Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
"Just out of curiosity, do the souls in purgatory pray each other out of purgatory?"
Strangely, it looks like you and Jo kus have a disagreement which would mean there's confusion in the Apostolic order of things.
In post #8589, Jo kus answers the question in the affirmative:
"Yes, they could."
However, in post #8607, you respond in the negative:
"No, the souls in purgatory lack the free will to pray and so they cannot reduce their stay."
Mayhem prevails...
Are you saying there is "no such thing" as blue-duncan's church?
Nice catch.
Kolokotronis I'm sure Kosta would suggest that that might have been a good start! :)
The feet don't hurt unless you have a lame excuse, no pun intended Kolo :), you'd be surprized what the Holy Spirit can do. :)
Don't you think it a little strange that we would desire to be "comfy" in the presence of God, when addressing Him, when supplicating Him? Or do yu not believe you are in the presence of God in your church?
Would you think it proper to "comfy" when in presence of the President of the United States? Do you think you might stand when addressing him? Or do you think you'd "lounge" back and be "comfy" while asking him questions?
We Orthodox have this strange idea that we should stand in awe in church, and since the entire Divine Liturgy is asking God to be merciful and to grant us our requests, it is meet that we should do so standing.
Unofrtunately, many Orthodox churches in America have, by imitation and rationalization, given in to western traditions, and have taken up to comfort and lack of humility in their own churches.
To us Orthodox, the church is God's House, not God's auditorium. We come to His home when we go to church, and we are ultimately in our home there. And, last time I checked, there are no pews in homes. It's not a theater.
You see, Albiongirl, this is why Calvin did indeed disagree with the church in Rome about the meaning and substance of the Lord's Supper.
It is a difference of sea-change proportions. One is spiritual; the other duplicitous alchemy performed by mortal men dressed up in vestments of gold and scarlet.
Whew. I thought it was just me who didn't get it.
***Other than that, your statement is correct, the office of a validly ordained priest is the entire difference.***
Father John Geoghan - the hands that transformed the Host molested altar boys. Yep, the ordination makes the difference.
" Would you think it proper to "comfy" when in presence of the President of the United States? Do you think you might stand when addressing him? Or do you think you'd "lounge" back and be "comfy" while asking him questions?"
I've known 5 of them. I can't say as I was ever "uncomfy" around any of them. Funny, I never thought about comparing them, or the way I acted around them, to God! :)
Thus, in Buddhism, this is accomplished by re-incarnation of a soul and a perishable "self" (ego). In Islam, God determines how long will the sinner be burned in Hell's fire. It speaks of Allah regenerating the "skin" of the sinner so that it may be burned all over, repeatedly, thus maximizing the torture and pain. This continues until Allah determines the sinner has "paid" back what he owes and is then saved and goes to heaven.
Even the Judaic Shoel is a depository of souls where some kind of "purification" takes place, as no soul remains there for longer than 12 months (which makes me wonder what were the OT Patriarchs doing there when Christ descended to rescue them). The souls eventually all go to heaven (this is rabbinical Judaism).
Just because "everybody" believes in this "purification" process doesn't make it obligatory for us to do so either, lest we fall for the error relativism. We could easily postulate that God either cleanses us of our sims at death if we die in repentance, or doesn't if we don't and from there on the souls are "done" until the Second Coming.
But the Church didn't see it that way. Where we differ from the Latins is in the "details" of the "mechanism," but we do certainly agree that (1) the soul gets urified, (2) that this is a process and not an instant [since otherwise we would not offer prayers for the dead], and (3) that the purification of the soul is only for those souls that are destined to be saved.
Therefore, I don not understand your statement that "the doctrine of Purgatory in no way suggests that all are eventually saved." What would be the purpose of purification of a soul in the Purgatory unless that soul was not destined to be with God?
Well, I must say that I have been in a lot of different churches of many confessions in my life, and Orthodox churches are definitely the least friendly places to walk into. It is pretty much an ethnic club and a "white" is not welcome. But that was some years ago. Maybe things are changing since I suppose the kids speak English now as their mother tongue, and I doubt that Orthodox churches can grow unless they pollute their ethnic purity with some of those prejudiced "whites."
Bush et al and the Democrats are welcoming with open arms, especially the Mohammadens who seem to have flocked here as "refugees" and whom the government, Catholic Charities and Lutheran Family Services have dumped in poorer rural areas in the interests of broadening our ethnic horizons!
But at least the Mohammadens are not being asked to be "white". Those Catholics and Lutherans learned their lesson from the past and are not going to treat Mohammadens as badly as they treated the Greeks. At least the Mohammadens won't have stories to tell 50 years from now about how prejudiced "whites" were when their grandparents arrived. And with no incentive to assimilate, speak English, learn American history, or American political and social values, we can look forward to little Bagdhads and Kosovos all over the place.
I suppose I am one of those "purists," but I am not ignoring the plight of the Orthodox in a Protestant America, when the "horrible" idea of a Catholic President was newsworthy discussion in the early 1960's with Robert F. Kennedy vying for the job.
However, while I understand the root causes that were at play wit the Greek community*, it cannot be a perennial excuse to resist going back to the Orthodox ways. The excuse with the pews being "forced" on the Orthodox Greeks by intolerance and a desire to become "white" may be a sad chapter in our history, but this cannot be a carde blanche to dispense with other issues, such as kneeling in Greek and Antihochan Orthodox churches on Sundays, a practice that has been specifically removed (with certain exceptions) by the First Ecumenical Council, and is not subject to reinterpretation.
Certainly, we can't blame that on trying to be "while" too? I think there is a general lack of regard and a secular flare to Orthodoxy in America and in the world for that matter, so much so that many, if not most, ignore that part of the Scripture that doesn't suit them. For instance, the NT is clear that women should be covered in church, yet with few exceptions (Russian orthodoxy, ROCOR) women are predominantly uncovered, and so are the Catholic and Protestant women (Anglican royals of course are always covered so that doesn't count).
The other is a clear statement that women should not speak in church, yet we have women preachers in Protestant communities.
Ultimately, we have to decided: Is insisting on following the Ecumenical Councils (part of the Holy Tradition), or scriptural disciplines being a "purist?" Or being Orthodox?
*A note: One must keep in mind that not all Greeks in America at the turn of the century were Greek Orthodox. A significant number of Greeks in America was Greek Catholic. In fact their church signs carried the "Uniate" name — the one current Catholics find "offensive."
The plain fact is that the Irish Catholic community complained to the Vatican because the Greek Uniate priests were married and the American Catholic Church wanted no "exceptions" to the priestly celibacy regardless of the "rite." Rather than divorce their wives, many a Greek converted (back) to Orthodoxy but their churches – which had pews not because of discrimination but because they were Catholic – remained with pews and retained kneeling on Sundays.
I am sure you and everyone else stood up when they walked in. No, there is no comparison. We often show more reverence for wordily titles than for heavenly ones. God is not first on our list, even if He is on our lips.
"but I didn't really mean to impose it on you."
Not to worry. I've been married along time.
Nah. It's everybody.
LOL!
I guess I'll defer to your understanding of his thinking, Dr. E, as I'm sure you have a deeper understanding of his work than I do.
"There is no such thing, and there is no scripture that says what your "church" imagines to be the case."
Now see, that's where your church is wrong, probably due to immature development of the subject. John 14:1-3 says Jesus has gone to prepare a place for us so we don't have to worry about being side tracked in any intermediate state. Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station. Paul also says Phil. 1:21-23 the options are to live here for Christ or die and be with Him, not in some holding pen. Quite frankly, I believe my church's understanding of life after death is closer to the scripture than the loose translation and spiritualizing of the scriptures done at:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
I only know what I read in the newspapers. 8~)
Hmmmm....and how do you know the "Lady of Fatima" was really "the Lady"? Just because people thought they saw the sun dancing around?
Here's a good essay by Calvin on the subject (although I don't know where he gets off calling it "short.")
This perverse opinion, after it was once received, engendered numerous other superstitions. First of all comes that carnal adoration which is mere idolatry. For to prostrate ourselves before the bread of the Supper, and worship Jesus Christ as if he were contained in it, is to make an idol of it rather than a sacrament. The command given us is not to adore, but to take and eat. That, therefore, ought not to have been presumptuously attempted...43. OTHER ABUSES ARISING OUT OF AN IMAGINARY BODILY PRESENCE.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.