Posted on 05/29/2005 7:55:52 AM PDT by kosta50
BARI, Italy (AP) -- Pope Benedict XVI visited the eastern port of Bari on his first papal trip Sunday and pledged to make healing the 1,000-year-old rift with the Orthodox church a "fundamental" commitment of his papacy.
Benedict made the pledge in a city closely tied to the Orthodox church. Bari, on Italy's Adriatic coast, is considered a "bridge" between East and West and is home to the relics of St. Nicholas of Myra, a 4th-Century saint who is one of the most popular in both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches.
Benedict referred to Bari as a "land of meeting and dialogue" with the Orthodox in his homily at a Mass that closed a national religious conference. It was his first pilgrimage outside Rome since being elected the 265th leader of the Roman Catholic Church on April 19.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I believe the Church, realizing the misuse people were making of figurative language concerning the afterlife, simply dropped it. Hell and Purgatory are clearly stated to be "states of being" not "places".
I would also point out that while St. Mark is mostly remembered for his refusal to agree to the false union of Florence, the records of the Council itself show that he worked very hard to try to be fair, and to find common ground where it could be found.
Yes he did. Unfortunately, the Pope and Cardinals took the position of "submit!" rather than actually approaching this matter as brothers.
I would certainly hope though, that he hasn't been an Orthodox saint for the last 1200 years, since that would mean that we are talking about two different people.
I was thinking of the three Orthodox greats of the past 1200 years - St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas, and St. Mark Eugenikos.
the underlying juridical view of salvation, repentance, and punishment that Catholicism has traditionally had
I would say more a juridical way of thinking.
and that has inspired Catholic ways of thinking and talking about prayers for the dead. The codification and systematization of such prayers would seem to give the effect that the grace of forgiveness and repentance can be manipulated like a thing.
I'm curious if you could point to certain Roman liturgical prayers you object to, as opposed to prayers stemming from possibly misguided popular piety. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to comment on this.
I'm curious, BTW -- once a Catholic has prayed for the dead or done a good work in the name of the dead that receives a plenary indulgence, do Catholics continue to pray for that person (or did they in the olden days when average Catholics actually cared about these things?),
Yes.
and if so, why?
Why? A plenary indulgence is a remit of the penance due to sins that has not yet been performed by the sinner in prayers, fasting, and/or almsgiving.
A plenary indulgence is not a remission of sins, and it has no effect on venial sins or their forgiveness. The gaining of a plenary indulgence requires detachment from all one's faults and venial sins (which is why the Crusader's were promised heaven if they fulfilled the Crusade with worthy intention - the indulgence forgave their unperformed penances, and the act of gaining the indulgence was supposed to distance them from their minor sins).
Again, I encourage you to read the canonical letters of St. Cyprian on the matter of granting of indulgences by those about to be martyred - roughly letters 10 to 20 in his collection (not every one is on this topic).
And if prayers continue to be offered, then what was the point to the plenary indulgence?
To free the person from their time in purgatory due to their unperformed penances.
Hi Hermann.
Furthermore, the Cathechisms of the Orthodox Church, while stating that prayers for the dead are good (prayers are always good!) say very little beyond that, and I agree with that.
Your explanations on the Immaculate Conception seem equally reasonable, however, if the HVM was given a soul full of Grace, she was unlike any other human being and therefore not someone we can call our own.
On Macabees, is there any source that specifically says Jesus or His Mother actually slaughered sacrifical animals, as you seem to imply? Sacrifice, remember, is not required.
As for St Mark of Ephesus, I believe Agrarian is right in asserting that he was trying to find a "working formula" in order to satisfy the Emperor's desire under duress, but remember that no Father individually has monopoly on what the Churches, as from what I gather from Orthodox Catechisms the Church is silent on what happens to them while asleep in the Lord, except that they foretaste the bliss.
"If the Holy Maccebees did not follow Jesus, we could hardly have a feast in their honor on August 1."
We commemorate in Orthodoxy a number of OT figures. The fact that Rome has a feast day for the Maccebees obviously has meaning for Latin Christians, but it wouldn't for Orthodox Christians.
"This seems to me to reject the distinction between serious or mortal sins, and personal faults or venial sins. We believe God cleanses us of our minor personal faults still remaining at death after death so that we might be without spot or blemish, since few of us are perfected entirely here on earth. But those who die in actual mortal sin are condemned and without hope."
Orthodoxy makes no distinction or hierarchy among sins. I may have mentioned before that the Greek word for sin is "amartia" which means "missing the mark". The mark we aim for is to become like Christ.
Earning a plenary indulgence, even for the sake of someone who as died, requires perfect detachment from all sin, including venial sin. Absent a private revelation, it is essentially impossible to know whether one has fulfilled that condition. If attachment to sin persists, the indulgence would become a partial one, therefore, one ought to keep praying.
Besides which, if we pray for someone who has no need of our prayers, God graciously still applies them to someone who does.
Although we Orthodox certainly do not accept "Sola Scriptura" arguments, and while we certainly believe that the Church's teachings are right on this issue, Kosta still makes an important point. We have the specific witness of St. John Chrysostom that the practice of prayers for and commemorating the dead at the Liturgy was handed down from the Apostles of Christ themselves. But the absence of direct evidence in the Scriptures themselves argues strongly for the more judicious Orthodox approach of not defining, dogmatizing, or systematizing the specifics of this. There are very few doctrines of the Church that do not have at least some direct Scriptural appeal, and the Orthodox Church tends to carefully stick to ancient patristic formulations in these cases, accepting ambiguity and unanswered questions.
Furthermore, the Cathechisms of the Orthodox Church, while stating that prayers for the dead are good (prayers are always good!) say very little beyond that, and I agree with that.
For the benefit of our Catholic brethren, I will spell out something that Kosta and the other Orthodox on this forum know: any Catechisms published within the Orthodox Church have a very different role and function than they do in the Catholic church or in Protestant denominations. There is no Orthodox Catechism -- the very form itself is a Protestant one. Luther's Catechism predates the first Roman catechism by nearly 40 years, and the early Reformed/Calvinist catechisms predate the first Roman catechism by about 25. The first Orthodox catechisms appeared (as I recall) under the influence of Peter Moghila in eastern Rus under pressure from Catholic inroads during the 17th century, and spread only slowly into the remainder of the Slavic world. The catechism form didn't make an appearance in the Greek speaking world until the 19th century.
It is not that the various Orthodox catechisms in circulation do not have usefulness in certain situations, it is just that they are local (or even personal) expressions of faith in "manual" form that do not have any particular authority of any kind and are not really in the Orthodox tradition.
I have never actually seen an Orthodox catechism used for catechesis, and only rarely will one encounter an Orthodox writer citing the contents of a catechism as backing for a particular view.
What Orthodox view as authoritative is the "consensus patrum," and that is something that simply cannot be codified, summarized or distilled into a catechism. It is rather taken as an entire body, and sorted out and discussed as particular needs arise, much as we do here on FR.
A Catholic asked on another thread yesterday about Orthodox "canon law," and the same thing applies there -- we really don't have anything that is the equivalent of Catholic canon law that is codified and up to date in an authoritative form. To ask what the Orthodox canons say about this or that is to invite quite a discussion!
That said, the things that Kosta says about the contents of the Catechisms that he refers to are correct: the Orthodox Church says very little specific about the how's and what's of prayers, commemorations, and almsgiving for the dead, and says very little about the specifics of what happens to departed souls while they are in the "intermediate state" of being temporarily separated from the body.
This is not a small matter, since we consider it important not to delve into unrevealed matters using our intellect, just as we consider it important to speak correctly and patristically about those things that *have* been revealed to the Church.
"We live with the propensity to sin, because we do not strive hard enough for the perfection God wishes for us. Many of the saints had the propensity taken away from them after years spent in prayer and fasting. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, related to Brother Reginald at his death that early after entering the Dominicans, and after much prayer, two angels had visited him and encircled him with a spiritual girdle to guard his chastity in answer to his prayers to be protected from impurity, and that after that time, he never again suffered from motions of his mind and body tempting him against Holy Purity"
That's an interesting way of looking at things. For us, the Fathers speak of "dying to the self" so that the nous is completely focused on God. This is the state of theosis wherein a person is able to experience the uncreated light of God. St. Mary of Egypt and St. Symeon the New Theologian both experienced this and are sometimes depicted in icons surrounded by a mandilora. A number of the Desert Fathers speak of this manifestation at or near the death of particularly holy monastics. It is my understanding that +Thomas Aquinas may have experienced the uncreated light when he had the vision which convinced him that all his writings were so much straw and should be burned. At any rate, "dying to the self" is a near end result of the processes of theosis. For that reason I disagree that the propensity to sin is a result of our individual failure to "become like God", but rather and more simply, something to overcome to that we can "become like God".
"CANON 1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema. (Council of Trent)"
Well, of course, Orthodoxy doesn't accept Trent. In particular, Orthodoxy does not ascribe to a vengeful and wrathful God (I know what the OT and the NT say.). God is completely transcendant and no more "feels" these emotions than he is really an old man with a long white beard. The Fathers taught that the love of God falls equally on the good and the evil like the rain, no distinctions. This canon ascribes to God the creation of Death, something which Orthodoxy does not accept in accordance with the consensus patrum.
"You seem to be confusing the results of the active conception (the creation of her body by her parents in sexual intercourse) and the passive conception (the creation of her soul by God). God perfected her soul through grace in the passive conception. Her body is what her parents were able to give her, a corrupted nature from Adam, and upon this, the perfection of her soul had no direct bearing."
Orthodoxy does not confuse the results of active conception of the Most Holy Theotokos with the passive conception of her soul at all.Orthodoxy fully understands that the manner of Panagia's physical conception has nothing to do with the Latin dogma of the IC. We simply believe that as to her status as a descendant of Adam and Eve at her conception, active or passive, she was no different than the rest of us. If your explanation of the IC is the Latin dogma, then we do not believe the same thing. In all honesty I can't see how Orthodoxy can accept that she was at base and ab initio different from us through a special grace from God which is somehow greater than that which He showers on us daily. But once again, doesn't all this go back at a minimum to different ideas on the Fall?
I'm curious if you could point to certain Roman liturgical prayers you object to, as opposed to prayers stemming from possibly misguided popular piety. Otherwise, it is difficult for me to comment on this.
I suppose that the thing that springs to mind are all of the things in older Catholic materials that state, with official authority, that reading thus and such prayer grants an indulgence of so many days or years. That's a pretty straight-forward juridical contract, it seems to me... That whole idea is pretty foreign to us -- I can't remotely think of any Orthodox equivalent.
And see how He proceeds by little and little in His punishments, all but excusing Himself unto thee, and signifying that His desire indeed is to threaten nothing of the kind, but that we drag Him on to such denunciations. For observe: "I bade thee," saith He, "not be angry for nought, because thou art in danger of the judgment. Thou hast despised the former commandment: see what anger hath produced; it hath led thee on straightway to insult, for thou hast called thy brother 'Raca.' Again, I set another punishment, 'the council.' If thou overlook even this, and proceed to that which is more grievous, I visit thee no longer with these finite punishments, but with the undying penalty of hell, lest after this thou shouldest break fortheven to murder." (St. John Chrysostom, Homily 16 on St. Matthew)
This is the same distinction we make between mortal and venial sin.
Indulgences in the History of the Greek Church. :)
In their polemic with Latinity, the Greeks didn't cast doubts so much on the phenomenon of indulgences, but rather on the Roman Popes ascribing exclusively to themselves this right to forgive sins Thus, in the 13th clause of the council’s Confession, it is said, "to say, then, that the power to issue (indulgences) is possessed only by the Roman Pope is a plain lie.[7]"
Bump for later.
"This is the same distinction we make between mortal and venial sin."
Is it? I understand that "mortal sins" can only be forgiven by the sacament of confession and that no amount of ascesis and repentance can make up for such a sin. In any event, although there are certainly sins which are more serious than others, where we miss the mark more widely than in other instances with more grievous ramifications in Creation, repentance is quite clearly a personal matter between a sinner and his spiritual father. If sin is a sickness of the soul, as the Fathers teach, the cure may be more onerous for a greater illness than for a small one, but that cure always has to consider the sick person's ability to survive, physically or spiritually the cure.
The reported response of +Mark and Bessarion of Nice to the Latins quoting the Fathers at Florence on this subject is instructive:
"They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour's words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.
In explanation of the Apostle's words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner's existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. "It is very right to suppose," wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle's words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities." The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle's words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. "Your doctrine," they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, 'Every man's work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: 'For the day,' he says, 'shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.' Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. 'This fire,' says he, 'shall try every man's work of what sort it is,' enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, 'If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,' (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour." Peri tou katharteriou pyros biblion hen
I wrote: "I understand that "mortal sins" can only be forgiven by the sacament of confession and that no amount of ascesis and repentance can make up for such a sin."
I meant, "...and that no amount of ascesis and repentance, in the absence of the sacrament, can make up for such a sin."
"I suppose that the thing that springs to mind are all of the things in older Catholic materials that state, with official authority, that reading thus and such prayer grants an indulgence of so many days or years. That's a pretty straight-forward juridical contract, it seems to me... That whole idea is pretty foreign to us"
You mean like this, from my Father's 1956 St. Joseph's Daily Missal?
"'Prayers to be recited during the Novena to St. Joseph.' The faithful who take part in a public Novena to St. Joseph in preparation for his feast may gain an indulgence of 7 years on any day. A plenary indulgence under the usual conditions of Confession, Holy Communion and prayers for the intentions of the Holy Father. The faithful who make this Novena privately with the intention of continuing for nine days may gain an indulgence of 5 years, once on any day. Aplenary indulgence under the usual conditions at the end of the Novena provided that the faithful are lawfully hindered from making the same Novena publicly."
At the 'Prayer to St. Joseph in Time of Need' we find this:
"An indulgence of 3 years. An indulgence of 7 years during the month of October, if said after the recitation of the Rosary and on any Wednesday throughout the year. A plenary indulgence under the usual conditions if said daily for a month."
All the hallmarks of a finely crafted contract, with God and in the first instance, the Pope as a third party beneficiary!
The Orthodox Church, incidentally, also commemorates the 7 Holy Maccabee Children, their mother Solomonia, and their teacher Eleazar on 1 August. The service is combined with that of the Procession of the Cross (which gets most of the attention.)
They are commemorated in this service for their martyrdom for the sake of the law of God and as "preservers of the Traditions of Moses." A quick glance through the service mentions nothing of their role in establishing any doctrines. As I recall, the Maccabees that are commemorated are all in I Maccabees, anyway.
But as Kolokotronis says, we commemorate, pray to, and take as our patron saints many, many Old Testament figures. I'm not sure that their commemoration has any specific doctrinal significance. We would not build a doctrine on the writings of the Old Testament unless there were clear patristic witness that there was Apostolic witness to the continuity of the teaching -- which in this case there is. In fact, the books of the Maccabees contain some of the clearest witnesses to a belief in the resurrection of the dead in the Old Testament, and as far as I recall, this is the most common context in which the fathers quote from these books. I don't think it occurred to anyone prior to the Protestant Reformation to need to specifically defend the practice of praying for the dead. Early Christian writings are free of any polemics on this score, so the practice must have been pretty uncontroversial.
The continuity of Old and New Testaments is very important in Orthodoxy. The following passage from a modern Greek hierarch (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos) is representative:
St. Gregory the Theologian, in his homily on the Maccabees, says that the saints in the Old Testament knew Christ, and calls this saying mysterious and ineffable. He says that before the incarnation of Christ no one was perfected without faith in Christ. "For the Word spoke boldly later in His own times, but He was also known before to the pure in mind, as is clear from many held in honour before that". And indeed he says of the Maccabees that we should not scorn them with the justification that they lived and acted before the cross, "but that they should be praised in accordance with the cross and are worthy of honour by their words". The righteous men in the Old Testament acted according to the teaching of the cross and, essentially, they experienced the mystery of the Cross.
Yup, that's exactly what I'm talking about. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.