www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West specific Orthodox disagreements with the Catholic Catechism

This was my post; and yes, I should have cited the paragraphs, my apology offered. paragraphs 1471-1479 are the correct references.

Over the centuries "misapplication" of indulgences has been a source of differences between East and West. I believe the Catechism fairly states a common posistion to which East and West can agree. As an Eastern Catholic perhaps Paragraph 1478 is a shade to "legalistic" but not enough that it disturbs me.

For the Orthodox poster out there, is there anything in the document which provokes disagreement?

Endorsing Father Anthony's caution let us all be charitable. This is not a debate, but a brotherly conversation.

Fr. Deacon Paul

You're right. You're right.
I'm sorry AMM (and to the rest).
My bad.



^^^ That's what I want. ^^^ Yessir.
On specific points rather than vague "they're wrong!" claims that I've heard forever.

I don't relate to the whole indulgence thing having read it. I'm not sure I have a specific disagreement per se, but if after reading this I was told that was an indisputable truth or a point of dogma, I could not agree to that.

I believe that there are several reasons why indulgences are wrong, or at least unnecessary. I will try to be brief and to the point:

1). If indulgences were a legitimate part of the Church's practice, then it would seem that any Bishop should be allowed to grant them. That only the Pope grants indulgences demonstrates a false view of the papacy, that the Pope has unique powers in addition to his powers as a bishop.

2). Indulgences are redundant. Acts of repentance and prayer already cleanse the soul of its attachments to the passions so there is no need to add anything to them.

3). It has no foundation in the fathers of the Church. If we are talking about lessening canonical penalties for sins, that's one thing, but given that indulgences are applied to the dead (when one is dead, the canonical penalties no longer apply) it seems clear that these indulgences depend upon a certain understanding of the consequences of sin and of the state after death for Christians. In other words, it seems to be tied to the doctrine of purgatory (which according to the Orthodox is a false doctrine) and to the idea that we accumulate temporal punishments for our sins that have to be worked off in purgatory.

4). I believe that the suspicious origins of indulgences makes them questionable. That indulgences were used in the middle ages to fund building projects and crusades shows that they were a way for the Pope to get people to do his bidding.

5). I think the whole idea of a "treasury of merit" is without basis in the Gospel and it threatens to turn salvation into a kind of divine banking system. The notion that the saints could have surplus merit or superogatory works is contrary to the Gospel. We can never do enough works to please God, so we certainly can't do works above and beyond what we owe to God (we owe everthing to God).

Anyway, this is just my opinion.

Joe

Thanks Joe for sharing your thoughts and your sincerity.

The major point of difference (in my opinion) is your point #3. I understand that the specific name "Purgatory" sparks some negativity. But is it the Orthodox Church theology that there is no "place of purging" of a soul after death? Is there an official Orthodox position, and if there is can you (or someone)provide some documentation for the sake of my ignorance?

I quote this from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/prayer_nonorth.aspx
There is scarcely more than one example in the Orthodox Church of how the personal prayer of a saint of God aided he souls of the deceased non-Orthodox, even of pagans. St. Macarius of Egypt tells the following of himself: "Once, while travelling across the desert, I found the skull of a certain dead person lying on the ground. When I struck the skull with a palm branch, it spoke to me and I asked it: 'Who are you?' The skull replied: 'I was the chief priest of the idols and pagans who were in this place; and you are Macarius, the Spirit-bearer. When you, taking pity on those who suffer in torment, pray for us, we sense a certain relief.'" The elder asked him: "What is the relief and what the torment?" And the skull said to him: "As far as heaven is above the earth, so much is there fire beneath us, and we ourselves stand from head to foot in the midst of the fire. None of us can see another's face, for the face of each of us sees the back of someone else. But when you pray for us, then each of us sees in part the face of another... This is our relief!" The elder began to weep and said: "Unhappy the day on which this man was born!" The elder further inquired: "is there not some other, more terrible torment?" The skull answered: "Beneath us there is a torment still more terrible." The elder asked: "And who is to be found there?" And the skull replied: "As we did not know God, we are shown a measure of mercy, but those who knew God and turned away from Him (of course with false wisdom in matters of faith and with a careless life)—they are beneath us." After this, the elder took the skull and buried it in the earth.

From this story of the blessed father we see first of all that his prayer for the pagans suffering in the fire was not public prayer in church, but private prayer. This was the prayer of the solitary desert-dweller, praying in the secret chamber of his heart. Moreover, this prayer can serve in part as a reason for us Orthodox Christians to pray for the living and deceased non-Orthodox in our private prayers. The saint did not inform us how he prayed for the pagans, but being a great saint of God, he undoubtedly attained great boldness in his prayers to the Lord. St. Macarius prayed for the pagans not in a prayer of his own fancy, but as he was taught by the Spirit of God dwelling in his pure heart, the Spirit Which taught him to pray for the whole world, for all peoples, living and dead, as this is a regular characteristic of the loving hearts of all the saints of God. As the Holy Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: Our heart is enlarged; ye are not straitened in us (2 Cor. 6:11).

Thus can we now agree that Orthodox Christians may indeed pray for the non-Orthodox, both living and dead—in private prayer at home; but here we repeat again and again, not in prayers according to one's own designs, not in such as might come into one's head, but according to the direction of persons experienced in spiritual life.

In this instance the direction of such people is as follows. There was an occasion during the life of the Optina Elder Leonid (Lev in the Great Schema), who died in 1841. The father of one of his disciples, Paul Tambovtsev, had died an unhappy and violent death by suicide. The loving son was deeply grieved by this and poured out his sorrow before the elder thus: "The hapless end of my father is a heavy cross for me. I am now upon a cross whose pain will accompany me to the grave. While imagining the terrible eternity of sinners, where there is no more repentance, I am tortured by the image of the eternal torments that await my father who died without repentance. Tell me, father, how I can console myself in this present grief?" The elder answered, "Entrust both yourself and your father's fate to the will of the Lord, which is all-wise, all powerful. Do not tempt the miracles of the All-high, but strive through humility to strengthen yourself within the bounds of tempered sorrow. Pray to the All-good Creator, thus fulfilling the duty of the love and obligation of a son." Question: "But how is one to pray for such persons?" Answer: "In the spirit of the virtuous and wise, thus: 'Seek out, O Lord, the perishing soul of my father: if it is possible, have mercy! Unfathomable are Thy judgements. Do not account my prayer as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!' Pray simply, without inquiring, entrusting your heart to the right hand of the All-high. Of course, so grievous a death for your father was not the will of God, but now it rests completely in the will of Him Who is able to hurl both soul and body into the fiery furnace, of Him Who both humbles and lifts up, puts to death and brings to life, takes down to Hell and leads up therefrom. And He is so compassionate, almighty and filled with love that before His highest goodness the good qualities of all those born on earth are nothing. You say, 'I love my father, therefore I grieve inconsolably.' That is right. But God loved and loves him incomparably more than you. And so, it remains for you to entrust the eternal lot of your father to the goodness and compassion of God, and if it is His good will to show mercy, who can oppose Him?"

This private prayer for use in one's own room at home, given to this disciple by the Elder Leonid who was experienced in the spiritual life, can serve Orthodox Christians as an example or paradigm of prayer for some non-Orthodox persons close to us. One can pray in the following manner: "Have mercy, O Lord, if it is possible, on the soul of Thy servant (Name), departed this life in separation from Thy Holy Orthodox Church! Unfathomable are Thy judgments. Do not account this prayer of mine as sin. But may Thy holy will be done!"

We do not know (and to no one of us has it been revealed) what or how much benefit such a prayer can bring to the non-Orthodox. But from experience it has been learned that surely it eases the burning sorrow of the person praying for the soul of one close to him who died outside the Orthodox Church. For according to the word of the Psalmist: a broken and contrite heart God will not despise (Ps. 50:19). The more humble and self-abasing the prayer, the more hopeful and beneficial.

Why would we have our funeral services if our prayers didn't make a difference?

Also from the same site St. Theodora's Journey Through the Aerial Toll-Houses very much emphasizes the prayers of St Basil the New and how his prayers served as a "ransom" at the demon's toll-houses. Is the journey through the toll-houses a variation of Purgatory?

As I read the above website I can see a difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Church (as stated in the Orthodox Christian Information Center website). If I remember my Canon Law correctly, the Catholic Church considers ALL baptised in Christ persons to be under the spiritual umbrella of the Church. As I understand in the mentioned website, the Orthodox Church considers non-Orthodox (heretics and schismatics) to be unworthy of official Church prayers.
"Illumine with the light of grace all apostates from the Orthodox Faith, and those blinded by pernicious heresies, and draw them to Thyself, and unite them to Thy Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church." From this it is clear that the Orthodox Church permits prayer for those who have departed from the holy faith—prayer for their conversion. But what can one say about those who have departed from this life? Does the Church pray for such persons in her divine services? In the services of the Orthodox Church there is no prayer for persons who have died in heresy. Quite the opposite, on the First Sunday of Great Lent, in the Service of Orthodoxy, our holy Church pronounces anathema, i.e., excommunication on all heretics and apostates from Orthodoxy. How is it then, we ask, that the Church at one and the same time anathematizes and prays for apostates? "The non-Orthodox by their very non-Orthodoxy have excommunicated themselves from the Mysteries of the Orthodox Church.

Someone please correct me if this is wrong.

Humbly,
Fr Deacon Paul

Joe,
My post above is way too long to be effective but I didn't see any other way of getting the point across (that there must be something between "the bosom of Abraham" and "eternal fire."

Regarding your point #2, I agree with you but it is because I consider Indulgences to be an "act of repentance and prayer." Is that not the point of "Papal" indulgences? In my mind it is an effective way of calling the faithful to prayer and repentance, especially for the uneducated which populated the Church for many centuries. Does it make a difference whether it is a Pope or early Church Fathers who call us to pray for the dead?
Do we agree?

Dear Fr. Deacon Paul, we do agree that prayer for the dead is efficacious. I just finished reading Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology and he points out that prayers for those who have died and are saved help them to overcome any attachments that still linger in the soul (and if this is all that purgatory means, then I don't have a problem with it), and also that we may pray for the non-Orthodox privately and even for those who are certainly damned (even though we may not judge who is and is not damned). In fact, Father Michael says that our prayers for those in hell lessens their torment. So we cannot pray someone out of hell but we can pray for mercy and God will lighten their torments. I personally do not see the whole "toll houses" concept as being Dogma. I consider it to be a pious opinion and if purgatory is interpreted along these lines, then I have no problem with it.

With regard to indulgences, even if they are legitimate, then they are legitimately sanctioned by any bishop. I do not see why the Bishop of Rome should have the authority to declare indulgences at his pleasure where no other Bishop can do so.

Anyway these are my thoughts.

In Christ,

Joe

I simply believe that we are judged after death partially, and will be fully so when body is joined again with the soul. We pray for the dead, but I don't think we know exactly what our prayers do in this regard.

I don't think there is actually any dogmatic basis for more than that, though there may be various opinions about all of this.

Joe,
You raised an interesting question about why bishop can't grant indulgences. I came across this in http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Who can grant indulgences

The distribution of the merits contained in the treasury of the Church is an exercise of authority (potestas iurisdictionis), not of the power conferred by Holy orders (potestas ordinis). Hence the pope, as supreme head of the Church on earth, can grant all kinds of indulgences to any and all of the faithful; and he alone can grant plenary indulgences. The power of the bishop, previously unrestricted, was limited by Innocent III (1215) to the granting of one year's indulgence at the dedication of a church and of forty days on other occasions. Leo XIII (Rescript of 4 July. 1899) authorized the archbishops of South America to grant eighty days (Acta S. Sedis, XXXI, 758). Pius X (28 August, 1903) allowed cardinals in their titular churches and dioceses to grant 200 days; archbishops, 100; bishops, 50. These indulgences are not applicable to the souls departed. They can be gained by persons not belonging to the diocese, but temporarily within its limits; and by the subjects of the granting bishop, whether these are within the diocese or outside--except when the indulgence is local. Priests, vicars general, abbots, and generals of religious orders cannot grant indulgences unless specially authorized to do so. On the other hand, the pope can empower a cleric who is not a priest to give an indulgence (St. Thomas, "Quodlib.", II, q. viii, a. 16).

I personally wonder about the "number of days" but the concept of encouraging prayer is sound and indeed bishops are permitted to grant indulgences.

AMM, regarding "particular judgment" and "General Judgment" there is no disagreement. We have a common understanding.

Why would indulgences not fall within the scope of the biblical injunctions (?):

Here the "you" is in the singular, i.e. applying only to Peter. And:


Here the "you" is plural with an indicated unity of application, "you ... the church."

And this in light of the most extraordinary post-resurrectional


Put it all together, not in precisely how it is done, but that it is done.

Anything beyond that in my opinion, including indulgences, is speculation and a matter of private theological opinion. So if the thinking was they were an issue of dogma, I indeed would not agree with them.

Fr. Deacon Paul

And this is why indulgences are unacceptable to Orthodoxy, because they are rooted in a false understanding of the powers of the papacy. We do not accept that the Pope is head of the Church and we do not accept that the Pope has any authority that is also not given to all of the other Bishops.

Joe

We do not accept that this applies only to Peter. It applies to Peter's confession of faith and later in the same Gospel Christ gives the same authority to all of the Apostles.



This passage has to do with the sacrament of penance and forgivenss of sins. There is no mention of temporal penalties that must be expiated here or in purgatory.

Joe

Thank you Joe and AMM for your replies. We seem to agree on the place of purging of sins after "falling asleep" but haven't reached reconciliation on indulgences unless the power be granted to all bishops?

Fr Deacon Paul

Right, I'm aware of the intricacies of this point and I follow the arguments of those not accepting while not agreeing. But it is not relevant to the issue I was raising (see below) and I included it for context. Since it was raised, however, whatever the interpretation is, it must be in accord with the minimum reading of the passage: Jesus gives a single someone a name, Peter=Rock (he is called by it any number of times thereafter by others though not by Jesus who always refers to him as Simon), Jesus thus saying:

You (masculine singular ) are Rock (a masculine form of a noun that in Geek is feminine) and upon this rock (usual Greek feminine form) ...

I'm not sure how what does not apply to Peter but his confession of faith can then become "the same authority [given] to all the Apostles." I don't see how the you in "I will give you the keys" etc. can apply to anyone but Peter in this passage. A profession of faith is not addressed as you.

My point in presenting the passages: Here the "authority" is given only to Peter; later it is given to all the Apostles collectively in the context of "the church."


True and true. It was intended to give "light" because it is to me so extraordinary: An ability properly accorded to God alone, and that same power that Jesus acknowledges of Himself as the Son of Man (Mar 2:7ff, Luk 5:21ff), He now gives to the Apostles. Given that authority, what then of the authority to bind and loose that need be lacking?