Topic: Indulgences, Temporal Punishment, Purgatory, etc

[stanley123]

Then what's the point of a "hades" that people can get out of. Sounds like corrective punishment.

They can only "get out" through the prayers of holy people. Can one get out of purgatory without prayer? Perhaps when he is adequately purified? The only time I have heard of people getting out of purgatory through prayer was getting out early. I think what is being suggested by the Orthodox is that people would not get out of Hades, EVER, if it were not for the prayers of holy people interceding for them. Purgatory has an end in sight. Hades does not, until it is emptied into the lake of fire.

My understanding is that you can get out of purgatory without prayer, but your "time" in purgatory may be lessened by prayer, say of one of the loved ones still living on earth. In any case, purgatory is not eternal punishment, but hell is.

[stanley123]

We teach that people go to hell , all the sinners and unbelievers , and that trough intercession and prayer , there might be a possibility for their elibaration .

This is where I think there is a difference. In Catholicism, as I understand it to be, a person with an unrepented lesser sin will not go to eternal damnation in hell. I gave examples above of what i considered to be lesser sins.
There is another question here with regard to whether or not all unbelievers will go to hell.

[Schultz]

I think we should all make sure that we're speaking the same language, so to speak.

In its original form, the English word "hel" was the direct equivalent of the Greek "hades".  Both were simply the abodes of the dead.

Due to history and language change, the English word "hell" has come to mean the same as the Hebrew "Gehenna".

Both Clark Carlton and Fr. Tom Hopko have addressed this important linguistic distinction in their respective AFR podcasts, with the latter most recently tackling the topic just a couple weeks ago in his talk on Jesus' descent into Hades.

[Irish Hermit]

I think we should all make sure that we're speaking the same language, so to speak.

In its original form, the English word "hel" was the direct equivalent of the Greek "hades".  Both were simply the abodes of the dead.

Due to history and language change, the English word "hell" has come to mean the same as the Hebrew "Gehenna".

Both Clark Carlton and Fr. Tom Hopko have addressed this important linguistic distinction in their respective AFR podcasts, with the latter most recently tackling the topic just a couple weeks ago in his talk on Jesus' descent into Hades.

I don't think we are speaking the same language.  The Russian Orthodox do not make these linguistic distinctions.   Probably because the word for hell and the word for hades is the same in Slavonic and Russian.

See Archbishop Hilarion on the Harrowing of Hell:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19350.msg285715.html#msg285715

[Mardukm]

I think we should all make sure that we're speaking the same language, so to speak.

In its original form, the English word "hel" was the direct equivalent of the Greek "hades".  Both were simply the abodes of the dead.

Due to history and language change, the English word "hell" has come to mean the same as the Hebrew "Gehenna".

Both Clark Carlton and Fr. Tom Hopko have addressed this important linguistic distinction in their respective AFR podcasts, with the latter most recently tackling the topic just a couple weeks ago in his talk on Jesus' descent into Hades.

I don't think we are speaking the same language.  The Russian Orthodox do not make these linguistic distinctions.   Probably because the word for hell and the word for hades is the same in Slavonic and Russian.

See Archbishop Hilarion on the Harrowing of Hell:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19350.msg285715.html#msg285715

But the difference in concept exists nevertheless.

[Michał]

Probably because the word for hell and the word for hades is the same in Slavonic and Russian.

I don't think so. Russian Synodal Text of the Bible has "ad" for hades and "gyeyenna" for gehenna.

See Archbishop Hilarion on the Harrowing of Hell:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19350.msg285715.html#msg285715

Abp Hilarion simply follows the English tradition of using "hell" and "hades" interchangably, what is in agreement with the original meaning of word "hell", but what is confusing when we have in mind that in the course of time "hell" took the meaning of gehenna. The very same situation was with Latin "inferno", what resulted in the Westerners inventing term "purgatory".

[Dan-Romania]

Nor in my language romanian : there is no distinguish between hell and hades , they are both named "Iad"  or "Infern" . We don`t have a sinomin for hades other the hell . Also a sinonim for hell (Iad) we have it "gheena" . Also romanian orthodox theology afaik teaches only the existence of hell and heaven . As I understand this is not only in romanian but in other languages also . I kind of deny the existance of another kind of dimension , another kind of "hell" . There is hell and heaven . And between hell and heaven is earth .

[Irish Hermit]

I think we should all make sure that we're speaking the same language, so to speak.

In its original form, the English word "hel" was the direct equivalent of the Greek "hades".  Both were simply the abodes of the dead.

Due to history and language change, the English word "hell" has come to mean the same as the Hebrew "Gehenna".

Both Clark Carlton and Fr. Tom Hopko have addressed this important linguistic distinction in their respective AFR podcasts, with the latter most recently tackling the topic just a couple weeks ago in his talk on Jesus' descent into Hades.

I don't think we are speaking the same language.  The Russian Orthodox do not make these linguistic distinctions.   Probably because the word for hell and the word for hades is the same in Slavonic and Russian.

See Archbishop Hilarion on the Harrowing of Hell:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,19350.msg285715.html#msg285715

But the difference in concept exists nevertheless.

You can find various and contradictory schemata of the afterlife.  It varies from country to country and from Father to Father and theologian to theologian.  Some of it is ingeniously complicated and some of it is basic.   There is no way you can put your finger on one schema or the other and say:  *this* is the Orthodox teaching.  The most you can do is hold the contradictory systems in your head without prefering one over the other and say, "well, one of them may approximate the reality of the afterlife or none of them may."

For a view of the agnosticism and sober reticence of the Orthodox regarding the afterlife,  please see this previous message in the thread:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg294081.html#msg294081

[Gabriel]

So, purgatory is a place of punishment, or it isn't? Clarity please?

Corrective punisment. Or "Cleansing Punishment"

I would assume both, based upon the parable of the Unmerciful Servant.

'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me;
and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?'
And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."

Of course, that also begs the question of can you ever pay your debt?

[PoorFoolNicholas]

^ Yet we find it in the council of Jerusalem. So then, is the council of Jerusalem a heretical council from an EO perspective?

St. Mark spoke from, in and to the perspective of Orthodoxy.  Dositheos was railing against your Calvinist siblings (whose catechism was mandatory in Orthodox Transylvania, thanks to the Calvinist ruler), and borrowed an argument from the Vatican, for the simple reason that the Orthodox didn't really have a dog in the fight between the Calvinists and the Vatican (proven by the Calvinist rulers and Latin elite in Transylvania trying to bulk up their rule with the Orthodox masses), but the Calvinists were more wrong on this issue.

Dositheus wrote a LOT more than the Confession adopted at Jerusalem.  Maybe a little context would do you some good....

And yet my question remains unanswered. Was the council of Jerusalem heretical?

No, it's not heretical.

And no, it's not Orthodox.

Happy?

I found this:

The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching.

I found this as well:

Dositheus is a “great teacher” of the Church, according to Tradition in the Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and elsewhere:
There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800).

So what gives? Is this a canonical, and accepted council in the Orthodox Church, or not ialmisry?

These excerpts can be found here:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

[PoorFoolNicholas]

An approach which nobody has suggested is this: The consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church is best reflected and expressed in its liturgical traditions and texts. So, for homework, kiddies, please find the texts for the Orthodox requiem (panikhida, mnemosyno, parastasis), and for the Orthodox funeral (for a layman, and, if possible, for a child). Let's see if there's any mention or hint of purgatory or purification within the texts of these services.

Any progress with your homework, folks?

Yes, I am interested to see this as well.

[Michał]

Also romanian orthodox theology afaik teaches only the existence of hell and heaven . [...] I kind of deny the existance of another kind of dimension , another kind of "hell" . There is hell and heaven . And between hell and heaven is earth .

We have to distinguish between three time periods:
1. The time of the Old Testament.
2. The time of the New Testament (this age).
3. The time of the future age (after the Second Coming of Christ).

Ad. 1. There was:
- Heaven (unaproachable even for the righteous),
- Earth,
- Sheol / Hades / Abyss:
 * Bosom of Abraham (for the righteous),
 * Sheol / Hades / Abyss proper (named Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4) (for the sinners).

Ad. 2. There is:
- Heaven,
- Earth,
- Sheol / Hades / Tartarus / Abyss.

Ad. 3. There will be:
- New Heaven,
- New Earth (with New Jerusalem as the dwelling for the Saints),
- Gehenna / Hell / Second Death / Lake of Fire (where Hades of the current time period will be cast).

Dan-Romania, just look it up in the Bible, but make sure it's in original languages or at least that it sticks to the original terminology.

[Mickey]

We have to distinguish between three time periods:
1. The time of the Old Testament.
2. The time of the New Testament (this age).
3. The time of the future age (after the Second Coming of Christ).

Ad. 1. There was:
- Heaven (unaproachable even for the righteous),
- Earth,
- Sheol / Hades / Abyss:
 * Bosom of Abraham (for the righteous),
 * Sheol / Hades / Abyss proper (named Tartarus in 2 Peter 2:4) (for the sinners).

Ad. 2. There is:
- Heaven,
- Earth,
- Sheol / Hades / Tartarus / Abyss.

Ad. 3. There will be:
- New Heaven,
- New Earth (with New Jerusalem as the dwelling for the Saints),
- Gehenna / Hell / Second Death / Lake of Fire (where Hades of the current time period will be cast).

Dan-Romania, just look it up in the Bible, but make sure it's in original languages or at least that it sticks to the original terminology.

Isn't the term "the bosom of Abraham" used in the New Testament for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?

[Michał]

Isn't the term "the bosom of Abraham" used in the New Testament for the parable of Lazarus and the rich man?

Yes, it is. But, although it is used in one of the Books of the New Testament, it reffers to the post-mortem condition of the righteous who died during the period of the Old Testament (Old Covenant). It's the same as with John the Baptist. Although he appears in the Books of the New Testament, he is still an Old Testament (Old Covenant) prophet.

[ialmisry]

^ Yet we find it in the council of Jerusalem. So then, is the council of Jerusalem a heretical council from an EO perspective?

St. Mark spoke from, in and to the perspective of Orthodoxy.  Dositheos was railing against your Calvinist siblings (whose catechism was mandatory in Orthodox Transylvania, thanks to the Calvinist ruler), and borrowed an argument from the Vatican, for the simple reason that the Orthodox didn't really have a dog in the fight between the Calvinists and the Vatican (proven by the Calvinist rulers and Latin elite in Transylvania trying to bulk up their rule with the Orthodox masses), but the Calvinists were more wrong on this issue.

Dositheus wrote a LOT more than the Confession adopted at Jerusalem.  Maybe a little context would do you some good....

And yet my question remains unanswered. Was the council of Jerusalem heretical?

No, it's not heretical.

And no, it's not Orthodox.

Happy?

I found this:

The purpose of this Confession of Dositheos, Patriarch of Jerusalem, also was to oppose the Roman and Calvinistic influences. It expresses the orthodox spirit of faith in 18 dogmas, with four questions. This Confession was issued in 13 editions in a short period of time. It is considered one of the major pronouncements of the Orthodox Faith, and an important source of Church teaching.

I found this as well:

Dositheus is a “great teacher” of the Church, according to Tradition in the Orthodox Church, at the website of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America and elsewhere:
There are the writings and Confessions of Faith written by great teachers of the Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Examples might include the letter of Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441) to all Orthodox Christians; the correspondence of Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople with the German Reformers (1573-1581); the council of Jerusalem (1672) and the Confession of Faith by Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672), and the writings of St. Nicodemos of the Holy Mountain, who published the Rudder, a book of great canonical and theological importance (1800).

So what gives? Is this a canonical, and accepted council in the Orthodox Church, or not ialmisry?

These excerpts can be found here:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/ConfessionOfDositheus.html

As far as not being heretical, yes it is Orthodox.


As far as reflecting Orthodox thought, its unorthodox, for the simple reason that it is making arguments over a problem not in Orthodoxy but rather the heterodox.

Dositheos wrote of number of Orthodox things, for instance on the canons on autocephaly:
http://books.google.com/books?id=qCctAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA686&lpg=PA686&dq=history+of+the+church+of+cyprus+dositheos&source=bl&ots=a45rALRZ0j&sig=VsZw34GrYw6HybaDTaptyQEKGRo&hl=en&ei=OB8DSsX5D5WclQfGjN3bBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA250,M1

instructions to the Orthodox Metropolitan of Transylvania:
http://www.archive.org/stream/historyoforthodo00dampuoft/historyoforthodo00dampuoft_djvu.txt

and the introduction to the Bible of Bucharest 1688 (the King James Version of Romanian).
http://www.crestinortodox.ro/editoriale/70436-biblia-de-la-bucuresti-1688
(Romanian).
(Pat. Dositheos makes and interesting reference to Wulfinas, not as an Arian, but as the translator of the Bible into Gothic (which he did in what is now Romania, a rather insightful tidbit picked up by Dositheos).

Those are more representative of the Orthodox phronema of the Fathers.  Using the Vatican's arguments against the Calvinists, not so much.

[Papist]

The constant faith of the Church affirms the belief in purgatory.

The constant faith of the Church affirms prayers for the dead, not purgatory.

Come now. Even the Eastern Church once taught the doctrine of purgatory. Rember the councilf of Jerusalem.

[Michał]

Come now. Even the Eastern Church once taught the doctrine of purgatory. Rember the councilf of Jerusalem.

Please, do not put this Western, non-biblical and non-patristic term, into the mouth of the fathers of the council of Jerusalem.

[Mickey]

Yes, it is. But, although it is used in one of the Books of the New Testament, it reffers to the post-mortem condition of the righteous who died during the period of the Old Testament (Old Covenant). It's the same as with John the Baptist. Although he appears in the Books of the New Testament, he is still an Old Testament (Old Covenant) prophet.

So when St John says, "hell" in the following quote, he is referring to "hades"?

St. John Chrysostom:
“As it made the poor man’s affliction heavier while he lived to lie before the rich man’s gate and to behold the prosperity of others, so when the rich man was dead it added to his desolation that he lay in hell and saw the happiness of Lazarus. He felt not only the nature of his own torments but also his own punishment the more intolerable by comparing it to Lazarus’ honor.”

[stanley123]

Nor in my language romanian : there is no distinguish between hell and hades , they are both named "Iad"  or "Infern" . We don`t have a sinomin for hades other the hell . Also a sinonim for hell (Iad) we have it "gheena" . Also romanian orthodox theology afaik teaches only the existence of hell and heaven . As I understand this is not only in romanian but in other languages also . I kind of deny the existance of another kind of dimension , another kind of "hell" . There is hell and heaven . And between hell and heaven is earth .

Although there is only one hell and one heaven, and Romanian does not use hades for hell,  still, is it not true that the Romanian language has three words for heaven?
rai
paradis
in ceruri
?

[Michał]

So when St John says, "hell" in the following quote, he is referring to "hades"?

Yes. And it's probably not St John, but the person who translated his words from Greek to English.

[Mickey]

Yes. And it's probably not St John, but the person who translated his words from Greek to English.

Interesting. I'll have to look into this. St Nicholai Velimirovic also uses the word "hell".  And so does Pope John Paul II (in reference to the parable).

[stanley123]

Yes. And it's probably not St John, but the person who translated his words from Greek to English.

Interesting. I'll have to look into this. St Nicholai Velimirovic also uses the word "hell".  And so does Pope John Paul II.

Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in hell, so when it appears in their Bible, they translate it differently. For example, Matthew 25: 44 Then they also will answer with the words, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them with the words, ‘Truly I say to YOU, To the extent that YOU did not do it to one of these least ones, YOU did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will depart into everlasting cutting-off, but the righteous ones into everlasting life.”
So according to them, hell is the everlasting cutting off.

[Michał]

Interesting. I'll have to look into this. St Nicholai Velimirovic also uses the word "hell".  And so does Pope John Paul II.

We have to remember that the original meaning of "hell" was not "gehenna" but "hades". English Translators of the Bible and other Christian texts followed the LXX and New Testament tradition of translating the Hebrew "sheol" into a name of the adobe of the dead or god of the dead appearing in the mythology of a given nation. Just like LXX tranlators and NT authors adopted Hellenistic Hades and Tartarus, English translators adopted Germanic (Norse to be precise) Hel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(being)).

[Mickey]

We have to remember that the original meaning of "hell" was not "gehenna" but "hades". English Translators of the Bible and other Christian texts followed the LXX and New Testament tradition of translating the Hebrew "sheol" into a name of the adobe of the dead or god of the dead appearing in the mythology of a given nation. Just like LXX tranlators and NT authors adopted Hellenistic Hades and Tartarus, English translators adopted Germanic (Norse to be precise) Hel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_(being)).

So "hell" is usually synonymous with "gehenna" but it used to be synonymous with "hades". It's all very confusing. I have heard many RC's talk about "hades" being synonymous with purgatory. 

[Dan-Romania]

Nor in my language romanian : there is no distinguish between hell and hades , they are both named "Iad"  or "Infern" . We don`t have a sinomin for hades other the hell . Also a sinonim for hell (Iad) we have it "gheena" . Also romanian orthodox theology afaik teaches only the existence of hell and heaven . As I understand this is not only in romanian but in other languages also . I kind of deny the existance of another kind of dimension , another kind of "hell" . There is hell and heaven . And between hell and heaven is earth .

Although there is only one hell and one heaven, and Romanian does not use hades for hell,  still, is it not true that the Romanian language has three words for heaven?
rai
paradis
in ceruri
?

yes they are synonims
Rai = Heaven
Paradis = Paradise (Paradisio)
In Ceruri = In the Skies (in Heavens)

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Dear Papist,
    I resume some old piece of discussion with Mickey for the sake of clarification.

Quote from: Mickey on May 06, 2009, 11:58:02 AM
Quote from: Papist on May 06, 2009, 11:51:35 AM
the EO church is either more like the Catholic Church than some would like to admit or the EO Church used to be much more like the Catholic Church than it currently is.


Wrong on both counts.

When the RC church was Orthodox, She had the correct teaching. But now that the Latin church has separated herself and declared new and innovative doctrines, She is much further from the fulness of truth.

I know you feel this way but I simply do not agree with your assessment. There was a time that I thought, "Maybe the EO's are right." But the past few months on this board have convinced me that that is simply not the case. The following innovations are reasons why I believe what I do:
1. The rejection of the atonement
2. The rejection of the simplicity of God
3. The rejection of original sin
4. The rejection of Papal primacy
5. The rejection of purgatory
6. The rejection of Mary as "All Holy"
7. The rejection of the Filioque
etc. ad infinitum (well maybe not infinitum   ).

I find all of your argumentations don't completely match the point.

1. The doctrine of atonement is more protestant then originally Catholic, and anyway we prefer a "mystical" approach to this subject. The doctrine was never issued in the Ecumenical Councils, but I'll like to get informed on this and see if at least the Church Fathers favour the Western view on the subject.
2. Do you really think that a Trinity with the Son having one principle and the Holy Spirit needing two principles SHOULD BE CONSIDERED simpler then a Trinity with only one principle (the Father)? I subscribe to the second one as the "simplest description of the Trinity".
3. We don't reject original sin - we reject the consequences you drew from this doctrine (such as the transmission of guilt).
4. We wouldn't reject the Papal primacy, if there were any "actual" Orthodox Pope. At this time the Church has no true successor of st. Peter since your Popes are heretic. I'll translate for you in English some passages from Roman Catholic saints and theologians showing how your doctrine of Papal Infallibility was thought of as a "limited" power - a ministry subject to the power of the Ecumenical Councils, who could prove a Pope to be heretic and have him automatically deposed, excommunicated and recognized as an antipope. If necessary I'll put them in a more appropriate thread specifical on Papal Infallibility.
5. Purgatory as a THIRD state is not only unnecessary for salvation, but is a typical theologumenon of the Latin Church. What is necessary is to believe in immortality of the soul, the destination of the souls between Heaven and Hell, Personal Judgment and Universal Judgment, and obviously the effectiveness of prayers for the dead.
6. We still believe that Mary is All-Holy since we call her with this title every day at the Divine Liturgy. Yet, we don't need to discuss when and why she began to be all-holy like in your IC doctrine. Let's leave it to God...
7. The Filioque was not present in the Creed of Nicaea and Constantinople. Maybe you could have proclaimed this dogma through a valid Ecumenical Council and you would have been listened with no reproach. Your unilateral addition creates an irregular (not necessarily heretical at the moment of the addition) version of the Creed. And your pope John VIII (infallible according to you) was of the opinion that the Filioque clause was to be rejected as he signed the decisions of the 8th Ecumenical Council ("our" Constantinople V).

In Christ,    Alex

[Michał]

We wouldn't reject the Papal primacy, if there were any "actual" Orthodox Pope. At this time the Church has no true successor of st. Peter since your Popes are heretic.

There is no "actual" Orthodox Pope of Rome. But there is the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. And at this time the Church has no true successor of St. Peter in Rome. But She does have true successors of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

I do completely agree with your conclusions, dear Michał. As I love to say as often as I can, I consider myself "a sedevacantist since 1054". There's no true Successor of Peter and Pope of Rome since the Schism of 1054, so the Holy See is vacant. As pope st. Gregory pointed out, the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch share the same ministry as the Pope of Rome, being all successors (materially in Antioch and ideally in Alexandria) of the same st Peter. And since the same ministry was recognized by the Church Fathers in the ecumenical councils to the Sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem, they also share the same activity.
In truth, the True Church proved that could survive without any Papal primacy... Yet let's pray the Lord that in the end the Holy See of Rome might be restored in its orthodoxy. Amen!
In Christ,    Alex

[Mickey]

Yet let's pray the Lord that in the end the Holy See of Rome might be restored in its orthodoxy. Amen!

Amen, my brother!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

Amen, Amen, Amen!

[PoorFoolNicholas]

As far as not being heretical, yes it is Orthodox. As far as reflecting Orthodox thought, its unorthodox,
for the simple reason that it is making arguments over a problem not in Orthodoxy but rather the heterodox.

So it is not held as authoratative in any way by the greater Orthodox World? Is this what you are saying?

[ialmisry]

I do completely agree with your conclusions, dear Michał. As I love to say as often as I can, I consider myself "a sedevacantist since 1054".

I like it.

There's no true Successor of Peter and Pope of Rome since the Schism of 1054, so the Holy See is vacant. As pope st. Gregory pointed out, the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch share the same ministry as the Pope of Rome, being all successors (materially in Antioch and ideally in Alexandria) of the same st Peter. And since the same ministry was recognized by the Church Fathers in the ecumenical councils to the Sees of Constantinople and Jerusalem, they also share the same activity.
In truth, the True Church proved that could survive without any Papal primacy... Yet let's pray the Lord that in the end the Holy See of Rome might be restored in its orthodoxy. Amen!
In Christ,    Alex

Amen! Amen! Amen!

To repost something on this subject:

When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...esult#PPA86,M1
p. 86

When the pope of Rome 4 centuries latter wrote a letter addressed to the Orthodox Faithful in an attempt to go over the Patriarchs heads, the Patriarchs responded:

In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold...Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way...But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, "Peter has thus spoken by Leo." It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo...Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not...And thus all in succession: "The epistle corresponds," "the epistle is consonant,"the epistle agrees in sense," and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

Archbishop Hilarion quotes St. Simeon of Thessalonica....

The issue with the Vatican model is that it makes the Apostles not the font of the episcopacy, but St. Peter's appointees, and all bishops not the successors of the Apostles, but acolytes of the Successors of St. Peter.

[Dan-Romania]

First restore orthodox to orthodoxy , and Amen Amen . Do you think that would ever happen ?

[NorthernPines]

We wouldn't reject the Papal primacy, if there were any "actual" Orthodox Pope. At this time the Church has no true successor of st. Peter since your Popes are heretic.

There is no "actual" Orthodox Pope of Rome. But there is the Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. And at this time the Church has no true successor of St. Peter in Rome. But She does have true successors of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.

Which Pope of Alexandria? There are "2" you know, and only one of them is legitimate. Even though I'm EO, I consider Pope Shenouda III the legitimate Successor of St. Mark, and the EO Pope simply having been (wrongly) installed by the Byzantine Empire in order to impose their rule on the Egyptian Church.

 I'm not trying to turn this into an argument or debate about who's legit and who's not, but it's important to keep in mind (since you're using the argument) that this is slippery ground. I for one would never say, Rome doesn't have have a true Successor of St. Peter . . . . and I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Church, EO or OO has never claimed such a thing. But I could be wrong on that. I mean, when did Rome lose it's "Succession"? Did it lose it when it "fell into heresy"? If that's the case then Constantinople cannot be a Successor to anyone since the Byzantine Church and it's Patriarchs fell into heresy multiple times, especially during Iconoclasm.

I'm honestly not trying to derail the thread, or begin an argument here, I just think it's important to remember history runs both ways, that's all.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Dear NorthernPines,
I can understand what u mean and I often wonder the same thing. Actually I think of them both being "two patriarchs on the same See". Recently, the declaration of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III show how his interpretation of the nature of Christ is fully in line with that of st. Cyril of Alexandria - and since I esteem this great saint, I judge him to be fully Orthodox. Many of his predecessors abused of st Cyril's words, but Shenouda shows to be a greater pastor for his flock. In other words, he is just a good non-canonical Orthodox leader- as there are many even among the Chalcedonian Churches. If one day His Holiness would decide to bring his Patriarchate back to full communion with us, I'd be the first one to acknowledge him as the true and only Pope of Alexandria. Actually the Orthodox Patriarch serves more as a "vicar" of the legitimate Pope of Alexandria until the future reconciliation, which I highly pray for.
As for Constantinople - your also right. That Church has fallen multiple times into heresy. Even the attitude of the actual Patriarch Bartholomew sometimes seems to be too much "open" to a destructive ecumenism, which i completely reject. To tell the truth, I rather prefer the See of Moscow the Third Rome, both for the choice to reject ecumenism (this could be seen even at the Council of Ferrara and Firenze) but also for the preservation of the traditional Old Calendar, which I praise for its beauty and harmony - indeed a fruit of the Holy Spirit!
The truth is one: The church of God has only one Head, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Each bishop (be he just an ordinary bishop, or an archbishop or metropolitan, or even a patriarch) is responsible for his own actions; each bishop (as st Ignatius of Antioch affirms) is a living icon of Christ in the diocese... but even icons can be corrupted by time and mis-care... The Church is made primarily of men who are called to co-operate with God to be the New Kingdom. They can fall at any time, but the Church will never follow in heresy since the beloved of God can recognize a good shepherd and an evil shepherd. The same Council of Florence, originally held by the hierarchy, proved to be fake thanks to its denial by the laymen, the people of God, His anointed priesthood!

Posted on: Today at 11:08:57 AMPosted by: Dan-Romania 
Insert Quote
First restore orthodox to orthodoxy , and Amen Amen . Do you think that would ever happen ? 

I'm sure there will be a last true "Peter" in Rome who will give the keys of Hell back to Jesus... and he will not try to have them by divine right, but he will consider them as a temporary gift. He will acknowledge how his predecessors made evil things, abusing the power they had been given, and he'll drop the keys voluntarily, finding himself unworthy of such a gift, and thus meriting them more then all the other Popes in history!
I can't deny it: I fell Orthodox, but still am fond of the Latin Church. I love the great saints it has produced (especially st Ambrose) and even some post-schism Roman saints such as Francis of Assisi, a true "fool in Christ"... and even a great Pope as John XXIII, who was born some 7-8 km from my home.
I'm definitely sure God will restore the Patriarchate of the West in its original form before the Last Judgment comes.

Now, maybe we'd better get back to the original thread, don't you think?

In Christ,  Alex

[PoorFoolNicholas]

As far as not being heretical, yes it is Orthodox. As far as reflecting Orthodox thought, its unorthodox,
for the simple reason that it is making arguments over a problem not in Orthodoxy but rather the heterodox.

So it is not held as authoratative in any way by the greater Orthodox World? Is this what you are saying?

ialmisry, hello, ialmisry?

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Oh, sorry I forgot something important to say...

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument or debate about who's legit and who's not, but it's important to keep in mind (since you're using the argument) that this is slippery ground. I for one would never say, Rome doesn't have have a true Successor of St. Peter . . . . and I'm pretty sure the Orthodox Church, EO or OO has never claimed such a thing. But I could be wrong on that. I mean, when did Rome lose it's "Succession"? Did it lose it when it "fell into heresy"? If that's the case then Constantinople cannot be a Successor to anyone since the Byzantine Church and it's Patriarchs fell into heresy multiple times, especially during Iconoclasm.

I personally never thought of a "loss of Succession". Just of a "loss of infallibility". Many RC theologians themselves clearly believed (even at the 1st Vatican Council) that the Pope was infallible but always subject to the Ecumenical Councils. This infallibility went lost in 1014, when pope Benedict VIII sang the Creed with the Filioque addition for the first time. Of course in 1054 the situation came just to an event horizon: no way back to orthodoxy since then... At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".

In Christ,   Alex

[ialmisry]

As far as not being heretical, yes it is Orthodox. As far as reflecting Orthodox thought, its unorthodox,
for the simple reason that it is making arguments over a problem not in Orthodoxy but rather the heterodox.

So it is not held as authoratative in any way by the greater Orthodox World? Is this what you are saying?

ialmisry, hello, ialmisry?

Hello.

Yes, it's authoritative in that it is persuasive, but not in that it is controlling.  It's of use to counter Calvinists (and their spawn, the Evangelicals), but otherwise not much use.  We base our theology on the consensus of the Fathers, not our answers to heretics. You would be better to read something of St. Symeon the New Theologian or such.

[stanley123]

At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".

I am not sure who is supposed to have the authority to make all these decisions and determinations according your point of view. For example, you say here that the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop. But I have read where some Orhtodox do not accept the Catholic baptism and other Catholic sacraments. In their view the Bishop of Rome who you say is a valid bishop, would be only a lay person.
I could be wrong here, but it looks like there is serious disagreement in the Orthodoc Church on this issue and there is not universal agreement on who is the final authority in the Orthodox Church?  Are Orthodox allowed to pick and choose what they will believe with reference to whether or not the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop or whether or not the Catholic baptism is acceptable?

[ialmisry]

At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".

I am not sure who is supposed to have the authority to make all these decisions and determinations according your point of view. For example, you say here that the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop. But I have read where some Orhtodox do not accept the Catholic baptism and other Catholic sacraments. In their view the Bishop of Rome who you say is a valid bishop, would be only a lay person.
I could be wrong here, but it looks like there is serious disagreement in the Orthodoc Church on this issue and there is not universal agreement on who is the final authority in the Orthodox Church?  Are Orthodox allowed to pick and choose what they will believe with reference to whether or not the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop or whether or not the Catholic baptism is acceptable?

We don't concern ourselves with what happens outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church, so in the case in point, until the pope of Rome confesses the Orthodox Faith and repents, or the Orthodox Church decides to restore Rome to communion with a restored hiearchy, members  are pretty free to think anything they want.  Except that the pope or those in submission to him can commune at our chalice.

[stanley123]

At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".

I am not sure who is supposed to have the authority to make all these decisions and determinations according your point of view. For example, you say here that the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop. But I have read where some Orhtodox do not accept the Catholic baptism and other Catholic sacraments. In their view the Bishop of Rome who you say is a valid bishop, would be only a lay person.
I could be wrong here, but it looks like there is serious disagreement in the Orthodoc Church on this issue and there is not universal agreement on who is the final authority in the Orthodox Church?  Are Orthodox allowed to pick and choose what they will believe with reference to whether or not the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop or whether or not the Catholic baptism is acceptable?

We don't concern ourselves with what happens outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church, so in the case in point, until the pope of Rome confesses the Orthodox Faith and repents, or the Orthodox Church decides to restore Rome to communion with a restored hiearchy, members  are pretty free to think anything they want.  Except that the pope or those in submission to him can commune at our chalice.

But who would be the final authority on that. For example, suppose one part of the Orthodox Church decided to restore Rome to communion with a restored hierarchy, but another part of the Orthodox Church did not agree with said restoration.

[ignatius]

At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".

I am not sure who is supposed to have the authority to make all these decisions and determinations according your point of view. For example, you say here that the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop. But I have read where some Orhtodox do not accept the Catholic baptism and other Catholic sacraments. In their view the Bishop of Rome who you say is a valid bishop, would be only a lay person.
I could be wrong here, but it looks like there is serious disagreement in the Orthodoc Church on this issue and there is not universal agreement on who is the final authority in the Orthodox Church?  Are Orthodox allowed to pick and choose what they will believe with reference to whether or not the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop or whether or not the Catholic baptism is acceptable?

We don't concern ourselves with what happens outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church, so in the case in point, until the pope of Rome confesses the Orthodox Faith and repents, or the Orthodox Church decides to restore Rome to communion with a restored hiearchy, members  are pretty free to think anything they want.  Except that the pope or those in submission to him can commune at our chalice.

But who would be the final authority on that. For example, suppose one part of the Orthodox Church decided to restore Rome to communion with a restored hierarchy, but another part of the Orthodox Church did not agree with said restoration.

Grace and Peace,

Honestly this just can't happen. It would ultimately lead to greater and greater schisms. It's been happening from the beginning and those who don't wish union will choose schism over union with what they perceive as 'darkness'.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Insert Quote
Quote from: stanley123 on Yesterday at 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: ialmisry on Yesterday at 08:53:55 PM
Quote from: stanley123 on Yesterday at 05:04:50 PM
Quote from: AlexanderOfBergamo on Yesterday at 02:55:31 PM
At this time there's a valid bishop of Rome, ordered within an heterodox and non-canonical communion of churches in a valid apostolic succession, who illegitimatly claims to be the legitimate "Pope of Rome".
I am not sure who is supposed to have the authority to make all these decisions and determinations according your point of view. For example, you say here that the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop. But I have read where some Orhtodox do not accept the Catholic baptism and other Catholic sacraments. In their view the Bishop of Rome who you say is a valid bishop, would be only a lay person.
I could be wrong here, but it looks like there is serious disagreement in the Orthodoc Church on this issue and there is not universal agreement on who is the final authority in the Orthodox Church?  Are Orthodox allowed to pick and choose what they will believe with reference to whether or not the bishop of Rome is a valid bishop or whether or not the Catholic baptism is acceptable?



We don't concern ourselves with what happens outside of the Orthodox Catholic Church, so in the case in point, until the pope of Rome confesses the Orthodox Faith and repents, or the Orthodox Church decides to restore Rome to communion with a restored hiearchy, members  are pretty free to think anything they want.  Except that the pope or those in submission to him can commune at our chalice.

But who would be the final authority on that. For example, suppose one part of the Orthodox Church decided to restore Rome to communion with a restored hierarchy, but another part of the Orthodox Church did not agree with said restoration.

Ecumenical Councils exist exactly for that purpose. The fact that those who have been only "chrismated" in some Orthodox Churches have also been considered fully orthodox even by those who re-baptise RCs is to me a sufficient proof that those sacraments might have some value. As ialmisry correctly said, until the problem of a re-conversion of the Latins to Orthodoxy doesn't come out, each bishop or hierarch might decide for his own, and each Orthodox Christian should study the problem privately, with the assistence of the spiritual father and the reading of the Church Fathers and Holy Canons. Of course the question you showed was also faced in the past with question of the lapsi, when even within the true Church there were discussions and divisions.
As for me, I consider sacraments to have two different kinds of grace behind them: a "passive" grace on one side and an "active" grace on the other. For example, baptism gives two kinds of grace: the passive grace of being adopted as children of God, and an active grace of being nourished by Christ's power. You can still be a child of your father but still live outside of your family, as the prodigal son did. RCs are in my eyes exactly like this: they are heirs of the Father who decided to abandon their natural family (the Church). Does God forbid they're His children? I don't think so. Does God still nourish them while they're outside of the family? No, he can't as they refused to live in their house, or at least he can't until they come back home.

The only problem I can't overcome when discussing a possible return of the Pope to Holy Orthodoxy is this: if the Pope has been followed by most Western Christians because of his claim of infallibility and authority, but we Orthodox acknowledge the necessity that he should renounce this doctrine of infallibility and the doctrines that the popes proclaimed ex cathedra, who would follow a self-proclaimed fallible Pope coming back to Orthodoxy?
The problem remains, but hope can't be lost.

In Christ,   Alex

[NorthernPines]

Dear NorthernPines,
I can understand what u mean and I often wonder the same thing. Actually I think of them both being "two patriarchs on the same See". Recently, the declaration of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III show how his interpretation of the nature of Christ is fully in line with that of st. Cyril of Alexandria - and since I esteem this great saint, I judge him to be fully Orthodox. Many of his predecessors abused of st Cyril's words, but Shenouda shows to be a greater pastor for his flock. In other words, he is just a good non-canonical Orthodox leader- as there are many even among the Chalcedonian Churches. If one day His Holiness would decide to bring his Patriarchate back to full communion with us, I'd be the first one to acknowledge him as the true and only Pope of Alexandria. Actually the Orthodox Patriarch serves more as a "vicar" of the legitimate Pope of Alexandria until the future reconciliation, which I highly pray for.
As for Constantinople - your also right. That Church has fallen multiple times into heresy. Even the attitude of the actual Patriarch Bartholomew sometimes seems to be too much "open" to a destructive ecumenism, which i completely reject. To tell the truth, I rather prefer the See of Moscow the Third Rome, both for the choice to reject ecumenism (this could be seen even at the Council of Ferrara and Firenze) but also for the preservation of the traditional Old Calendar, which I praise for its beauty and harmony - indeed a fruit of the Holy Spirit!
The truth is one: The church of God has only one Head, Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour. Each bishop (be he just an ordinary bishop, or an archbishop or metropolitan, or even a patriarch) is responsible for his own actions; each bishop (as st Ignatius of Antioch affirms) is a living icon of Christ in the diocese... but even icons can be corrupted by time and mis-care... The Church is made primarily of men who are called to co-operate with God to be the New Kingdom. They can fall at any time, but the Church will never follow in heresy since the beloved of God can recognize a good shepherd and an evil shepherd. The same Council of Florence, originally held by the hierarchy, proved to be fake thanks to its denial by the laymen, the people of God, His anointed priesthood!

Thank you for your words, and indeed, I truly consider them words of wisdom. Thank you for a truly Christian post, that I hope can teach me to see the "bigger" picture of the Church, as sometimes I have a hard time doing.


Not sure if I'm doing this right, but I nominate Alex's post for Post of the Month.

[Salpy]

Dear NorthernPines,
I can understand what u mean and I often wonder the same thing. Actually I think of them both being "two patriarchs on the same See". Recently, the declaration of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III show how his interpretation of the nature of Christ is fully in line with that of st. Cyril of Alexandria - and since I esteem this great saint, I judge him to be fully Orthodox. Many of his predecessors abused of st Cyril's words, but Shenouda shows to be a greater pastor for his flock. In other words, he is just a good non-canonical Orthodox leader- as there are many even among the Chalcedonian Churches. If one day His Holiness would decide to bring his Patriarchate back to full communion with us, I'd be the first one to acknowledge him as the true and only Pope of Alexandria. Actually the Orthodox Patriarch serves more as a "vicar" of the legitimate Pope of Alexandria until the future reconciliation, which I highly pray for.

I don't want to derail the thread, or start a debate that would be better fit for the private forum.  However, Pope Shenouda is not viewed by any OO's as deviating in any way from the tradition of his predecessors.