Author Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness  (Read 79401 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
I do hope that the Great Council will take this up, as well as irregularities in the middle east,  and dare i say it? the calendar issue. I know that none of that is on the agenda however, I would imagine that anything could be introduced from the floor.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia? if this is so are they not out of step with the rest of Orthodoxy? I was under the impression that the widespread use of economia in the russian Church had to do with the reacceptance of eastern catholics. One priest I met railed against vesting and said that it may have been appropriate in the 17th century Russia but that it no longer has a place in the Church. Personally, I think the Serbian Church has it right. I am heartned to see this in one of your posts: BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a radical rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.

Do you think that Archbishop Hilarion and the Moscow Patriarchate are unaware of these things thereby allowing Archbishop Hilarion to state categorically that the Catholic Church has valid sacraments?

I understand from comments on this list and other Orthodox venues that the laity have the power to remove any heretical bishop in Orthodoxy?  Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?

He also has a book on the Internet that you can google as a Russian catechism.  In it are many teachings that seem to compare very favorably to what I know of Catholic teaching.  That would be further indictment I would think...but it is on an official RO website, so I do quite understand why that would be allowed?

Mary
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 12:35:38 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia?

Yes.  This is not an unusual position.  For example, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod of bishops accept the validity of the sacrament of Orders in the Catholic Church and regard the Pope and all the RC bishops as true and authentic bishops who minster to their flocks true and authentic sacraments.   

There simply is no unified view.  I believe that we have to say that openly.

If you have the time, a small study of this monograph by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin should be interesting and illuminating. Father Amvrossy was a very scholarly man and so well respected that he was chosen as one of the four delegates sent by Metropolitan Philaret, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, as an observer at the Second Vatican Council in Rome.
 
"On the reception into the Orthodox Church"
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 12:47:12 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office. 

I expect also that he and Pope Benedict see eye to eye on many things in that regard.

I cannot say the same for all current members of the Roman Curia or the College of Bishops, and I am including all particular Churches when I speak of the College of Bishops.

That variety in opinion and attitude has its parallels in Orthodoxy as well from what I can see.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office. 
 

No, Elijahmaria, read my lipz.  He is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy.

Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Fr. Thank you for all the information. I feel truly blessed to have found this forum and the many wise contributors such as yourself. I do like Metropolitan Hilarion though I stand by my belief that there are no sacraments out side the church. This does not mean however, that if a the Church were to come to a agreed statement I would not recognize it. Of course I would submit myself to its authority. As for Auxilliary Metropolitan John I think he is perhaps not the best person for the job. I often wonder why it seems that we have no end of discussions with Romans but can't seem to work anything out with the old calendarists.
It seems that many of the Bishops that I understood or identified with have been called home.
Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office.  
 

No, Elijahmaria, read my lipz.  He is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy.

Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..

Indeed!!  I have read all of the documents you've referenced.

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.

None of us know the possibilities for the Future, in Christ.

Mary
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 01:08:06 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  


Apparently the recognition of Catholic sacraments is an action of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to Father Ambrose, and not an act of economy.

I do think it is important for Catholics to be able to distinguish between what is assertion and what is actual fact in what often becomes common parlance among Orthodox faithful.

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.


Please see message 17.  It will show you how are far afield you are in understanding the Metropolitan

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.msg300946.html#msg300946

Do you write for Zenit?  They also put a pro-papal spin on every news item concerning the Orthodox.  They sometimes give the impression that union is happening before lunchtime tomorrow and the Pope is summoning the Patriarchs to the Vatican to make their obeisance..
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 01:44:46 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  


Apparently the recognition of Catholic sacraments is an action of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to Father Ambrose, and not an act of economy.

I do think it is important for Catholics to be able to distinguish between what is assertion and what is actual fact in what often becomes common parlance among Orthodox faithful.

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary

The Synod of Bishops would almost always deal with this issue first as it would be aware of any problems as they are kept informed by the laity. One could look to the OCA which has removed its Primate and the Bishop of Alaska in the last few years. The Synod thought it best to forcibly retire both. The Laity made their concerns known and the Synod exercised its authority.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary

If a hierarch or clergyman is accused of committing an ecclesiastical crime, it is up to the Spiritual Courts and the decision of the Holy Synod as to whether the clergyman or hierarch is to be formally tried and punished.

It is not a decision that is made by public opinion.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.


Please see message 17.  It will show you how are far afield you are in understanding the Metropolitan

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.msg300946.html#msg300946

Do you write for Zenit?  They also put a pro-papal spin on every news item concerning the Orthodox.  They sometimes give the impression that union is happening before lunchtime tomorrow and the Pope is summoning the Patriarchs to the Vatican to make their obeisance..

I don't think in these ways at all Father.  I remain hopeful and leave the sour stomachs to others.

Mary

Offline BoredMeeting

  • Loving the Life of a Council Member
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 722
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 02:44:21 PM by Wyatt »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary

Mary,

From having many conversations on the internet with both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, it certainly seems to me that Catholics are more open to dialog and unity than the Orthodox are. Has that been your experience too?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary

Mary,

From having many conversations on the internet with both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, it certainly seems to me that Catholics are more open to dialog and unity than the Orthodox are. Has that been your experience too?

Oh boy...Wyatt.  This one is tough to answer in a phrase or two.  I would say that the Internet has a preponderance of Orthodox who are either dead set against dialogue with Catholics at all or those who reject dialogue that might result in communion with no real alteration in teaching on the part of the Catholic Church.  We are looking at those who harbor some permutation of this now.  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.

But I have found, walking around in the world that this perspective is not the only one and may not even be the dominant one.

I hope that addresses your interest...I feel funny even saying this much and turning the people here on the Forum with us into third persons in a two way conversation....but there it is.

Mary

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Fr. Ambrose,
I have read the article on the reception of converts. I may need to read it again as it appeared that they are quoting a canon from the 2nd Ecumenical council that seems to contradict their arguement but then go on with their arguement as if there is full agreement. The part of the canon that seems to contradict their arguement is:

As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies - for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, - all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks [i.e., pagans]. Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]
 
This would seem to be against accepting roman sacraments. Romans have zero immersions, not a one. (I cannot speak for Eastern Catholics) The Filioque has attributed the Procession of the Holy Spirit to the Son instead of the Father alone which seems to be confusing their persons, and other abominable things :papacy, infallibility, etc. This part of the canon seems to apply to Latins more than the first portion:

Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves 'pure and better,' Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, 'seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Edit: On second look it appears there was some portion I missed I will read it and get back to you.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 04:31:42 PM by ICXCNIKA »
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Fr. Ambrose,
I have read the article on the reception of converts. I may need to read it again as it appeared that they are quoting a canon from the 2nd Ecumenical council that seems to contradict their arguement but then go on with their arguement as if there is full agreement. The part of the canon that seems to contradict their arguement is:

As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies - for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, - all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks [i.e., pagans]. Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]
 
This would seem to be against accepting roman sacraments. Romans have zero immersions, not a one. (I cannot speak for Eastern Catholics) The Filioque has attributed the Procession of the Holy Spirit to the Son instead of the Father alone which seems to be confusing their persons, and other abominable things :papacy, infallibility, etc. This part of the canon seems to apply to Latins more than the first portion:

Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves 'pure and better,' Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, 'seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Edit: On second look it appears there was some portion I missed I will read it and get back to you.

There's a whole thread active now on Orthodox baptisms that are not done by full immersion.

M.

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
There was actually quite a bit more to the article or articles. I thought it made a very strong historical arguement for accepting Roman baptism though I did not get the impression that it ever denied that it was through economia as St Basil stated. This gives me much to ponder. Does ROCA still baptize all converts?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
A. Fair enough, you think I am a heretic, I think you are a schismatic. Agree to disagree I suppose.

B. So, to Christ, only those within the visible boundaries of the True Church matter? In other words, to hell with the rest of them (no pun intended), eh? Don't you think it pains Christ to see Christians so divided, or do you think that Christ doesn't even consider anyone outside the boundaries of the True Church even a Christian?

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
A. Fair enough, you think I am a heretic, I think you are a schismatic. Agree to disagree I suppose.

B. So, to Christ, only those within the visible boundaries of the True Church matter? In other words, to hell with the rest of them (no pun intended), eh? Don't you think it pains Christ to see Christians so divided, or do you think that Christ doesn't even consider anyone outside the boundaries of the True Church even a Christian?

A) I do not consider you personally or romans in general to be heretics. On that we can agree. However, I find some of your beliefs to be in opposition to the beliefs of my Chuich and therefore were I to adopt them then I would be a heretic.
B) Everyone is loved by Christ and called by Him that does not mean they accept him or his Church. Nor is salvation only for those in the Visible Church. God will judge each of us it is not for me to assume. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few that would be considered Christians however, there are others where I find it difficult to understand as it seems that they preach another different Gospel. I cannot say more than that without running afowl of the forum's rules. I believe St Augustine said something about on the day of judgment people who think they are outside the church will find out that they are in it and some that think they are in the Church will find that they are outside of it.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
[
Oh boy...Wyatt.  This one is tough to answer in a phrase or two.  I would say that the Internet has a preponderance of Orthodox who are either dead set against dialogue with Catholics at all or those who reject dialogue that might result in communion with no real alteration in teaching on the part of the Catholic Church.  We are looking at those who harbor some permutation of this now.  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.


Dear Wyatt,

I would not want you to believe Mary who is saying that those of us who speak about necessary changes in the Roman Catholic Church are some sort of oddity among the Orthodox.  She is mistaken.

Here is the last official statement by the Orthodox of a list of errors the Roman Catholic Church needs to address and correct.

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.


Putting it very briefly and without nuancing it, the ultimate judge of this for the Orthodox will be not the bishops but the Church. 

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.


Putting it very briefly and without nuancing it, the ultimate judge of this for the Orthodox will be not the bishops but the Church. 

The same thing can be said for the Catholic Church.

However I will be happy for the opportunity to see how it works in Orthodoxy.

I was please to hear at least on person here say he would follow his bishop or the bishops of the Church.

That bodes well for mutual understanding among the faithful remnant.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  

Slavonic has been my bread and butter for many decades.  Russian and Serbian cannot distinguish linguistically between hades and hell.  There is one word -ad.

The term "Harrowing of Hades" is new to me.  It has been created in America to suit the various schemes of the afterlife which the American Orthodox seem to like to think about.   :laugh:

If you read the English translations of what is written on hell by Met Hilarion you will see that the translators use hell and hades interchangeably, even though in Russian he is using only one word (ad.)

Have a look at an extract from one of his article here.  There in an indiscriminate use of both "hades" and "hell" by the translators.

See Message 8 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26716.msg420385/topicseen.html#msg420385
« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 06:43:40 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

Does ROCA still baptize all converts?


It varies from diocese to diocese.

In 1972 when the question came up in Synod and some bishops wanted, as a counter to ecumenism, to mandate baptism for all converts regardless of origin there were other bishops who disagreed (Canada for example) and said that they would continue with the practices of pre-revolutionary Russia.  So the synodal resolution on the matter simply recommended baptism for all but left the decision in the hands of the local bishops.

In this diocese of Australia and New Zealand (mine) the policy of baptizing everybody was never adopted but the diocese stayed with the pre-revolutionary ways of doing things.  If you have a copy of the Hapgood service book you will find these various methods of reception detailed there.

Fr Ambrose
ROCA - Australia and New Zealand

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,814
  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.
From what I read, the Orthodox position is that: "... our Orthodox Church of Christ is always ready to accept any proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been 'privily brought in' to his Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches of the East and West, and would return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
It was my understanding that it is just a matter of precison due to the NT Greek where Hades = Sheol the abode or state of being dead and gehenna = hell or eternal damnation in the lake of fire. English really has the one word so they are just borrowing hades so that they can have the distinction. I could be wrong but this what they had in wikipedia:

In the New Testament
In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the promised, coming Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).[11] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).

Gehenna is also mentioned in the Epistle of James 3:6, where it is said to set the tongue on fire, and the tongue in turn sets on fire the entire "course" or "wheel" of life.

The complete list of references is as follows:

Matt.5:22 whoever calls someone "you fool" will be liable to Gehenna.
Matt.5:29 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
Matt.5:30 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
Matt.10:28 rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt.18:9 better to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna.
Matt.23:15 Pharisees make a convert twice as much a child of Gehenna as themselves.
Matt.23:33 to Pharisees: you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?
Mark 9:43 better to enter life with one hand than with two hands to go to Gehenna.
Mark 9:45 better to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
Mark 9:47 better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna
Luke 12:5 Fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into Gehenna
James 3:6 the tongue is set on fire by Gehenna.
[edit] Translations in Christian Bibles
The New Testament also refers to Hades as a temporary destination of the dead. Hades is portrayed as a different place from the final judgement of the damned in Gehenna. The Book of Revelation describes Hades being cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna) (Revelation 20:14). Hades the temporary place of the dead is said to be removed for ever and cast into the Lake of Fire commonly understood to be synonymous with Gehenna or the final Hell of the unsaved. This indicating that any who die after this would never go to a temporary place, Hades, just instead a final judgement of saved or condemned. The King James Version is the only English translation in modern use to translate Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna as Hell. The New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard Bible (among others) all reserve the term hell only for when Gehenna is used.

Treatment of Gehenna in Christianity is significantly affected by whether the distinction in Hebrew and Greek between Gehenna and Hades was maintained:

Translations with a distinction:

The New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard Bible, and basically every English translation except the King James in modern use, all reserve the term Hell only for when Gehenna is used. All translate Sheol and Hades in a different fashion. The exception to this is the New International Version's translation in Luke 16:23, which is its singular rendering of Hades as Hell.
The Arabic Van Dyke distinguishes Gehenna from Sheol.
In texts in Greek, and consistently in the Orthodox Church, the distinctions present in the originals were often maintained. The Russian Synodal Bible (and one translation by the Old Church Slavonic)also maintain the distinction.




Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  

Slavonic has been my bread and butter for many decades.  Russian and Serbian cannot distinguish linguistically between hades and hell.  There is one word -ad.

The term "Harrowing of Hades" is new to me.  It has been created in America to suit the various schemes of the afterlife which the American Orthodox seem to like to think about.   :laugh:

If you read the English translations of what is written on hell by Met Hilarion you will see that the translators use hell and hades interchangeably, even though in Russian he is using only one word (ad.)

Have a look at an extract from one of his article here.  There in an indiscriminate use of both "hades" and "hell" by the translators.

See Message 8 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26716.msg420385/topicseen.html#msg420385
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
Also, the historical timeline in that article seemed to mention the practices in Russia and Greece only. Did the Serbs/Bulgarians/Romanians also accept Roman baptism? And if so when did the Serbian Church stop?
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP
I saw this in the other forum on baptism:
From the Didache:

Quote
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

From this, it seems that, from earliest times, the Church has practised economy where the ideal could not be had, and that this was accepted as legitimate.  So there is no question, it seems to me, about whether true baptism can be performed by pouring.  The question is whether this concession to lack of resources/human weakness is to be taken advantage of where there is absolutely nothing preventing the baptism being done fully.  This seems a separate, but related, question.

This definitely changes how I read  "As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion,". I was wrong on this. However, I do think that does raise the question as whether it is an abuse.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

It was my understanding that it is just a matter of precison due to the NT Greek where Hades = Sheol the abode or state of being dead and gehenna = hell or eternal damnation in the lake of fire.



There is 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 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?

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
I
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

  3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:13:40 AM by elijahmaria »

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!


Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
The Popes ;D The Medieval ones Also.......... ;D
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 02:24:00 PM by stashko »
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”(Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun

Mary, in 2 Samuel 12, God kills the son of David in what would appear to be an illustration of the principle of "vindicatory punishment" taught by the Council of Trent (see above in red.)   Would Catholics assent to this interpretation of God's action?

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
from Catholic.com on 2 Sam 12 and purgatory  ( http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp )

Quote
Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)


Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

So why was the baby punished for his dad's sins? This seems in direct contradiction of Ezekiel Chp. 18 -- the soul that sins is the one that dies.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 04:28:18 PM by Dave in McKinney »

Offline ICXCNIKA

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,513
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Crimean Orthodox Church-MP

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!



Personality contest? I don't think this answers any of the genuine questions brought up by members of this forum. Is there a magesterial teaching or not? I am guessing since it keeps getting ignored there is not. Which is fine. I do not ever see our two respective communions being able to overcome our differences but we should still work together when we can.
Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.—Oscar Wilde

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”(Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun

Mary, in 2 Samuel 12, God kills the son of David in what would appear to be an illustration of the principle of "vindicatory punishment" taught by the Council of Trent (see above in red.)   Would Catholics assent to this interpretation of God's action?

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."


I have see apologists use it but I have never seen it used formally.

Also:  Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church teaches that God is the author of Old Testament evil?

Does Orthodoxy recognize this pericope or do you just eliminate it because it has the Lord striking a child?  Does Orthodoxy teach that the Lord of the Old Testament is not the same Lord of the New?

Are you suggesting that the judgment of the God of the Old Testament is lesser than the judgments of the God of the New?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was never harsh in his judgments?

The example that you offer above also is only one example used by apologists to illustrate the Tridentine teaching.  Here are others.

If you are going to use one, why not use them all? :

Quote
Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others


In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).

Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church

God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.

Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.


Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!



What makes the Orthodox wring their hands with horror is you quite openly state that what matters doctrinally is the present teachings of the Popes of the 21st century -John Paul II and Benedict XVI- and even such recent papal teaching as that of Pope Paul VI in 1967 may be quietly and politely relegated to the scrap heap as an historical curiosity.  As for what was taught by the Popes and holy men and women in previous centuries, hey, please don't make our brains ache by going back beyond Richard Nixon!