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 ...
Our Lord Jesus Christ remninds us that of our relationship with God and His "Laws," more precisely, Commandments: love thy God with all your heart and mind and soul; and your neighbor as thyself.
When we are converted in our heart, we fall in love and "obey" God out of love, not as a legal obligation.
You wrote: "An indulgence is a payment of the penance required for sin..."
Orthodox spiritual fathers can and occasionally do assign an epitimia after confession. The Greek word is more commonly used, not because the word penance won't work and isn't sometimes used, but precisely to make it clear that we are talking about something in a different spirit from that created by the language of "payments required," and "penances due." In practice, these are given in the context more of suggestions of things that may help an individual grow spiritually and avoid sin in the future.
Even in the application of akrevia, or canonical strictness, there would be no sense that this is a payment. Neither in the application of economia is there any idea that anyone's merit is being applied to the situation, and that that merit is what makes the economia OK.
The sole issue in both approaches (and they should be thought of as a continuum -- even akrevia is a form of economia, ultimately) is always what will promote genuine spiritual growth and well-being, and only a spiritual father in an individual relationship with a spiritual child can have any idea what that is. This is why what you wrote is really foreign to the Orthodox approach to the spiritual life:
If I do something good and gain a reward, I can always give away my claim to my reward to another for their benefit.
Should I so wish, I could go about collecting indulgences soley for my own spiritual benefit, without any heed towards te Holy Souls.
Generally, indulgences are given for prayers and pilgrimages, so it is an appllication of excess merit to spiritual acts for the benefit of the person performing the act that they might dispose of it as they please.
I really don't know where to begin in trying to explain how fundamentally distorted this strikes me as an Orthodox Christian. It goes beyond a "a formalization and uniformization of the discussion you describe between a Bishop and a Monastic confessor to apply in every situation." It is really something quite different.
You are free not to believe us that how we approach the spiritual life is different, and you are free to believe that it is really the same thing.
But I would hope that you would take our word for it that the more you explain what indulgences "really are," (and you have certainly cleared up some specific misconceptions that I have had, I grant you), the more firmly we are telling you that Orthodox spirituality, at the very least, would have a hard time accepting the concept, practice, and language of the modern indulgence as being within the patristic tradition.
"Come to terms with thy opponent quickly while thou art with him on the way; lest thy opponent deliver thee to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Amen I say to thee, thou wilt not come out from it until thou hast paid the last penny." (St. Matthew 5.25-26)
I don't believe I need to remind you how Tertullian, Origen, Sts. Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine all interpret this passage.
The rejection of a law is ultimately a hatred of the lawgiver and his reign. "We will not have this man to reign over us ..." We are angry that he has power to claim to control our disordered liberty.
Following a law outwardly while inwardly despising it was the fault of the Pharisees. This type of "obedience" is no more worthwhile than actual disobedience, since it is what is in the heart that counts.
In following God, we are not "obeying" Him, but heeding His advice to us as that of a loving Father looking out for our best interests, which is to guide us to the contrary virtues by the vices forbidden by the law. When God says "Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord Thy God in vain" He is also telling us at the same time, "Praise the Name of the Lord". Similary when He says "Thou shalt not committ adultery" He is also saying "Love your spouse". This is what St. Paul means in Romans 7, by my understanding of our freedom from the Law. We are freed from the servile outward obedience of the Pharisees by following the inward way of the Lord, which is love.
If we act with love, we have no need of the law, because we will have always fulfilled it.
Orthodox spirituality, at the very least, would have a hard time accepting the concept, practice, and language of the modern indulgence as being within the patristic tradition.
Just so that you are clear I am not distorting the thought of St. Cyprian to modern concepts:
"Therapius had rashly granted peace to him after an insufficient time and in headlong haste, before he had done full penance and before he had made satisfaction to the Lord God, against whom he had sinned. This matter disturbed us greatly, because it was a departure from the authority of our decree, in that peace was granted him before the full and lawful time of satisfaction." (Letter of St. Cyprian and 66 Bishops in Council to Fidus, Letters 64.1, AD 251/2)
As to other patristic tradition here, there is a complete continuum of western theology on this matter and with this language, from Tertullian through St. Cyprian to St. Ambrose and St. Augustine and on to Pope St. Gregory. This is not an invention of Scholasticism, but the tradition of the west from its commencement in the Latin prose of Tertullian. The examples I have given from St. Cyprian are not him acting alone, but him acting in concert with the Roman Church, and with all his brother Bishops in Africa, and in line with what Tertullian first described and then complained about in his later rigoristic heresy along with St. Hippolytus of Rome. There was nothing isolated about what was occurring.
St. Ambrose for example: "Just as those who pay money absolve a debt, nor are they free of the name of debtor until the whole amount, even to the last penny, is absolved by some kind of payment, so to compensation of love and other virtuous actions, or by some kind of satisfaction, the penalty of sin is removed." (Commentaries on the Gospel of St. Luke, 7.156, AD 389)
And Tertullian: "Repentance is the price which the Lord has set for the awarding of pardon. The compensation through repentance is what He proposes for the buying back of safety from punishment." (Repentance, 6.4, AD 203/4)
And again: "This second and single repentance then ... is not conducted before the conscience alone, but it is to be carried out by some external act. This act, which is usually expressed and spoken of by the Greek work, is exomologesis, by which we confess our sin to the Lord, not indeed as if He did not know of it, but because satisfaction is arrange by confess, of confession is born repentance, and by repentance is God appeased. Thus confession is a discipline for man's prostration and humiliation, enjoining a manner, even as regards dress and food, conductive to mercy ... Confession is all of this ... so that it may by temporal mortifications, I will not say frustrate, but rather expunge the eternal punishments. Therefore, while it abases a man, it raises him; while it covers him with squalor, the more does it cleanse him; while it condemns, it absolves. In so far as you do not spare yourself, the more, believe me, will God spare you!" (Repentance, 9.1-5, AD 203/4)
The more you read of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the more you see that the entire edifice of western/Latin theology comes directly from them.
You certainly have a deeper knowledge of the Western fathers than I do, and you make a compelling case that the language to which I object has a long pedigree in the West, one that includes fathers that are revered in the Orthodox Church.
I wonder if this is analogous to the Orthodox approach to considering the physical sufferings and crucifixion of Christ. The Eastern fathers and our services (with whom I am most familiar), talk about Christ paying the debt on the Cross, and use juridical language -- but it is not the heavy emphasis, and it is only one of many ways in which they talk about Christ's redemptive work. It isn't that we reject completely language about debts and laws and punishments and so forth -- it is more that they seem to be treated as one aspect only, and an aspect that isn't heavily emphasized.
It does seem that in the process of formalization and codification, a certain kind of language came to dominate in the west, language that we instinctively recoil against in the context of how we perceive Catholicism to "work", even though sometimes there are similar words, in the context and balance of our own services, that we fully embrace.
What I don't know is when this dominance of juridical thinking happened in the West. Perhaps it was far earlier than I realize. I really don't have the intimate knowledge of the western fathers that would be required for me to answer that to my satisfaction.
I have gotten a bit intemperate on this thread, and that isn't particularly good for my state of mind and soul. So I'm going to apply a little akrevia to myself and bow out, since I'm not helping anyone at this point.
This has been a good discussion. I've had some misperceptions corrected, and have learned about a broader way of understanding indulgences in particular. Even though I still can't accept the concept, I won't embarrass myself again by stating that these are exclusively a part of the doctrine of purgatory.
On that we agree Hermann. It's the only litmus test of Orthodox faith.
"I wonder if this is analogous to the Orthodox approach to considering the physical sufferings and crucifixion of Christ. The Eastern fathers and our services (with whom I am most familiar), talk about Christ paying the debt on the Cross, and use juridical language -- but it is not the heavy emphasis, and it is only one of many ways in which they talk about Christ's redemptive work. It isn't that we reject completely language about debts and laws and punishments and so forth -- it is more that they seem to be treated as one aspect only, and an aspect that isn't heavily emphasized."
This reminds me of something Met. Methodios said to a reporter after The Passion of the Christ had been released. The reporter, expecting a harsh comment from the Met about the movie, asked him whether he believed Orthodox people should see the movie. The Met replied that they should because the movie demonstrated that the Western Church is the Church of the Passion while the Orthodox Church, as Orthodox people would know, is the Church of the Resurrection and that it was improtant to understand both.
It seems to me that HC is demonstrating that mindset in these posts and there is no question that it is important that we Orthodox understand how that has played out in the life and theology of the Western Church.
There is a longstanding gross overgeneralization that nevertheless holds a kernel of truth. Latinophrones and Latin Language Theology comes from a legalistic Roman-Italic-African mindset. Greek speakers and Greek Language Theology come from a more philosophical and spiritual Greek-Asian-Hebrew mindset. Greek theological works frequently appear logically unorganized to us, while I would guess Latin works appear over-organized and categorized and dissected to you.
What I don't know is when this dominance of juridical thinking happened in the West. Perhaps it was far earlier than I realize. I really don't have the intimate knowledge of the western fathers that would be required for me to answer that to my satisfaction.
Probably around when the Greek language died out in the west - i.e. the 4th century. It did not help matters that the thought of St. Augustine came to overwhelmingly dominate the west immediately during and after his life, while the Ecumenical Councils in many ways seemed distant because these heresies were almost solely eastern problems.
Hence the crucifixes everywhere.
The parable of the prodigal son is only incidentally about the forgiveness of sin. what it's really about is the extension of salvation to the gentiles. The tipoff is the presence of brothers. Any biblical story of brothers needs to be carefully read as a prophetic account of the way God has chosen to be merciful not only to the Jews but to the world at large. The parable is bursting with hints at this reading: the "younger brother" is the one who departs for the life of a wastrel. His honoring at the end of the story is an overturning of conventional expectations. He is said to have been dead, but now is returned to life. His degradation extended so far as to be making his home with unclean swine. The older brother is the one who's remained faithful to the Father, laboring in obedience. At the hour of his redemption, the younger brother "comes to himself" -- recovering his spiritual integrity.
I’m sorry that no one has commented on my post here, which IMHO proposes a view of purgatory that the Orthodox ought to be able to accept: not as satisfaction, but as essential to theosis, and particularly to the divine freedom that theosis implies.
And we usually wear (empty) crosses in the Orthodox church.
Not meant as a criticism: empty crosses strike Catholics as Gnosticism, and a denial of the reality of the incarnation and the passion.
Marmema's point is of course that the empty cross is a reminder of the fact that Christ is risen.
In the Russian tradition, all of the faithful come up to kiss a hand-cross held by the priest, thus receiving a blessing. Ordinarily, this is a crucifix (the corpus is either etched, painted, or bas relief), and the proper thing to kiss on the cross is the feet of Christ.
Starting with Pascha, and throughout the season of Pascha, there is a tradition that the priest turns the cross backwards, so the corpus is not displayed, and we kiss the empty cross. This is an explicit reference to the resurrection.
We have both empty crosses and crucifixes in our churches -- each has a meaning. Marmema is right, though, that most of the time the cross that we wear on our bodies everyday is an empty one.
We have both empty crosses and crucifixes in our churches -- each has a meaning. Marmema is right, though, that most of the time the cross that we wear on our bodies everyday is an empty one.
"When you see a poor wooden Cross, alone, uncared-for, and of no value... and without its Crucified, don't forget that that Cross is your Cross: the Cross of each day, the hidden Cross, without splendour or consolation..., the Cross which is awaiting the Crucified it lacks: and that Crucified must be you." (St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, 178)
"You ask me: why that wooden Cross? — And I copy from a letter: 'As I look up from the microscope, my sight comes to rest on the cross — black and empty. That Cross without its Crucified is a symbol. It has a meaning which others cannot see. And though I am tired out and on the point of abandoning the job, I once again bring my eyes to the lens and continue: for the lonely Cross is calling for a pair of shoulders to bear it.'" (St. Josemaria Escriva, The Way, 277)
Yes! I explained it to my oldest like this, love is the road we are to walk, the law is the guard rail: if we fail to discern the road hat Love lays before us, the law serves as a poignant reminder that we are about to leave the path.
I am sorry that your link doesn't work.
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.