www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Indulgences and Eastern Catholics

Bishop John Elya, Eparch for Melkite Catholics of the U.S. was asked if eastern Catholics are to believe in the doctrine of indulgences. The link is: www.melkite.org/Questions/W-4.htm [melkite.org]

Reactions?

While there is nothing that Bishop John says that I disagree with, I think the problem is one of terminology. Obviously, both East and West believe in prayer for the dead and their further purification after death. But the terms purgatory and indulgence are Latin terms that in a certain sense are loaded. They carry the baggage of some of the worst theological speculation and abuses in the Latin Church. Also I see Latin apologists bring Bishop John into arguements all the time but I don't think he is very representative of the Melkite Church. For example of 26 Bishops of the Melkite Synod, he was one of only two bishops that refused to endorse the Zoghby Initiative. He is not exactly in step with his own Synod and I don't think they would take the approach he has on these issues.

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance

Inasmuch as the Zoghby initiative went nowhere, it may be that the two non-signers were in-step with the broader realities. At any rate, it has been pointed out before, that, linguistic sensivities notwithstanding, our Metropolitan Jusdon specifically preached these ideas; and anyone who picked up a flyer at the Uniontown Odpust understands that these ideas are current in our church.


On the language issue. I've heard tale (probably apochryphal) of a new, convert Orthodox seminarian in the US who argued for avoiding English in the liturgy because its contains so many Latin terms. And I see some folks now advocating for "potirion" rather than "chalice". :rolleyes:

But here is a different take on these things, from a blogger who was visting Holy Resurrection Monastery in CA, and took a sidetrip to a Coptic Orthodox monastery.

Perhaps Bishop John was writing in a "completly confident" manner. Better than circling the wagons, IMO.

Dear Friends,

Bishop John writes in a most inconsistent manner, first saying that indulgences are in keeping with Eastern theology, and then he says that Eastern Catholics shouldn't be following Eastern ways in a "slavish manner."

Actually, Latinization and the compulsion to elevate Latin theology above one's own Eastern perspective is the true "slavishness" that affects a number of our Eastern bishops - the Ukrainian Church included of course.

His viewpoint exposes him as a Latinizing Eastern bishop and in a minority in his own Patriarchal Melkite Synod.

The effects of sin, as he says, are not "temporal punishment."

Temporal punishment or penance is there to act as a medicinal remedy to the effects of sin which includes the darkening of the mind etc.

The question still stands: If life-long ascesis is a medicinal remedy to the effects of sin and our fallen nature, how can indulgences presume to relieve us of that responsibility and of that healing?

Alex

I have yet to see any official church document that states that Byzantine Catholics are exempt from believing in the Catholic doctrine of indulgences. Bishops like His Grace John Elya and the late Metropolitan Judson are doing their duty as Catholic bishops in preaching the Catholic faith. Indulgences is a Catholic doctrine, not a "Latin" one.
Yes, the Holy Father has called on the Byzantine Catholic churches to return to their traditions, but this is the same Holy Father who attached a plenary indulgence to the praying of the Akathist. Why would he do that then? For Roman Catholics only? How many Roman Catholics do we know who know what an akathist is in the first place?

I wish the Eastern Congregation in Rome would publish a list of WHAT we are to believe as Eastern Catholics. It seems that there are too many ill-informed opinions or just hearsay. Is there anything official out there for us telling us what we must believe to be Eastern Christians in Union with the Pope? I was always taught that we are to believe simply as the Orthodox without bothering with the Latin definitions. Am I right/wrong? Who knows?

Good question!! This was the question that had to be asked. Now we make some real progress in understanding.

The Catholic understanding of indulgences is that they are an excercize of the Church's power to bind and loose. The Church (and, more particularly, the successor of Peter) holds the keys to unlock the treasuries of grace won for the Church by her bridegroom, and by all the saints. When the Holy Father attaches an indulgence to a specific prayer, pilgrimage, devotion, etc., that is precisely what he is doing--he is "unlocking" the remedy for the effects of sin.

I cannot deny that temporal punishment is an integral part of this whole scheme. The Church teaches that every sin, even after it has been forgiven, merits (objectively) temporal punishment. By availing oneself of the graces that are unlocked in an indulgence, one can achieve the purgation that a certain amount of temporal punishment would bring.

LatinTrad

PS I am not ashamed of terms like temporal punishment--they have to be properly understood, however, instead of ridiculed.

Robert,

May I suggest you read the Apostolic Letter, Ad Teundam Fidem ( www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ADTU.HTM [ewtn.com] ), which was written by the Holy Father himself. The Holy Father inserts two new additions to the Eastern Code of Canon Law, reinforcing that all Eastern Catholics(whether Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic,etc) are to believe what the magisterium of the Church teaches.
In addition, read the commentary by Cardinal Ratzinger regarding Ad Teundam Fidem ( www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM [ewtn.com] )

To be in communion with the Pope of Rome is a communion of faith, not simply of jurisdiction. I hope this helps.

Well Alex, perhaps your comments were written when you were still fuming from another thread.

Nothing inconsistent at all. He certainly wasn't being slavish and it is slavishness not Easterness that he was criticizing.

Don't disagree that is one form of slavishness. But so is the vostochnik straight-jacket. Like the Copts described above, we will much better off IMO when we have the courage to be ourselves and focus things of immediate concern to our very our salvation rather than some obscure standard - never seriously defined here - of art and architecture, words, philosophical constructs, theological paradigms etc.

There you go again with the L word. I know, as you said before that you didn't invent the epithet, but you nevertheless like to hurl it. You may have a legitimate point here, but your ad hominen argument doesn't adavance it.

He makes no comment akin to your first sentence in this quote. LT talks about the source of the presumption. But I find you still standing question odd. How does one obtain indulgences? Is it not precisely through ascetic acts, charitable acts, etc. by us and by others for us. No responsibility is being relieved; in fact the responsibility is being encouraged.

Actually the equivalent additions are made both to the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

I have nothing but praise and admiration for Sayidna John. He is � as are all of us � a product of his formation. He was formed in a time when it was only acceptable to speak in Western terminology. Compare this to the older generation in the Byzantine Catholic Church, in the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church in America who still refer to the Divine Liturgy as �Mass�.

I disagree. I think that the Zoghby initiative fertilized and tilled the soil and planted seeds which are growing now.

The Church Fathers have already published a catechism of our Orthodox Faith.

[The Church Fathers have already published a catechism of our Orthodox Faith. ]

What Orthodox faith? Just finished reading the following in another thread on this very website where the Pope added the following two canons in 'The Code of Canons For The Eastern Churches' in 1998 -

----------

B) Canon 598 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches will now have two paragraphs: the first will present the text of the existing canon and the second will contain a new text. Thus canon 598, in its complete form, will read as follows:
Canon 598
1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed AS DIVINELY REVEALED EITHER BY THE SOLEM MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH, OR BY ITS ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL MAGISTERIUM, WHICH IN FACT IS MANIFESTED BY THE COMMON ADHERENCE OF CHRIST'S FAITHFUL UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF THE SACRED MAGISTERIUM. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
2. Furthermore, EACH AND EVERYTHING SET FORTH DEFINITIVEY BY THE MAGISTERIUM OF THE CHURCH REGARDING TEACHING ON FAITH AND MORALS MUST BE FIRMLY ACCEPTED AND HELD; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; THEREFORE, ANYONE WHO REJECTS PROPOSITIONS WHICH ARE TO BE HELD DEFINITIVELY SETS HIMSELF AGAINST THE TEACHING OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Canon 1436, 2 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, consequently, will receive an appropriate reference to canon 598, 2, so that it will now read:

Canon 1436
1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.
2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.


5. We order that everything decreed by us in this Apostolic Letter, given motu proprio, be established and ratified, and we prescribe that the insertions listed above be introduced into the universal legislation of the Catholic Church, that is, into the Code of Canon Law and into the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Given in Rome, at St Peter's, on 28 May, in the year 1998, the twentieth of our Pontificate.

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

-----------

[I wish the Eastern Congregation in Rome would publish a list of WHAT we are to believe as Eastern Catholics.]

According to the above Canons of your church, your faith is interrupted by the Pope and Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, not the early Church Fathers as the Administrator claims.

OrthoMan

Communion with Peter is the crown of Orthodoxy!

Without this crown the rest of Orthodoxy is incomplete.

No! Bob�s post is incorrect. There is nothing incompatible with the canons he quotes and Orthodoxy. What do the above quoted canons state? That we must believe what the Church teaches. What does the Church teach? What the Church Fathers have taught! The Church Fathers � East and West � are an integral part of the magesterium.

Bob doesn�t seem to understand that theology can be expressed in many languages. The fact that some concepts don�t translate well from one theological language to another does not mean that only one is valid and the other invalid. One need not be Italian to respect, admire and affirm the way an Italian prepares the theological banquet.

[Communion with Peter is the crown of Orthodoxy!

Without this crown the rest of Orthodoxy is incomplete.]

We Orthodox Catholics have this communion with Peter through HIS FIRST SEE in Antioch.

[That we must believe what the Church teaches. What does the Church teach? What the Church Fathers have taught! The Church Fathers � East and West � are an integral part of the magesterium.]

And where do you find the Church Fathers teaching Papal Infallibility etc. in the undivided church?

What I read is that you are required to accept any new doctrines that come out of the Vatican and proclaimed by the Pope and the Magisterium. Even those that have been proclaimed after you signed the Union of Brest.

[Bob doesn�t seem to understand that theology can be expressed in many languages. The fact that some concepts don�t translate well from one theological language to another does not mean that only one is valid and the other invalid.]

What Bob does understand is Pauls commandment in I Corinthians 1:10 [Caps mine]

Now I plead with you, brethern, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

OrthoMan

There are plenty of Church Fathers who teach that the Petrine primacy is more than one of just honor. This has been discussed numerous times on the Forum and we always welcome a new discussion if you wish to begin a new thread. Obviously there is a difference of opinion on this issue between Orthodox in communion with Rome and those Orthodox not in communion with Rome.

Is there communion with Peter through his first see of Antioch? Definitely! Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches hold such communion with Peter.

Is there communion with Peter through both Rome and Antioch? For Catholics, yes. For those Orthodox who are not in current communion with Rome, no.

Have there been new doctrinal understandings proclaimed by the West? Yes! The Spirit didn�t stop inspiring man in his quest to understand the Trinity at the last ecumenical council in 787. There is wisdom to be found in both the Orthodox and Catholic fathers throughout the ages. Even today there are there is a new generation of Church fathers who assist us in knowing the Lord more intimately.

Do these new doctrinal understandings render the previous ones null and void? No! As imperfect men we can only express the theology of the Trinity imperfectly. All theology is incomplete and in need of improvement.

The continuing separation between East and West is not one that can be reduced to political motivation, even though you continue to attempt to do this. To reduce the Unions of Brest or Uzhorod with Rome four hundred years ago or the union of St. Alexis with Moscow one hundred years ago to only political motivations is simply not to fully understand history. Such a reduction ignores the very real needs of the peoples involved and their attempts to preserve the Faith and minister to God�s people.

The continuing separation is due to sin in both Churches. Our respective Churches need to acknowledge our sins, repent of them, ask forgiveness from each other for our sins and forgive one another for the sins committed against us. When this happens reunion will come about.

For the peace of the whole world, for the welfare of the holy Churches of God and for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.

Lord, have mercy!