OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 29, 2014, 01:16:46 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Greatest Difference Between Catholics and Orthodox for me...Hell  (Read 9426 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« on: January 08, 2012, 01:13:01 AM »

And that is this:
It seems from another thread I created that:

1) Orthodox do not believe there are sins that send one to hell if they get hit by a bus before desiring (or actually making it to) confession.  (equivalent of Catholic concept of mortal sins)

2) If one is in hell, it is not eternal damnation, but Hades.  And that Gehenna is the eternal damnation that takes place at the Last Judgment.  So Orthodoxy differs from Rome in that when one dies having not repented of serious sins, their immediate (or "particular" to use Roman terms) judgment is not eternally binding, and that they can in fact get out of any place in hell/hades.  Whereas Rome teaches only those in purgatory (and hence just die with light sins or are Catholics that made it to the confession booth on time but handn't finished their penance) get out.   

So then to speak practically:

A person that willfully and with malicious and full-knowledge intent commits adultery, suicide, murder will not get "cut off" or lose "state of grace" from God and so go to hell if sin is unconfessed?  Rome teaches he is eternally damned. 

Or does Orthodoxy teach that the above subject will go to hell but that he may get out with sacrifices of Eucharist of Church? 

Comments~
K

Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2012, 01:17:53 AM »

Comments~

Why so obsessed about others' damnation?

If the person in question is you, then let's stop worrying about theoreticals, and discuss your need to repent. If it's not you (which is what I presume) then why should you or we spend time worrying about it? God is the Righteous Judge and will take care of such person as He feels is appropriate.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,447


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2012, 01:22:34 AM »

It is not good to depart this life in an unrepentant state.

Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2012, 01:22:59 AM »

And that is this:
It seems from another thread I created that:

1) Orthodox do not believe there are sins that send one to hell if they get hit by a bus before desiring (or actually making it to) confession.  (equivalent of Catholic concept of mortal sins)


There most certainly are such dreadful sins as to bring damnation down on your head.

If there weren't then nobody would go to hell and we would have universal salvation.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,447


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #4 on: January 08, 2012, 01:36:51 AM »

And that is this:
It seems from another thread I created that:

1) Orthodox do not believe there are sins that send one to hell if they get hit by a bus before desiring (or actually making it to) confession.  (equivalent of Catholic concept of mortal sins)


There most certainly are such dreadful sins as to bring damnation down on your head.

If there weren't then nobody would go to hell and we would have universal salvation.

Exactly.

I think the major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Catholics are taught that they must confess their mortal sins or at least have the desire to confess them; while Orthodox are taught that they must REPENT of all their sins.

The one thing that really attracted me to Orthodoxy was sobriety: the sober realization that repentance or metanoia is so essential for our spiritual health.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,957



« Reply #5 on: January 08, 2012, 04:24:43 AM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.
Logged

neon_knights
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Posts: 513


My political hero.


« Reply #6 on: January 08, 2012, 04:38:30 AM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,254


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #7 on: January 08, 2012, 07:30:33 AM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.

Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,254


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #8 on: January 08, 2012, 07:32:19 AM »

Regarding the OP, I don't think there is as much of a difference (in final state or in intermediate state) as people often say. Smiley
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #9 on: January 08, 2012, 11:36:09 AM »

Since the word "hell" (1) is (itself, as an English word, not found in the Bible's Hebrew and Greek manuscripts); and (2) has so many different  meanings; it's probably better to avoid using "hell" and just use the appropriate Hebrew or Greek word (sheol, hades; gehenna, e.g.)
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: January 08, 2012, 06:28:39 PM »

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 the Lake of Fire. Other modern people deny this and contend that Gehenna the Lake of Fire and has not yet been created. 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?

There is really no unanimity in the Fathers about the distinctions between these terms, or these states and places. So there's little hope of us lesser mortals (well, me anyway) sorting it out.

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 cautioned 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?
Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #11 on: January 08, 2012, 08:17:17 PM »

Isnt this why we pray for the dead? In hopes that they would eventually be saved, even though they are already dead? 
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: January 08, 2012, 08:40:15 PM »

Isnt this why we pray for the dead? In hopes that they would eventually be saved, even though they are already dead?  

Yesterday I was talking about apokatastasis (universal salvation) with our new parish priest who arrived from Russia 3 months ago.  A young chap not long out of seminary.  I asked him the common thought in Russia about salvation from hell.   He said it was seen as possible since what takes place at death is the partial judgement and things may change before the final judgement when Christ returns.  
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 08:41:46 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: January 08, 2012, 08:40:55 PM »

Deleted repeated post
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 08:41:29 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2012, 01:05:14 AM »

Isnt this why we pray for the dead? In hopes that they would eventually be saved, even though they are already dead?  

Yesterday I was talking about apokatastasis (universal salvation) with our new parish priest who arrived from Russia 3 months ago.  A young chap not long out of seminary.  I asked him the common thought in Russia about salvation from hell.   He said it was seen as possible since what takes place at death is the partial judgement and things may change before the final judgement when Christ returns.  

I remember hearing a podcast from Hopko about this.  He pointed out that God is outside our space and time, so our time doesnt necessarily apply.  Just because someone has passed away in our time, doesnt mean its "too late" for God.  We ask these things although he knows our prayers before we ask them. Yet at the same time, if we dont ask, he doesnt hear them. 

Im not even sure I make sense.  It was something along those lines and I think Im still trying to wrap my head around it.  If someone can clear it up better, feel free.
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: January 09, 2012, 01:10:49 AM »

Isnt this why we pray for the dead? In hopes that they would eventually be saved, even though they are already dead?  

Yesterday I was talking about apokatastasis (universal salvation) with our new parish priest who arrived from Russia 3 months ago.  A young chap not long out of seminary.  I asked him the common thought in Russia about salvation from hell.   He said it was seen as possible since what takes place at death is the partial judgement and things may change before the final judgement when Christ returns.  

I remember hearing a podcast from Hopko about this.  He pointed out that God is outside our space and time, so our time doesnt necessarily apply.  Just because someone has passed away in our time, doesnt mean its "too late" for God.  We ask these things although he knows our prayers before we ask them. Yet at the same time, if we dont ask, he doesnt hear them.  

Im not even sure I make sense.  It was something along those lines and I think Im still trying to wrap my head around it.  If someone can clear it up better, feel free.

I don't think we have to worry about convoluted thinking about time and timelessness.  The fact is that God is willing to liberate souls from hell.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 01:34:55 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
danman916
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 80


« Reply #16 on: January 10, 2012, 04:57:22 PM »

Father,

Just looking for your thoughts;

Why do you think that Church in the west dogmatized the teaching on hell in such a concrete fashion?

The teaching of the Roman Church is pretty clear;
(CCC1035) Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,254


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #17 on: January 10, 2012, 05:04:34 PM »

Regarding the OP, I don't think there is as much of a difference (in final state or in intermediate state) as people often say. Smiley

But I am probably could be wrong Smiley
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #18 on: January 10, 2012, 05:04:46 PM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.



This picture manages to land in the most obscure of threads...
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: January 10, 2012, 05:08:34 PM »

Father,

Just looking for your thoughts;

Why do you think that Church in the west dogmatized the teaching on hell in such a concrete fashion?

The teaching of the Roman Church is pretty clear;
(CCC1035) Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, "eternal fire.


Since scholasticism, they couldn't help it.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,447


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #20 on: January 10, 2012, 05:50:22 PM »

Isnt this why we pray for the dead? In hopes that they would eventually be saved, even though they are already dead?  

Yesterday I was talking about apokatastasis (universal salvation) with our new parish priest who arrived from Russia 3 months ago.  A young chap not long out of seminary.  I asked him the common thought in Russia about salvation from hell.   He said it was seen as possible since what takes place at death is the partial judgement and things may change before the final judgement when Christ returns.  

I remember hearing a podcast from Hopko about this.  He pointed out that God is outside our space and time, so our time doesnt necessarily apply.  Just because someone has passed away in our time, doesnt mean its "too late" for God.  We ask these things although he knows our prayers before we ask them. Yet at the same time, if we dont ask, he doesnt hear them.  

Im not even sure I make sense.  It was something along those lines and I think Im still trying to wrap my head around it.  If someone can clear it up better, feel free.

I don't think we have to worry about convoluted thinking about time and timelessness.  The fact is that God is willing to liberate souls from hell.

St. Xenia of St. Petersburg comes to mind. Even though her husband had died in a drunken brawl, she prayed and fasted for his salvation for many years until God granted her a vision of her husband's soul entering heaven.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #21 on: January 10, 2012, 05:52:42 PM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.



This picture manages to land in the most obscure of threads...

That's because it manages to be both awesome and hysterical.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,447


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #22 on: January 10, 2012, 06:15:21 PM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.



This picture manages to land in the most obscure of threads...

That's because it manages to be both awesome and hysterical.

What is the context of that picture and the meaning of all those hats?
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,158


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #23 on: January 10, 2012, 06:42:03 PM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.



This picture manages to land in the most obscure of threads...

That's because it manages to be both awesome and hysterical.

What is the context of that picture and the meaning of all those hats?
Traditional Byzantine choral garments done by a choir that does traditional Byzantine music I think. I haven't seen any choir members wear them when I've gone to DL, but I'll keep my eye out.
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #24 on: January 10, 2012, 08:05:51 PM »

The Greatest Difference? We have funnier hats.

I dont know, I always thought a fish head hat is a lot funnier than a crown.



This picture manages to land in the most obscure of threads...

That's because it manages to be both awesome and hysterical.

What is the context of that picture and the meaning of all those hats?

It's already on the forum but I don't know how to find it.
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,254


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #25 on: January 10, 2012, 08:16:52 PM »

It's already on the forum but I don't know how to find it.

Here it be...
Logged

"I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't be hounded by you and your soulless minions of orthodoxy! I haven't broken any laws... except perhaps the laws of nature." - Dr. Elias Giger
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #26 on: January 10, 2012, 09:32:47 PM »

C'mon people, let's not devolve into talking about hats...

now this is interesting!:
Quote
I asked him the common thought in Russia about salvation from hell.   He said it was seen as possible since what takes place at death is the partial judgement and things may change before the final judgement when Christ returns. 

above by Irish Hermit

And that's what the big question is

Is the particular judgment final?

Another poster said someone got a vision in St. Petersburg of her husband getting out of hell.  So this is truly different than Roman Catholicism. 

Are there any priests that would like to comment?  Penslemania? 
K
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: January 10, 2012, 10:06:54 PM »


And that's what the big question is

Is the particular judgment final?

The partial judgement is just that – partial.  It is not final.

If members of the Invisible Church read Maccabees, they will see from the incident with the slain idolatrous soldiers that Scripture itself teaches that condemnation to hell is not final.  It may be changed.

Quote
Are there any priests that would like to comment?

One already has – me.   laugh
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #28 on: January 10, 2012, 10:14:34 PM »

For the scriptural teaching on the forgiveness of sin after death please

message 17
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,36499.msg575876.html#msg575876
Logged
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2012, 12:58:22 AM »

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

above quoted by Irish Hermit. 

Very interesting.  But can you show any church father or any Byzantine, or even Orthodox theologian for that matter, that supports this?

As far as the Elder Cleopatra example.  This is also in Gregory's Dialogues with Peter.  But it merely demonstrates that one can get out of Hades, which according to Catholics, purgatory is part of, and according to Orthodox, those with light sins can get out of.  I read "Life after Death" by Met. Hierotheos.  In it he clearly demonstrates that even St. Mark Ephesus taught that only those with light sins can get out of Hades. 

So please, name me some examples of ECFs or Ox theologians who say those in hell for mortal sins can get out. 

In Him,
K
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #30 on: January 15, 2012, 01:20:53 AM »

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

above quoted by Irish Hermit.  

Very interesting.  But can you show any church father or any Byzantine, or even Orthodox theologian for that matter, that supports this?

As far as the Elder Cleopatra example.  This is also in Gregory's Dialogues with Peter.  But it merely demonstrates that one can get out of Hades, which according to Catholics, purgatory is part of, and according to Orthodox, those with light sins can get out of.  I read "Life after Death" by Met. Hierotheos.  In it he clearly demonstrates that even St. Mark Ephesus taught that only those with light sins can get out of Hades.  

So please, name me some examples of ECFs or Ox theologians who say those in hell for mortal sins can get out.  

In Him,
K

Check the forum.  Use the search engine for   hell alfeyev   and you will find things from Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev, a leading contemporary Russian theologian.

Here is one....

message 1216
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg424768.html#msg424768

and message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32517.msg514163.html#msg514163
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:25:59 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,208


Scheherazade


« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2012, 12:43:10 AM »

nt
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 12:44:32 AM by Paisius » Logged
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #32 on: January 22, 2012, 07:27:40 PM »

Irish Hermit,

I read both links.  Neither is convincing.  One explains how a contemporary Russian Orthodox priest teaches those in mortal sin may get out, but he doesn't back this up with Early Church Fathers.  

The other link about Catholics in Para 1031 of RCC Catechism, I agree with Papist, does not indicate mortal sin can be forgiven.  

Are there any Early Church Fathers who teach that those who died in serious sin can get out of hell?  
I'll offer this:
Fr. Seraphim Rose in "The Soul After Death" pg. 204 tells of St. Gregory the Great (a Pope of all things) praying for a pagan to get out of hell.  But even St. Mark Ephesus at Council of Florence indicated only those who have light sins can benefit from prayers or Sacrifice for those in Hades.  

K
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 07:29:35 PM by Kaste » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #33 on: January 22, 2012, 07:58:41 PM »

Irish Hermit,

I read both links.  Neither is convincing.  One explains how a contemporary Russian Orthodox priest teaches those in mortal sin may get out, but he doesn't back this up with Early Church Fathers.  

The other link about Catholics in Para 1031 of RCC Catechism, I agree with Papist, does not indicate mortal sin can be forgiven.  

Are there any Early Church Fathers who teach that those who died in serious sin can get out of hell?  
I'll offer this:
Fr. Seraphim Rose in "The Soul After Death" pg. 204 tells of St. Gregory the Great (a Pope of all things) praying for a pagan to get out of hell.  But even St. Mark Ephesus at Council of Florence indicated only those who have light sins can benefit from prayers or Sacrifice for those in Hades.  

K

Kaste, I have an uncomfortable feeling that you don't really want to hear what the Orthodox believe.  So please just take it from me that we believe that the eternal fate of souls is not fully decided at the time of death and the Partial Judgement.  Until the end of time and the return of Christ our Lord there is a possibility of change.  

Roman Catholics also believed this, when there were happier times and they were united with us.

A remnant of their old orthodox belief remains in their liturgy for the dead but now reinterpreted:

"Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu."

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:  ----- "In itself, it is no rejection of Catholic dogma to suppose that God might at times, by way of exception, liberate a soul from hell. Thus some argued from a false interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19 sq., that Christ freed several damned souls on the occasion of His descent into hell. Others were misled by untrustworthy stories into the belief that the prayers of Gregory the Great rescued the Emperor Trajan from hell. But now theologians are unanimous in teaching that such exceptions never take place and never have taken place, a teaching which should be accepted.

" If this be true, how can the Church pray in the Offertory of the Mass for the dead: "Libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni et de profundo lacu" etc.? Many think the Church uses these words to designate purgatory. They can be explained more readily, however, if we take into consideration the peculiar spirit of the Church's liturgy; sometimes she refers her prayers not to the time at which they are said, but to the time for which they are said. Thus the offertory in question is referred to the moment when the soul is about to leave the body, although it is actually said some time after that moment; and as if he were actually at the death-beds of the faithful, the priest implores God to preserve their souls from hell. But whichever explanation be preferred, this much remains certain, that in saying that offertory the Church intends to implore only those graces which the soul is still capable of receiving, namely, the grace of a happy death or the release from purgatory."

Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 07:59:25 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #34 on: January 22, 2012, 08:09:39 PM »

Are there any Early Church Fathers who teach that those who died in serious sin can get out of hell? 


Better in some ways than any Church Father, Sacred Scripture itself bears witness to the forgiveness of even the most serious sins after death and liberation from hell.

Please see message 175
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,37255.msg592638.html#msg592638
Logged
Ionnis
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,071



« Reply #35 on: January 22, 2012, 08:17:37 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?
Logged

"If you cannot find Christ in the beggar at the church door, you will not find Him in the chalice.”  -The Divine John Chrysostom

“Till we can become divine, we must be content to be human, lest in our hurry for change we sink to something lower.” -Anthony Trollope
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: January 22, 2012, 08:25:22 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2012, 04:58:15 AM »


Kaste, I have an uncomfortable feeling that you don't really want to hear what the Orthodox believe.  

Apparently St. Mark of Ephesus disagrees with you.  Perhaps Kaste would prefer to follow that Church Father.

M.
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2012, 10:12:10 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2012, 10:18:53 PM »

And that is this:
It seems from another thread I created that:

1) Orthodox do not believe there are sins that send one to hell if they get hit by a bus before desiring (or actually making it to) confession.  (equivalent of Catholic concept of mortal sins)


There most certainly are such dreadful sins as to bring damnation down on your head.

If there weren't then nobody would go to hell and we would have universal salvation.

Exactly.

I think the major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that Catholics are taught that they must confess their mortal sins or at least have the desire to confess them; while Orthodox are taught that they must REPENT of all their sins.

The one thing that really attracted me to Orthodoxy was sobriety: the sober realization that repentance or metanoia is so essential for our spiritual health.
This is a silly objection. The desire to make a good confession presupposes a repentant sinner. I guess you missed this most important and fundamental point of Catholic sacramental theology.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: January 24, 2012, 12:14:18 AM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin.  Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2012, 12:21:27 AM »


Kaste, I have an uncomfortable feeling that you don't really want to hear what the Orthodox believe.  

Apparently St. Mark of Ephesus disagrees with you.  Perhaps Kaste would prefer to follow that Church Father.

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in the very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell, but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard."

First Homily: “Refutation of the Latin Chapters concerning Purgatorial Fire”
St. Mark of Ephesus
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: January 24, 2012, 12:23:32 AM »

Mary, please go back and read message 10....

"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?

"There is really no unanimity in the Fathers about the distinctions between these terms, or these states and places. So there's little hope of us lesser mortals (well, me anyway) sorting it out."
Logged
That person
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 1,158


Long live Commie Superman


« Reply #43 on: January 24, 2012, 12:56:15 AM »

I think what the OP addresses does get at a larger issue. Catholic doctrine tends to be pretty precisely defined. If I ask a Catholic if person X could go to Heaven, I'd get through a series of questions about invincible ignorance, unconfessed mortal sin, and perfect contrition, and, assuming I had a working knowledge of the machinations of this person's soul, I'd get a fairly certain answer. If I asked an Orthodox, I'd get something along the lines of "How should I know? It's probably not healthy to dwell on this sort of thing really." I hate not knowing things, so this attitude bugged the hell out of me at first, but the more I studied Orthodoxy, the more I realized that I can trust the God of Orthodox to do the right thing even if I don't completely "get it," and the more I began to find a strange comfort in this uncertainty.
 
Logged

"Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing."- St. Augustine of Hippo

Movie reviews you can trust.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: January 24, 2012, 01:07:36 AM »

I think what the OP addresses does get at a larger issue. Catholic doctrine tends to be pretty precisely defined. If I ask a Catholic if person X could go to Heaven, I'd get through a series of questions about invincible ignorance, unconfessed mortal sin, and perfect contrition, and, assuming I had a working knowledge of the machinations of this person's soul, I'd get a fairly certain answer. If I asked an Orthodox, I'd get something along the lines of "How should I know? It's probably not healthy to dwell on this sort of thing really." I hate not knowing things, so this attitude bugged the hell out of me at first, but the more I studied Orthodoxy, the more I realized that I can trust the God of Orthodox to do the right thing even if I don't completely "get it," and the more I began to find a strange comfort in this uncertainty.
 

/\    A nice illustration of what Saint Hilary of Poitiers wrote:

"This is the characteristic virtue of the Church - that it becomes comprehensible only when you adopt it."
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #45 on: January 24, 2012, 12:14:05 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin.  Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering. Wink

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.  Undecided
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: January 24, 2012, 03:27:17 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin.  Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering. Wink

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.  Undecided

Well, the inspired Scriptures inform us that Judas Maccabeus sent a truckload of silver off to the Jerusalem temple as a sin offering for his idolatrous soldiers.

Scripture also says that it was on account of their idolatry that God had them slain in battle.

Both would seem to indicate that neither Judas Maccabeus nor God saw this idolatry as a venial sin.
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,438


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #47 on: January 26, 2012, 01:02:30 PM »

Father, I read your link and I don't see how that states mortal sins are forgiven after death.  It simply states that Judas and his pious companions offered up prayers on behalf of the dead.  Nowhere does it say that their sins were forgiven them.  Did I miss something?

It's possible you missed something.  Please read it again.

My objection is slightly different from Ionnis's. It seems to me that 2 Macc 12: 39-46 is in keeping with the RC understanding of Purgatory. Can you show that it isn't?

OK - in RC-speak...

The soldiers had died in mortal sin.  Idolatry.

People who die in mortal sin go to hell.

Modern Catholicism teaches there is no liberation from hell.

Could you also put it in AngloCatholic-speak for me? Just wondering. Wink

I see now that the real issue here is with the distinction between "mortal sin" and "grave matter". Idolatry is grave matter, or course, but we can't say with certainty that the soldiers committed mortal sin (you know, the "full knowledge" and "full consent" criteria).

I realize that we've argued about this before, and we're probably not going to resolve our disagreements on it.  Undecided


The whole development of mortal/venial distinctions was late and is not a part of Orthodox dogma (or early patristic theology of the United Church / before the Great Schism). Fr. Allyne Smith points out "While the Roman Catholic tradition has identified particular acts as 'mortal' sins, in the Orthodox tradition we see that only a sin for which we do not repent is 'mortal" (Fr. Allyne Smith, in G. E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, and Bishop Kallistos Ware, trs., Philokalia: The Eastern Christian Spiritual Texts (Skylight Press, 2000), p. 2).[1]

This understanding is also described in the OCA website's article "Sin":

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins. A "venial" sin, according to this line of thinking, did not jeopardize one's salvation. While stealing a car might be considered a "mortal" sin, stealing a candy bar was not. While a "venial" sin did not jeopardize one's salvation, it still needed to be confessed and still may have had time in purgatory attached to it. Another way to see this distinction in Roman Catholic teaching -- and here I simplify a tremendously complex line of reasoning -- is as follows: If one commits a mortal sin and dies before confessing it, one would go straight to hell. If one commits a venial sin and dies before confessing it, one would not go straight to hell, but would have to spend time in purgatory before entering heaven. [note the Orthodox Church does not affirm the late Roman Catholic teaching of purgatory] These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin. Concerning Confession, having a list of deadly sins could, in fact, become an obstacle to genuine repentance. For example, imagine that you commit a sin. You look on the list and do not find it listed. It would be very easy to take the attitude that, since it is not on a list of deadly sins, it is not too serious. Hence, you do not feel the need to seek God's forgiveness right away. A week passes and you have completely forgotten about what you had done. You never sought God's forgiveness; as a result, you did not receive it, either. We should go to Confession when we sin -- at the very least, we should ask God to forgive us daily in our personal prayers. We should not see Confession as a time to confess only those sins which may be found on a list."[2]

Sometimes we hear a caveat from some Roman Catholics that there is a "confession of desire" in Roman Catholic teaching similar to a "baptism of desire"; that is completely untrue according Catholic Answers apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.[4]
________________

[1] Fr. Allyne is commenting on this saying of Mark the Ascetic: "There is a sin that is always 'unto death': the sin for which we do not repent. For this sin even a saint's prayers will not be heard" (Philokalia, op cit). Mark the Ascetic is citing 1 John 5:16 from which all subsequent discussions of mortal sin have their origin. The Greek text of St. John's first epistle at 5:16, it should be underscored, says there is a SINGLE SIN leading to death (ἔστιν ἁμαρτία πρὸς θάνατον)[3] -not sins leading to death or a class of sins leading to death. As Fr. Allyne points out that sin/singular in Orthodox tradition is refusal to repent.


[2] "Sin," Orthodox Church in America website: http://www.oca.org/qa.asp?id=153&sid=3

[3] ἔστιν/"there is" (ἔστιν is a present/continual indicative third person singular verb) ἁμαρτία/a sin, a single sin (ἁμαρτία is a nominative feminine singular) πρὸς θάνατον /leading to death (1 Jn 5:16b).

[4]"Re: Is there Confession of desire? [in Roman Catholic teaching] No—if one is in the state of mortal sin, one must receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession) before receiving the Eucharist. If you have committed a mortal sin, then catch the priest before Mass or even after Mass or phone him ask and for an appointment. He OWES you the opportunity for you to confess your sins. He was ordained for this! St. John Vianney used to hear Confessions all day long. To receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is like dropping the Eucharist in a sewer—only worse! And to do so is to commit another mortal sin. You don’t want to do that. The best way to avoid committing a mortal sin is to spend frequent time before the Blessed Sacrament and to reflect daily on all the sufferings Jesus endured and to thank Him. It is only by having an intimate relationship with Him, that we can ever hope to be strong enough to remain free of serious sin." Catholic Anwers apologist Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=244959
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 01:33:33 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2012, 03:26:12 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".

Regarding Fr. Vincent Serpa, here's how it went:

Quote
Subject: Is there Confession of desire?

My Question is that if a person has committed a mortal sin but, not by his own fault, can't get to confession and has a real desire to get to confession still receive the Eucharist? One example of this is if your priests are only in the confessional once a week and this week they have a retreat to go on and then after that they are going to an ordination. Because of this, there are not having confession this week. Could someone still receive if this happens?

Thanks,
Nathan

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

Hi Nathan,

No—if one is in the state of mortal sin, one must receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession) before receiving the Eucharist. If you have committed a mortal sin, then catch the priest before Mass or even after Mass or phone him ask and for an appointment. He OWES you the opportunity for you to confess your sins. He was ordained for this! St. John Vianney used to hear Confessions all day long.

To receive the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is like dropping the Eucharist in a sewer—only worse! And to do so is to commit another mortal sin. You don’t want to do that. The best way to avoid committing a mortal sin is to spend frequent time before the Blessed Sacrament and to reflect daily on all the sufferings Jesus endured and to thank Him. It is only by having an intimate relationship with Him, that we can ever hope to be strong enough to remain free of serious sin.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2012, 04:22:19 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 04:23:31 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2012, 04:27:15 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,438


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2012, 04:42:57 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".
That's not mine to change as it's from OCA, however you are quite right to point out the distinction and I appreciate the clarification. The OCA article made reference to a pre-Vatican II Catechism. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

Sloth (to take one of the examples given in the OCA quote), is one of the seven so-called deadly or capital sins in Roman Catholicism, however whether it is mortal or not depends upon whether one is doing it with full will and with full knowledge that it is a sin.

"It [sloth] is then a mortal sin unless the act be lacking in entire advertence or full consent of the will." www.newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm

So such things "can" be mortal sins as they are grave matters, but they must be accompanied by the additional criteria of full knowledge and deliberate consent. To a catechized and cognizant Roman Catholic grave matters would constitute mortal sins, but the distinction is important

Thanks again, PeterJ, for the clarification.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 05:13:18 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2012, 05:12:44 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations
.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults?  When was that promulgated?

For the reductionism which is now rife in the Catholic Church please see message 1044
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2012, 05:19:09 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".
That's not mine to change as it's from OCA, however you are quite right to point out the distinction and I appreciate the clarification. The OCA article made reference to a pre-Vatican II Catechism. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

CCC 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

Sloth (to take one of the examples given in the OCA quote), is one of the seven so-called deadly or capital sins in Roman Catholicism, however whether it is mortal or not depends upon whether one is doing it with full will and with full knowledge that it is a sin.

"It [sloth] is then a mortal sin unless the act be lacking in entire advertence or full consent of the will." www.newadvent.org/cathen/14057c.htm

So such things "can" be mortal sins as they are grave matters, but they must be accompanied by the additional criteria of full knowledge and deliberate consent. To a catechized and cognizant Roman Catholic grave matters would constitute mortal sins, but the distinction is important

Thanks again, PeterJ, for the clarification.


It is not really as straightforward as "full consent" and "full knowledge."

"Imputability

"That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. "

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#III
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2012, 06:56:18 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations
.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults?  When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2012, 10:45:27 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations
.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults?  When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.


No, of course it wasn't.  Up until Vatican II the bishops and priests and the nuns were all a bunch if liars who perpetrated this fraud on the gullible Catholic faithful, telling them that the missing Masss on Sundays was a mortal sin which led to the gnawing worms and the fires..

But so quickly has faded the glory of the Catholic Church - remember the days before Vatican II when 96% of Irish Catholics were at Mass on Sunday?  


The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
....

Now if the Catholic bishops and priests were lying to the Catholic faithful about this, for so many centuries, terrifying both children and grown ups... then what gives you any confidence they are not lying about things today?  Are they any more moral these days?

    
« Last Edit: January 26, 2012, 10:49:26 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,451


fleem
WWW
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2012, 11:25:38 PM »

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2012, 11:33:27 PM »

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.

I lived through the years of horror when we were taught and we absolutely believed that you went to hell for the mortal sin of missing Mass on Sunday and for eating meat on Friday.

I have seen family members, widows, griefstricken at funerals because they suspected their dead husband was in hell for these mortal sins.

Now we are told it was never an"official" teaching anyway.  All that misery.--- just a prank on the laity by the bishops and priests?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,451


fleem
WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2012, 11:34:33 PM »

I can't take it anymore. Goodbye.
Logged

Charlie Rose: "If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?"

Fran Lebowitz: "Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2012, 11:43:45 PM »

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.

I haven't read every post on this thread, and not being a glutton for punishment I'm not about to go back and do so now, so if you've stated this clearly already, I apologize--but could you explain what about this thread you are finding so upsetting? Since it seems to somehow affect your own decisions about conversion, I'm presuming the objection goes beyond a stylistic problem with massive subject detours.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #60 on: January 26, 2012, 11:47:10 PM »

You know, I tried to convert to Orthodoxy a couple times before, and I would have been Orthodox years ago. And then something like this always crops up. Beyond unbelievable.

I just wrote a letter to my priest the other day, asking if I could ever be accepted by Chrismation. Congratulations, you just made me regret it.

I recent wrote a little about my own journey. You may have seen it here (or possibly you didn't but noticed the adjective "High Church" in my profile), but in any case I won't go into it here. Let me just say that I sympathize.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: January 26, 2012, 11:53:12 PM »

I can't take it anymore. Goodbye.

Biro,  you say you have wanted to convert several times before but each time something or someone in Orthodoxy has put you off.   This time it is me and my experience with pre-Vatican II Catholicism.  I cannot apologise for the truth of my upbringing and experience in the Catholic Church  --- but it is sad that my Catholic experiences put you off Orthodoxy.  Sorry.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #62 on: January 26, 2012, 11:55:52 PM »

NVM
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:14:38 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #63 on: January 26, 2012, 11:56:45 PM »

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

If anything, it should have the opposite effect.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #64 on: January 26, 2012, 11:57:25 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

I think this is one of those That-was-never-the-official-teaching situations
.

So you are saying that the new official teaching is the distinction of lesser faults and serious faults?  When was that promulgated?

Actually, what I meant is that when you say "When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin." RCs can respond with That-was-never-the-official-teaching.


No, of course it wasn't.  Up until Vatican II the bishops and priests and the nuns were all a bunch if liars who perpetrated this fraud on the gullible Catholic faithful, telling them that the missing Masss on Sundays was a mortal sin which led to the gnawing worms and the fires..

But so quickly has faded the glory of the Catholic Church - remember the days before Vatican II when 96% of Irish Catholics were at Mass on Sunday?  


The Baltimore Catechism...

Q. 1329. Is it a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation?

A. It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit a mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass, without a sufficient reason.
....

Now if the Catholic bishops and priests were lying to the Catholic faithful about this, for so many centuries, terrifying both children and grown ups... then what gives you any confidence they are not lying about things today?  Are they any more moral these days? 

Thanks for the quote from the Baltimore Catechism. I never saw that quote before. (I'm not terribly knowledgeable about the Baltimore Catechism.)

Am I scandalized? Yes, but not as much as you might think, for the following reason: as recently as 3 or 4 years ago, in the course of my participation on the Catholic Answers Forum, I encountered a number of different statements -- from Catholics mind you -- along the lines of "The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals". The scandal is, these statements were routinely passed over, quite nonchalantly, by the other posters; and even if I explicitly pointed out the error and cited the real Catholic teaching, I rarely got responses that weren't to the tune of "Okay, fine. What's your point?" (On a few of these occasions, I actually came under attack. Although, on the other hand, I do recall one occasion where the person who had said "The pope is infallible whenever he speaks on faith and morals" actually apologized for his mistake after I pointed it out.)

Now, after writing that, I feel like I need a shower to wash off any of that forum that's still sticking to me. Anyways, the point is that there was probably a point in my life when I would have been extremely scandalized by that quote from the Baltimore Catechism. I guess I've been desensitized.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #65 on: January 27, 2012, 12:01:17 AM »

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figured she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:30:24 AM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #66 on: January 27, 2012, 12:06:55 AM »

NVM
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:14:27 AM by Achronos » Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #67 on: January 27, 2012, 12:13:37 AM »

Let's all be nice, folks.  Smiley
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2012, 12:14:43 AM »

There isn't really any "greatest difference between Catholics and Orthodox" because the Catholics can just say that the Orthodox position is a valid expression that means the same thing from through an eastern lens (no matter how contradictory) and use the Orthodox version of a doctrine when convenient. That's what my religion teacher does with Hell.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2012, 12:15:03 AM »

Let's all be nice, folks.  Smiley
sigh Okaaaay angel
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2012, 12:18:14 AM »

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #71 on: January 27, 2012, 12:29:30 AM »

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell.  The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell.  Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #72 on: January 27, 2012, 12:34:22 AM »

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! 

It's not really an either-or.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #73 on: January 27, 2012, 12:38:45 AM »

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! 

It's not really an either-or.

Care to explain, Peter?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #74 on: January 27, 2012, 12:39:10 AM »

Unbelievable!   It seems that eating meat on Friday is coming back as a mortal sin!

"Friday Abstinence and Mortal Sin

"On May 14th [2011] the Bishops of England and Wales announced that they are re-establishing the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays, effective 16th September 2011. As indicated below, this means that it is now a sin, and sometimes even a mortal sin, to eat meat on Fridays. As our own Bishop Christopher Budd has explained in his Ad clerum of July 2011, this is now a matter of “precept”, i.e. a legally established moral obligation."

Go To
http://fatherdylanjames.blogspot.com/2011/09/friday-abstinence-and-mortal-sin.html
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #75 on: January 27, 2012, 12:42:50 AM »

Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of pre-Vatican II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell.  The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell.  Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #76 on: January 27, 2012, 12:44:22 AM »

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! 

It's not really an either-or.

Care to explain, Peter?

I think he means that multiple people can be scandalized for different reasons. Seems pretty straightforward to me, but then again, I'm no mind-reader, so I could be wrong.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #77 on: January 27, 2012, 12:46:22 AM »

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell.  The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell.  Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.


It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies.  Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world. 
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 12:51:33 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #78 on: January 27, 2012, 01:21:18 AM »

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell.  The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell.  Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.


It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies.  Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

But Father, do we know if the new fasting regulation is to be implemented under pain of mortal sin or if it will be a recommendation? Without that information, I'm not sure if we can reach that conclusion (please take no offense from my cautiousness here, I just don't want for a logical conclusion to be drawn here without all the information which is necessary to reach it).
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 01:25:29 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #79 on: January 27, 2012, 01:32:20 AM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #80 on: January 27, 2012, 01:39:19 AM »

Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

.
Why would the stating of privatising II decrees and their contrast with current, post-Vatican II teaching deter someone from converting to Orthodoxy?  Huh Huh Huh

I don't speak for Biro, but when I read her statement I figuring she was referring to Fr. Ambrose's attitude toward non-Orthodox.

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me!  For decades we were tormented by those teachings on mortal sin and hellfire for missing Mass and eating meat on Friday.  As I wrote we honestly believed that some family were in hell for these things.   Now we hear it was never the Catholic Church's teaching!  What misery and grief it inflicted.   Those who were the victims of this rogue teaching are the ones who are scandalised.

Does anybody remember the Vatican's cute response when the question was raised after Vatican II if those in hell for the mortal sin of eating meat on Friday would now be released from hell.  The Vatican's response was, No! they would remain in hell.  Their sin was in being disobedient to the law of the Church.

It was a clever answer but since that notion had not been broached ever before nobody was really convinced by it.

Btw, am I the only ancient person on the forum who actually remembers these things?

To remember this stuff, I'd venture that one would have to at least be in his or her sixties, no? Father, you might very well be the only one involved in this thread who is blessed with the precise mixture of (what I assume to be Irish Catholic) religious background and age to be able to remember such things.


It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies.  Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world.

But Father, do we know if the new fasting regulation is to be implemented under pain of mortal sin or if it will be a recommendation
?


The ramifications for the new legal precept vis-a-vis mortal sin is discussed in the article linked in message 74.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #81 on: January 27, 2012, 01:41:58 AM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.


Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism.  Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.
« Last Edit: January 27, 2012, 01:43:12 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #82 on: January 27, 2012, 03:51:47 AM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.


Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism.  Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking.  although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available.  I am well versed in what you speak of.  American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote.  However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning.  The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...
Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here.  The benedictine monk revamped the church.  no new altar table.  A glorious high altar.  Wood floors with parquee in it. 
The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).
They sing like angels.  The priest sings like an angel.  He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. 
The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.
When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum"  and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"
I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you."  Why not, no one was shocked.
His low masses the people say the responses. 
If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.
He is "old school."  He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. 
The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.
Every family comes dressed to the nines.  They all have multiple children.  The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. 
Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways.  They lay the message out there and do not hold back.  They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings.  No, they talk about hell.  They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic.
A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.
They don't realise that by not;
going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.
They don't care about not being allowed to use birth control
They believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.
The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priests
They don't observe the holy days and the little customs around it
They say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.
The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.
They don't think missing mass is a mortal sin
The ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.
They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standing
I mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them.  But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules.  Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.
The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches.
The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church.  They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses.  Talk lightly with the people.  Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way.  The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving.  They realize that the church has rules you must follow. 

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left.  You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion.  It's a three ring circus now.  The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. 
The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest.  The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids.  He knows everyone that goes...
We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.
And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe.  But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church.
I fMore to come, i'm going to bed
Logged

Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,626



« Reply #83 on: January 27, 2012, 04:52:16 AM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.


Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism.  Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.


Slightly off topic and on the more humorous and lighter side of things, I can't help but notice that you have mentioned "plotting to kill grannie" several times in this thread. Was this a particularly common sin back in pre-Vatican II times? Grannies must have been much richer or much more annoying in times past. laugh
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #84 on: January 27, 2012, 10:17:43 AM »

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! 

It's not really an either-or.

Care to explain, Peter?

I'm not really sure how to explain that any better.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #85 on: January 27, 2012, 10:19:00 AM »

It looks like it is returning to England and Wales and so soon the youngsters there may have a taste of the experience of us oldies.  Although I suspect that they will laugh at the notion whereas we took it deadly seriously.

Interesting that the English and the Welsh now have an opportunity to commit a mortal sin which is not available to the rest of the world. 

Excepting that during lent the rest of them have that same "opportunity to commit a mortal sin".
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
JR
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: No idea
Jurisdiction: Athens
Posts: 381



« Reply #86 on: January 27, 2012, 12:06:08 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.


Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism.  Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking.  although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available.  I am well versed in what you speak of.  American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote.  However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning.  The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...
Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here.  The benedictine monk revamped the church.  no new altar table.  A glorious high altar.  Wood floors with parquee in it. 
The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).
They sing like angels.  The priest sings like an angel.  He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. 
The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.
When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum"  and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"
I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you."  Why not, no one was shocked.
His low masses the people say the responses. 
If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.
He is "old school."  He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. 
The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.
Every family comes dressed to the nines.  They all have multiple children.  The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. 
Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways.  They lay the message out there and do not hold back.  They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings.  No, they talk about hell.  They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic.
A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.
They don't realise that by not;
going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.
They don't care about not being allowed to use birth control
They believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.
The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priests
They don't observe the holy days and the little customs around it
They say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.
The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.
They don't think missing mass is a mortal sin
The ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.
They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standing
I mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them.  But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules.  Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.
The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches.
The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church.  They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses.  Talk lightly with the people.  Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way.  The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving.  They realize that the church has rules you must follow. 

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left.  You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion.  It's a three ring circus now.  The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. 
The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest.  The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids.  He knows everyone that goes...
We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.
And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe.  But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church.
I fMore to come, i'm going to bed

I completely understand where you are coming from with this.

Catholicism has lost it's way, It has different rules for different countries, the Mass is no longer reverent,more like a typical Methodist / born again Christian church.

We used to fast, we used to go to confession, there was a sacred liturgy, not a musical instrument in site apart from the organ. our faith was serious.

The Church that I went to on the epiphany was was not the Catholic church that I rocognise.

I wrote about it here:
http://questionsandsmusings.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/has-the-catholic-church-lost-its-reverence-tradition-and-indeed-its-catholicism/
Logged

"If you judge people, you have no time to love them".

Mother Teresa
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #87 on: January 27, 2012, 01:16:45 PM »

If anybody is justifiably scandalised it is me! 

It's not really an either-or.

Care to explain, Peter?

I'm not really sure how to explain that any better.

I don't know if this will help, but I'll say it in hope:

I have no objection to Fr. Ambrose saying that he's scandalized by the issue he's been talking about. (Actually, if he said he wasn't scandalized, I would take that as a sign of cynicism regarding the RCC.)

But that doesn't mean that Biro can't be scandalized by something different.

Then there's me. I'm also scandalized by what Fr. Ambrose told us (although I'm even more scandalized by the experience on CAF which I described last night).
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,365


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #88 on: January 27, 2012, 01:20:59 PM »

Hi xariskai. My purpose in being here is not to defend Roman Catholicism, but in this case I will a little bit.

"In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West. In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins.

That's not really an accurate presentation of RC teaching. The last sentence should be changed to:

Quote
Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "grave matter", but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "grave matter".


When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Bshops, priests, nuns and catechisms all told you that.

But over recent decades "mortal sin" has been fading from the Catholic vocabulary and is being replaced by "grave matter" and "serious matter"....

Why is this happening?

Father,  you for sure grew up in Irish Catholicism.  My goodness, I was even taught speeding while driving was a venial sin.  You don't have to grow up in Ireland to have an Irish  grandfather teach you Roman Catholicism.  He's 92 and going strong.  There has to be a connexion.


Well, it wasn't peculiar to Irish Catholicism.  Those things applied just as much in French Catholicism, Spanish Catholicism, Portuguese Catholicism, English Catholicism...

When I was growing up, missing Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Eating meat on Fridays was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Masturbating was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Plotting to kill grannie was a mortal sin.  You went to hell.

Minus eating meat on Fridays nothing has changed in my Irish family's thinking.  although I was Greek Catholic I did have to attend Roman Catholic Churches b/c there wasn't always a Greek Catholic church available.  I am well versed in what you speak of.  American Catholicism has become more protestant and free in thinking while my family is still follows what you wrote.  However I have never met a married RC couple my age or slightly older than I that doesn't use artificial birth control and none practice the mandated birth control called natural family planning.  The most "to the tee" Roman Catholics I have met were Polish Immigrants. And by that I mean mass more than once a week, rosaries recited at home with the family, prayers with the family, fasting in lent, etc.....

A side note to make you chuckle Padre Ambrose...
Christmas 2010 we went to high mass near here.  The benedictine monk revamped the church.  no new altar table.  A glorious high altar.  Wood floors with parquee in it. 
The schola cantorum is from Our Lady of Victory in State College (Joe Paterno was a strong member there).
They sing like angels.  The priest sings like an angel.  He follows the 1962 with no confiteor before communion. 
The people that go to his 1962 masses are nice.
When he said "Pax Domine sit semper vobiscum"  and the choir said "et cum spirit tu tuo"
I turned around and did the handshake and said "peace be with you."  Why not, no one was shocked.
His low masses the people say the responses. 
If you miss one class for first communion he makes you wait until next year to start classes over.
He is "old school."  He's from St. Vincent Arch-abbey near Pittsburgh. 
The latin mass community in Pittsburgh PA makes you feel like you stepped back to my mother's generation.
Every family comes dressed to the nines.  They all have multiple children.  The priest is nice but he has that respect that priests used to get in the Catholic church. 
Both latin mass communities I speak of the homilies the priests give would shock the catholic used to the new ways.  They lay the message out there and do not hold back.  They don't give the "my aunt used to" story to connect it weakly to the readings.  No, they talk about hell.  They talk about what you must do as a Catholic to be a Catholic.
A lot of Catholics I know and Catholics make up most of the Christians in my area pick and choose what they want to incorporate into their faith but still claim to be Roman Catholic.
They don't realise that by not;
going to confession once a year means they aren't catholic and can not take communion until a confession is made.
They don't care about not being allowed to use birth control
They believe in divorce and even if no annulment was processed they still take communion.
The let girls serve on the altar and many would like to see women priests
They don't observe the holy days and the little customs around it
They say you can talk to God and you don't have to go to the priest for advice or guidance.
The priests in most parishes don't even teach the first communion classes or confirmation classes or baptism classes or have any part in RCIA.
They don't think missing mass is a mortal sin
The ones that care about the one hour fast I know people who will go out to eat before mass and time it so the time they are done eating until communion is handed out is an hour.
They co-habitate before marriage,sometimes for years and still think they are catholics in good standing
I mean, the Catholic Church still has strict rules if you read them.  But most people justify their actions when ignoring the rules.  Sure that happens in the orthodox church too so I'm not casting stones.
The problem is most of them were raised in CCCD (sunday school) through confirmation (7th grade here) by lay people who don't have much of a clue as to what the Catholic Church really teaches.
The priests sugar-coat the rules from the pulpit and don't hold their flock accountable to the teachings of the church.  They don't remind the people that you are truly excommunicated and prohibited from communion and other sacraments if you are not participating in the church's laws.

In fact the difference between the crowds at the local latin mass communities and the culture and the mass itself and the way the sacraments are carried out VERSUS the new way of catholicism clearly shows even the most lax catholic that the current Roman Catholic Church is clearly not even the same Church as it was up until 1965.

Go to new mass and then go to a couple sung low masses.  Talk lightly with the people.  Watch confirmation or a baptism in the 1962 Roman Missal way.  The families are strong, the kids are polite and nice (and there are ALOT of them) and many of them know the latin and most of the boys take turns serving.  They realize that the church has rules you must follow. 

I must say from what I have seen no wonder so many Catholics leave or have left.  You go from the priest being astute in his teachings and a culture of church and family being connected to a free-for-all mass that is just an empty shell of 1960's social revolution of "free will." So you get horrendous services with incredibly weak language, liturgical dancers, lay folk performing the abultions of the holy vessels post-communion.  It's a three ring circus now.  The problem is the Catholic Church made it easy to separate church from home and make only church church on Sundays. 
The latin mass folks still go to novenas, pray the rosary before (and sometimes during low mass privately), they still go to benediction, they still go to continuing adult education classes held by the priest.  The priest oversees and teaches the first communion kids and confrimation kids.  He knows everyone that goes...
We really lost God in our society after the peak of free-will american individualism in the 50's through the 70's and it continues today.
And that is one thing I fear about Orthodoxy.. that the customs and small traditions that make the various jursidictions uniqe.  But so many coming into the church and those evangelical and protestants converts and nothing solid to have the Catholic faithful confident in their church.
I fMore to come, i'm going to bed
That's interesting because of all the Catholic couples that I regularly associate with use NFP.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #89 on: January 27, 2012, 01:32:49 PM »

That's interesting because of all the Catholic couples that I regularly associate with use NFP.

Selection bias? (For both of you).

I have no idea about the Catholics I know well. I know they don't have a lot of kids like the stereotypical old Catholic family but I've never asked about their birth control decisions.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #90 on: January 27, 2012, 08:00:06 PM »

username!, thanks for succinctly summing up most of the things I object to in the modern Catholicism of my family and peers.

I seriously almost cried when we had a school "Mass" earlier this year. Probably an overreaction, but it was pretty messed up.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #91 on: January 29, 2012, 10:14:43 PM »

ok, people:

There's a lot to address, but I'm very happy with the good posts here.  

First, please remember though, the request to be shown Church Fathers that believe it is possible to get out of hell when one died in mortal sin.  

A couple things Irish Hermit:
First on page one you stated you believe the fact that God struck the soldiers dead in Maccabees demonstrates that their sin was mortal.  

Not necessarily.  

The poor guy who tried to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling was also struck dead.  I doubt that was a mortal sin.  So it seems God strikes some people dead even if they didn't commit mortal sin.  

Secondly you stated:
Quote
Quote from: elijahmaria on January 23, 2012, 04:58:15 AM
Quote from: Irish Hermit on January 22, 2012, 07:58:41 PM

Kaste, I have an uncomfortable feeling that you don't really want to hear what the Orthodox believe.  


Apparently St. Mark of Ephesus disagrees with you.  Perhaps Kaste would prefer to follow that Church Father.

"But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or great ones for which – even thought they have repented over them – they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sin, but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place (for this, as we have said, has not been handed down to us). But some must be cleansed in the very departure from the body, thanks only to fear, as St. Gregory the Dialogist literally shows; while others must be cleansed after the departure from the body, either while remaining in the same earthly place, before they come to worship God and are honored with the lot of the blessed, or – if their sins were more serious and bind them, for a longer duration – they are kept in hell, but not in order to remain forever in fire and torment, but as it were in prison and confinement under guard."

First Homily: “Refutation of the Latin Chapters concerning Purgatorial Fire”
St. Mark of Ephesus

This will not do since St. Mark clearly shows that these souls died in faith and love and so are in a state of venial sin.  So the hell they go to is not the same eternal hell that mortal sinners go to.  St. Mark says this continually.  

Thirdly you have good points about the Catholic Church changing its teachings.  When I told a Catholic cleric this he became mad.  They don't like to have to admit their Church erred, when they haven't been given the green light yet by the Pope to do so.  

K

« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 10:19:48 PM by Kaste » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #92 on: January 29, 2012, 11:08:01 PM »



First, please remember though, the request to be shown Church Fathers that believe it is possible to get out of hell when one died in mortal sin.

Point Numero Uno.....the very elaborated distinction between mortal sin and venial sin stems from medieval Roman Catholicism.

If you wish to discuss the Church Fathers on this point (and they preceded the existence of the Roman Catholic Church) you would need to search out how/if they made these distinctions and what they meant by them.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #93 on: January 29, 2012, 11:14:46 PM »

The poor guy who tried to prevent the Ark of the Covenant from falling was also struck dead.  I doubt that was a mortal sin.  So it seems God strikes some people dead even if they didn't commit mortal sin. 

I don't think I'd be interrested in worshipping a deity who strikes people dead for minor sins.

"Yes," says Father O'Flaherty, "undoubtedly God has killed wee Johnny with that bus.  He was seen stealing a pencil in school today.  Let it be a lesson to all the other wicked children."
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #94 on: January 29, 2012, 11:17:24 PM »



First, please remember though, the request to be shown Church Fathers that believe it is possible to get out of hell when one died in mortal sin.

Point Numero Uno.....the very elaborated distinction between mortal sin and venial sin stems from medieval Roman Catholicism.

If you wish to discuss the Church Fathers on this point (and they preceded the existence of the Roman Catholic Church) you would need to search out how/if they made these distinctions and what they meant by them.

Perhaps the request should be to show Church Fathers that believe it is possible to get out of hell.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2012, 11:17:51 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #95 on: January 31, 2012, 09:41:28 PM »

The guy died from touching the ark.  Are you denying that, Irish Hermit?

Peter J, no it needs the last part, otherwise people would say yes, but upon further investigation it would show only people with light sins or unfulfilled penance getting out of hell. 

Let it be know to all: Neither Irish Hermit nor anyone else has not shown one Church Father who believe those who died with serious/mortal/really bad sin can get out of hell. 

K
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,448


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2012, 09:44:32 PM »

Quote
Let it be know to all: Neither Irish Hermit nor anyone else has not shown one Church Father who believe those who died with serious/mortal/really bad sin can get out of hell. 

That's quite a call, Kaste. Last time I checked, murder was a mortal sin. Yet the thief who confessed Christ was assured by The Man Himself that he would be in Paradise that very day.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2012, 09:56:58 PM »

The guy died from touching the ark.  Are you denying that, Irish Hermit?

Poor Uzzah!  And he was trying as he thought to do a good thing, to stop the Ark from toppling over.

Would you think he is in the eternal fires for that?  Or was he released when Christ went down to hell after His death?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: January 31, 2012, 10:09:43 PM »


Let it be know to all: Neither Irish Hermit nor anyone else has not shown one Church Father who believe those who died with serious/mortal/really bad sin can get out of hell. 

What are you saying?  I have provided the words for the Kneeling Prayers at Pentecost yesterday (in another thread.)

They were written by Saint Basil the Great and truly there are not many “greater” Church Fathers in the East or the West.

See message 50
at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,42706.msg702873.html#msg702873

Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #99 on: February 01, 2012, 09:28:00 AM »

Peter J, no it needs the last part, otherwise people would say yes, but upon further investigation it would show only people with light sins or unfulfilled penance getting out of hell. 

But don't Catholics and most Protestants believe that everyone who goes to hell is stuck there eternally?

Let it be know to all: Neither Irish Hermit nor anyone else has not? shown one Church Father who believe those who died with serious/mortal/really bad sin can get out of hell. 

K
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #100 on: February 12, 2012, 01:58:39 PM »

"As for me I say that those who are tormented in hell are tormented by the invasion of love. What is there more bitter and violent than the pains of love? Those who feel they have sinned against love bear in themselves a damnation much heavier than the most dreaded punishments. The suffering with which sinning against love afflicts the heart is more keenly felt than any other torment. It is absurd to assume that the sinners in hell are deprived of God’s love. Love is offered impartially. But by its very power it acts in two ways. It torments sinners, as happens here on earth when we are tormented by the presence of a friend to whom we have been unfaithful. And it gives joy to those who have been faithful."

St. Isaac the Syrian
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #101 on: February 17, 2012, 09:51:27 AM »

 

First, please remember though, the request to be shown Church Fathers that believe it is possible to get out of hell when one died in mortal sin.  

The two Church Fathers who taught this are St Gregory of Nyssa and St Isaac of Syria.  They were both advocates of apocatastasis.  The hope that all will be saved remains a minority position within the Orthodox Church, but it is a legitimate Orthodox hope.  The two most notable representatives of this hope are Met Kallistos Ware and Met Hilarion Alfeyev. 

Catholics too may also believe that all will be saved, though it is more difficult to conceive this as possible, given Catholic dogma that one's final orientation toward or away from God is definitively and irreversibly established at death.  Modern representatives of this hope are Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner. 
Logged

Nuckle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 12


« Reply #102 on: February 26, 2012, 03:52:44 AM »

I do admit one thing that attracts me to Orthodoxy over Catholicism is the fact that Jesus was himself a Jew and without question the Orthodox conception of Hell is so much closer to the Jewish conception of what isn't called Hell but analogous to it. Certainly the whole East West thing makes a difference. Our whole conception of Hell in the West is admittedly very cultural. The imagery comes from Roman mythology and even the name "Hell" comes from Germanic mythology.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 03:53:07 AM by Nuckle » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #103 on: February 26, 2012, 03:55:18 AM »

even the name "Hell" comes from Germanic mythology.
The name "hades" came from Greek mythology, yet it was used in the New Testament.

Names are names.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #104 on: August 12, 2012, 11:20:59 PM »

Akimel said:

Quote
The two Church Fathers who taught this are St Gregory of Nyssa and St Isaac of Syria.  They were both advocates of apocatastasis.  The hope that all will be saved remains a minority position within the Orthodox Church, but it is a legitimate Orthodox hope.  The two most notable representatives of this hope are Met Kallistos Ware and Met Hilarion Alfeyev. 

Catholics too may also believe that all will be saved, though it is more difficult to conceive this as possible, given Catholic dogma that one's final orientation toward or away from God is definitively and irreversibly established at death.  Modern representatives of this hope are Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner.

Akimel, interesting.  But how do you say Catholics can believe this when Rome dogmatized the Particular Judgment being eternal?  Or perhaps Rome didn't do that...See Ludwig Ott p. 475.  That teaching is a Sent. fidei proxima teaching, not De fide...

Is that how Balthasar and Rahner can still believe it? 

K
Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #105 on: August 13, 2012, 12:30:22 AM »


But how do you say Catholics can believe this when Rome dogmatized the Particular Judgment being eternal?  Or perhaps Rome didn't do that...See Ludwig Ott p. 475.  That teaching is a Sent. fidei proxima teaching, not De fide...

Is that how Balthasar and Rahner can still believe it? 

Good catch!  My compliments.  You may be right that the irreversibility of the particular judgment has not yet achieved de fide status; but this irreversibility is certainly part of the ordinary teaching of the Catholic Church, as witnessed by the older Catholic Encyclopedia and the modern Catholic Catechism.  As Pope Benedict states in his encyclical Spe salvi, "With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge."  As far as I know, neither Rahner nor Balthasar rejected the irreversibility of the fundamental option established at or in the moment of death. 

For an excellent summary of modern Catholic reflection on death, heaven, hell, and the final option, see John Sachs, "Current Eschatology: Universal Salvation and the Problem of Hell." 
Logged

Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #106 on: August 13, 2012, 08:44:53 AM »

Akimel,

Thanks for providing the good link.  It basically states Rahner and Balthasar simply have hope, based on philosophical reasons, that all will be saved.  But how is this hope "well founded" considering Rome's teaching on mortal sin.  Surely by the standards Rome teaches, many die in a state of mortal sin. 

I personally agree with the hope concept, but do not see how a Catholic can justify this with the Church's teachings on mortal sin. 

Also at the end of Augustine's City of God, he tells of the "tender hearted ones" who believed this way.  But I would be very interested to see examples of Christians who believed this way between Augustine and Pius IX. 

K
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 09:07:28 AM by Kaste » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,487


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #107 on: August 13, 2012, 09:03:15 AM »

even the name "Hell" comes from Germanic mythology.
The name "hades" came from Greek mythology, yet it was used in the New Testament.

Names are names.

Also, Hel was not necessarily a place of eternal torment, simply the abode of the dead.  Indeed, it has the same meaning as the Greek Hades, "hidden, unseen."
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #108 on: August 13, 2012, 09:42:53 AM »

True Schultz,

Catholics seem to mix up Gehenna with Sheol.  The former being the hell of fire reserved for eternal torment after the Last Judgment, the latter the abode of the dead sinners before Last Judgment. 

eternal Gehenna is contrasted with eternal Heaven
temporary Sheol is contrasted with temporary Paradise (before Last Judgment). 

This seems to be what Scriptures say. 
1)  It seems to me Orthodox are more likely to draw the distinction.  Am I right, is this Orthodox? 

Getting back to Catholic theologian Balthasar, here is a typical conservative loyal to the T Roman Catholic view of him:
"Alyssa Pitstick claims that this thesis directly contradicts the limpid and always consistent teaching of the Magisterium on the mystery of Holy Saturday, which perhaps finds its clearest and most univocal formulation in this sentence from the recently promulgated Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.”

2) What is the Orthodox view on Christ's descent into Hell/Hades/Sheol: was it to free the damned and destroy hell, or just to free the just who had gone before Him? 

K
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 09:49:21 AM by Kaste » Logged
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #109 on: August 13, 2012, 10:07:39 AM »


2) What is the Orthodox view on Christ's descent into Hell/Hades/Sheol: was it to free the damned and destroy hell, or just to free the just who had gone before Him? 

You may find this article by Met Hilarion helpful: Christ the Conqueror of Hell.
Logged

akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #110 on: August 13, 2012, 10:15:18 AM »


Also at the end of Augustine's City of God, he tells of the "tender hearted ones" who believed this way.  But I would be very interested to see examples of Christians who believed this way between Augustine and Pius

See:

John Sachs, Apocatastasis in Patristic Theology

Hilarion Alfeyev, St Isaac the Syrian, a theologian of love and mercy
Logged

Kaste
Site Supporter
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: member of the Invisible Church
Posts: 158


« Reply #111 on: August 13, 2012, 12:51:02 PM »


2) What is the Orthodox view on Christ's descent into Hell/Hades/Sheol: was it to free the damned and destroy hell, or just to free the just who had gone before Him? 

You may find this article by Met Hilarion helpful: Christ the Conqueror of Hell.

Excellent find Akimel.  Moderator, please give Akimel 2 more stars. 

Met. Hilarion's piece is very agreeable except for his footnote #60.  I have read ‘Concerning Infants Who Have Died Prematurely’ treatise and it does seem that the early church father says the unbaptized infant is in hell, just not suffering the pains of hell.  Also Hilarion puts that St. Gregory Palamas wrote that treatise, but actually it was St. Gregory of Nyssa.  Unless Palamas wrote another? 

K
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,068


When in doubt, say: "you lack the proper φρόνημα"


« Reply #112 on: August 13, 2012, 01:44:46 PM »

What is the Orthodox view on Christ's descent into Hell/Hades/Sheol: was it to free the damned and destroy hell, or just to free the just who had gone before Him? 
To free all the dead from the first death and destroy Sheol.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
akimel
Fr Aidan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR (Western Rite)
Posts: 520



WWW
« Reply #113 on: August 13, 2012, 01:48:50 PM »


Met. Hilarion's piece is very agreeable except for his footnote #60.  I have read ‘Concerning Infants Who Have Died Prematurely’ treatise and it does seem that the early church father says the unbaptized infant is in hell, just not suffering the pains of hell.  Also Hilarion puts that St. Gregory Palamas wrote that treatise, but actually it was St. Gregory of Nyssa.  Unless Palamas wrote another? 

Hmmm, I have read St Gregory's tract on infants (many years ago) and I do not recall any intimation that unbaptized infants go to hell, though I do recall thinking it was an unsatisfactory treatment of the problem. Baptism, e.g., does not seem to feature at all in St Gregory's reflections (see David Salomon's introduction to the treatise:  http://goo.gl/jKpSp; also see the brief discussion of St Gregory in the Catholic document on infant salvation: http://goo.gl/zajqC).  Gregory's problem seems to be, how can infants participate in the joys of heaven when they are incapable of virtue? 

In any case, you are quite correct that the treatise was written by St Gregory of Nyssa, not St Gregory Palamas.   I can't imagine Met Hilarion making that mistake, so I guess it was the translator or editor.       
Logged

WPM
Revolutionary Writer
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,633



« Reply #114 on: August 13, 2012, 02:57:05 PM »

hello,

Several references to the "places that are below us" Hades,Gehenna,and Sheol are from Bible Scriptures...Not very fun places to be and we don't want to go there ... That is we should look to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to deliver us "out of the wretched places in the nethermost bowels of earth"
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 02:58:52 PM by WPM » Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,897


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #115 on: August 13, 2012, 04:44:51 PM »

I always thought it was original sin
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.411 seconds with 142 queries.