Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception

[Benedicta00]

I think I do.

If you look at Latin ecumenism you will see that its basic principle is submission to the Pope.

The idea is to get everyone to submit to papal authority, even if that requires some initial doctrinal fudging.

After that, well, the doctrine will take care of itself.
Your right but we see it as a positive thing.

But I wouldn’t say it is doctrinal fudging, just that the east can have their expression and the west can have theirs as long as the essence of the doctrine does not contradict.

Now If I could sell this idea to the east and west, of course I would win a noble peace prize.

[Lotar]

Your right but we see it as a positive thing.

But I wouldn’t say it is doctrinal fudging, just that the east can have their expression and the west can have theirs as long as the essence of the doctrine does not contradict.

Now If I could sell this idea to the east and west, of course I would win a noble peace prize.

The thing is that the "essence of the doctrine" is the biggest difference. It is only the surface, expressed in vague manners, that are similiar.

[Benedicta00]

The thing is that the "essence of the doctrine" is the biggest difference. It is only the surface, expressed in vague manners, that are similiar.
Well do tell, what is the EO essence of the pious opinion?

[Matrona]

What is the gist of purgatory?

There are many thing the east rite can omit and still be consider in union.

I really don’t want this turn into a debate. My question was why would it be wrong to agree on the gist of what it is and is not?

For the same reason the Magisterium dogmatized Purgatory; and the same reason pious Roman Catholics reel back in horror when I tell them what my Byzantine-Catholic professor told me in class about his beliefs. Diplomacy and loosely-worded documents constitute countries, not communions.

[Benedicta00]

For the same reason the Magisterium dogmatized Purgatory; and the same reason pious Roman Catholics reel back in horror when I tell them what my Byzantine-Catholic professor told me in class about his beliefs. Diplomacy and loosely-worded documents constitute countries, not communions.
IOW, you are saying it would promote more heresey?

[Monica, child of God]

IOW, you are saying it would promote more heresey?

I can't speak for Matrona, but I think what she means is when we try to smooth over differences it prevents us from attaining true communion. You believe that the Eastern Rites are in communion with the Pope, but it seems that some or many of the ER Xtians hold beliefs that do not jive with RC dogma. For us, holding different pious opinions on non dogmatic issues is not a problem. But if the matter is dogma there must be agreement for communion. The individual holding heterodox opinions on dogma should be actively working it our with their spiritual Father.

Monica

[Xpycoctomos]

[dangit, where's the little guy who is hitting his head against the wall? An agnry icon wouldn't work because I'm not mad, I just... feel like I'm hitting my head against the wall]

Greg... I'm at a loss for words. Marjorie could not have been more precise in explaining what I mean. I don't know how to explain it any other way. First of all, there are things about Catholic purgatory we cannot accept. You don't understand this and probably feel we're playing a word game. Okay.. but even if that were true.

In orthodoxy you can accept views A,B,C and mixture of A and C and little bit of X as long as you don't accepts views D, E and F.

In Catholicism you MUST accept view C. Okay.. so we reunify... what do we do with those pesty Easterners who insist on the A, B or X versions that don't mesh well with C? Point them towards the completely foreign and odd concept of the Magesterium? That's fine for a westerner, but that makes no sense to us (and this thread is not about the Magesterium so there is no need to defend it... we all know how Catholics and Orthodox feel about the Magesterium). Do you get it? The Vatican can't accept that with backstepping and undoing a dogma. Shelb5 has already demonstrated why, from the RC POV, this dogma (and no dogma) should ever be undone. Now, if you want to take that up, you'll have to go to your bishop and he to the Vatican. That is certainly not a topic we could responsibly handle in TAW.

JOhn

PS: Can anyone back me up on this point (not that we can accept the Catholic dogma of Purgatory, but the actual point)? Is it just Marjorie or is she just an awesome John-decoder (I do tend to muddle points in my wordiness)?

[Xpycoctomos]

I can't speak for Matrona, but I think what she means is when we try to smooth over differences it prevents us from attaining true communion. You believe that the Eastern Rites are in communion with the Pope, but it seems that some or many of the ER Xtians hold beliefs that do not jive with RC dogma. For us, holding different pious opinions on non dogmatic issues is not a problem. But if the matter is dogma there must be agreement for communion. The individual holding heterodox opinions on dogma should be actively working it our with their spiritual Father.

Monica:clap:

[Benedicta00]

I can't speak for Matrona, but I think what she means is when we try to smooth over differences it prevents us from attaining true communion. You believe that the Eastern Rites are in communion with the Pope, but it seems that some or many of the ER Xtians hold beliefs that do not jive with RC dogma. For us, holding different pious opinions on non dogmatic issues is not a problem. But if the matter is dogma there must be agreement for communion. The individual holding heterodox opinions on dogma should be actively working it our with their spiritual Father.

Monica
That was my first initial response but I erased it thinking I was further from understanding her than closer.

So it promotes a false sense of unity?

[Xpycoctomos]

If that is why unification in the opinion of EO is not possible, fine with me but may I sincerely ask..why? Why would the west and the east coming to a understanding, okay, leaving out the finer points as given to us by the western mystics and saints, let’s accept as a mater of faith, that we will under go a purification for the evil effect sin brought to the soul if we upon death, have not yet completed theosis?

No, this is why unification doesn't make sense on YOUR side. But others have already aptly dealt with this post.

[Lotar]

Well do tell, what is the EO essence of the pious opinion?

See post 247 ;)

[Benedicta00]

No, this is why unification doesn't make sense on YOUR side. But others have already aptly dealt with this post.
I’ll be honest, I still do not understand ‘why’ you guys could not make this a article of your faith even if the EO didn’t reunite.
IOW, I guess I'm asking why don't y'all think this should be a artical of faith?

[Xpycoctomos]

Just to go off on a completely relevant tangent...

Abbott: Well Costello, I'm going to New York with you. The Yankee's manager gave me a job as coach for as long as your on the team.
Costello: Look Abbott, if your the coach, you must know all the players.
Abbott: I certainly do.
Costello: Well you know I've never met the guys. So you'll have to tell me their names, and then I'll know who's playing on the team.
Abbott: Oh, I'll tell you their names, but you know it seems to me they give these ball players now-a-days very peculiar names.
Costello: You mean funny names?
Abbott: Strange names, pet names...like Dizzy Dean...
Costello: His brother Daffy
Abbott: Daffy Dean...
Costello: And their French cousin.
Abbott: French?
Costello: Goofe'
Abbott: Goofe' Dean. Well, let's see, we have on the bags, Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know is on third...
Costello: That's what I want to find out.
Abbott: I say Who's on first, What's on second, I Don't Know's on third.
Costello: Are you the manager?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: You gonna be the coach too?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: And you don't know the fellows' names.
Abbott: Well I should.
Costello: Well then who's on first?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: I mean the fellow's name.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy on first.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The first baseman.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy playing...
Abbott: Who is on first!
Costello: I'm asking you who's on first.
Abbott: That's the man's name.
Costello: That's who's name?
Abbott: Yes.
Costello: Well go ahead and tell me.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's who?
Abbott: Yes.
PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta first baseman?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: Who's playing first?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: When you pay off the first baseman every month, who gets the money?
Abbott: Every dollar of it.
Costello: All I'm trying to find out is the fellow's name on first base.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy that gets...
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Who gets the money...
Abbott: He does, every dollar of it. Sometimes his wife comes down and collects it.
Costello: Who's wife?
Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Abbott: What's wrong with that?
Costello: All I wanna know is when you sign up the first baseman, how does he sign his name?
Abbott: Who.
Costello: The guy.
Abbott: Who.
Costello: How does he sign...
Abbott: That's how he signs it.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Yes.

PAUSE

Costello: All I'm trying to find out is what's the guys name on first base.
Abbott: No. What is on second base.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: One base at a time!
Abbott: Well, don't change the players around.tello: I'm not changing nobody!
Abbott: Take it easy, buddy.
Costello: I'm only asking you, who's the guy on first base?
Abbott: That's right.
Costello: Ok.
Abbott: Alright.

PAUSE

Costello: What's the guy's name on first base?
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third, we're not talking about him.
Costello: Now how did I get on third base?
Abbott: Why you mentioned his name.
Costello: If I mentioned the third baseman's name, who did I say is playing third?
Abbott: No. Who's playing first.
Costello: What's on base?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Abbott: He's on third.
Costello: There I go, back on third again!

PAUSE

Costello: Would you just stay on third base and don't go off it.
Abbott: Alright, what do you want to know?
Costello: Now who's playing third base?
Abbott: Why do you insist on putting Who on third base?
Costello: What am I putting on third.
Abbott: No. What is on second.
Costello: You don't want who on second?
Abbott: Who is on first.
Costello: I don't know.
Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Look, you gotta outfield?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: I just thought I'd ask you.
Abbott: Well, I just thought I'd tell ya.
Costello: Then tell me who's playing left field.
Abbott: Who's playing first.
Costello: I'm not...stay out of the infield!!! I want to know what's the guy's name in left field?
Abbott: No, What is on second.
Costello: I'm not asking you who's on second.
Abbott: Who's on first!
Costello: I don't know.
Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: The left fielder's name?
Abbott: Why.
Costello: Because!
Abbott: Oh, he's center field.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, You gotta pitcher on this team?
Abbott: Sure.
Costello: The pitcher's name?
Abbott: Tomorrow.
Costello: You don't want to tell me today?
Abbott: I'm telling you now.
Costello: Then go ahead.
Abbott: Tomorrow!
Costello: What time?
Abbott: What time what?
Costello: What time tomorrow are you gonna tell me who's pitching?
Abbott: Now listen. Who is not pitching.
Costello: I'll break your arm if you say who's on first!!! I want to know what's the pitcher's name?
Abbott: What's on second.
Costello: I don't know.
Together: Third base!

PAUSE

Costello: Gotta a catcher?
Abbott: Certainly.
Costello: The catcher's name?
Abbott: Today.
Costello: Today, and tomorrow's pitching.
Abbott: Now you've got it.
Costello: All we got is a couple of days on the team.

PAUSE

Costello: You know I'm a catcher too.
Abbott: So they tell me.
Costello: I get behind the plate to do some fancy catching, Tomorrow's pitching on my team and a heavy hitter gets up. Now the heavy hitter bunts the ball. When he bunts the ball, me, being a good catcher, I'm gonna throw the guy out at first. So I pick up the ball and throw it to who?
Abbott: Now that's the first thing you've said right.
Costello: I don't even know what I'm talking about!

PAUSE

Abbott: That's all you have to do.
Costello: Is to throw the ball to first base.
Abbott: Yes!
Costello: Now who's got it?
Abbott: Naturally.

PAUSE

Costello: Look, if I throw the ball to first base, somebody's gotta get it. Now who has it?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Naturally?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Naturally.
Abbott: No you don't you throw the ball to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's different.
Costello: That's what I said.
Abbott: Your not saying it...
Costello: I throw the ball to Naturally.
Abbott: You throw it to Who.
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: That's what I said!
Abbott: You ask me.
Costello: I throw the ball to who?
Abbott: Naturally.
Costello: Now you ask me.
Abbott: You throw the ball to Who?
Costello: Naturally.
Abbott: That's it.
Costello: Same as you! Same as YOU!!! I throw the ball to who. Whoever it is drops the ball and the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to What. What throws it to I Don't Know. I Don't Know throws it back to Tomorrow, Triple play. Another guy gets up and hits a long fly ball to Because. Why? I don't know! He's on third and I don't give a darn!
Abbott: What?
Costello: I said I don't give a darn!
Abbott: Oh, that's our shortstop.

THE END

[Lotar]

I’ll be honest, I still do not understand ‘why’ you guys could not make this a article of your faith even if the EO didn’t reunite.
IOW, I guess I'm asking why don't y'all think this should be a artical of faith?

Because what exactly happens after death is a mystery.

There are several theories concerning what happens after death, the one that is close to Purgatory being only one, but they are only theories/pious opinions.

Even if one view is correct, what exactly is the reason for dogmatizing it? It seems to me that even if something is correct, it doesn't necessarily mean it is of dogmatic importance.

[Benedicta00]

See post 247 ;)
This?

Look at it this way: What was the original debate between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on this issue? It's not that the Lutherans thought you died, went to heaven, and that was that. The original Lutherans did believe there was a purification, what they disagreed with was not only indulgences but with "temporal punishment." Which, despite how people may interpret it now, meant temporary punishment due to sins, beyond the eternal punishment that was payed off.

If this was not what the Roman church taught, it seems to me that the RC theologians would have argued that they were being misrepresented, instead of try to prove the position.

This was one of the few issues the Lutherans and the EP were able to agree upon.

Similiarly, one of the issues the RCC and Lutherans agreed upon during the Reformation was the issue of inherited guilt. In fact, because of Philip Melanchthon's weak language on the subject in the Augsburg Confessions, the Roman Catholics accused the Lutherans of being guilty of rejecting original guilt.

Is the answer to my question? That is what EO will be willing to believe? That there is purification and that's it? Or is there more?

[Benedicta00]

Because what exactly happens after death is a mystery.

There are several theories concerning what happens after death, the one that is close to Purgatory being only one, but they are only theories/pious opinions.

Even if one view is correct, what exactly is the reason for dogmatizing it? It seems to me that even if something is correct, it doesn't necessarily mean it is of dogmatic importance.
Yeah… but… we saw what Luther did… Faith alone.

[Xpycoctomos]

I’ll be honest, I still do not understand ‘why’ you guys could not make this a article of your faith even if the EO didn’t reunite.
IOW, I guess I'm asking why don't y'all think this should be a artical of faith?

Okay... so please just say that you understand my point (which you seem to be demonstrating right now) that the Vatican cannot accept that this idea has been deemed by the East as something unworthy of a dogma.

The explanation to you question is simple. There's no reason to. I'm really not trying to be boastful, but right now I am going to be a bit blunt. You said earlier that without this dogma, it could turn into a "protestant free for all". I'm not sure what this has to do with us. We've never had this dogma and yet if you look at the EOC, practically speaking, the intercessing for the souls of the dead is a more apparent and, therefore, integral part to the prayer and liturgical life of the EOC than for the RCC (I said that it is more apparent, not taht it is more important in principal, for I know you can offer up masses for the dead and often light candles for you loved ones wo have gone before). As I mentioned earlier, in parishes that have been around longer you will notice that a Panakhida, a short prayer service for the dead, almost seems to many like a natural extension of the Ligturgy because almost every week they have one or serveral perople to pray for (many of us come from newer parishes, so this is does not, logically, occur as often in some of our parishes as in others, but all of us have experienced it at least several times within a year) as it is expected to remember them 40 days after and every year thereafter the anniversary of their death. This is an expectation (not a suggestion... as far as I understand.. and if not, we sure as heck treat it as one). Also, when the priest prepares the bread before the liturgy in the morning, not a week goes by that the priest does not have requests for at least a dozen people who have passed away (and not necessarily recently or even having gone to that parish). I could go into this practice and what the priest does to remember them and pray for them, but I'm sure there is a handy link someone could give.

So, no, the most we will do is say what you CANNOT believe about life after death. And the only thing we have affirmed are the three things mentioned by Rilian and Monica. It is, in our way of thinking, too dangerous to say "this IS the way it is" when we don't believe that it has been "revealed" to us in any one certain way (and yes, many of those ways that it has been revealed to Eastern Saints have indeed differed with your concept of purgatory, even to the point that you guys would have to admit it.)

It is not worthy of an cataphatic dogma and serves no purpose in the spiritual well being of the Orthodox Church.

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Yeah… but… we saw what Luther did… Faith alone.

and we never did.

[Lotar]

Yeah… but… we saw what Luther did… Faith alone.

Luther was of the RCCs own making. I'd say that's a good example of why not to view this subject with such a dogmatic scholasitc manner.

[Benedicta00]

and we never did.
But he rejected EO too because he wanted to be his own authority to define things for himself, so my point is, this wasn’t really his issue with the Church, none of the doctrines itself are, the real issue is always authority.

[Benedicta00]

Luther was of the RCCs own making. I'd say that's a good example of why not to view this subject with such a dogmatic scholasitc manner.
Luther’s main issue was with authority, not any of the dogmas. If it was all about dogma, he would have went to the east and he didn’t. He went out on his own. The dogmas of the Church didn’t drive him over the edge, it was pride, “No Lord I will not serve." In Orthodoxy he would have found the authority of the Church to be equally problematic.

[Xpycoctomos]

I guess... take that up with the Lutherans. Lotar's point was not to talk about Lutherans but rather to point out that when the Lutherans disagreed with it and accused the Catholics of believing certain things, the Catholic Church didn't deny it... they defended it. This is not about Lutherans really, this is, in part, about the fact that the Catholic Church has worked on make the wording more palatable to the east while still holding to ideas (in essence) that we can't agree on. Correct me If I misrepresented you Lotar.

[Xpycoctomos]

This thread has been very... interesting. Ufortunately I must go as my girlfriend is coming over soon (so I guess that isn't too unfortunate :)). God bless you all!

John

[Lotar]

But he rejected EO too because he wanted to be his own authority to define things for himself, so my point is, this wasn’t really his issue with the Church, none of the doctrines itself are, the real issue is always authority.

So?




--------
If one takes what he said and wrote at face value, Luther thought that he was teaching the same things as Orthodox Church. Of course the political climate of the time prevented him from actually confirming this belief, not that he tried. I do not believe that he would have changed his beliefs if he had, except perhaps when he was younger.

[Benedicta00]

Okay... so please just say that you understand my point (which you seem to be demonstrating right now) that the Vatican cannot accept that this idea has been deemed by the East as something unworthy of a dogma.

The explanation to you question is simple. There's no reason to. I'm really not trying to be boastful, but right now I am going to be a bit blunt. You said earlier that without this dogma, it could turn into a "protestant free for all". I'm not sure what this has to do with us. We've never had this dogma and yet if you look at the EOC, practically speaking, the intercessing for the souls of the dead is a more apparent and, therefore, integral part to the prayer and liturgical life of the EOC than for the RCC (I said that it is more apparent, not taht it is more important in principal, for I know you can offer up masses for the dead and often light candles for you loved ones wo have gone before). As I mentioned earlier, in parishes that have been around longer you will notice that a Panakhida, a short prayer service for the dead, almost seems to many like a natural extension of the Ligturgy because almost every week they have one or serveral perople to pray for (many of us come from newer parishes, so this is does not, logically, occur as often in some of our parishes as in others, but all of us have experienced it at least several times within a year) as it is expected to remember them 40 days after and every year thereafter the anniversary of their death. This is an expectation (not a suggestion... as far as I understand.. and if not, we sure as heck treat it as one). Also, when the priest prepares the bread before the liturgy in the morning, not a week goes by that the priest does not have requests for at least a dozen people who have passed away (and not necessarily recently or even having gone to that parish). I could go into this practice and what the priest does to remember them and pray for them, but I'm sure there is a handy link someone could give.

So, no, the most we will do is say what you CANNOT believe about life after death. And the only thing we have affirmed are the three things mentioned by Rilian and Monica. It is, in our way of thinking, too dangerous to say "this IS the way it is" when we don't believe that it has been "revealed" to us in any one certain way (and yes, many of those ways that it has been revealed to Eastern Saints have indeed differed with your concept of purgatory, even to the point that you guys would have to admit it.)

It is not worthy of an cataphatic dogma and serves no purpose in the spiritual well being of the Orthodox Church.

John
I understand you point- it is worthy of belief but not dogma.

I don’t get ‘why’ though but that’s my problem not yours.

I just do not understand why something as important where the soul goes after death is not considered a arterial of faith to be believed, not to be rejected.

[Lotar]

I guess... take that up with the Lutherans. Lotar's point was not to talk about Lutherans but rather to point out that when the Lutherans disagreed with it and accused the Catholics of believing certain things, the Catholic Church didn't deny it... they defended it. This is not about Lutherans really, this is, in part, about the fact that the Catholic Church has worked on make the wording more palatable to the east while still holding to ideas (in essence) that we can't agree on. Correct me If I misrepresented you Lotar.

You are correct. :thumbsup:

But I still do like talking about Luther. He was a fascinating, though not humble, man

[Benedicta00]

So?




--------
If one takes what he said and wrote at face value, Luther thought that he was teaching the same things as Orthodox Church. Of course the political climate of the time prevented him from actually confirming this belief, not that he tried. I do not believe that he would have changed his beliefs if he had, except perhaps when he was younger.
So defining it or not defining it does not create heretics but it can settle the doubt in the minds the heretics created.

[Xpycoctomos]

I just do not understand why something as important where the soul goes after death is not considered a arterial of faith to be believed, not to be rejected.

Okay, why is it important? What practical and positive effect does it have on our faith, our life, our prayer? We think you are wrong in confining it to a dogma because what happens after death has been revealed in many different ways to the Saint over the millenia, in ways that definitely goes against what the RCC obliges on Her faithful. Why would be possibly tell a saint that what he learned was false. There is a true story of an apparition some saint had (actually I don't even know if they were east or west) and they were troubled over the what happened when they died. Mary appeared in a vision and told him or her very bluntly that this is of no concern to that person. I wish I knew the story better... does anyone know what I'm talking about? Anyway, the problem is that you beleive this doctrine of Purgatory to be "revealed truth" and inerrant. We believe it not only to harmfully dismiss what many other saints of ours have said about life after death, but even that some aspects of your particular version are indeed harmful in themselves. The point is that you are Catholic and believe this is a dogma. All this time in this thread, we have not been trying to convince you of why YOUR Church should not make a it a dogma, but rather of how the east and the west differs and why these two POVs are necessarily mutally exclusive. Either we will have to say we were wrong and the West wasa right nad there is only one basic way to view this or the West will have to undo a dogma and fix some of the aspects to make it TRULY palatable to the East so it can cohabitate with the plethera of differing views in the East. Some one has to give, and so far, it makes little sense (from our particular worldviews) for either of us to do so.

John

PS: I'm so addicted to thiss forum. must... break away... must resist posting!

[Xpycoctomos]

So defining it or not defining it does not create heretics but it can settle the doubt in the minds the heretics created.

and defining it can and will make "heretics" out of Saints who weren't.

[Lotar]

So defining it or not defining it does not create heretics but it can settle the doubt in the minds the heretics created.

I disagree, but it doesn't really matter.

The points are this:
1.) It's an issue that the Orthodox Church doesn't believe should be dogmatic.
2.) Though the RC view can be vaguely worded to not conflict too much with the most widely held EO view, even in this form it still conflicts.
3.) The underlying doctrine of temporal punishment has always been rejected by the Orthodox Church.

Or more simply:
1.) There are parts of the doctrine that an Orthodox Christian cannot agree with.
2.) Even if we could agree with it, we don't think that it should be made that we must agree with it.

[Lotar]

BTW, have you seen that they have Veggie Tales fruit snacks now?!?! :D

[Xpycoctomos]

do they taste like the vegetable?

[Photini]

do they taste like the vegetable?
What are you still doing here? :)

[Xpycoctomos]

lol.. good question. My gf's on the way and I had to clean the house up. So it' clean now. She's about 15 min away yet. :)

[Rilian]

What is the gist of purgatory?

There are many thing the east rite can omit and still be consider in union.

I really don’t want this turn into a debate. My question was why would it be wrong to agree on the gist of what it is and is not?

The impression I have is the angle taken in this thread by the OBOBers is to work out a kind of LCD approach to this one particular dogma, and then all of them, and you get a reunion. You just strip the extras down to get to the bare minimum of what we can agree on. My impression is this is the broader approach of the RCC.

The fact is I don’t want that. I have no interest in it. Orthodoxy is the right faith, it is the fullness of truth. I have no interest in stripping it down, removing, omitting or de-emphasizing things. To me there would be no point in even being in the church. Just like I wouldn’t get up and go to the Liturgy if I felt like I was just there to get it over with or do the minimum required.

I don’t understand why the RCC has taken this same approach to the mass and to the catechism. I don’t get why they kicked the Lefebvre people out, but they let all of the wackos stay in. I don’t get it. I don't get why the want to chop things out, change things, omit things, minimilize things, stress over the minimum required to fill ones obligation. I don't get it.

Luckily, this is just something I don't really care about. I have no interest in a false reunion. I welcome anyone with open arms that returns to Orthodoxy.

[Benedicta00]

BTW, have you seen that they have Veggie Tales fruit snacks now?!?! :D
No, I have not ever even seen Veggie tales before. Someone sent me Bob the Tomato anonymously and I didn’t know how to take it- as a insult, you know like someone wanted to throw a tomato at me and then when I found out that they were Christian based who teaches manners then I thought someone was telling me that I need manners, but then MissShelby told me to wear Bob and be proud so I went and bought him Larry so he wont be lonely.

[Matrona]

I don’t get why they kicked the Lefebvre people out, but they let all of the wackos stay in.

But wasn't that the guy who consecrated a bishop without Vatican permission?

My beliefs being what they are, it doesn't matter who did what, but it's my opinion that you don't mess around with apostolic succession. Sorry to break with you here, but if I were in charge somehow, I'd rather allow a thousand guitar-lifeteen-gather-round-the-altar Eucharists than allow the 'clown'secration of one illegitimate bishop.

[Rilian]

But wasn't that the guy who consecrated a bishop without Vatican permission?

My beliefs being what they are, it doesn't matter who did what, but it's my opinion that you don't mess around with apostolic succession. Sorry to break with you here, but if I were in charge somehow, I'd rather allow a thousand guitar-lifeteen-gather-round-the-altar Eucharists than allow the 'clown'secration of one illegitimate bishop.

I didn't word that very well.

I don't get why Hans Kung types who defy the church and who hold openly heretical beliefs are still in communion, but others are kicked out. It seems to me to bely a selective application of discipline and a pronounced bias against the pre Vatican II traditions of the RCC.

This is just a side issue though.

[Benedicta00]

The impression I have is the angle taken in this thread by the OBOBers is to work out a kind of LCD approach to this one particular dogma, and then all of them, and you get a reunion. You just strip the extras down to get to the bare minimum of what we can agree on. My impression is this is the broader approach of the RCC.

The fact is I don’t want that. I have no interest in it. Orthodoxy is the right faith, it is the fullness of truth. I have no interest in stripping it down, removing, omitting or de-emphasizing things. To me there would be no point in even being in the church. Just like I wouldn’t get up and go to the Liturgy if I felt like I was just there to get it over with or do the minimum required.

I don’t understand why the RCC has taken this same approach to the mass and to the catechism. I don’t get why they kicked the Lefebvre people out, but they let all of the wackos stay in. I don’t get it. I don't get why the want to chop things out, change things, omit things, minimilize things, stress over the minimum required to fill ones obligation. I don't get it.

Luckily, this is just something I don't really care about. I have no interest in a false reunion. I welcome anyone with open arms that returns to Orthodoxy.
Wackos?

If you want my 2 cents, from my angle- The RCC didn’t kick anybody out- people leave, IMO because they don’t want to go where the Spirit is leading, IMO.

It is my belief that disunity in general all boils down to authority and it always will. For us, the “wackos” we just feel that it comes down to if this; is this the Church that Christ gave to us or not? If it is then it’s not going to lead us into a ditch because Christ promised it wouldn’t but he also promised us some trouble. So as the will of God plays itself out, I just trust in the promise even when the storms are raging all around us. I’m not jumping out the boat when the waves get high because I believe with all my heart that this is the Church Christ gave to us and Christ is in the boat with us.

[Rilian]

If you want my 2 cents, from my angle- The RCC didn’t kick anybody out- people leave, IMO because they don’t want to go where the Spirit is leading, IMO.

They say the same thing in the Episcopal Church. Almost verbatim.

It is my belief that disunity in general all boils down to authority and it always will.

The use and misuse of it. The west removed itself from the church because of this. We await its return. Like I said, I don't see the need for change as we wait.

[Benedicta00]

I didn't word that very well.

I don't get why Hans Kung types who defy the church and who hold openly heretical beliefs are still in communion, but others are kicked out. It seems to me to bely a selective application of discipline and a pronounced bias against the pre Vatican II traditions of the RCC.

This is just a side issue though.
Because the are not kick out- they leave. They can stay but they *think they know better, so they go and start their own congregation. They self interpret things for themselves, they define what is conservative and what isn't and they create a whole crisis that may or may not even be there or they do not allow the Church to be prudent, thinking the Church should take action X Y and Z. The big question is, just who are they?

[Benedicta00]

They say the same thing in the Episcopal Church. Almost verbatim.


Well, history will strongly disagree with them.

As with Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church can/will not compromise truth in order to accommodate, so people leave because she will not bend.

[Rilian]

As with Orthodoxy, the Catholic Church can/will not compromise truth in order to accommodate, so people leave because she will not bend.

I glad you take as strong as stand as we do. I think we can agree then that these conversations are fruitless. There will never be reunion, only conversion.

[Matrona]

I glad you take as strong as stand as we do. I think we can agree then that these conversations are fruitless. There will never be reunion, only conversion.

The point of this conversation wasn't reunion at all, it was discussing whether or not we believe the same thing.

Do we?

[Rilian]

The point of this conversation wasn't reunion at all, it was discussing whether or not we believe the same thing.

I think it is the implicit underlying goal of all these types of conversations.

Do we?

Do we what?

[Benedicta00]

I glad you take as strong as stand as we do. I think we can agree then that these conversations are fruitless. There will never be reunion, only conversion.
I can agree …but let me ask this, hypothetical.

What if all the EO patriarchs were to reunite? Not a single patriarch was left behind…What would the faithful and the bishops reaction be?

In all honesty, do you think all will go, trusting that God knows what he is doing even if the rest of you don’t or will there be a break in EO where some bishops and faithful will not unite, stay in schism and claim they are the true Church?

Let me as you this question, IYO, who would be the ‘true’ Church the east who went back or those who refused?

What I am really getting at is, do you really think you or I have any say if we will reunite or not? The pope and the patriarchs will decide this, all any of can do is go along with it... or leave if we don’t like it. If we leave then how can we say, "we are the true Church?" If all the patriarchs are somewhere else?

[xenia]

/MOD HAT/

Careful guests.... skating on the thin edge of debate here.

/MOD HAT OFF/

[Rilian]

It already happened. The Patriarch caved at Florence. St. Mark Eugenikos stood firm, and the laity would not go along. The next Patriarch anathemized Florence and the church survived.

It will not be up to the Patriarchs to decide for everyone else. A false union will be rejected should it ever happen. It is the responsibility of everyone to see that it is so.

[Benedicta00]

I think it is the implicit underlying goal of all these types of conversations.



Do we what?
I don’t know what the underlying point of the thread was, and I really don’t care what the intent of the OP was. I was just invited to check it out and not by a Catholic. My intent was just to explain the Catholic view, not for any reason other then to get to know one another better.

But if reunion is what is on the hearts and mind of Catholics, why is this a negative thing? So what, we all want unity?? Don’t we?

Would that really be insulting to you …if someone was to come in here with the hopes of reuniting the Churches?

I know if one of the EO came in OBOB and said I want to reunite us, let’s talk theology, even through they didn’t want to give up any beliefs, we would still jump for joy because it showed the persons heart was at east in the right place.

[Benedicta00]

It already happened. The Patriarch caved at Florence. St. Mark Eugenikos stood firm, and the laity would not go along. The next Patriarch anathemized Florence and the church survived.

It will not be up to the Patriarchs to decide for everyone else. A false union will be rejected should it ever happen. It is the responsibility of everyone to see that it is so.
I realize that- I am asking what it ALL of then went- said to all of the EO everywhere... pack your bags, (Correct me but isn’t there 5 patriarchs or bishoprics of Orthodoxy?) we are uniting. Not that it would happen but what if all the diocese went under the authority of Rome?

What would you do? I can tell you what I would do if the pope said, we’re going east…

[Xpycoctomos]

No, I have not ever even seen Veggie tales before. Someone sent me Bob the Tomato anonymously and I didn’t know how to take it- as a insult, you know like someone wanted to throw a tomato at me and then when I found out that they were Christian based who teaches manners then I thought someone was telling me that I need manners, but then MissShelby told me to wear Bob and be proud so I went and bought him Larry so he wont be lonely.

lol, that's great! so thought ful of you. I remember when you got Bob the tomato (no, I didn't give him to you). I just thought it was really funny how you reacted... really cute :)

[Benedicta00]

/MOD HAT/

Careful guests.... skating on the thin edge of debate here.

/MOD HAT OFF/
Well then I'll quit then because I’m not debating, I'm not saying "You guys are wrong and here's why..."

I’m just having a conversation, and usually that takes two equally engaging, not one who just talks ‘at’ the other.

I’m not arguing Orthodoxy is wrong- just conversating to get to know one another better but if this is called debating then I'll leave.

peace out.

[Matrona]

I realize that- I am asking what it ALL of then went- said to all of the EO everywhere... pack your bags, (Correct me but isn’t there 5 patriarchs or bishoprics of Orthodoxy?) we are uniting. Not that it would happen but what if all the diocese went under the authority of Rome?

There are 15 autocephalous Orthodox churches. Hypothetically, if the primates (patriarchs or metropolitans, depending on the antiquity and dignity of that particular See) of each one of those churches went Vatican, no one would be obliged to follow in any way.

However, we believe that the church could be devastated by apostasy to the point where only one single Orthodox bishop remains in all the world, and he could be the only Orthodox individual left anywhere on the planet, and Christ's promise to not allow the gates of hell to prevail against us would remain true.

Also, hypothetically, if you guys decided you wanted to become Orthodox, I think we would want the approval of the laity. :)

[Xpycoctomos]

The point of this conversation wasn't reunion at all, it was discussing whether or not we believe the same thing.

Do we?

You're right, but it sprung out of a whole conversation in OBOB about why the Orthodox cite these issues (IC, Purgatory) as stumbling blocks to reunion. So while you're completely right in regards to the OP, there is something greater behind all of this (and no, I don't mean an OBOB conspiracy). Reunion was in the back of many people's minds in this thread and in the precursor to this thread.

[Matrona]

(and no, I don't mean an OBOB conspiracy).

Rats.

/me throws away doctored film of Shelb5 standing on the grassy knoll

;) :D

[Xpycoctomos]

I realize that- I am asking what it ALL of then went- said to all of the EO everywhere... pack your bags, (Correct me but isn’t there 5 patriarchs or bishoprics of Orthodoxy?) we are uniting. Not that it would happen but what if all the diocese went under the authority of Rome?

What would you do? I can tell you what I would do if the pope said, we’re going east…

What Matrona said. All bishops hold the same authority on doctrines of the Church (that's why we're conciliar) at least in theory. Patrairchates hold administrative authority and a certain prestige that can often (but not necessarily) give them more leverage when discussing matters of Church teaching.

By the way, no one here (from what I can see) has any problem with the principal of others wanting to reunite. The problem is when we say "yeah, that's nice, but what about these differences" (explained many different ways) and then the other person swears they don't see any difference. Imagine you need to find a place to hold a party for the President of the US and other dignitaries and your friend says, have it at my place... it's immaculate and perfect for the party. You say, "great, I'll check it out!" You go and then you see a big stain on the floor. Your friend friend looks at you puzzled and says "What stain, that? That's how it's supposed to look". You think "what?" and say that you're sorry, but you simply can't hold a party for dignitaries at a house that looks liek it has a big stain in the carpet. I know, this is a very far-fetched analogy and doesnt work beautifully, but do you see what I mean? You don't see the problem, and we can't understand how you don't see the problem (that both sides SHOULD have). You have definitely demonstrated that reunion (without either side changing their POVs and stances on how and why dogmas are used) would be dishonest for both of us unless one of us rescinded and said we were wrong. But we're not. and you are equally convinced (and in your own rigth, and perhaps even duty, to be so).

John

[Xpycoctomos]

Rats.

* Matrona throws away doctored film of Shelb5 standing on the grassy knoll

;) :D

that was good ^_^

[Maximus]

The impression I have is the angle taken in this thread by the OBOBers is to work out a kind of LCD approach to this one particular dogma, and then all of them, and you get a reunion. You just strip the extras down to get to the bare minimum of what we can agree on. My impression is this is the broader approach of the RCC.

The fact is I don’t want that. I have no interest in it. Orthodoxy is the right faith, it is the fullness of truth. I have no interest in stripping it down, removing, omitting or de-emphasizing things. To me there would be no point in even being in the church. Just like I wouldn’t get up and go to the Liturgy if I felt like I was just there to get it over with or do the minimum required.

I don’t understand why the RCC has taken this same approach to the mass and to the catechism. I don’t get why they kicked the Lefebvre people out, but they let all of the wackos stay in. I don’t get it. I don't get why the want to chop things out, change things, omit things, minimilize things, stress over the minimum required to fill ones obligation. I don't get it.

Luckily, this is just something I don't really care about. I have no interest in a false reunion. I welcome anyone with open arms that returns to Orthodoxy.

I love that post.

Every so often, someone nails something just extremely well.

The LCD approach described so well by Rilian is ecumenism in a nutshell.

[Benedicta00]

There are 15 autocephalous Orthodox churches.

What is that?

Hypothetically, if the primates (patriarchs or metropolitans, depending on the antiquity and dignity of that particular See) of each one of those churches went Vatican, no one would be obliged to follow in any way.
Then who would run the Church?

Not to sound really dumb, but where are the seats of the Apostles who went to the east to establish a diocese there? Since there was only 12 Apostles, how can there be 15 churches?

However, we believe that the church could be devastated by apostasy to the point where only one single Orthodox bishop remains in all the world, and he could be the only Orthodox individual left anywhere on the planet, and Christ's promise to not allow the gates of hell to prevail against us would remain true.

That's really interesting... because if the Catholic Church did go crazy (which it already is, rainbow sash people, women priests, bad bishops, etc) the bishop of Rome is the beacon of light leading us in the dark. It's interesting because if you look at it through the eyes of us who were referred to as "wackos" the apostasy is beginning and has begun and we see pope Benedict standing firm against the movements who say the Church is polarized, that the Church has dangerous views on abortion, etc. These are the "wackos" that we are "kicking out," not really because they are welcome but the Church won’t bend to them. So in a way, what you say here has/is happened to the Catholic Church. The pope is the one bishop to us who remains faithful because of the promise given.

Also, hypothetically, if you guys decided you wanted to become Orthodox, I think we would want the approval of the laity. :)

Why?

[Xpycoctomos]

Hey Shelb5,

It's interesting because if you look at it through the eyes of us who were referred to as "wackos" the apostasy is beginning

I have to run today but I just wanted to point out that I think you gravely misunderstood the "wackos" comment

That was intended for the actual wackos within the Church and i don't think Rilian would have wished to use this to refer to most OBOBers but rather to refer to the "rainbow sash people, women priests, bad bishops...". He mentioed some specific name for an example. I jsut wanted to make it clear to you that he was not calling YOU a wacko by any means (unless you are pushing for women priests or something :))

Others will cover the other ideas. Just understand that we don't view the Church as something to be run like a business (on the spiritual level of dogma and doctrine). We put a special emphasis on the fact that the Holy Spirit will always guide the Church, even if the Bishops mess up (Because theyre human their free will will never be denied of them). You ask a lot of good "what if" questions... but they are jsut that. We would say that some of these "what if" questions have happened in the past and then we can see how things have been taken care of. We can also point out that it is working. Obviously, you probably don't think so (at least not completely) because we have not taken on the same dogma you have as "revealed truth" and so on... but on these topics we just have to say that we must agree to disagree. And it makes sense that you would think that we have fallen into error since you are Catholic and hold your own set of beliefs. But from our point of view, things have worked out (miraculously) well. This in itself, for me, is proof of the Holy Spirit. Yeah, we have jurisdictional problems, and in that way it would be useful to have a funtional first among equals for administrative purposes, but that has nothing to do with the way you see the Pope of Rome today. Maximus and Rilian could expound on this better, but our ecclesiology and how we understand the role of bishops and hte patriarchs are SOOOO different, it's difficult for us to understand eachother.

I really have to go. God bless!

John

[Benedicta00]

John,

I don’t really think it is a matter of agreeing to disagree because I am beginning to see where you guys are coming from. We on the side who is living in the mess of what happened and is happening in the Catholic Church has another whole view point that you may or may not be aware of.

The problem basically is this, the ultra conservatives who didn’t like what was going on, broke literally and began their own church and the liberal wackos want to bring the Catholic Church down from the inside. They want the bishop of Rome to literally stop teaching the morality I think we can both agree has been taught by Christ himself for 2000 years.

The Church really didn’t and don’t kick people out we just reiterate to those who protest that, no we ain’t going to change what we have always taught… but if your diocese that is supposed to be in union is doing things like illegitimately ordaining bishops and/or teaching serious heresies to the faithful, then the Church has to excommunicate them because we can not have a Church in union that is not really in union. (I know you agree on that part).

If find all this interesting only because Cardinal Ratzinger, last year did say in a interview that the Church will see this new springtime JP talked about but many will leave before that happens.

[Monica, child of God]

Someone will come along and explain this much better but basically autocephaly is self ruling status. There are the historic patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria and Constantinople, but that doesn't mean that self ruling O'dox Churdhes couldn't be established as need arose.

from the OCA.org site:

One must never fail to remember at this point, however, that in Orthodoxy all bishops, from the most humble village to the most exalted patriarchal see, are absolutely equal and identical in their sacramental office, and have governing powers as bishops strictly within the limits of their own particular flock, or as we would say today, diocese.
This means that in the Orthodox Church no bishop is "over" any other bishop and no bishop is "under" any other bishop. Indeed in the Orthodox Church we do not even rightly say that a bishop is "over" his church or priests or people. The bishop is "in" the church like everyone else, no matter what his particular title may be. And so certainly it is not right to think that every diocese in the Church has to be "under" a patriarch. The best example here is the Church of Cyprus which is perhaps the oldest autocephalous church and which was never "under" any patriarch.

Hope this helps at least until more people populate this thread :)

Monica

[Alexis OCA]

wow...over 312 posts..I'm glad this isn't a debate.

[Alexis OCA]

I glad you take as strong as stand as we do. I think we can agree then that these conversations are fruitless. There will never be reunion, only conversion.

:amen: ...speaking from firsthand experience that is.....;)

Let is remind ourselves of the experience of St. Alexis Toth and let us not fool ourselves..NOTHING has changed.

St. Alexis was born in Austro-Hungary on March 18, 1854 to a poor Carpatho-Russian family. He was married and they had a child. He was ordained to the priesthood in the Uniate (Eastern Rite Catholic) Church on April 18, 1878. His wife and child died shortly after that, while he was serving as a parish priest. In October 1889, Alexis was appointed as priest of a Uniate parish in Minneapolis, Minnesota. When he presented his credentials to the American Catholic archbishop, he was treated with open hostility. He knew his rights under canon law, so he convened a meeting of eight of the ten Unia priests in America at Wilkes-Barre who petitioned the bishops of Eastern Europe to aid them, but they would not. He feared deportation and told his congregation that he should just return to Europe. They said "No". They had been under foreign domination long enough. They told Father Alexis to go to the Russian Orthodox bishop. Bishop Vladimir came to Minneapolis and on March 25, 1891, received Father Toth and 361 parishioners into the Orthodox Church of their ancestors. The parishioners regarded this event as a new Triumph of Orthodoxy, crying out with joy: "Glory to God for His great mercy!" That is St. Mary's OCA. The Saint went on to form or lead back to Orthodoxy 16 additional communities. He traveled to Southern New Jersey to try to regain his health in late 1908. Then he returned to Wilkes-Barre where he was confined to bed for his last months. He reposed on Friday, May 7, 1909. His relics were laid to rest at St. Tikhon's Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania.

[King of the Nations]

Seven pages of new posts to catch up on...:sigh: Yeah, that'll happen in the near future...;)


John....

:crossrc:

I did read what, I think, was your last post to me (located somewhere back around page 26) and observed that you are jumping to too many conclusions too quickly in the point that you are trying to make that distinctly seems to put the cart way before the horse.

I understand the point you are trying to make but I also believe that it breaks down along the way. Let's examine that, shall we, and see whether it does or does not.

So as to save each other any more frsutration than has already been felt, I propose that we take this one whole step at a time, rather than, to draw from your analogy, talking about how "If A then B and then, of course, C, so D!"

Let's begin with A and not go anywhere until we're done with A. When we're done with A, we'll go to B. And so on...

Yes?

Greg

[King of the Nations]

Step A: Someone name for me in one single, definitive post what Orthodoxy requires its adherants to believe about "Purgatory".

Greg

[xenia]

Closed for a bit.