Being that the Orthodox are an apostolic Church, we do share communion. To my knowledge, an Orthodox person can receive communion at a Latin Mass. The same is not the case for a Latin coming to an Orthodox Liturgy, as you point out. And this is because we don't approach the Trinity in the exact same way? Which "de fide" beliefs from the first 1000 years is Rome ignoring? There is a difference between de fide declarations and common, yet undefined teachings. Our differences are not based on Eastern Orthodox/Latin Catholic flouting of dogmatic declarations made at Nicea or Chalcedon.
What we do not believe is that there is any sort of fire or pain that a soul has to go through in order to be purified of unconfessed venial sins or to clean the slate from uncompleted penances for sins forgiven in confession.
I don't know if that is correct - as what would be the purpose of a third state of existence if we died and went to immediate heaven or hell? What does the Orthodox envision for this third "place"? Because we have not completed theosis upon our death (most of us), what exactly occurs in this third state? It is likely analogous to what happens here on earth. We will be purified of sin and habits that remain that turn us from God. How is sin and sinful habits purified here on earth? I would think there is a pretty large amount of Orthodox writing on the subject!
We know that the souls of the departed are helped by our prayers, almsgiving in their names, commemoration at the liturgy, memorial services, etc. But how exactly they are helped and to what degree we have little or no idea. We certainly cannot quantify it and say that we have wiped the slate clean with a plenary indulgence given for something of that sort. We just don't know.
The Church has ALWAYS had this power. Ever since public confessions, the Church has had the power to forgive post-Baptismal sins and grant indulgences to remit punishment. Do you think that a person sitting in a sack cloth outside the Church doors was "earning" forgiveness from God??!!
You aren't dividing the Body, because there is no Body to divide at this point -- Catholicism is already in a state of error and schism from the Orthodox perspective, and Orthodoxy is in a state of schism (and really, if Catholics are honest, error) from Catholicism's perspective.
Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. Being in a state of schism is NOT a separation from the Body. We still share the same bread, the same baptism, the same apostolic Traditions and Scriptures. There is not TWO Bodies of Christ! There is only one. It is a mistake to say "the Orthodox are the Body of Christ and the Latins are not"(or vice versus). Such talk is plainly incorrect - and my argument will be based on baptism by schismatics and heretics as still being part of the Body of Christ (though incompletely) - an accepted Tradition by both of our church communities.
Protestantism did not result in the schism of one church from others, but rather in a state in which the Church never was at any other point in its existence -- with a radical change in belief and practice, and with ever splintering groups and denominations and ecclesiastical structures, each with its own widely varying beliefs and practices. These newly formed ecclesiastical bodies were cut free, to varying degrees, from ancient traditional understandings and beliefs, and replaced them with theoretical reconstructions of the New Testament Church.
I would agree with that, with the addition that there have always been "Protestant" groups who didn't follow the teachings of the Church and the Fathers. Many of the heresies have an interesting way of resurfacing many years later with different names... Consider the Reformed view of evil material (man) with the Neo-Platonic view.
You [Harley] are approaching a valid point, because it is disingenuous for Catholics to be harshly critical of Protestants for leaving their True Church, while (nowadays, anyway) giving Orthodoxy a free pass for doing the same thing.
Well, we in the West are trying to be more open to reconciliation. That won't happen until both sides take a long hard look at what led each side to interpret the Fathers the way they did. It is ludicrous to think the Fathers can only be interpreted ONE way on such subjects as the Trinity or original sin. We come from different cultures and backgrounds. Thus, it is imperative that we try to understand WHAT the other is saying when they formulate that the Divine uncreated Energies come to man but not the Divine Essence... Or when the West talks about created Grace.
On the surface, you earlier divided the Trinity, a heresy. But after further explanation, I see a more valid explanation. And we move on. But remaining stubbornly entrenched in your idea of what Catholics believe will NEVER unite the two halves of the Apostolic Church (excuse me if I do not include the Coptics and such, it is easier to say "halves")
Perhaps the East would be better served by taking the Vatican 2's line on this - that we don't contradict, we compliment each other. Most of what we disagree over was not defined in the first 1000 years, but is subject to our particular nuances of Apostolic Tradition. Only a united Ecumencial Council will be able to consolidate our "minor" difference. Until then, it does no good to say one side is right and the other is wrong (contradicts). After reading about the East/West view on Trinity, I see we approach it from different angles, but neither is wrong (complimentary).
Regards
"Being that the Orthodox are an apostolic Church, we do share communion."
Um, no we don't. What possible meaning of the English verb "to share" could you have in mind?
"To my knowledge, an Orthodox person can receive communion at a Latin Mass."
Not if he doesn't want to get reprimanded and possibly excommunicated, he doesn't. And out of respect for that, the U.S. Catholic bishops have requested that Orthodox Christians respect the disciplines of the Orthodox Church and not commune in Catholic parishes.
"The same is not the case for a Latin coming to an Orthodox Liturgy, as you point out. And this is because we don't approach the Trinity in the exact same way?"
I don't make Orthodox practices. I'm just reminding you of what they are, and pointing out that in the hothouse atmosphere of FR with talk of this theoretical "One Church" -- that inexplicably isn't in communion with itself -- this fact gets forgotten. I hate to be the fly in the ointment, but it has to be said.
"There is a difference between de fide declarations and common, yet undefined teachings. Our differences are not based on Eastern Orthodox/Latin Catholic flouting of dogmatic declarations made at Nicea or Chalcedon."
You are attempting to boil down Christianity to a lowest common denominator. And how does this differ, really, from the Protestant lowest-common-denominator contention that they are all Christians and part of the one Body of Christ, even though they disagree on lots of things that I for one see as being pretty significant? Does the fact that our lowest common denominator includes bishops and prayers to the Theotokos make it somehow qualitatively different? You know good and well that Orthodoxy has historically never accepted this.
"I don't know if that is correct - as what would be the purpose of a third state of existence if we died and went to immediate heaven or hell? What does the Orthodox envision for this third "place"?"
For the most part, the answer is "we don't know, and neither does anyone else." As to the purpose, why does it have to have a purpose? Is there really any "purpose" to the soul being separated from the body, and remaining in an unnatural state of separation until it is reunited with the body after the general resurrection? It is *all* unnatural, and to speak of "purpose" doesn't make sense to me.
We know that spiritual growth takes place during this intermediate state, through the prayers of the Church -- and for those who are in a state of separation from God, there is an alleviating of suffering, according to some fathers, through the prayers of those on earth. We don't know much beyond that.
"The Church has ALWAYS had this power."
I'd like to see the pre-schismatic patristic references that speak of the Church granting plenary indulgences to the departed, freeing them from purgatory, and categorically stating that *all* of the time in purgatory has been bypassed. I'm not saying that they don't exist -- perhaps they do, since I make no claim to have read everything. I'd just like to see them.
"Again, you are incorrect in your assumptions. Being in a state of schism is NOT a separation from the Body."
No, I'm not incorrect. What definition of the word "schism" are you referring to, when saying that it is not a separation?
People who don't share something are really sharing it -- schism is not separation? This is casuistry. Or maybe just wishful thinking. Or maybe we need to start using an OED.
"Thus, it is imperative that we try to understand WHAT the other is saying when they formulate that the Divine uncreated Energies come to man but not the Divine Essence... Or when the West talks about created Grace."
Agreed.
"But remaining stubbornly entrenched in your idea of what Catholics believe..."
I've said little about what Catholics believe -- and when I have, I've tried to put in caveats to the effect that I may not be expressing it in a way that you as a Catholic would agree with what I have said. When I articulate something in a way that you disagree with, then we can hammer it out...
What I *am* stubbornly entrenched in is a sense of reality -- in describing what *is.* Saying 100 times that the Orthodoxy and Catholicism comprise one Church will not make it so. Maybe we are, maybe we aren't. The consensus view since the Schism from the Orthodox side is that we aren't -- at least not in the sense that we would call "one." Most traditional but cautious Orthodox would prefer to leave the relationship largely undefined. My objection is not so much that we aren't arguing about whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is really the Church. My objection, which I have kept to myself for some time, is that it is being repeatedly and categorically stated on this thread that we are One Church, when this by no means a shared view.
I am happy to rejoice in every point of agreement that we find, and happy every time that I come to a clearer understanding of Catholic belief, and happy every time I can communicate clearly Orthodox beliefs to the best of my ability. But again, this is a quite different matter.
The closest that anything has been said to my knowledge was the reference to "sister churches" in the Balamand
Agreement -- a hotly controversial document in the Orthodox world (and not particularly well-loved by Eastern Catholics, either, for different reasons.) Here are the comments of the head of what is by far the largest Orthodox Church in the world, Patriarch Alexey, on that agreement:
"As far as the "Balamand Agreement" is concerned—this was a working document produced by a mixed theological commission, aimed, first of all, at curbing the proselytizing activity of Uniates. This text was never given dogmatic significance. Unfortunately, the document did not prove to be an obstacle for the Catholics in imposing Unia and continuing their expansion to the East."
It does no good to pretend that many, and probably the great majority, of Orthodox Christians today do not hold to the "One Church" view -- disagreeable as you may find this fact.
Part of coming to understanding involves honesty with ourselves and each other about where we are. I don't intend to belabor this point, but it needs to be said. It would be my hope that we could at a minimum follow Kosta's suggestion in a recent post that we can agree that there can only be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then saying, "I think it is wise to leave it at that."