation publishing an authentic edition of its Decrees (1898-1900). Although the work for which it was created has been done, this commission remains, and is now consulted on more important questions which may arise concerning the sacred rites. The second commission, also instituted by Leo XIII, in 1902, is the Historico-Liturgical Commission, which has the function of judging historical questions concerning the sacred rites. The third is the Commission on Sacred Music, created by Pius X, in 1904, the functions of which are connected with the Motu Proprio on sacred music of 1903 and with other acts of Pius X on the same subject. (See the letter of 8 December, 1903, to Cardinal Respighi, the Decree of 8 January, 1904, the Motu Proprio of the 25 April, 1904, on the Vatican edition of the liturgical books, and the other two Decrees of 11 and 14 August, 1905.)  
Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13136a.htm

On St. Simon and his canonization, lest someone complain of wikipedia:
http://books.google.com/books?id=eZljAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22simon%20of%20trent%22%20sixtus&pg=PA447#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=ASVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA839&dq=%22simon+of+trent%22+sixtus&hl=en&ei=C619Tb7bLtPvrAHohcz4BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=21&ved=0CJABEOgBMBQ#v=onepage&q=%22simon%20of%20trent%22%20sixtus&f=false
http://www.breviary.net/martyrology/mart03/mart0324.htm
http://www.romancatholicism.org/beatus-andreas.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=-1HS5gCZ1w4C&pg=PA132&dq=simon+of+trent+benedict+xiv&hl=en&ei=iNkLTpeXHPCOsALNhc3zCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=simon%20of%20trent%20benedict%20xiv&f=false
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 10:15:11 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 11:12:09 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 11:18:51 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on June 29, 2011, 11:25:10 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 11:30:45 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on June 29, 2011, 11:37:35 PM
I hope you get well soon!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on June 29, 2011, 11:38:06 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.
Get well!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 29, 2011, 11:46:27 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.

Do you listen to podcasts? I recently gave Ancient Faith Radio a try -- first with the OL conference last week, then today I listened to Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

Not that I'm stuck in bed. But if you are, all the more reason for something good to listen to.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on June 29, 2011, 11:56:54 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Dear Wyatt,

Have you ever formally studied moral theology? 

M.
Not Eastern Orthodox moral theology. I have studied my own Catholic moral theology, but I am basing my post on comments that have been made on this very forum.

Has you study been formal and if so who has taught you?
Is RCIA formal? If you mean am I a theology student then no, but I went through the RCIA process before entering the Catholic Church in 2007, and I am currently going through a program that takes you through the entire Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church in a year. I also sat in with my friend as he was going through the RCIA process this past year and was Baptized and Confirmed at this past Easter Vigil. My parish now uses the United States Catholic Catechism for Adults in its RCIA program so I have read large portions of it as well. I am currently stuck in bed due to injuries and because of that have ordered a Kindle online to help pass the time. I plan to do a lot of theological reading on it as well.

Do you listen to podcasts? I recently gave Ancient Faith Radio a try -- first with the OL conference last week, then today I listened to Fr. Hopko on the filioque.

Not that I'm stuck in bed. But if you are, all the more reason for something good to listen to.
I usually don't, but that one sounds interesting. I might have to give it a try. Lately, besides perusing this and a few other forums of course, I have been doing a lot of StumbleUpon and watching a little TV here and there.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on June 30, 2011, 12:01:47 AM
Get well, Wyatt!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on June 30, 2011, 11:36:45 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on June 30, 2011, 11:53:56 PM
“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Luke 12:47-48
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 01, 2011, 12:02:54 AM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on July 01, 2011, 06:40:35 AM
“And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes,
but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."
Luke 12:47-48
We were just talking about how not everyone suffers the same in Orthodoxy. Note that the deeds are still worthy of flogging.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 01, 2011, 07:42:41 AM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 01, 2011, 04:25:23 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on July 01, 2011, 04:29:38 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on July 01, 2011, 06:09:13 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 01, 2011, 06:29:07 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 
Well if that's the case then she should not have quoted my post as if she was responding to me.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on July 01, 2011, 07:29:06 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses, how is this not the Orthodox view? Isn't this why wet dreams, etc. are sins in Orthodoxy?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on July 01, 2011, 07:35:57 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses, how is this not the Orthodox view? Isn't this why wet dreams, etc. are sins in Orthodoxy?
Why would something be a sin if it is involuntary?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on July 01, 2011, 07:39:02 PM
Because our instincts and bodily functions are as fallen as the rest of us?

I don't know, I'm trying to understand the Orthodox view.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Peter J on July 01, 2011, 07:54:02 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 01, 2011, 10:36:44 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

I am speaking VERY specifically about your grasp of moral theology.  You are misleading people here, and I have said so.  I think you may be reading more into what I have said about you personally...but you've argued and argued and argued...so I have to figure that you think you know all about what you are arguing here, and it seems to me that you do not know as much as you think.  That is not a slap at your character.  It is an assessment of this particular topic and how you are dealing with it...here and now.

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 01, 2011, 10:38:00 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

Accurate insight...with particular reference to the quote above.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 01, 2011, 10:40:12 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses,

It is a phrase that used to be used ironically by the chairman of my dissertation committee, and it used to make me laugh because I was one of them.  He was a traditional prairie populist, so he was hardly ever condescending...

M.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Shlomlokh on July 01, 2011, 10:52:51 PM
Because our instincts and bodily functions are as fallen as the rest of us?

I don't know, I'm trying to understand the Orthodox view.
This is how I was instructed by my priest on the matter, and how he was instructed by others, etc.

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Volnutt on July 01, 2011, 11:39:20 PM
The Eastern Orthodox believe nocturnal emissions are potentially sinful, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are opposed to ignorance getting someone off the hook for a sin. Heck, they don't even think an act being involuntary is an excuse.

Sin is illness of the soul my friend.  It is not about getting someone off the hook, it is about healing them.   I hope and pray that you are able to be mobile soon, and that your injuries heal. 
Thank you, Father. I realize that part of the reason for the disconnect in our conversation about sin is due to differences in the way Catholics and Orthodox explain/think of sin. We (in the Latin tradition) tend to think of sin as actions and offenses more often than we do as spiritual illness. I think that seems to be changing within our Church because I have heard more and more Priests and teachers within the Catholic Church refer to the Church as "a hospital for sinners," but I realize this imagery of sin as sickness may not have always been the predominant view in the West.

Health and hospital may not have been the anthropology but the theology has always been and remains the fact that ALL sin...voluntary and involuntary, in knowledge and in ignorance...ALL objective sin committed by any person at all, disrupts God justice and providence in the entirety of creation.  The consequences of our negative thoughts, words and deeds impact God's good providence/justice negatively, regardless of blame or guilt.

That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.

That means that ALL sin, ALL evil must be redressed, must be restored.  Each time we tear a hole in the fabric of creation's goodness...WE, in God's good grace must restore and be restored...whether or NOT we sin voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge and in ignorance.

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.

Mary
Anselm lives.  :'(
Aside from the condescending talk of unwashed masses,

It is a phrase that used to be used ironically by the chairman of my dissertation committee, and it used to make me laugh because I was one of them.  He was a traditional prairie populist, so he was hardly ever condescending...

M.
Ah. Sarcasm is often lost on the net.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 01, 2011, 11:45:02 PM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

I am speaking VERY specifically about your grasp of moral theology.  You are misleading people here, and I have said so.  I think you may be reading more into what I have said about you personally...but you've argued and argued and argued...so I have to figure that you think you know all about what you are arguing here, and it seems to me that you do not know as much as you think.  That is not a slap at your character.  It is an assessment of this particular topic and how you are dealing with it...here and now.

M.
How have I mislead?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on July 02, 2011, 12:19:00 AM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

I know Peter.  I will let Mary speak for herself, and she has.   I just read it as a specific response and then a drift into general principle.  It is obvious the first part of the response was specific to him, but then a gradual move to a general admonition, that's all. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 02, 2011, 12:30:14 AM
And when you have "learned it all"...when your time for learning in this life is over, what you will see is that, about God, you know very very little.  But as long as you believe that you know it all, you will know nothing.
I never claimed to know it all. If I actually thought that I would not read the Bible and the Catechism every single day, nor would I read theological texts from people such as Scott Hahn and Karl Keating and other good apologists. I think you think you know more about me than you actually do. Is it possible that I am incorrect? Sure it is. That hardly means that I think I know it all. I'm not sure why you wish to attack my character like that.

Hi Wyatt.  I don't think she was talking to you, but of herself and all in general.  Just my take on it. 

I don't think it's much of a stretch, Father, to conclude that the post was referring to him ...

Boil all that down to what the Church thinks the great unwashed masses can manage,  and you get the "rules" that you learned in the various places where you've learned the faith Wyatt...but you have not learned it all...not quite yet. 

I know Peter.  I will let Mary speak for herself, and she has.   I just read it as a specific response and then a drift into general principle.  It is obvious the first part of the response was specific to him, but then a gradual move to a general admonition, that's all. 

Wyatt has been ill in bed so he may not have picked up on Mary's drifting.  I'm not ill but I still find it hard sometimes to understand what Mary is saying.  But as you say,  I am easily confused and Mary is an expert at it.   :laugh: :D
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on July 02, 2011, 12:41:35 AM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 02, 2011, 04:50:12 AM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell

hades

sheol

gehenna

tartarus

the lake of fire

the place of nice waiting

the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.

Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: stanley123 on July 02, 2011, 05:11:57 AM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights. 

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell

hades

sheol

gehenna

tartarus

the lake of fire

the place of nice waiting

the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Since you have asked for your brethren to clarify, I hope that you will not mind if I take a shot at it.
There is (according to R. Catholic belief) heaven, hell, and purgatory.
As you have mentioned, there is the place of waiting, which in the Apostle's creed we say: ....suffered under Pontius Pileate, was crucified, died and was buried. And He descended into hell, and on the third day He arose again from the dead.  The hell mentioned here is not the hell of the damned, but the place of nice waiting where Jesus announced the opening of the gates of heaven to the preChristian saved. This is also sometimes called limbo. But it is not the same limbo for unbaptised infants  as was previously taught in Catholic schools.
To sum up then: In the afterlife there are three places (according to RC):
Heaven,
Hell  and
Purgatory.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 02, 2011, 02:56:07 PM
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 02, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Wyatt on July 02, 2011, 04:26:07 PM
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on July 02, 2011, 04:52:15 PM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection (before they have been united to their bodies).  Tartarus is simply the deepest part of hades (depicted in the icon of the resurrection with satan bound held for judgment) holding those angels and persons who have sinned unpardonably.  The upper region (as it is depicted in the icon of the resurrection), inhabited with the souls of those who have sinned pardonably (in ancient terms Ἔρεβος)

gehenna=the lake of fire=the place of eternal existence of the ungodly in body and soul (as whole persons) after the resurrection
 
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: elijahmaria on July 02, 2011, 05:10:41 PM
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?

What would you accept as an authentic source?

Try starting here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: ialmisry on July 02, 2011, 05:26:16 PM
That means that when we sin in thought, word and deed, voluntarily or involuntarily, in knowledge or in ignorance...we indeed sin!!...That says nothing about blame, or guilt.  Blame and guilt are not our responsibility.  That belongs to God alone, and the prayers of the communion of saints and the communities of the faithful.
If this is, in fact, true, then why does the catechism speak of reduced culpability based on one's mental state as well as other factors when determining the gravity of a sin, or even whether a sin took place at all. If sin can be involuntary, I wouldn't think the Catechism would speak like this.

In moral theology, the Church distinguishes among sin...personal guilt...blame, which is not the same as guilt...and the fact that ALL sin/evil rends the fabric of God's providence for Creation...consequences that are intended and unintended, known or unknown, seen or unseen, etc.

So when you see this discussion on reduced culpability there are a couple of things that SHOULD spring immediately to mind:

NOBODY but God determines the personal guilt or culpability of a sinner...nobody.  Absolution says NOTHING about levels or magnitudes of personal guilt.  Once absolved, all sins are forgotten...however the consequences of that evil set loose in the world remain.

EVEN IF a person is absolutely blameless in willing an objectively sinful thought, word or deed, then that evil MUST BE REPAIRED...so that God's good Providence/Justice may be restored.

So that whether you are personally guilty of the sinfulness/evil of a thought word or deed makes no difference to the impact that evil, set loose in the world, has on any part of Creation.

Stated as simply as I can at the moment:  I can do evil/be objectively sinful without being blamed or without suffering guilt, but the consequences of that sin/evil are just as disruptive, as if I were totally to blame and exquisitely guilty.
When you get time, could you provide me with an authentic Catholic source for this teaching?

What would you accept as an authentic source?

Try starting here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1048.htm
Ooooh! Something specific! How novel!
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 02, 2011, 07:26:56 PM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection

Father, I find you confusing since this is *not* what the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) is teaching in his books and lectures.  For example in "Christ the Conqueror of Hell".   Various points of his teaching are scattered thruoghout not a few messages in this forum.
Title: Re: Is it necessary upon reception into the Orthodox Church to renounce the errors of Rome?
Post by: Father H on July 02, 2011, 10:49:30 PM
^Father, I know you say this in jest, but just to make it clear I do not think that you are an easily confused person.  I was simply saying that, just as you found me too confusing in a certain area of eschatology, I also found you to be too easily confused in the same area.  I am sure the reverse can be said in other areas of theology.   But I do find you a sound thinker and appreciate your insights.  

Father,  thank you for your kind words but I am most certainly confused by my brethren in my understanding of the many afterdeath states.   They blather on about them as if they have it all sorted out, but whenever I ask them for simple definitions which I can understand they shut up.

hell
hades
sheol
gehenna
tartarus
the lake of fire
the place of nice waiting
the place of very not-nice waiting.....etc.


Really, it is quite simple.  You make things more complicated than they need to be:

hell is of course an English word used for two different purposes, so we will take that out of the equation to avoid confusion.  

hades=sheol=the place of not very nice-waiting of prior to the resurrection

Father, I find you confusing since this is *not* what the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) is teaching in his books and lectures.  For example in "Christ the Conqueror of Hell".   Various points of his teaching are scattered thruoghout not a few messages in this forum.

Where is there a contradiction with what Met. Hilarion has written?