www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West On Roman Primacy

Wow, Hieromonk Elias. What a beautiful post.

I hope I can learn how to be as irenic and non-offensive as you. You seem to be a very sensitive person.

Your argument setting the whole authority issue in the context of Christ's supreme authority from which all earthly authority derives -- wow, what can I say but "Bravo"?

I keep being reminded of a beautiful line from the Anglican liturgy: "Whose service is perfect freedom." It refers to God. If we can see His service as perfect freedom, then perhaps we can better see how submission and service to the hierarchical Church can also be "perfect freedom."

Thanks again...that was lovely.

ZT

ZT writes:

What do you mean, "He was an adept"? How could you possibly tell such a thing? (I sincerely want to know.)

Well, I concluded from solidly sensing his presence before me in that congregation, and his query: "Who are you, and what are you doing here?" that he was spiritually adept at this level of enquiry. Now the problem with prelest, in which I was solidly entrenched at that time [and probably still am!] is that one can suffer imaginings that have nothing to do with the ones to whom such imaginings refer - But when he asked the same two questions on my way out the door, as he shook my hand - With a toughness of voice that was not mistakable, I took that as a verification of his earlier spiritual enquiry that had the identical content.

And I could be wrong! Prelest is like that... And I certainly was in pretty full blown prelest at that time. I recommended that priest to many 'new age' type friends assomeone who would know what they were talking about if they had spiritual issues that were troubling them...

>>>PS - How do you know so much about all that Demonics 101 stuff?<<<

Been there - Done that! Paul warns that just because something is encountered in spirit, to not therefore believe it, but to test it. I didn't know anything, and was awash in spiritual events, trying to sort my way through them, virtually reinventing the spiritual wheel, avoiding Christians generally, but kindly impressed by the good Padre... And Catholics generally were "impressed" by my spirituality, those with whom I spoke, and told me there was a great tradition of this kind in the Church. I had not been given indications at all to approach the RCC, however, so I remained outside Her, and avoided Protestants, until I read John in Greek...

So it's all about prelest - Communication in spirit with demons - Following a genuine calling, but distorted by an unpurified soul [mine], so as to be pretty easy pickings for demonic deceptions of all kinds.

Orthodoxy is a remarkable cure for this - The Orthodox askesis of obedience does not take a long time letting you know you are deceived, and sorting out, at the beginning stages [eg me] which witch is which!! I am utterly looking foreward to the baptismal exorcisms...

geo

Dear George,

I am very happy that you are preparing to enter Orthodoxy and I wish you well in your spiritual journey.

Your take on the split of 1054 and the subsequent events is, of course, a legitimate viewpoint, but hardly necessary to hold in order to be truly "Orthodox."

You seem to blame the papal side completely for the excommunication. Does it follow you believe Rome is entirely at fault and the East had no part to play in the slow process of estrangement?

Orthodox writers have likewise blamed Patriarch Michael Cerularius who, as one Orth. Met. wrote, "Was filled with more pride than he needed to be."
(Ilarion Ohienko - The One True Church).

And Peter's Confession was what the Church is built on and not on Peter (the Episcopacy)?

This sounds most Protestant. Ultimately, the Fathers conceded that anyone who affirms the "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God" is "Peter!"

The Orthodox have NEVER denied that the Patriarch of the West was the First Patriarch in the Church. The argument was over jurisdictional and other matters.

Another Orthodox on another thread that was unfortunately closed before I could rebutt his . . . conclusion said that my comparison of Rome with the Moscow Patriarchate was wrong because Rome says its institution was Divine.

The fact is that the Episcopacy, represented first by Peter and then by the Apostles as a whole with Peter as the "Corphaeos" is a Divine institution. That means that both the Patriarch of the West and the Patriarch of Moscow are inheritors of Peter's responsibility and authority, by Divine institution.

The Church is truly human and makes mistakes. It is the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, Who guides the Church, despite the errors that occur.

The Orthodox Church also makes mistakes, although I daresay it is a tad slower to admit to them than other Western Churches, Catholic or Protestant.

I could be wrong, as I'm not infallible , but IF you are looking for the perfect Divine institution in the Orthodox Church, your search is already doomed.

I'm not suggesting for a moment you somehow turn back from your course toward Orthodoxy. God forbid!

I'm only commenting on your commentary on Catholicism from a "high horse" Orthodox vantage point - that is really not there to begin with.

Alex

Alex Writes:

>>>You seem to blame the papal side completely for the excommunication. Does it follow you believe Rome is entirely at fault and the East had no part to play in the slow process of estrangement?>>>

Lord knows that the extrangement had been long coming, Alex, but the simple fact is that the Patriarch of Constantinople voted NO to the filioque campagn, and that for this, the Pope retaliated with a Bull of Excommunication. Does anyone deny this? I think you could argue that the east had sinned by omission, in the east-west matter, that they failed to exercise their responsibility to teach the west what was acceptable and what was not... I have even heard that they were intellectually elitist, regarding Rome and the west as a kind of mentally challenged bunch who were incapable of even understanding, let alone discerning, the divine truths of the Church - The later Popes could not even read Greek, for instance, and this doubtless gave some of those in the east a jaundiced arogance over the west. So I suppose you might argue that the east is responsible for the actions of the west, however terrible they might have been... That we all together share the guilt for the schism...

But all I know is that I do not walk into my priest's office with a sin problem and begin by telling him that we are both responsible for me sinning, and that he has to meet me half way. And that writ of excommunication excommunicated the western Church from the whole rest of Christianity... And it was but a trigger that fired a gun that had been being built and armed for a long time. That pope was not willing to submit to the Whole Church. And to this day, he is not willing. He claims his own infallibility. I never ever heard that even Christ would make such a boast... Have you? Instead, He emptied Himself in humility and obedience...

>>>And Peter's Confession was what the Church is built on and not on Peter (the Episcopacy)?<<<

The scripture seems to legitimately be saying that it is the revelation by His Father to the believer [Peter] that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, that is the rock of the building of the Church, and that against this revelation by the Father, which does indeed result in a proper confession, the gates of Hell shall not prevail.

So it is not the confession, Alex - Any dern fool can confess anything whatsoever - But it is the revelation by the FATHER of Christ's identity, that is not breakable...

>>>This sounds most Protestant.<<<

The way you put it, [the confession scenario], is decidedly Protestant - Before I became Christian, I held the Protestants in my deepest comtempt. I pray for them now... I am no Protestant - Please do not stick me in that corner. I am a recovering athiest, my friend...

The fact is that the Episcopacy, represented first by Peter ...

I really have no problem with Peter as a representative of the episcopality...

>>>The Orthodox Church also makes mistakes<<<

Well, daaaah! :-) I mean, who killed St. Chrysostom?

It was not the sinfulness of Rome that was at issue, nor its forgiveness on the part of the Orthodox - It is instead the unwillingness of the Roman See to fully confess and repent of Her error, and submit Herself to the authority of the whole Church. Were She to do this, She would be welcomed back as the Primate of Christianity by the Orthodox... He made a very small start in this direction, apologizing to all for the wrongs committed by Rome, both by commission and by ommission, and on and on, but only to a select few of those transgressions was he specific, and he never stepped down from Papal infallibility, which is a VERY recent addition to the western cannon...

>>>I'm only commenting on your commentary on Catholicism from a "high horse" Orthodox vantage point - that is really not there to begin with.<<<

No, it was not - It only came when the Pope tried to force acceptance of the filioque on the whole Church without the consent of the whole Church, let alone the reception of it by the whole Church. And then, failing in that attempt, the crusades happenned... And the loot has never been returned, and the Church has remained divided ever since, even with attempted reconciliations. The issue is that of authoritarian and autocratic [why else have Papal infallibility???] rulership of the Church by the patriarch who would not submit to the decisionary process of the whole Church.

This issue won't go away. It is still there, and I suppose you can fault the Orthodox for being sticklers over it, not willing to let bye-gones be bye-gones, but the issues are not bye-gone - The Papacy is still a self-authenticating and authoritarian institution, having rulership over the whole church that is in communion with it.

When the current Pope passes into history, we'd better all start praying a lot, for he is one of the best I could imagine, and he has tried to move east as much as he can... And who knows who will follow him? It is a sad state of affairs when we see military and civilian disaster at the hands of the Taliban as a force of reconciliation... Yet that seems the case...

Sorry to sound so [not!] cheerful, Alex! :-)

geo

Gosh Georgey you're such an uplifting person...

I found this quote on the Net, taken from THE PRIMACY OF PETER : Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church edited by John Meyendorff (St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992); Chapter 5 The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology" (pages 145-71) by Alexander Schmemann.

Has anyone read this book? Is it so selective a quote as to miss the meaning, or is it fair to say that among orthodox scholars there is a sense that the Primacy was in fact considerably more than a Primacy of honor (albeit considerably less than a primacy of immediate jurisdiction)?

djs

Dear Groege:

Let's see now. As you exited, the priest asked who you were -- a perfectly reasonable query -- and from this you inferred that he was some sort of occultist "adept" who'd been in your face "in spirit" earlier?

I think you may possibly be correct, George, when you say that this perception is perhaps attributable to prelest!

It's perfectly possible, for instance, that the devil was trying to steer you away from the Holy Catholic Church. Hence it was he who suggested the illusion that the priest was an adept. The devil (a fiendishly clever critter) guessed that the priest would later ask your identity, and so he (Satan) anticipated this question as part of the delusion he "sent" you....Satan, you see, knew exactly how to prey on your prejudices, exactly how to deceive you into turning against the Church Jesus had actually founded.

I am not saying this is what happened. How should I know? But I do know one thing: The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests are not occultists or "adepts" of any sort. I may lack your acute spiritual sensitivity, but I've known a heck of a lot of Catholic priests, believe me, and they don't go around having out-of-body experiences in people's faces. :eek

As for prelest, I will very tentatively suggest that you are still, well, perhaps at least a bit confused. (As are we all, I freely concede! ) As someone else has pointed out elsewhere, you may want to get your historical information (re the development of the papacy, say) from less polemical sources than Fr. Alexey Young and company. I believe your views on the Schism, on the Petrine primacy, and (dare I say it?) even on the Filioque are at least, well, open to challenge.

There are respected historical sources out there -- Catholic, Orthodox, and secular -- that could give you a more balanced, accurate presentation of the development of Petrine primacy, etc. If you haven't already consulted such sources, I urge you to consider doing so.

Someday we will all face Christ. Perhaps, among other things, He will ask us if we seriously, single-mindedly sought the Truth -- including His True Church -- or if we took the easier path of personal preference and prejudice, never questioning our own assumptions or biases. Even before the Judgment Day, I think, that's a question we should all ask ourselves.

To put it another way: Will you follow Christ no matter where He leads you? -- even if He leads you to the banks of the Tiber?

Blessings,

ZT

Originally posted by George Blaisdell:
ZT writes:

What do you mean, "He was an adept"? How could you possibly tell such a thing? (I sincerely want to know.)

Well, I concluded from solidly sensing his presence before me in that congregation, and his query: "Who are you, and what are you doing here?" that he was spiritually adept at this level of enquiry. Now the problem with prelest, in which I was solidly entrenched at that time [and probably still am!] is that one can suffer imaginings that have nothing to do with the ones to whom such imaginings refer - But when he asked the same two questions on my way out the door, as he shook my hand - With a toughness of voice that was not mistakable, I took that as a verification of his earlier spiritual enquiry that had the identical content.....geo

Dear Groege:

>>>Let's see now. As you exited, the priest asked who you were -- a perfectly reasonable query -- and from this you inferred that he was some sort of occultist "adept" who'd been in your face "in spirit" earlier?<<<

He did not say "Thank you for coming - I haven't seen you here before - I am the Padre - And you are...?" Instead he asked exactly the two earlier questions I had sensed: "Who are you? Why are you here?" It was the identity of the two enquiries that seemed to confirm the idea that he was making an enquiry in spirit of me.

>>>I think you may possibly be correct, George, when you say that this perception is perhaps attributable to prelest!<<<

No question about that at all. And even if he was making a spiritual enquiry, as Paul writes that he had done, it can easily not mean that he was an adept. I DID understand at the time that he was, but deception is so easy, and he may have simply been thinking "Who is that guy? And what is he doing here?" And the demon simply, through familiarity with his habits, knew how he would ask that question to me, and then showed up in my face with the deception of the identity of the priest.

>>>It's perfectly possible, for instance, that the devil was trying to steer you away from the Holy Catholic Church.<<<

The problem with that theory is that in fact, I had a very new found respect for that Padre, and a trust of him, and a real motive to become a member of his Parish, all as a result of that encounter.

>>>Hence it was he who suggested the illusion that the priest was an adept. The devil (a fiendishly clever critter) guessed that the priest would later ask your identity, and so he (Satan) anticipated this question as part of the delusion he "sent" you....Satan, you see, knew exactly how to prey on your prejudices, exactly how to deceive you into turning against the Church Jesus had actually founded.<<<

Well, ZT, all I can say is that that day I seriously considered becoming a Roman Catholic, and reccommended to my new age pals that if they ever got themselves into spiritual trouble, they should go see that Padre. And I intended to make him a silver cross, but he retired before I ever could...

>>>I am not saying this is what happened. How should I know?<<< But I do know one thing: The overwhelming majority of Catholic priests are not occultists or "adepts" of any sort.<<<

Most Orthodox priests are not either, I should imagine, yet many are, and many monks, who often are their spiritual fathers. Elder Joseph, according to his disciple Elder Ephraim, could look at you and know exactly what you were thinking. A really hard guy to lie to!

>>>I may lack your acute spiritual sensitivity<<<

I thank God for that! Because you thereby lack prelest! And you are a better man than I for it!

>>>but I've known a heck of a lot of Catholic priests, believe me, and they don't go around having out-of-body experiences in people's faces.<<<

Well, I can tell you that I most assurredly do not have the spiritual discernment that would be needed to know either way - I can only report what happenned, and what I concluded, and how I thought about it, and how I now think about it.

>>>As for prelest, I will very tentatively suggest that you are still, well, perhaps at least a bit confused.<<<

Tentatively suggest??? Listen - I've got that problem in wholesale, and more, even truckload lots, and beyond that!

>>>I believe your views on the Schism, on the Petrine primacy, and (dare I say it?) even on the Filioque are at least, well, open to challenge.<<<

Listen, *I* am open to challenge! I am not becoming Orthodox so as to bless Orthodoxy with my valuable presence, my friend - I am coming to Orthodoxy because I am sick and dying in sin[s], and am ruled by the cares of this world, and listen to spirits who are of dubious origin - [at least somewhat less so do I listen these days, thanks to having become a catechumen.]

But the views I present here are pretty mainstream Orthodox - And the view that the Pope has elevated himself dogmatically to autocracy with respect to dogma, and the control of the whole Church by the control of the appointment of Bishops, and the power to remove them, just as he tried and failed to do in Constantinople by the Papal Writ of excommunication of someone who said NO to him...

The problem, you see, with Papal dictatorship as I have just laid it out, is not so much that there are no benefits to it - Indeed there doubtless there are... The problem is that it places the communion of the whole UNDER one Patriarch, and thereby destroys communion in favor of Papal autocracy... It is one thing for two patriarchs who are having a doctrinal or some other dispute to ask for a ruling by a third party, and for that third party to be customarily the Pope, and they agree to abide by his decision. It is entirely another matter for them to disagree and then head for a higher authority to impose a solution. The first is conciliarity of bishops, the second is seeking the imposition of power over the other [if only I can persuade the Pope - THEN that patriarch will **have** to toe my line!!]

The nature of communion is what is at stake in the matter of Papal Authority over other Patriarchs, and his claim of doctrinal infallibility. He is either subordinate to the communion of the whole Church, or co-equal with it, or above it, and thereby having the responsibility to maintain it, and to re-establish it when it is lost. The Orthodox see him as subordinate to the communion of the whole Church. He sees himself as above it. How else can there be Papal infallibility?

It's a tough nut...

geo

etc..

Hello George...

I am infrequent in here.

I have read a few of your posts about yourself.

You were/are in a pickle.

Do I detect a bit of Scientology in your past also? No... heavy on the new age formation but only a dash of Scientoly mixed in.

50 posts in 30 days - and lengthy too. You have much help you wish to extend to this group.

On another subject, it is clear to me why you are attracted to the Orthodox. No one should read anything into what I say here.

May I ask why you are also attracted to this board, hosted by the Byzantine in ecclesiastical union with Rome? When it is apparent you will have no part of what your own view is of his Providential hierarchal role and authority. What then drives you into his house again?

I submit your experience at mass that day - lays unresolved.

I submit to you that the priest was not �adept� but rather intuitive and was being kindly used as you were in great danger at the time. Have you answered the good priests question? �Who are you and what are you doing here?� the question was for you as the priest had no need of an answer. God does not need to know the answer as if he did not already know it - it was asked to trigger your own reflection. The priest was not attracted to your spirituality but unsettled by it. This you know.

On another subject, has anyone explained to you the difference between preter-natural events and supernatural events? Perhaps you have looked into this yourself? This is a common misconception within the new age movement. Very damaging. I am sure that intellectually you are well aware that spiritual candy is an intoxication which make it palatable for us to eat what we would not normally eat.

I am glad you are not a scientologist, for the spiritual events (preter-natural) that they experience are used as cement for the nonsense they are feed. Addition to the $ paved road to 'clear'. The modern incarnation of Gnosticism. Quite a programming technique. Only Providence can turn it.

I think this is good (�The Orthodox askesis of obedience� etc..�) a �think less� and �do more� attitude. God cannot form someone who is busy forming himself.

You are in good hands with our Orthodox brothers.

Welcome back from the precipice my friend. May the Orthodox way become your way. May Providence goad your stubborn soul and may you accept the small bit of suffering needed.

I have nothing but good wishes for your climb out of the jungle.

Thank you for taking a moment to read this.

Thank you, Ray. Beautifully and sensitively put.

I had the same reaction, George: that you must not yet understand the difference between New Agey-type powers ("adepts" and so forth) and Holy Spirit-given supernatural powers. St. Padre Pio could read souls in the Confessional, but he was not an "adept" in the New Agey sense. Rather, his supernatural insights came from the Good Spirit, not the evil spirit. Moreover, his supernatural gifts were exercised in humility, in charity, and in total obedience to his ecclesiastical superiors. From the little I know about New Age, it is a total power trip -- there's no humility or obedience, let alone true charity.

I also wondered why you are on a Catholic board if you are so dead-set against Catholicism. Not that I object in the least, mind you -- to the contrary, I am very glad you're here, I welcome you most sincerely, and I for one very much appreciate your contributions.

Again, though, I would ask you to consider the possibility that you may be getting a very skewed "take" on Catholicism from some of your current mentors. The papacy is not a "dictatorship"! Such loaded terms suggest to me that you may be reading the wrong kind of book entirely -- sheer polemics.

Anyway, as I kept insisting in my initial posts here, I've been a Catholic for many moons, and I have never experienced the papacy as a "dictatorship" or anything close. There may be people who make me quake with craven, servile fear, but John Paul II isn't one of them!

Blessings on your continued journey! Please pray for this sinner who also prays for you.

ZT

Ray writes:

>>>You were/are in a pickle.<<<

I was being led out of athiesm and into Christianity, which I had detested, and ultimately into the Orthodox Church.

>>>Do I detect a bit of Scientology in your past also? No... heavy on the new age formation but only a dash of Scientoly mixed in.<<<

I avoided scientology.

>>>50 posts in 30 days - and lengthy too. You have much help you wish to extend to this group.<<<

They will be getting less - I came down with a herniated C7-T1 disc about a month ago, unable to work and really do much at all, and ended up here out of boredom during a lull in another [EV-OR] list. Good news is that it healed and does not need surgery, but it still hurts a little, and I still have some, though less, numbness in my left arm. I really did not come here to help the group... I just wanted to see and understand the ecumenical matters, which were but dimly formulated im my understanding. The matter of the Pope elevating himself through the doctrine of Papal infallibility that exceeds the authority of the communion of the whole Church is utterly my own, I am sorry to say. I was not taught it, but read Zizioulas' "Being as Communion", and Rose's "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future," and it just seemed to come from these in some way. I have not seen any Orthodox resistance to this understanding, and the best I have seen here comes by those who place the Pope's authority solely in the service of and derivative from the communion of the whole Church. That is not an adequate defence of Papal infallibility, but it seems most on the right track of truth.

>>>On another subject, it is clear to me why you are attracted to the Orthodox. No one should read anything into what I say here.<<<

I have no idea what you mean here...

>>>May I ask why you are also attracted to this board, hosted by the Byzantine in ecclesiastical union with Rome? When it is apparent you will have no part of what your own view is of his Providential hierarchal role and authority. What then drives you into his house again?<<<

Mostly I would have to say that it was due to my own fuzziness of understanding of ecumenical issues. I am much clearer on them now, thanks to all of you here...

>>>I submit your experience at mass that day - lays unresolved.<<<

That would not surprise me. The important thing now is that it doesn't matter, at least not in any way that I can do anything about, for I lack discernment, and am just at the beginning stages of being able to see my own log of prelest.

>>>I submit to you that the priest was not ?adept? but rather intuitive and was being kindly used as you were in great danger at the time. Have you answered the good priests question? ?Who are you and what are you doing here?? the question was for you as the priest had no need of an answer. God does not need to know the answer as if he did not already know it - it was asked to trigger your own reflection. The priest was not attracted to your spirituality but unsettled by it. This you know.<<<

He and I became friends later, outside his Church... I care a lot about that man, as I do about the priest now serving there. He told me that this parish is the best kept secret in the whole western archdiocese - A veritable heaven for old priests who have been graced with some time of service that amounts to a virtual heaven on earth...

I never discussed that day with the old Padre - He had a wonderful old country Italian accent. I answered him at the door, btw, and thanked him for pastoring that Church. I have a strong affection for the Catholics in this world, and I am awed walking into their churches with the holiness that is so easily sensed therein. I have a strong sense that Catholic prayers for me were instrumental in bringing me back from the edge of total loss...

>>>On another subject, has anyone explained to you the difference between preter-natural events and supernatural events? Perhaps you have looked into this yourself? This is a common misconception within the new age movement. Very damaging.<<<

I am not knowledgable at all with this differentiation. Preternatural: 1. Differing from or beyond what is natural, 2. supernatural That's what the dictionary says - So I am clueless beyond that. Is it a kind of generic idea that includes coincidences, serendipity, and other 'oh wow's??

>>>I am sure that intellectually you are well aware that spiritual candy is an intoxication which make it palatable for us to eat what we would not normally eat.<<<

I don't know what you mean here...

>>>I am glad you are not a scientologist, for the spiritual events (preter-natural) that they experience are used as cement for the nonsense they are fed. Addition to the $ paved road to 'clear'. The modern incarnation of Gnosticism. Quite a programming technique. Only Providence can turn it.<<<

I really do not know anything about them, except that they were all about money, and I had a healthy suspicion about any spirituality that led to material prosperity...

>>>I think this is good (?The Orthodox askesis of obedience? etc..?) a ?think less? and ?do more? attitude. God cannot form someone who is busy forming himself.<<<

That is true, but orthopraxis is hardly a thoughtless process!!

>>>You are in good hands with our Orthodox brothers.<<<

I know - Thank-you.

>>>Welcome back from the precipice my friend. May the Orthodox way become your way. May Providence goad your stubborn soul and may you accept the small bit of suffering needed.<<<

I've got a long way to go, and a very late start. Thank you for your kindness...

>>>I have nothing but good wishes for your climb out of the jungle.<<<

Thank-you.

>>>Thank you for taking a moment to read this.<<<

I am richer for it...

Peace be to you, my brother...

geo

Hi! Very interesting post. I am gradually learning more about my Eastern brothers and sisters. I really like what I'm learning too. I have a question. It relates to temporal punishment in Eastern thought. (not the topic directly at hand...but) I know that the East doesn't believe in "satisfaction" or "purgatory" but I did read once that the East believes that those who die with unconfessed sin go to hell for a period of time where that sin is remitted through the prayers and good works of the righteous on earth. Are they punished while in hell or do they just wait? Thanks!

P.S. How does the East view the visions of purgatory by great saints in the East?

Theo writes:

>>>I know that the East doesn't believe in "satisfaction" or "purgatory" but I did read once that the East believes that those who die with unconfessed sin go to hell for a period of time where that sin is remitted through the prayers and good works of the righteous on earth. Are they punished while in hell or do they just wait? Thanks!<<<

I have no idea... I have read that the prayers of the righteous can restore right relationship with God... But these are exceptional, and are notmally invoked to show the unlimitedness of what God can do through His saints. We pray for the dead every day... It must be beneficial, both for the dead, and for the one praying...

>>>P.S. How does the East view the visions of purgatory by great saints in the East?<<<

I have not heard of these visions... Sorry to be such a dry fount of non-information!

geo

Dear DJS,

I read the book a couple of times. I can tell you that my first experience of it actually stopped me dead in my tracks from abandoning communion with Rome by joining the Eastern Orthodox. I give many of the authors of that book credit for their honesty even when it didn't always support what many in their Church were teaching. I think if both sides could continue working together with this form of openess and honesty we would be in much better position to someday reunite.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

I've heard that Father Schmemann's chief disciple became Catholic. Does anyone have any info re that? What is this person's name? Are his writings available on the Internet?

Thanks in advance!

ZT