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

It is a question; the CIC was quoted. Someone knowledgeable of these matters might be expected to know.

See, it can matter!

Indeed; an important point.

You? Certainly not the Church.

I would say so, allowing that it speaks for both East and West as a catechism.

Is there still a point? The Church has the authority to dispense indulgences; it has edifying though not unattainable criteria to obtain them. The faithful are not discriminated against on the basis of particular church or rite.

It seems to me the Latin understanding of indulgences and purgatory then applies across the board.

A Coptic Catholic writing in this thread denies the Latin teaching:

" there is a portion of the general Latin teaching on indulgences .... that is objectionable to Eastern and Oriental sensibilities. Namely, the idea that indulgences are meant to take away the punishment for sins"

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306785/7

This however is radically contradicted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1471 (which is word for word a repetition of Canon 992.)

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".

Eastern and Oriental Catholics deny Roman Catholic teaching. How is this reconciled?

I think I have been misunderstood. I have no objection with para. 1471 quoted above - for certainly the early Church also utilized indulgences to lessen the canonical penalties for sins after evidence of sincere reprentance (demonstrated by good works). What I don't accept (partly because I don't understand it completely), as well as other Eastern and Oriental Catholics (though not all), is the idea that it can be applied to souls in the afterlife (i.e., Purgatory).

Not necessarily so; we are informed link :


Just to be clear, the CIC Canon does not apply to members of Eastern Catholic churches. Also, the link is to the post's page, not the quote.


Much more readily than reconciling the divergent Orthodox practices of the reception of converts from other Christian communities and churches without thought of the theological ramifications. These, as divergent practices, include re-baptism, re-chrismation and re-ordination. These are not the opinions of individuals on a forum but the practices of Orthodox churches. These divergent practices at the very least in the case of baptism, likely in the case of chrismation, and conceivably for ordination, in Orthodox theology, impart a sphragis and therefore are not repeatable. As such, they are ontological and thus go to the very identity of the person. And yet Orthodox churches, formally in communion - one has to wonder what that must mean as lex credendi - demonstrate a clear divergence in this essential lex orandi of the sacred mysteries. Now that is something to reconcile.

Also, the going from one post to the false generalization "Eastern and Oriental Catholics deny..."

And then the (Coptic Orthodox ?) poster who is taken to speak for "Eastern and Oriental Catholics" has, it seems, explained himself quite well after all.

Dear Father Deacon, is it not quibbling, in this case, to say that Canon 992 does not apply to the Eastern and Oriental Catholics since the Canon is repeated verbatim in the Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1471 which is obligatory teaching for all Catholics, Roman and Oriental.

But we have an inexplicable instance where a theologically sensitive Catholic Oriental is denying that indulgences are for the remission of temporal punishment due to sins. And yet the universal CCC of Pope John Paul states explicitly that they are for exactly that purpose!!!

Dear Father Deacon,

What appears to you as a dichotomy and a confusion has always been the practice of the Church since the earliest days, mediated through both the Holy Fathers and also the many and complex decisions of the Councils.

Here is a patristic viewpoint -from Saint Basil the Great. Notice the typical balance of the Church Fathers - while the principle of no Sacraments and no Apostolic Succession outside the Church is clearly enunciated, Saint Basil also states very clearly that for the sake of the good of the Church "economy" may be used if it is thought necessary in the case of Baptism.


Epistle to Amphilochius (which is, in a shorter form the First Canon of St Basil)

---- "It seemed best to the ancients-I refer to Cyprian and our own Firmilian-to subject all of these-Cathari, and Encratites, and Hydroparastatae-to one vote of condemnation, because the beginning of this separation arose through schism, and those who had broken away from the Church no longer had in them the grace of the Holy Spirit, for the imparting of it failed because of the severance of continuity.

"For those who separated first had ordination from the Fathers, and through the imposition of their hands possessed the spiritual gift; but those who had been cut off, becoming laymen, possessed the power neither of baptizing nor of ordaining, being able no longer to impart to others the grace of the Holy Spirit from which they themselves had fallen away. Therefore they commanded those who had been baptized by them, as baptized by laymen, to come to the Church and be purified by the true baptism of the Church.

"But since on the whole it has seemed best to some of those in Asia that, by economy for the sake of the many, their baptism be accepted, let it be accepted."

These principles of charitable condescension and compassion (economia, relaxation of the strict application) strive not to place an impediment in the way of those coming into the Church. Their application explains the diversity in these matters of baptism, etc. which you see in Orthodoxy today.

No Father, not quibbling, just stating a fact for clarity. The CIC applies to Western Catholics; the CCEO applies to Eastern Catholics. The CCC is a Catechism and not a treatise on disputed fine points of theology. I've written here of my acceptance and understanding of its teaching, that I say what I believe to be correct but speak only for myself; and so will not repeat myself further.

For clarification, "denying" is your word is it not? Also, what in fact is the religious affiliation of the person to whom you refer?

Dear Father Deacon,

Agreed, Baptism is irrepeatable.

Our Churches impose slightly differing criteria as to what constitutes valid Baptism. In the case of the Orthodox the criteria include not only the matter and form (as of course it does for Catholics also) but also the minister - who must be a member of the Orthodox Church.

Chrismation has always been repeatable in the Eastern Church. Chrismation is repeated if a man lapses into apostasy (say, by becoming a Mormon) and needs to be taken back into the Church. I do not know the parallel history of Confirmation in the West.

Orders - also irrepeatable within Orthodoxy.


A quick note on the notion of the indelible mark - sphragis. It seems to be a fairly recent notion of the Scholastics....

No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."
___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"

By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood\
_unity.htm


This.... comes to point that the priest does not possess in himself an indelible mark as if it were a magical seal which grant him a private efficacy to perform the Eucharist or any other liturgical action, apart from the ecclesial body. The priestly ministry is rather a charismatic gift to serve and edify the body of the Church. It is a permanent rank of service only in union and by the discerning authority of the Church.

The doctrine of the "indelible mark" attained at ordination to the priesthood seems to have originated in the Scholastic period of the Western Church. This same conception was at times borrowed by Eastern theologians thereafter. The teaching purports the grace of ordination as an indelible irrevocable mark upon the soul of the ordained individual that sets him apart for priestly service analogous to the Levite rank and the priesthood according to the order of Melchizedek in the Old Testament. It is interesting to mention here that the sixth Ecumenical Council in its 33rd canon condemns the practice of Armenian Christians who had embraced the Old Testament custom concerning the Levitic rank and did not accept for the priesthood anyone who was not of this so called "priestly lineage". The reasoning for the adoption of the Old Testament typology in both cases seems to be that an identification mark is a constitutive element of priesthood. In the later case it is conceived as an inherited trait, while in the former which concerns us here, it is viewed as irrevocably and individually attained at the ordination rite.

The logical conclusion of the "indelible mark" is that the ordained individual possesses forever this peculiar mark of priesthood which can never be removed by anyone nor can it be surrendered in any circumstance. It is evident that such a doctrinal consideration absolutizes and isolates priesthood from the event itself of the ecclesial communion. Priesthood here is distortingly objectified and over-estimated assuming a totalitarian magnitude. It is imposed over the Church which is unable to deprive the
ordained. individual of its characteristic mark, even if he is unworthy to maintain the ecclesial grace. In fact this doctrine concerning the indelible mark divorces the priesthood from its organic context of the ecclesial life. Thus the ordained person possess a self sufficient power which is higher than the Church itself And the Church is not able to take back the indelible mark from an individual even if he is defrocked and excommunicated.

Interpreting the 68th Apostolic Cannon which refers to the impossibility of repeating the sacrament of ordination16, St. Nicodimos the Agiorite explains that ordination cannot be repeated because it is done according to the Type of the First and Great Priest who entered once and for all into the holy of holies and there granted eternal salvation. Yet, he unswervingly rejects the doctrine of the "indelible mark" of priesthood and attests that it is the "invention of scholastics"17. Nevertheless, according to St. Nicodimos, the doctrine is borrowed by Nicholas Bulgaris, Koresios and many other theologians of the past century and some still somehow adhere to it today.

Despite the fact that the indelible mark theory acquired dogmatic formulation in the Council of Trent18, in most circles of the Roman Catholic Church, after the Second Vatican Council, the foundational framework of effecient causality and ex opere operato, which gave rise to such an understanding of priesthood, is reckoned as belonging to a bygone age and abandoned for a more dynamic and ecclesiological approach of sacrament19.

It should be mentioned in this connection that as far as we know, no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood. The canonical tradition that in the case of his ministerial rehabilitation this person is not re-ordained does not imply a recognition that he was a priest during the period of his punishment20. It simply means that the Church recognizes that which had been sacramentally performed and the grace of
ecclesiastical ministry is restored upon his assignment to an ecclesial community with no other sacramental sign or rite.

Yes, it is my word. Place the statement of the Catholic concerned alongside the teaching of the CCC. Nuance it a hundred ways, but it remains a denial of the Catechism's teaching.

" there is a portion of the general Latin teaching on indulgences .... that is objectionable to Eastern and Oriental sensibilities. Namely, the idea that indulgences are meant to take away the punishment for sins"

The Catechism of the Catholic Church para. 1471:

"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints".

A Catholic under the authority of the Pope. See his post at the top of Page 7 in this thread.

I have no page 7 and the link you provided before does not point to the correct post. What are you referring to, name or post number please.

Here is a direct link to the post
https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/306316/Re:%20specific%20Orthodox%20disagree#Post306316

Not sure if I have got the hang of the Forum's working yet though. Hope it takes you to the post.

Mardukm. It shows, on my computer, as post #306316 in this thread.

Father,

I can't respond to this because it presents a very narrow and specific view of Orthodox theology, I take it your own, when in fact there is considerable diversity. Consequently it is possible to quote one's supporting theological opinion which cannot be judged against specific Orthodox church teaching because the latter is nonexistent. The situation for chrismation as sacrament or as an anointing (for reception)is a case in point.

As to the scholastic-sphragis dismissal, see J. Zizioulas, Being and Communion, (St. Vlad's), pages 234-234 passim, to the contrary.

Then please understand my bewilderment. See his profile:

Religious Affiliation: Coptic Orthodox