A few questions from a seeker

[Rick Wagar]

Hello all. I was just looking for some orthodox answers to a few questions that have been troubling me. I would appreciate any links that you could provide that would shed some light on these issues from an orthodox perspective. Thanks!

1. The doctrine of purgatory as taught by the Catholic church
2. The communion of saints as opposed by protestant groups
3. The roman catholic doctrine that states that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Is this true from an orthodox perspective?

[Michael Stickles]

Rick,

As for your first question, there was a recent thread dealing with purgatory (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2048) on Monachos which you might want to check out. There are external links to both Orthodox and Catholic teaching on this in some of the posts.

In Christ,
Mike

[Yuri Zharikov]

Hello all. I was just looking for some orthodox answers to a few questions that have been troubling me. I would appreciate any links that you could provide that would shed some light on these issues from an orthodox perspective. Thanks!

1. The doctrine of purgatory as taught by the Catholic church
2. The communion of saints as opposed by protestant groups
3. The roman catholic doctrine that states that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Is this true from an orthodox perspective?

Rick,
In response to your second question I would like to post this confession of the Orthodox belief in the communion of the saints... I did not write it. It was posted by an anonymous author who is obvouisly Orthodox, on a Lutheran Q&A site in relation this very issue.

In the Lord, Yura

Concerning the Saints I believe that God "glorified those who glorify Him" (I Kings 2:30), that He is "wondrous in His saints" (Ps. 67:35), and that He is the "Savior of the body" of the Church (Eph. 5:23). I believe that we are saved insofar as we are members of the Body, but that we cannot be saved by any individual relation with God outside of the Church. For the Lord said, "I am the true vine... As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in Me. If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:1, 4, 6). The saints are those members of the Church, the Body of Christ, who have achieved great sanctity and perfection. I believe that our God is the "God of our Fathers" and that He has mercy upon us because we are the children of our Fathers, who were and are His saints and His servants, as the Holy Scripture attests in many places. I believe that, even as St. James the Apostle says, "the prayer of a righteous man availeth much" (James 5:16), even as the Three Youths who prayed in the fiery furnace attest: "Cause not Thy mercy to depart from us for Abraham's sake, Thy beloved, for Isaac's sake, Thy servant, and for Israel's, Thy holy one" (Dan 3:34). Those whom God has glorified, I also glorify. Because of Him Who glorifies them, I entrust myself to their prayers and intercessions, even as the Scriptures require, for the angel of the Lord appeared to Abimelich and counseled him to seek Abrahams's prayers, saying: "He shall pray for thee and thou shalt live" (Gen. 20:7). I believe that my worship and veneration of the saints is a well-pleasing worship offered of God since it is because of Him and for His sake that I worship them. I give adoration to no created thing, no other being, be it visible or invisible. I venerate no man for his own virtue's sake but "for the grace of God which is given" him (I Cor.1:4). In celebrating the feast of a saint, it is God Who is always worshipped, the saint's contest and victory being the occasion for God to be worshipped. Indeed, He is worshipped and glorified in His saints; He "is wondrous in His saints" (Ps 67:35). As He said, "I will dwell in them" (II Cor. 6:16) and, by grace and adoption, they shall be called gods (John 10:34-35). God Himself has granted His saints their ministry of interceding on our behalf. I supplicate them and I am in communion with them, even after their death in the flesh, since this death, according to the Apostle, cannot separate us from the love of Christ which unites us. According to the Lord's promise, they who believe in Him "shall never die... but are passed from death into life" (John 11:26, 5:24).

[Euthymius Valdez]

Hello all. I was just looking for some orthodox answers to a few questions that have been troubling me. I would appreciate any links that you could provide that would shed some light on these issues from an orthodox perspective. Thanks!

1. The doctrine of purgatory as taught by the Catholic church
2. The communion of saints as opposed by protestant groups
3. The roman catholic doctrine that states that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Is this true from an orthodox perspective?

The teaching that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, is not reflective of authentic Roman Catholicism. It is a symptom of the modern apostacy of the papacy.

John Paul II stated that Muslims worship the One true God (Crossing the Threshhold of Hope, 1:41, by John Paul).

But Gregory XVI stated only Catholics can worship God (Summo Jugiter Studio, Encylical of Pope Gregory XVI, May 27, 1832).

John Paul II stated that the religious experience of Islam deserves respect (CH:93).

But Pope (Saint) Pius X stated it is a heresy to say Muslims can experience God (Pascendi, the Encyclical of Pope St. Pius X, Sept. 8, 1907. AAS 40 (1907), 593, ff).

The Modern Roman Catholic religion is in direct contradiction to the official magesterial pronouncements of its own offical popes and saints. John Paul II is a clear and manifest heretic even within the context of his own religion.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Hello all. I was just looking for some orthodox answers to a few questions that have been troubling me. I would appreciate any links that you could provide that would shed some light on these issues from an orthodox perspective. Thanks!

1. The doctrine of purgatory as taught by the Catholic church
2. The communion of saints as opposed by protestant groups
3. The roman catholic doctrine that states that Islam and Christianity worship the same God. Is this true from an orthodox perspective?

Rick in response to your third question - In 1180 a local council of Constantinople convened by the Emperor Manuel I Comnenus addressed an issue of the need for Moslem converts into Christianity to anathemise the God of Muhammad. The Tomos of the council contains the following anathema (I am translating it from Russian as do not have an English version) which I think shows clearly that we (the Orthodox) cannot possibly believe in the same God.
In the Lord,
Yura

<...> An anathema be onto Muhammad and his teaching transmitted in the Koran, in which he confesses that the Lord and Saviour of us, Jesus Christ, is not the Son of God; [he calls] that which is blessed evil, and light he calls darkness, and moreso let there be an anathema onto his impious teaching, which runs counter to the sacred injunctions of Christ and of God-inspired saints, and also be there an anathema onto the one who convinced him [i.e. Muhammad] to think and teach these foul and despised things, be it a person or the evil-champion of demons and the father of evil, or if Muhammad himself produced of himself this so repugnant a fruit; and besides let there be an anathema onto anyone who believes Muhammad to be a prophet and apostle, from whom [they] received the teachings and commandments contrary to the teaching of Christ.

"Анафема Мухаммеду, [и его] учению, переданному в Коране, в котором он исповедует, что Господь, Бог и Спаситель наш Иисус Христос не является Сыном Божиим; благое называет дурным, а свет выставляет тьмою, ещё же [анафема] и скверному учению его, противному священным наставлениям Христа и богомудрых святых, а также [анафема] и тому, кто внушил ему и думать и учить этим скверным и презренным вещам, буде это кто-либо из людей, или же злоначальник демонов и отец зла, или же сам скверный Мухаммед породил от себя столь безобразнейшие плоды; кроме того, анафема тем, кто [считает], что Мухаммед ѕ пророк и посланник, от которого приняли учения и заповеди, противные учению Христа".

[Michael Stickles]

Whether Islam and Christianity worship the same God depends greatly on what you mean by "worship" and what you mean by "the same God".

For "worship" - do we mean just to give devotion to God? Or, are we talking about true worship, i.e., worship "in Spirit and in truth"?

For "the same God" - do we mean same by general identification, or by a true and deeper understanding? Islam claims to worship the God of Abraham, as does Christianity; so, "the same God". However, Islam denies the divinity of Christ, and by implication the Holy Trinity, in opposition to Christian teaching; so, "not the same God".

As to what Euthymius reported regarding the Catholic view(s), I would not be surprised if Pope John Paul II was speaking from the first points of view above, while the earlier Popes were speaking from the second points of view. There might not be any contradiction at all (though, not having read Crossing the Threshold of Hope, I can't be sure since I don't know the full context of John Paul II's remarks).

An "Orthodox perspective" probably would not give much importance to the first points of view I mentioned - even if it could be said we "worship the same God" in that way, what real difference would it make, except perhaps as an entry point in talking with a Muslim? At best, we could say as Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know." At worst - well, the selection Yuri provided covers that.

In Christ,
Mike

[Euthymius Valdez]

Here is a small sample of how the modern papacy under John Paul II contradicts the ancient papacy. I have at least 87 more examples not listed here.

POPE PIUS XI: Christian unity is in the Catholic Church (MA: 3,15).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: The Catholic Church lacks unity (UUS:7-10).

POPE SAINT ZOSIMUS I: Infants need baptism for salvation (D.102).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Infants can be saved without baptism (EV:99).

POPE GREGORY XVI: Only Catholics worship God (SJS).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Muslims worship the One True God (CH: 141).

POPE LEO XIII: The Catholic Church is the only apostolic mission (SCG:35).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Heretical sects have an apostolic mission (L' Osservatore Romano).

POPE LEO XIII: The Holy Spirit does not give life to heretics ( SCG:18).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: The Holy Spirit uses sects as a means of salvation (CT: 32).

POPE SAINT AGATHO I: If anyone prays with heretics: he is a heretic (SCN:XI:635).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: We must pray with heretics for unity (UUS:21).

POPE GREGORY XVI: Liberty of conscience is insanity (D.1613).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Liberty of conscience is a right of man (LOR).

POPE PIUS VI: Only Catholics can be Christians (D.1500).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Heretics are Christians (LOR).

POPE PIUS XV: True faith cannot be found outside the Church (Singulari Quidem and Singulari Quadem, Encyclicals of Pope Pius IX).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Heretics have the apostolic faith (US:62).

POPE PIUS XI: The New World Order is evil (MA: 1-2).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: The New World Order is holy unity (PA:39).

POPE PAUL III: Without the Catholic faith it is impossible to please God (D.787).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: God loves heretics, pagans, etc (PA:48).

POPE GREGORY I: The Jews reject the One faith of Jesus Christ (Epistle to the Cledonius).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Jews are our elder brothers in the faith (CH: 99).

POPE PIUS IX: The Masons are the sons of the Devil (sqa).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Masons are sons of God the Father (LOR).

POPE CLEMENT I: Heretics are sons of the devil (EIC:42,46).

No

POPE JOHN PAUL II: Heretics are our brothers in Christ (LOR).

87 more where this came from.

[Rick Wagar]

87 more where this came from.

Interesting stuff. Where did you get this?

[Euthymius Valdez]

Interesting stuff. Where did you get this?

I got it from the Brother Michael Dimond group (Most Holy Family Monastery). They are a group of Sedevecantist Catholics. They believe the modern papacy is in total apostasy.

[Nina]

I got it from the Brother Michael Dimond group (Most Holy Family Monastery). They are a group of Sedevecantist Catholics. They believe the modern papacy is in total apostasy.

Oh my! Someone sent me that link a couple of months ago and I could not watch/read past the pope's photo with the cross upside down. I got really sad. I still do not want to believe that it is a true picture of him.

[Michael Stickles]

If you want to also look at the opposing view to Dimond's claims, this page (http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/dimond.html) is a good start.

[Nicolaj]

If you want to also look at the opposing view to Dimond's claims, this page (http://www.franciscan-archive.org/apologetica/dimond.html) is a good start.

That is also by this Dimond!

Nicolaj

[Anthony]

Here is a small sample of how the modern papacy under John Paul II contradicts the ancient papacy. I have at least 87 more examples not listed here.


Some of these Popes don't look very ancient. It would help to have some indication which of these were Orthodox and which of them post-schism.

[Michael Stickles]

That is also by this Dimond!

Actually it's by someone named Alexis Bugnolo (look just above the first horizontal line on the page). Dimond's name is at the top only as the author of the work being rebutted by the article.

Admittedly, for the purposes of this forum, all of that is less to the point than how either view differs (or doesn't) from Orthodoxy. But I can never resist a chance to do a little research :-).

Mike

[Euthymius Valdez]

I have a dozen videos and some books from Brother Dimond clearly proving everything they said about Pope John Paul. I saw the pictures and videos of the corruptions of the Novus Ordo (New Mass) and John Paul praying with Hindus, Budhists, Animists, Muslims, etc. He actually kissed the Koran. The 101 heresies of John Paul are provided with full references. I even gave several of these contradictions between John Paul and the Magisterium.

Alexis Bugnolo is probably a Masonic infiltrator or a Novus Ordo Catholic. Any Catholic who actually tries to defend the Novus Ordo, is a very sick person. Alexis didn't refute anything in that article.

For only $10, Brother Dimond will send all the documetation, videoes and books. I watched a video on the Novus Ordo (New Mass) celebrations. They have had witch masses, vampires, nudists, clowns, etc. I can go on and on. Don't believe people like Alexis Bugnolo. Check the sources out yourself.

[Euthymius Valdez]

They have even had masses with hindu gods on the altar. They have used dorito potato chips, coca cola, cookies, card board box for the altar, etc, etc. Watch their video "Why the New Mass and the New Rite of Ordination are Invalid. The Dimond's wrote an article against Orthodoxy on their website. Joe Suaidan has written a refutation of it on his own website.

[Rick Wagar]

what you were saying sounded really interesting, so i decided to look it up. what i found was shocking, even for me as as an evangelical protestant. my personal favorite was the priest wearing the cheese hat on page three.

http://www.stpiusx.be/index.php?page=57&id=44&tab=&mode=album&albumpage=1&aid=5

[Herman Blaydoe]

Regardless, this is not the bash the Pope forum, it is an Orthodox forum primarily focussed on the writings and teachings of the Fathers. I don't see the "value" of this discussion in this place. There are plenty of other places to take it.

[Andreas Moran]

Especially since these people say the OC is 'an illogical farce' which 'rejects God's truth'.

[Michael Stickles]

my personal favorite was the priest wearing the cheese hat on page three.

Couldn't find any picture like that on page three. Did you look at the large-size views?

Also, a note to all on the discussion so far - be very cautious about accepting one side's "proof" of an issue without a serious investigation into the opposing view. This caution goes beyond the current issue. I have seen far too many "indisputable proofs" which fall apart like a house of cards when subjected to serious scrutiny. Some were based on misunderstandings; some on sloppy research and poor logic; and some on deliberate distortions or even flat-out lies. I am not saying that is the case here, since I have not delved deeply into Dimond's claims or Bugnolo's (or anyone else's) rebuttals - nor do I plan to, since it would be a distraction from my own spiritual path towards Orthodoxy. Dimond may be right; he may be wrong; but until you give his serious opponents a fair hearing, you do not truly know which it is.

Euthymius - your easy dismissal of Br. Bugnolo leads me to urge you to tread carefully. He did not even mention the Novus Ordo in his rebuttal, let alone directly defend it, and you should have evidence of Masonic or Novus Ordo ties before throwing those accusations around so casually (merely saying "probably" does not keep it from being an accusation). Enthusiasms can lead us to think less rigorously than we ought; keep a sober mind when investigating far-reaching claims.

As a personal disclaimer, I should mention why I'm not automatically convinced by Dimond's claims. Back when I was much younger and Protestant, I was taken in by the claims of some of Chick Publications' Catholic-bashing works. I later found out just how error-riddled and biased those works were, and since then I have become much more cautious about accepting anyone's negative claims about a person or situation - the more negative or sensational the claim, the more cautious I am about accepting it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs, subjected to extraordinary scrutiny.

To get back on track - Rick, is there anything from your original questions that you feel isn't really answered yet, or do you have any follow-on questions about the Orthodox position on some issue?

In Christ,
Mike

[Nicolaj]

Regardless, this is not the bash the Pope forum, it is an Orthodox forum primarily focussed on the writings and teachings of the Fathers. I don't see the "value" of this discussion in this place. There are plenty of other places to take it.

You are right and it is more an inner-RC conflict which this 'brother Dimond' has with his Pope.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Rick Wagar]

Well, the kind of thing that i was looking for was a list of orthodox rebuttals to common protestant claims. I feel that my questions on the pope's comments were answered, but as for purgatory, I would like to know the patristic understanding of this issue and how to best understand why orthodox people pray for the dead.

[Owen Jones]

There is the doctrinal answer, and then there is the answer that comes from the spiritual intellect, that is informed by doctrine, but which is illumined by the Holy Spirit. This is the way that Orthodoxy proceeds, and one may wish to highlight this difference with the Latin Church so that a protestant might better understand our approach. You see, all protestants have a background of opposition to late medieval European catholicism, some of which is justified, some of which is not. So, while it is simplistic to say that the Latin Church is not spiritual, it is, I think, important for the purposes of trying to communicate with a protestant that Orthodoxy always takes a spiritual approach. The Church promotes that which is good and healthy for the soul and its development toward its heavenly destiny and fulfilment.

This is difficult for a protestant to grasp, because the notion of the soul's progress is somewhat anathema. For most protestants, you are either saved or damned, nothing in-between, and for Orthodoxy, we are always in an in-between state. We are neither bound to earth or the demons, nor are we angels, but our soul is on a great journey and that which assists that journey is Orthodox, and what hinders it is anathema. That is our creed, pure and simple. And so we do not have to wait until death to enter into the heavenly kingdom. We begin to enter it now, insofar as we are able with God's help and are attached to an earthly body, and, this is where protestants always get tripped up, insofar as we practice the virtues which Christ Himself practiced. This is because they tend to equate any reference to virtue as intrinsic to salvation as proof that we are all about works righteousness. Which gets them back to their 500 year-old tiff with the Latin Church. They simply do not wish to relate virtue with salvation. Because for them that equates with works righteousness. And so virtue is a kind of natural by-product of being saved. Anyone who is saved is on the path of sanctification, but they cannot relate the two because salvation is strictly God's work with no human action involved. It is simply whom God chooses to justify. That is to say, we are all sinners and are all alike in our sinfulness, but God treats us as if we are sinless, because Christ has taken all of our sins upon Himself through the sacrifice of his blood. His blood atones for our sins. And so they would allow for the fact that a Christian is duty bound to live a moral life, and that sanctification is a consequence of being saved, but to put them on the same plane, or to make the intrinsically intertwined, is anathema to the protestant. Liberal protestantism is, of course, an entirely different kettle of fish. It is precisely the "spirituality" of Orthodoxy that attracts the liberal protestant, but only from afar, because he cannot abide by our rigorous standards, our liturgical dedication he sees as a bit of a nuisance and archaic, and he suspects that we are all a bit too reactionary for him, and so he will say wonderful things about Orthodox "spirituality" and even read some of the Fathers, and so on, but the idea of surrendering to a hierarchy or having a hierarchical understanding of things is anathema. And of course the latter is true for any protestant. And so this really leads to the ultimate conundrum and that is for the Orthodox, we embrace the symbolic as being higher than the material. The symbolic significance of an event or an idea is what counts, far more than the thing itself. But because of perhaps what we might call the misuse of the symbolic in Latin Christianity, in which the symbolic takes on literal significance, the protestant throws out the symbolic -- i.e. the iconic basis of theology -- altogether. And we have this in our history as well. The iconclastic controversy was a reaction to turning icons into things in themselves. It got to the point that, because of the miraculous healing properties in certain cases, icons were being chewed up and eaten as medicine, which reflects a hardening of doctrine to the point of absurdity. This is what happened in the medieval Latin Church when the idea of communion between the living and the dead was taken to an extreme, and you could build up what were called "indulgences" in heaven to buy off God -- i.e. bribing God to get you into heaven. The iconoclastic controversy resulted in the victory of Orthodoxy, otherwise, we would have gone on with a split like the Latin/protestant split. But not without much violence and conflict that lasted a very long time. But the victory of Orthodoxy is a victory of the true nature of truth as symbolic and representative, because we cannot know God and we cannot know God's will in any direct way or in any pure form. This is the essential ingredient to Orthodoxy which is stated right up front by St. John of Damascus in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: God is unknowable. And so all that we know is through symbolic representation in and through our observation, knowledge, experience, and meditation on the things of this world that open a door into the next world for us. But the protestant places huge emphasis on "knowing God" and knowing you are saved, whereas Orthodoxy in reality places the greatest value on God's power, not on human agency, but admitting that we do not know. Of course, the Latin Catholic attempts to resolve the unknowability problem by having the magesterium make formal pronouncements on virtually every conceivable topic, sacred or secular.

So, spiritually, Orthodoxy is truly humble, in that we place ourselves firmly in the hands of an unseen God whom we do not truly know, but whom we love and trust all the more for it, because that is the course of true faith. And the most important element of it all is that we are not alone. The protestant is frightfully alone in his endeavors, whereas we are supported by the communion of saints, which is physically represented in our iconography, and there is constant divine interplay. We do not have to wait till death to enter the heavenly kingdom...

[Owen Jones]

However, if all else fails, and one wishes to challenge a protestant critically, then ask him to defend his claim that, by asserting that one is saved through a slogan, e.g. I accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior, this does not constitute works righteousness in the extreme. It is obvious a case of human agency dictating the outcome. I decide if I am saved, by declaring my commitment to Christ. And all I have to do is make on altar call, or make some personal private prayer, and I am given a money back guarantee. How is this any different than indulgences? In Orthodoxy, we simply place our destinies, individual and communal, into God's hands and pray, thy will be done. Why otherwise would we have so many litanies? For the protestant, one would do...forever and ever.

[Albert Hein]

what you were saying sounded really interesting, so i decided to look it up. what i found was shocking, even for me as as an evangelical protestant. my personal favorite was the priest wearing the cheese hat on page three.

http://www.stpiusx.be/index.php?page=57&id=44&tab=&mode=album&albumpage=1&aid=5

The Dimond brothers pulverized a Catholic theologian in a debate on the validity of the last popes here. Its a three hour audio debate.

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/debate.html

They also have all their videos on youtube.com. Type in "MHFM1."