OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 18, 2014, 09:44:26 PM *
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 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: How does the Catholic Church see Orthodox positions?  (Read 17255 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« on: March 08, 2006, 10:20:35 AM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 08, 2006, 10:23:01 AM »

Depends on whom you ask.  JPII was more of the "let's just intercommune and it will all work out" camp while B16 is more of the "submit to us now, erstwhile ones."  But that is a gross oversimplication.

From the Catholic POV there is nothing to hinder intercommunion and even concelebration (they concelebrate and even consecrate with Nestorian bishops!) but they would expect us to submit to their teachings in any formal arrangement.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #2 on: March 08, 2006, 09:07:33 PM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?

There are a great many differences in doctrine.

Take the filioque, for example. The Nicene Creed was added to by the RCC.

The text originally stated in part “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father”

This was agreed to by all parts of the Church. Then in Spain the Latin text was tampered with and the word ‘filioque’ was added. Which changed the text to say “And I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son

This was argued AGAINST by several Popes, but later Popes finally agreed to its addition.

We object for several reasons
a) the change was made unilaterally; the Pope has no right to tamper with a statement of faith made originally from an accord, which
b) stated it should never be changed, but more importantly,
c) it changes the nature of the Trinity by subverting the Holy Spirit to being an emination of the other two; a double procession.*

Other differences include that Catholics believe in Papal infaliblity, the Immaculate Conception, purgatory, etc.

*We believe that the Holy Spirit is sent from the Father (sometimes through the Son)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #3 on: March 08, 2006, 09:25:40 PM »

Does the Catholic Church actually have any doctrinal disputes with the Orthodox, or do they accept everything, just that they want us to be under the pope?  Things like filioque, immaculate conception, satisfaction theory, do they really hinder the Catholics like they hinder Orthodox?  If the OC somehow chose to take the pope as supreme dude, would the Catholic Church require the OC to change any teachings at all?

I think Anastasios' answer is as close as it gets to what I've experienced myself.  Being an EO who went to a Benedictine school, it was actually one of the first questions I asked my priestmonk Latin teacher first year - getting a perspective on how they looked at the whole situation.  His answer was basically what I got at the time (from a guy who was cynical about the direction the Cath church was going in... he said if the church became any more liberal, he'd probably become Orthodox).  In an informal setting, they have no objection to immediate intercommunion; but as it stands now, official reconciliation will require submission at least to Papal Supremacy and the whole outgrowth of pseudo-Petrine ecclesiology.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #4 on: March 08, 2006, 09:45:37 PM »

Saying that our differences are about the position of the Pope is only part of the story. We object to the pretensions of the Pope for several reasons;

a) they are an innovation

b) they change the structure of the Church (which is Christ's body here on earth)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2006, 11:59:38 PM »

Yes, I already know how we disagree with them, but I was asking the reverse.

Gosh, I just don't know...I didn't realize how far the Catholic Church has gone until I visited a "modern" one, which wasn't even very liberal according to my friend.  When all I knew of the Church was the way it used to be and Gregorian Chant and the solemn, regal stuff I saw at the big cathedral downtown, I thought there must be a way to reunite and fix things.  How could I reject all that, when it seemed to be really the "Orthodoxy of the West?"

Every parish is different, but to see how close Catholicism has come in many ways to the Protestantism I left, at least in form, I have much less hope in the idea of "reunion" than before.  We have diverged too far apart.  You can only reunite two estranged churches.  What I saw sure didn't seem like church anymore.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: March 08, 2006, 11:59:55 PM by MicahJohn » Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #6 on: March 09, 2006, 01:06:55 AM »

I visited a RC church this past summer and came away with the same feeling. My sister's evangelical Presbyterian church is more formal and dignified than that service was (and why do RC churches always have bad choirs?) (or am I just spoiled because Presbyterians always have great choirs - and great organs - not that I am promoting organs in Orthodox churches by any means - this is just an observation. For whatever reason Presbyterian churches always have great organs and RC churches always have cheesy little ones that sound crappy - remember the one in the baptist church during the funeral scene in the Big Chill? They sound like that. Not to be critical, of course! Grin

A good friend of mine attends a Latin Rite RC church because he can't stand the barely 40 minute service that they call a mass at the local parish church.

All that said, however, I agree that RC's see Orthodox in a better light than Orthodox do RC's. I think they would more readily accept our priests, sacraments, etc.

The division between east and west is so wearisome that sometimes I feel like I would like to accept JPII's view, stated above by Anastasios. They say that for the first several hundred years after the schism, at the lay and parish levels, no one felt divided and still felt they were all part of one Church. In some ways, maybe that is happening today; at work, at school, out on the street, if you meet a RC who is devout and takes his/her faith seriously, amidst all the pagans, you feel like you've met a brother or sister. I bet at this grass roots level more RC's would tell you God is loving and that Christ died as an example of love than would posit an Angry God whose Son had to die to appease the wrath of the Father. That view seems to be now just the domain of the fudamentalists and strict Calvinists although Orthodox converts from the RC's would know better than I.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #7 on: March 09, 2006, 02:00:55 AM »

Saying that our differences are about the position of the Pope is only part of the story. We object to the pretensions of the Pope for several reasons;

a) they are an innovation

b) they change the structure of the Church (which is Christ's body here on earth)

I wasn't trying to list our differences; I was just attempting to respond to micahjohn's question that basically amounts to "what do they think we must do in order for our Churches to be reunited," which A and I (I hope) answered to the best of our experience.

If we wanted to get into the list of differences, then we'd need a pretty big thread to handle it.  But that isn't/wouldn't be productive at the moment.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #8 on: March 09, 2006, 03:57:58 AM »

I wasn't trying to list our differences; I was just attempting to respond to micahjohn's question that basically amounts to "what do they think we must do in order for our Churches to be reunited," which A and I (I hope) answered to the best of our experience.

If we wanted to get into the list of differences, then we'd need a pretty big thread to handle it.  But that isn't/wouldn't be productive at the moment.

Everyone though seems to think it's just about the Pope. I hope you don't think I've misrepresented what you've said.

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be. Even as a boy I felt uncomfortable when the style changed in church and we had two hippy-like lads at the front with accoustic guitars. They made us sing "Let it Be", which shows how dumb they were (including the priest who wanted to be 'relevant') - given the fact that it's not a hymn
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2006, 07:34:37 AM »

Everyone though seems to think it's just about the Pope. I hope you don't think I've misrepresented what you've said.

I'm ex-Catholic as a number here seem to be. Even as a boy I felt uncomfortable when the style changed in church and we had two hippy-like lads at the front with accoustic guitars. They made us sing "Let it Be", which shows how dumb they were (including the priest who wanted to be 'relevant') - given the fact that it's not a hymn

No, you're right - it's not just about the Pope.

I just have a feeling (that was the OP question - what do you think) that if say the Pope and the EP were to sit down at a table, and each was to be asked what the other would need to do for reunion - a "non-negotiable" list in their eyes - then the EP would list off things like getting rid of the filioque, ending Papal Supremacy, ending azymes, restoration of baptism, restoration of the ancient Liturgical rites as mandatory, redistricting, etc.  And the Pope would probably say that the EO have to submit to Papal Supremacy.  On the other issues, they have already compromised in the past, and therefore would not force them for reunion (i.e. azymes, baptism, the Eastern Rite, etc.).  So my response to the question "What would the Catholics want us to do to reunite with them" is that, when push comes to shove, their only major sticking point will be Papal Supremacy and the doctrines that have grown out of it (Infallibility ex cathedra, the right of a Pope to nullify Ecumenical Synod, etc.).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2006, 08:07:37 AM »

We object for several reasons
a) the change was made unilaterally; the Pope has no right to tamper with a statement of faith made originally from an accord,

Agreed. Smiley

Quote
which
b) stated it should never be changed,

and again.  Smiley

Quote
but more importantly,
c) it changes the nature of the Trinity by subverting the Holy Spirit to being an emination of the other two; a double procession.*

Disagreed.

While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

The difficulty doesn't lie in the words "and the Son" but rather in the meaning of the word "proceeds".

I explain.

The Greek verb used in the original version of the Creed is ekporeuesthai.  This means proceeds from in the sense of "finding its source and ultimate origin in".  When this was translated into Latin, the word procedere was used.  This is an accurate translation, because the Latin procedere also means "inding its source and ultimate origin in".  Therefore, it is right and proper to say that the Spirit proceeds (ekporeuesthai) from the Father.  Both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone and both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree that there is only one generative and ultimate eternal source in the Trinity - the Father.

However...

The problem with translating the Creed into Latin is the same problem with any translation: not all words in one language have a direct equivalent in another language.

The Latin word procedere is indeed an accurate translation of the Greek ekporeuesthai, but it also has a secondary meaning - a meaning which does not exist in the original Greek.  The Latin procedere also means "proceeds" in the sense of "goes".  i.e. Let us proceed to the concert.  It refers to a temporal action of motion.  In this secondary sense, it is indeed correct to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and both Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree on this.  We have the temporal sendings of the Spirit by the Son in the Gospels, especially when he breathed on the Apostles and told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

The problem is that this secondary sense of the Latin procedere (which also exists in the English "to proceed") is a completely different verb in Greek - proeinai.  This verb does not appear in the original Greek version of the Creed which was affirmed by the Second Oecumenical Council.  The Creed speaks of the eternal procession of the Spirit, which is from the Father alone, and Rome has no authority, on its own, to introduce this second sense of the word into the Creed.

To further highlight the fact that Rome believes the same thing as the Orthodox, in Byzantine Catholic churches in communion with Rome, when they serve the Liturgy in Greek, they do not have the filioque, because, in Greek, adding the words and the Son with the verb ekporeuesthai would be heresy, and so they don't do it.  They only add it in Latin and English, and other languages with their roots in Latin, where the second sense of "proceed" exists.

Therefore, I agree that Rome changed the Creed.  I agree that this causes unnecessary confusion.  I agree that Rome has no authority to change the Creed alone.  However, we do believe the same things with respect to the Trinity, our differing versions of the Creed (in English, but not in greek), notwithstanding.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2006, 08:09:57 AM by Michael » Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2006, 08:25:58 AM »

Michael,

I would just temper your argument by saying that we believe the same thing about the Trinity as some RCs but not others. I've always found the official teaching on this from the RCC to be very confusing as some sources state one thing and some the opposite. RCs obviously have the same problem (and I've never yet come across one that knew about the two different Greek words used - obviously I'm talking about lay people) because I've talked to some who do hold to the view you describe here and others who are adamant (and can also cite sources) that the filioque is to be understood as the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from Father and Son as of one principle. That's the very doctrine we condemn. In other words, then, if we do indeed believe the same thing about the Trinity that the RCC officially teaches (and as I've said I'm not sure which interpretation is actually official) then the heirarchy of the RCC needs to clarify the teaching and correct those who misunderstand it. Obviously, I think the easiest way to do this would be to remove the filioque from the Creed and explain why they are doing this (to clear up the misunderstandings of RC laiety). I don't think they will do this, though, as that would mean admitting that they were wrong to make the addition in the first place.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #12 on: March 09, 2006, 09:40:57 AM »

Michael,

Have you read the work Crisis in Byzantium by Aristeides Papadakis (SVS Press)?  The fathers at the council of Blachernae were aware of the dual meanings of the Latin verb but this did not stop them from condeming again the filioque doctrine and its proponents (both Latin and Greek unionist) in 1285.  Unfortunately, I don't have the book at my home right now or I would get it out and write down the key points, but I highly recommend you purchase/borrow this book if you have an interest in the subject.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #13 on: March 09, 2006, 09:49:02 AM »

Anastasios, thank you so much for the reference.  I should look that up.  I'll note the name of it now. Smiley

James, thanks for your points as well.  I think you're right; there is often confusion on both sides, partly from some RCs not actually being clear on what Rome believes about this, and partly from some Orthodox who seem to argue with what they think Rome's position is rather than listening to what Rome is telling us they actually believe.  Of course, they can hardly be blamed if they are getting mixed messages from Roman Catholic sources.

I came across this in my searching, which seems to show that my understanding of proeinai above isn't quite how Rome understands the verb, but it is still different from the original Greek.

Thanks again,
Michael
Logged
Ntinos
Σαλός
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 355


« Reply #14 on: March 09, 2006, 11:12:36 AM »

Quote
No, you're right - it's not just about the Pope.

I just have a feeling (that was the OP question - what do you think) that if say the Pope and the EP were to sit down at a table, and each was to be asked what the other would need to do for reunion - a "non-negotiable" list in their eyes - then the EP would list off things like getting rid of the filioque, ending Papal Supremacy, ending azymes, restoration of baptism, restoration of the ancient Liturgical rites as mandatory, redistricting, etc.  And the Pope would probably say that the EO have to submit to Papal Supremacy.  On the other issues, they have already compromised in the past, and therefore would not force them for reunion (i.e. azymes, baptism, the Eastern Rite, etc.).  So my response to the question "What would the Catholics want us to do to reunite with them" is that, when push comes to shove, their only major sticking point will be Papal Supremacy and the doctrines that have grown out of it (Infallibility ex cathedra, the right of a Pope to nullify Ecumenical Synod, etc.).

Actually, is it important according to christian doctrine whether the highest ranking bishop is one or five? To many it would seem rational that only one man should govern the Church (ie the Pope).

Yes, I also believe such things would be innegotiatable.
Logged

Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,075


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #15 on: March 09, 2006, 11:47:22 AM »

Actually, is it important according to christian doctrine whether the highest ranking bishop is one or five? To many it would seem rational that only one man should govern the Church (ie the Pope).

Yes, I also believe such things would be innegotiatable.

Eh.... it's about ecclesiology - does one bishop have the right to interfere with the operation of another bishop's diocese?  The Orthodox answer is no, only a synod can interfere with a bishop's operation of his diocese (whether it be his local Synod, or the Patriarchal Synod, or an Ecumenical Synod).  The Catholic answer is yes, the Pope, through his universal jurisdiction (which we include when saying Supremacy, versus Primacy which does not include this principal) can do so.  So it's not about one vs. five (cause there isn't even five now, it's like 13).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #16 on: March 09, 2006, 02:54:39 PM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

But whats up with all that indulgences and prugatory? That sooo throws me off. So say I'm a hypothetical Catholic. I sin a mortal sin ie. I cheated on my wife (although I'm too young to be married and am not married). So I go to confession, and the priest tells me to do 1 rosary every day for the next month as a penance....

Does that mean (in Catholic theology) that because I am saying these rosaries, that when I die, I will suffer somewhat less in purgatory?

I've also heard of ppl doing rosaries on behalf of ppl already in purgatory...

The reason I ask is because I have some traditional catholic prayer cards at home. On the bottom, it says something like " 9 years indulgence"  or "350 days" and sometimes accompanied by a small latin word.

The very aspect of purgatory itself is weird: So after we die, we go to this fiery place for it to burn off all our sins to prepare us for heaven. So then what was all our prayers, fastings, communion, penance, no matter how small- all that goes down the drain basically once you die and your soul is purified...

If we don't believe in purgatory, we still have our version popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose.
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #17 on: March 09, 2006, 03:42:00 PM »

Quote
ending azymes

While I think pre-manufactured communion wafers are a huge abuse of the liturgal symbolism involved in Communion - are azymes really that big of a deal, or can we just overlook them as something that is part of the Western Church now?

Logged
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,707


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 09, 2006, 05:07:41 PM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

But whats up with all that indulgences and pugatory? That sooo throws me off. So say I'm a hypothetical Catholic. I sin a mortal sin ie. I cheated on my wife (although I'm too young to be married and am not married). So I go to confession, and the priest tells me to do 1 rosary every day for the next month as a penance....

Does that mean (in Catholic theology) that because I am saying these rosaries, that when I die, I will suffer somewhat less in purgatory?

I've also heard of ppl doing rosaries on behalf of ppl already in purgatory...

The reason I ask is because I have some traditional catholic prayer cards at home. On the bottom, it says something like " 9 years indulgence"  or "350 days" and sometimes accompanied by a small latin word.

The very aspect of purgatory itself is weird: So after we die, we go to this fiery place for it to burn off all our sins to prepare us for heaven. So then what was all our prayers, fastings, communion, penance, no matter how small- all that goes down the drain basically once you die and your soul is purified...

If we don't believe in purgatory, we still have our version popularized by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

Indulgences are the West's application of the idea of canonical penance, as in that compendium called The Rudder (Pedalion) in the Orthodox churches. As in 'commit this sin and on top of going to confession and absolution be banned from Communion or even standing in the church for X years'. Nothing peculiarly Western really.

The time aspect is widely misunderstood, though 'partial' and 'plenary' (Latin for 'full') can refer to 'time' (what is 'time' in dimensions other than ours?) in purgatory (more on which below). The years or days mean that the prayer is a substitute for that many years or days of canonical penance. The idea comes from the church having the power of the keys, an application also of intercession. IIRC the teaching is that the Pope can apply the 'treasury of merits' (prayers and good works of the saints and of men on earth) to you or whomever you pray for and so can assign 'partial' or 'plenary' status to certain prayers. Plenary means all the assigned canonical penance has been done, which may mean no time in purgatory but that's not what it literally means.

Yes, according to the teaching, if you say those rosaries, you may spend less time in purgatory. No-one knows doctrinally if one 'suffers' there/what form the purification takes. (More on which below.)

There's nothing odd about saying rosaries for the souls there - it's intercession, just like Orthodox praying for the dead.

Purgatory is simply the intermediate state, with which prayer for the dead makes sense. Though some Orthodox, including here, describe that state this way: that heaven and hell each have their own waiting rooms and there are helped by one's prayers, denying an intermediate state as such. In Roman Catholic teaching, purgatory is the equivalent of the one for heaven.

Purgatorial fire is not Roman Catholic doctrine.

Fr Seraphim (Rose) was talking not about purgatory but something different, before one goes to heaven, hell or the intermediate state: the particular judgement (doctrine or close to it according to both sides), described in Russian folklore as the 'aerial toll-houses' (not doctrine on either side), taking place in our air but in another dimension different to ours so we can't see it. (Heaven, hell and the intermediate state likewise are in a different, invisible dimension.) Here one is confronted with the sins one commited in life and learns his destination in the afterlife. According to the legend, people are in this state for about the first 40 days after death, which is why Orthodox services for the dead on the 40th day are popular. They can be prayed for during that time, which I think explains the common confusion online between this idea and purgatory.

Neither side claims to know who goes where in the afterlife - except canonised saints. Rome holds that if you sincerely prayed, communed, fasted, etc. you may not go to the intermediate state but straight to heaven after your particular judgement. (The general judgement will happen at the Second Coming - per the Creed - and resurrection of the body.)
Logged

Armando
Dead among the living
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 187

I gave up dreaming a long time ago...


« Reply #19 on: March 09, 2006, 07:13:43 PM »

First of all, from what I've heard from a local Catholic priest and bishop,
Purgatory as a doctrine has not been fully set. We imagine of hell as
a fiery place but in fact it's just absence of God. Imagine a world
just like ours, only a bit weirder and with Hitler running up and down
killing Jews wihtout anyone telling him not to. Purgatory might be a place
where the soul is reminded of her biggest sins and that gives the soul
a burning feeling. Not as in being touched by fire. Or it could just be a dark
room where you sit for hours till you are allowed up in heaven. Or it could be
non of the above. We just know that the soul will be purified before entering heaven.
Logged

Ten years have passed, the girl I loved
is now a woman, but I am still a child...
-Sad-ending fairytale, Miltos Paschalidis
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #20 on: March 09, 2006, 10:14:59 PM »

Disagreed.
While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

The difficulty doesn't lie in the words "and the Son" but rather in the meaning of the word "proceeds".
Photius disagrees with you; see the Mystagogy
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #21 on: March 10, 2006, 12:57:59 AM »

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8380.msg110717#msg110717 date=1141933320]
While I think pre-manufactured communion wafers are a huge abuse of the liturgal symbolism involved in Communion - are azymes really that big of a deal, or can we just overlook them as something that is part of the Western Church now?
[/quote]

There seem to be a lot of Orthodox people out there who say that in the event of reunion with the Latin Church, the Latins would have to stop using azymes, except for a limited time or in areas where economia seemed to indicate that it made sense.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #22 on: March 10, 2006, 01:32:48 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much. So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox? After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

For example, the rosary was widely encouraged in the early 20th century when he BV Mary appeared in Portugal on a small tree to the three kids @ Fatima. She specifically asked them to pray the rosary and to conssecrate Russia to her. In my opinion, after the fall of communism, this has already been accomplished but many Catholics still don't think so. But the point is that she asked Western Catholics do this and not Eastern Orthodox for whatever reason...the West needed it more at the time etc. So both traditions on the after-life could very well hold the same truth in them but because this area is sooo shady, our churches habe historically interpreted them differently based on our cultures.

As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).
Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #23 on: March 10, 2006, 01:37:26 AM »

While the wording of the Latin Creed is different from the Orthodox Creed, in that the Latin has added filioque (or "and the Son" in English), the Roman Catholic Church does indeed believe the same thing as us Orthodox about the procession.

This is by no means certain.  There are those who would more or less agree with you, and would say that the filioque is not such a big deal.  There are many others, however, who take the line hinted at by montalban in his posts.  Among them are Vladimir Lossky, who eloquently argues in his classic work The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church that the filioque has had a tragic effect on the way the West views the life and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church.  Personally, I have yet to see someone offer a substantial, articulate and convincing rebuttal to Lossky's thesis.  (Apparently, all that Cardinal Congar could say in reply is something to the effect that Lossky just wasn't right about this.  Okay.  So tell me why?)

James Bob
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2006, 01:40:33 AM »

As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).

That doesn't make it alright.  Also, are you sure about the Armenians?  I've never heard this.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #25 on: March 10, 2006, 01:42:57 AM »

Quote
Also, are you sure about the Armenians?  I've never heard this. ÂÂ

It's true. They use azymes, and have used it for a very very long time. They don't add water to the chalice, either.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 01:43:10 AM by yBeayf » Logged
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #26 on: March 10, 2006, 01:43:36 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much. So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox? After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

The Orthodox are allowed to believe in a kind of middle state if they want to.  They are also free to not believe in any kind of middle state at all.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #27 on: March 10, 2006, 01:47:02 AM »

It's true. They use azymes, and have used it for a very very long time. They don't add water to the chalice, either.

Okay, thanks.  I knew about the water in the chalice thing, but not about azymes.  But I have to say that anitquity should not be an argument in and of itself for something being perfectly okay.  
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,183


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #28 on: March 10, 2006, 01:58:16 AM »

I largely agree with traditional Catholic doctrine, exept for the Papal In. and Filioque.

So.......does that mean that you agree with the doctrine of the immaculate conception, the assumption of the Theotokos without dieing, thomist thought and formulations, other scholastic and juridical doctrines concerning the nature of God and man, juridical Anselmian notions regarding our justification in Christ, extreme yet prevalent Augustinian interpretations of the meaning of the fall etc. etc?Huh
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 02:03:50 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #29 on: March 10, 2006, 03:12:40 AM »

I knew I was goona get hassled for writing that  Roll Eyes What I meant by this is that I agree with Catholic doctrine on the same points we agree on: Incarnation of Christ, Mary as Theotokos, Ever Virgin, Panagia, the Trinity, one in Essence, their traditional take on liturgy (ie. not Vatican II's casual take on liturgy and worship).'

the history is pretty clear in that the Theotokos was taken up to heaven after she fell asleep here on earth. The icon also shows it quite well- she is lying on a funeral pyre being incensed by the Apostles...

As for Immaculate Conception, I don't believe exactly in the way Catholics do, unless the Orthodox church is misunderstanding it. After all, the Theotokos did appear in France to St. Bernadette Soubirous telling her she was the "Immaculate Conception". Bernadettes body 150 years later is still incorrupt and can be seen today. AFAIK, nothing was added or done to help make the body last.  Could it be that the Theotokos was speaking of the Orthodox understanding of the Conception?

 http://www.ichrusa.com/saintsalive/bernad.htm

Some photos of Bernadette.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #30 on: March 10, 2006, 03:19:33 AM »

This is by no means certain.  There are those who would more or less agree with you, and would say that the filioque is not such a big deal.  There are many others, however, who take the line hinted at by montalban in his posts.  Among them are Vladimir Lossky, who eloquently argues in his classic work The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church that the filioque has had a tragic effect on the way the West views the life and operation of the Holy Spirit in the Church.  Personally, I have yet to see someone offer a substantial, articulate and convincing rebuttal to Lossky's thesis.  (Apparently, all that Cardinal Congar could say in reply is something to the effect that Lossky just wasn't right about this.  Okay.  So tell me why?)

James Bob

And also in "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton he states the Catholic belief in the filioque is one that changes the concept of the Trinity. And he notes that Catholic popes originally argued against its use.

If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Also, for the Roman church one must realise that when they are talking about something proceeding from the Father they are not talking about it the same way we are, as they fail to distinguish between God and His energies.

"Because the Frankish Filioque presupposes the identity of uncreated divine essence and energy, and because participation in the divine essence is impossible, the Latin tradition was led automatically into accepting communicated grace as created, leading to its objectification and magical priestly manipulation."
-John S. Romanides
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.03.htm
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
MicahJohn
The Lonely Tenor
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58


« Reply #31 on: March 10, 2006, 10:01:04 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,444


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2006, 10:19:44 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...

I certainly don't want to make it sound like I think that this is what happened, but sometimes in the Church people are incorrupt for the exact opposite reason.  I would ask anyone more familiar with hagiography to expound on that.  Again, I am not suggesting Bernadette was demon possessed!  Just that incorruption is not an automatic guarantee of sanctity.

A.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodo
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,707


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 10, 2006, 10:40:21 AM »

Thanks young fogey for your in-depth response. I get the purgatory, just not the "say this prayer and I'll spare ya 10 years in the waiting room"  so much.

You're welcome. That's probably because being assigned a penance isn't standard Orthodox practice in confession (but not unheard of as Ware writes: the Greek for it is epitimion IIRC) but is normal RC practice. That and under Turkish rule confession largely dropped out of Greek practice. (IIRC, most parish priests didn't have the education and so weren't allowed to hear confessions; the bishop sent educated priest-confessors circuit-riding through his diocese - because of that the people could only confess occasionally.) So the idea of long, difficult canonical penances may have dropped out of popular Orthodox thinking except perhaps among avid readers of The Rudder. And so the notion of assigning prayers as substitutes for them is completely foreign to the average Orthodox. Understandable!
 
Quote
So, can this belief be held by an Orthodox?


It will probably be vehemently denied here but an observer can't see why not really.

Quote
After all, both toll houses and purgatory are not necessarily based upon solid experience by the church fathers, unless they were mystically transported there and back, or had visions in which this was revealeved to them.

My guess is none of it is defined doctrine to the Orthodox but simply longstanding belief and practice. The councils covered who Jesus is/the Trinity and the veneration of icons, not these matters AFAIK... because nobody challenged/denied them... until the Protestants came along.

Quote
For example, the rosary was widely encouraged in the early 20th century when he BV Mary appeared in Portugal on a small tree to the three kids @ Fatima. She specifically asked them to pray the rosary and to conssecrate Russia to her. In my opinion, after the fall of communism, this has already been accomplished but many Catholics still don't think so. But the point is that she asked Western Catholics do this and not Eastern Orthodox for whatever reason...the West needed it more at the time etc. So both traditions on the after-life could very well hold the same truth in them but because this area is sooo shady, our churches habe historically interpreted them differently based on our cultures.

Lourdes and Fátima aren't Catholic doctrine nor considered part of revelation as such - they're approved for private devotion as their content is unobjectionable to Roman Catholic theology,  and one can even name parish churches after them. But... no-one has to believe in them.

Regarding differences in rite and culture, you're right on the money.

People who want to force the rosary on the Eastern churches because they think the practices described at Fátima are meant to be universal are simply wrong. Probaby ignorant.

Quote
As for azymes, why make the Latins stop a tradition they've been doing since the begining. They were using azymes way before the split from the East and they were still considered Orthodox. Also, the Armenians use azymes and have been using it since before Chalcedon (so I've read).

That seems a nasty bit of Byzantinocentrism. As has been written here, yes, the Armenians do use them.

Quote
The Orthodox are allowed to believe in a kind of middle state if they want to.  They are also free to not believe in any kind of middle state at all.

Which seems to agree that the matter isn't defined to them. I've had the notion of two waiting rooms described to me by an Orthodox here as what Orthodoxy teaches, which I think is what Pravoslavbob means by not believing in a middle state. That nicely covers the practice of praying for the dead from that point of view.

But as I've written here before, the problem with that is like that with apocatastasis (an ultimate universalism: in the end all will be saved and freed from hell): it violates free will. So to an observer it seems to be heresy. Suppose you were evil in this life. According to orthodox Christianity on both sides, when you die you may go to hell for that. (Nobody knows for sure if any humans are in hell!) That's your choice, made here. But as nice as praying somebody out of hell sounds (Fr Seraphim (Rose) believed in that IIRC), it violates the freedom God gave you to refuse him. He is an ardent suitor, not a rapist, to use an imperfect metaphor.

As for the Immaculate Conception, both sides teach that Mary is immaculate. The difference is to do with how the East describes original sin, which is very hard to explain without making it seem like the Pelagian heresy so I'm not going to try. (Perhaps somebody with theological credentials can have a go at it.) One can fairly say that the RC definition, using Western concepts, isn't needed in the Orthodox theological system.

The methods of the Schoolmen of course have been widely used historically in Greece and Russia, particularly to combat Protestantism. Some modern Orthodox scholars don't like that and try to deny its legitimacy but IIRC that's led to some weird ideas like stavroclasm (Christ didn't redeem us on the cross but was only appearing to; he did in the Garden of Gethsemane!) or sounding like Greek or Russian versions of liberal Protestants (monasticism and even religion as a concept are bad*, etc.). 19th-century-bred Russians (the most 'European' of the Orthodox culturally?), for example, with their scholasticism seem more hospitable... and useful for communicating with Western man.

Mary's dying or not isn't doctrine on either side. The original story from the East, as shown in icons, says she did before being assumed body and soul into heaven.

*Schmemann's cool in context- mind-expanding in fact. Out of context, statements like these are dangerous to people's faith.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2006, 10:49:06 AM by The young fogey » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: March 11, 2006, 12:07:00 AM »

I actually just finished watching "The Song of Bernadette" which is the story of the Lourdes apparition.  I'm not quite sure what to think of it.  The incorruption of her body would seem to indicate some level of holiness...
I don't know about the Lourdes one, but as to Fatima, according to "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" by Clark Carlton he shows some reasons to doubt it
a) "the virgin" predicted the end of WWI which was wrong (later it was changed to the correct date)
b) the dedication of a part of herself (her sacred heart) - dedicating to a piece of a person's body is foreign to Orthodox understanding
c) she asked that her heart be dedicated to the return of Russia - which means Catholics should try to convert Russian (Orthodox)
and
d) she appeared to kids - also not the usual way (as far as Orthodox are concerned) Clark (Innocent) Carlton says most appearences go to people spiritually ready for them.

Some of these points might apply to Lourdes
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 12:07:52 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #35 on: March 11, 2006, 12:52:07 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these aparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predicition of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...
Logged
BrotherAidan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,568

OC.net


« Reply #36 on: March 11, 2006, 01:09:30 AM »

I'm with Timos on this one

"out of the mouths of babes" so to speak

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #37 on: March 11, 2006, 02:28:56 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these apparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predication of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...

As to Russia, it is apparent that the downfall of Communism did NOT stop the late Pope JPII from pursuing a mission to Russia (re: Fatima)

Here's what one Catholic site says...
" Since 1984 the moral and spiritual state of the world has obviously grown far worse: In the past 14 years there have been 600 million abortions, and wars have broken out all over the world. Mercy-killing and homosexual acts have been "legalized". In Russia itself a new law has just been passed which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and the Orthodox churches which forcibly occupied Catholic parishes under the Communists. Thus it is clear Russia is not converted to the Catholic Faith as Our Lady of Fatima promised would happen if Her request was done."
http://www.fatimapriest.com/faq02.html

Thus the emphasis is to convert Russians to CATHOLICISM!

Children are, I'm lead to believe by the book I cited, not usually 'ready' for such things. Also, the fact that the RCC is in schism from 'the' Church of God makes me suspect these visions.

"Let such words be a warning to all Orthodox Christians who might he intrigued by apparitions such as those at Fatima or Lourdes or Medjugorje. These occur outside the Church and are as such suspect."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/mary_newage.aspx


(all emphasises above mine)
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 02:31:53 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #38 on: March 11, 2006, 02:29:48 AM »

I'm with Timos on this one

"out of the mouths of babes" so to speak

BTW, I heard Clark Carlton speak last year; he's been a convert along time and still seems bitter toward his protestant upbringing. Kind of sad - would have thought he would have found some healing by this point.
Given that the book I cited of his is about Catholicism your remark has no bearing.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



PS
« Reply #39 on: March 11, 2006, 02:36:18 AM »

For some reason I strongly believe in these aparitions....

a) I've heard that the dates of many apparitions were not 100% exact on purpose so as to warn people of what's coming, rather than a full predicition of the future.

c.) As for her asking that Russia be dedicated, this return is not necessarily a "return" from Orthodoxy to Catholicism. but rather from communism to Orthodoxy, which in Russia, widely venerates the mother of God. Russia today can be said that it is consecrated to the Mother of God compared to many other European countries.

d.) Maybe these innocent kids were spiritually ready for what they say and heard...

I forgot to add; you've not addressed the fact that she is one who wants a 'piece' of her to be dedicated to something; her 'Sacred Heart'. Mr. Clark points out that this is 'novel' in terms of Orthodoxy; so unless you're prepared to accept a lead from the Catholic Church on ways on which we should worship...

And getting back to consecrating of Russia, it goes beyond the threat of Communism:
Here's another Catholic site

"After the three days of darkness, St. Peter and St. Paul, having come down from Heaven, will preach in the whole world and designate a new Pope. A great light will flash from their bodies and will settle upon the cardinal who is to become Pope. Christianity, then, will spread throughout the world. He is the Holy Pontiff, chosen by God to withstand the storm. At the end, he will have the gift of miracles, and his name shall be praised over the whole earth. Whole nations will come back to the Church and the face of the earth will be renewed. Russia, England, and China will come into the Church." (Prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837 A.D.) who was Beatified by Pope Bendedict XV in 1920.)
http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/sept05tcw.htm#sep17
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,707


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 11, 2006, 10:09:19 AM »

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone. One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity ÃÂ  la Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.
Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #41 on: March 11, 2006, 07:18:53 PM »

Again, Fátima is not RC doctrine. (Neither is the prophecy of Blessed Anna Maria Taigi.) None of its practices are required of anyone.

I don't know who you think has been saying otherwise. However when the Pope prays to the 'virgin' you can be assured that a large number of people will also do this. He did so May 13, 1982; when Pope John Paul II made his pilgrimage of thanksgiving to Fatima and made a public Act of Entrustment-Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the Cova da Iria at Fatima. Maybe it's something all Catholics should ignore? Even if he declares it a directive from heaven?!?

Such as

"My child and My children, remember now, I have asked you to contact Pope John Paul II, and tell him he must rescind the treaty, the pact [Vatican-Moscow agreement] made with Russia; for only in that way shall you have a true peace." - Jesus, June 6, 1987

http://www.tldm.org/Directives/d07.htm

What is dangerous is that it is a 'suspect' revelation (given the reasons stated earlier)

One can interpret it as describing the overthrow of Communism and the restoration of Russian Orthodoxy (a common view today) and/or the return of Russian Orthodoxy to communion with Rome (which isn't the same thing as Russia becoming Roman Rite and adopting devotions to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, etc.).

One can... A truism! What is being interpreted (again I direct you to the sites I've cited earlier) is that regardless of the fall of Communism Russia must still be 'dedicated' to the Sacred Heart of the Virgin; so in effect Catholics are seeking to dedicate Orthodox Russia to a suspect visitation.


The official position of Rome is to work towards corporate reunion with the Orthodox and thus not engage in one-to-one proselytism in Russia, a policy that Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz has followed.

LOL! The Roman Church has always assured the Orthodox Church it wants accord. Whilst at the same time it does prosleytise to Russians and Orthodox everywhere. It is duplicitous of the RCC.

As part of the one-true-church claim Rome does passively and quietly accept such voluntary conversions but doesn't solicit them.

You're kidding. Wow, if you want to completley ignore the post I stated earlier where-in it shows that Russia is not yet CATHOLIC, that's fine.

Here's another site http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/b007ht.htm which deals with the fact Russia is not yet CATHOLIC. Although it does restate the 'offical' ban on conversions.

Nikolai Trofimchuk must be rolling in his grave.

See also

http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/UzzellRussia.php

In fact there is a tiny, spontaneous revival of the Russian Byzantine Catholic Church in Russia that feels frozen out exactly because the Roman authorities don't want to offend the Orthodox.

So what is this Catholic Church doing there? It itself is a result of Catholic 'missionary' work.

Fr Nicholas Gruner of the Fatima Priest site is a free-lancer, and has been for some time, with no standing anymore in the Roman Catholic Church. He no more speaks for Rome than former Archbishop Gregory of Colorado does for the Orthodox communion.

See the traditioncation site I've cited above in this post

Of course apparitions outside of Orthodoxy have no official standing, positive or negative, in that church. (So you're not going to see their churches named after them, etc.)

That's not true; as far as I know that Church acknowledges as genuine only those revelations given to it. My understanding of Orthodoxy being 'the Way' negates any attempts at reletivism you might desire with regards apparations.

Devotion to hearts isn't part of the Orthodox tradition - it's very 17th-century French - but 1) it's a metaphor, 2) as we can't separate Christ's humanity from his divinity ÃÂ  la Nestorianism proper, it seems valid and 3) IMO 'you worship a heart' is a Protestant jibe down there with 'you worship a piece a bread', 'you worship paintings' or 'you worship saints'.

As Rome in theory respects the integrity of the Eastern rites, they're not supposed to have those heart devotions. The reason you see Eastern Catholics doing them is they disobeyed Rome and latinised themselves.

Thanks for the fine apology. The 'sacred heart' cult continues. There are schools in the west named after it, etc. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make because it's very much Catholic, eastern and western.



Look up "NewAdvent" under "s" and you'll see

Sacred Heart, Brothers of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Devotion to the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionary Sisters of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Missionaries of the
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in Belgium
Sacred Heart of Jesus, Society of the -- Founded in France
Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, Congregation of the
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #42 on: March 11, 2006, 07:31:21 PM »

Just for the record, I accept it is not 'dogma'...
The Church takes Marian (and other) apparitions quite seriously, and only after great care and study deems a particular apparition as "worthy of belief." There are only a few apparitions of Mary that have been given this status. No Catholic is "bound" to believe in these Marian apparitions, but he is quite safe in doing so and most assuredly should believe, accepting those approved apparitions with the faith of a child!
http://www.fisheaters.com/apparitions.html

Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union, and the subsequent birth of the new Commonwealth of Independent States, Our Lady appeared in what Veronica perceived as a message expressed in desperation:
     "Do not be deceived. Their father is the father of all liars: satan. Their master plan is in motion. Pray for the light. Minds are clouded. I repeat: it is a ruse. Wake up America or you will suffer much." - Our Lady, December 18, 1991
http://www.tldm.org/directives/d10.htm

The message also requires living the faith. Pope Pius XII, who knew the Fatima message well and was devoted to it, called Fatima the "reaffirmation of the Gospels." He said: "The time for doubting Fatima is past. Now is the time for action."

The Fatima message, properly interpreted, places Jesus in the holy Eucharist as central to our religious practices. Fatima is essentially eucharistic reparation, offered primarily through the sacrifice of the Mass, for the glory of God and the conversion of sinners. But "eucharistic reparation" includes other forms of devotion to the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, namely, visits to the Blessed Sacrament and all forms of eucharistic adoration, such as Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Hours, Night Vigils, etc.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0088.html

A great site giving regular updates on the conversion of Russia is at
http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/cr/toccr.asp

Which states as one of her predictions...
the emergence of Russia as a world power which would "spread its errors (including Communism) throughout the world ... raising up wars and persecutions against the Church";
http://www.fatima.org/whyfatima.htm
So 'communism' is but one of Russia's errors; Orthodoxy the other?

"... the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima in St. Petersburg which was financed by the Fatima Family Apostolate represents the beginning of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in Russia. With that eventual triumph will come conversion."
http://www.fatimafamily.org/ruconv.html
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
The young fogey
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 2,707


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 11, 2006, 08:55:25 PM »

Quote
Shortly after Veronica finished reading the articles in the daily newspaper pertaining to the "demise" of communism in the Soviet Union...

Veronica as in the late Veronica Lueken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2006, 10:46:28 PM by The young fogey » Logged

montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #44 on: March 11, 2006, 09:29:25 PM »

Veronica as in the late Veronica Leuken? If so, know that the Bayside apparition/devotion was rejected by the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago.
Firstly, I don't think that any of these visions is from Mary. But the 'source' of them has one thing on mind; the attack on Orthodox Russia.

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post re Fatima and the attack on Russia

I should have, however noted that her apiritions are not recognised. Thanks for pointing that out.
A number of sites I will now cite to refer to that, viz http://www.catholicreason.com/shtml/bayside.shtml
and http://www.catholicplanet.com/apparitions/false08.htm
This last site has a good list of reasons why Veronica's messages are suspect. Interestingly one of these revolves around the as yet un-dogmatic 'Mediatrix' role of Mary - which some Catholics are pushing forward
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.186 seconds with 72 queries.