www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Purgatory and Eastern Catholics

John,

You make good points. I, myself see the issue of acceptance of baptism as a problem in Orthodoxy. I was accepted with only chrismation, but some jurisdictions would insist on rebaptism. This is something that we Orthodox should be united on, one way or another.

Joe

Hello John, I find the reaction of the Trads to you as an Eastern Catholic interesting. I had a really interesting forum experience with one who was very respectful of Eastern Catholics because "they have a valid liturgy, not like the Protestant Novus Ordos". I think this person really must have really had a liking for Eastern spirituality, he was always quoting St. Athanasius or St. John Chrysostom. His group is sedevacanist and they were trying to figure out how to unite with the Orthodox and take over the Church by getting rid of Pope Benedict and electing a new Pope, now that is some scenario. However I realize this probably isn`t the usual reaction of Trads to Eastern Catholics.

Ed, some do have Church`s of their own, the sedevacanists mostly who believe the Papal seat is vacant and yes they do have websites.

I think it depends on who you are doing with, but when it comes to things beyond the Divine Liturgy, the ones I have met expect uniformity.

On the first and last point - What the SSPX says or does - a group run by named excommunicants who are without facilties to hear confessions or perform marriages, who are without permission to erect chapels or serve at the altar from ANY local ordinary. Well how much stock can you put in the opinion of those darned schismatics? <G>

On the last matter of the Melkites... When they (The Melkites) are publishing stuff like this, it is to be expected that they will raise a few eyebrows, and not just on the "trads!:

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council � no participation from the Orthodox


As for the original question of do the ECC accept purgatory, it should be noted that at the Union of Brest (1585), the two agreed, "We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church,"

I have always thought myself committed to the restoration of the fullness of our Eastern Liturgical heritgage and de-latinization... but because my first tendancy is to look Rome-ward with love and obedience to the Roman Pontiff, I am routinely excoriated as "Latinized" or "Roman on the inside."

Well, it seems to me that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is intended to be a universal catechism for the only Church and not just a catechism of the Latin rite. There is no indication in its text that it is otherwise. My impression is that Rome certainly does consider all of her councils through Vatican II as ecumenical and binding on all Catholics. If the CCC is not binding on eastern Catholics and if Florence, Vatican I, etc. are not binding, then Rome should be more clear and just say so. They should call the CCC the Catechism of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church and they should start calling Florence, etc. the particular synods of the Roman Church. I realize that on one occasion Pope Paul VI referred to a council this way, but it seems that it was in an unofficial and offhand way and aside from the opinions of theologians, I've never seen anything in any Vatican document to suggest otherwise. It would seem to me that purgatory as defined in the CCC would be binding on eastern Catholics.

Joe

I don't doubt that the intention of the compilers of that catechism was to produce one for the whole Church. But that's not what they did.

As for being "binding", nobody would claim that the catechism is a supreme act of the supreme magisterium!

Fr. Serge

John & Joe,


As I understand it...Baptism in the name of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit is what is necessary in Orthodoxy for the baptism to be accepted...So some protestants baptize in the name of Jesus Christ alone hence a new baptism is needed...If someone is a Catholic (Roman Rite or Byzantine Rite) and someone is telling you that you were not validly baptized I would walk the other way...they are on the "fringe"...

Chris

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is actually the "Catechism of the Catholic Church as explained by Latins", IMO. It's not truly "Catholic" (but then what truly is?), but neither is it "Latin only" in the sense of only applying to the Latins. That's my sentiment, anyway. Thoughts?

Personally I'm greatly looking forward to the Catechisms being produced by particular Eastern Churches.

Peace and God bless!

The Latin Church's catechism is a wonderful book, and I think that Latin Catholics should use it.

The Coptic Church, for one, rebaptizes Protestants and Catholics who convert, not to mention ROCOR, unless it has modified its policy since reuniting with Moscow.

A few years ago the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch reached an historic agreement on sharing the Holy Mysteries and refraining from "conversions" from either to the other, so to speak.

Very close to the end of the agreement, almost as an afterthought, is a provision that they should no longer re-baptize one another's faithful.

Fr. Serge

I seem to recall that John Paul II wanted the CCC to inspire the Eastern Catholics to produce their own catechisms.

It seems its intent was for the whole Catholic Church, and much Eastern spirituality influenced it.

Still it is fundamentally Latin in outlook.

It is also seems pretty clear in teaching the Filioque.

Neither Rome or the Eastern Churches are exactly clear about what our relationship should be. I can see why trad Latins and some Orthodox get impatient and frustrated with us, as this dance is always going on.

But it is also true that we cannot sweep away the history, development of the life of our Churches that has taken place.

We must admit that there has been much ambiguity in the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Churches, and Rome bears responsibility for much of that ambiguity.

Florence may say one thing, but the the Union of Brest, which comes later, does not resolve once and for all issues like the filioque and purgatory for Eastern Catholics. Rome became flexible to facilitate union.

As for me, I am a supporter of the Zoghby initiative. I am going to continue to think and practice as "an Orthodox in union with Rome," until such time, if any, I am compelled to make a different choice.

Well, after all, we aspire to dance with the angels!

That said, it is true that there is plenty of room for misunderstanding between the Holy See and the Eastern Catholic Churches. This goes right back to the original restorations of communion. The Eastern Catholic Churches view these events as bi-lateral agreements; Rome views these events as acts of submission.

One can explore the matter at much greater length, but that will have to do for the moment.

Fr. Serge

The statement of the Union of Brest is rather vague, but I would read it to say that they are requesting to agree to disagree; that the Eastern Catholics did not have to agree with the Latin description of purgatory, rather, they argeed not to dispute it as a reason for division. Both Latin tradition and Eastern tradition emphasise the impotance of parying for the dead. This is held in common, but the expliction of a doctrine of purgatory is not, and that's okay.
***
As for the CCC, it is a great document, and to say that it is oriented towards the Latin theological expression (which it is), does not take a away from its value. However, it is one finite compendium of belief; much more can always be said.

God Bless,
Rosemary