Orthodox view of purgatory

Photini said:

Also, and this is off the top of my head. Perhaps the two are not imcompatible, but it seems to me that the belief in indulgences could get in the way of Orthodox theology dealing with the Uncreated Energies of God.

Click to expand...

This is something I've never been able to understand... (energies of God). I can't even remember which church believes they are created and which believes they are uncreated.. or how that relates to God's essence.. sorry can't comment on that at all.

Monica you know I have nothing against you -- this comment is aimed at the board and its users at large --

The answer to the question is: No, there is not an Orthodox doctrine of a place called Purgatory.

Beyond that: if anyone would like to know more about the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or any other RCC doctrines, please could they go to OBOB and start a thread there? That way the thread will be protected by OBOB rules and people can actually learn something from it, without wading through a firestorm of criticism or accusation in the process.

I just find it incredibly tiresome to come to "my" denominational forum and regularly have to sit through Roman Catholic catechism. This isn't the fault of the Roman Catholic posters per se; if Orthodox people would stop trying to explain Roman Catholicism, we would have fewer of these problems. I wish people would just lay off the Catholic comparisons and focus on what Orthodoxy teaches. That way we would keep discussions of Catholicism where they belong: in OBOB.

I mean, start a thread in St Justin's if you want debate, by all means... (I find those threads just as tiresome, but I realise many people need a safe place to debate RCC vs OC because they are trying to find the true Church).

Forgive me if this seems catty... I just... am exhausted by these threads that get so heated and horrid to read. And they are a dreadful witness to our faith, too.

This is something I've never been able to understand... (energies of God). I can't even remember which church believes they are created and which believes they are uncreated.. or how that relates to God's essence.. sorry can't comment on that at all.

Click to expand...

we believe they are uncreated, and flow directly from the Essence of God. the Energies are His Grace and work in the world, and are therefore Him. the West holds on to the view that they are created. this is the whole reason we really remember St Gregory Palamas.

+1000 for Coralie...

Coralie said:

Monica you know I have nothing against you -- this comment is aimed at the board and its users at large --

The answer to the question is: No, there is not an Orthodox doctrine of a place called Purgatory.

Beyond that: if anyone would like to know more about the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or any other RCC doctrines, please could they go to OBOB and start a thread there? That way the thread will be protected by OBOB rules and people can actually learn something from it, without wading through a firestorm of criticism or accusation in the process.

I just find it incredibly tiresome to come to "my" denominational forum and regularly have to sit through Roman Catholic catechism. This isn't the fault of the Roman Catholic posters per se; if Orthodox people would stop trying to explain Roman Catholicism, we would have fewer of these problems. I wish people would just lay off the Catholic comparisons and focus on what Orthodoxy teaches. That way we would keep discussions of Catholicism where they belong: in OBOB.

I mean, start a thread in St Justin's if you want debate, by all means... (I find those threads just as tiresome, but I realise many people need a safe place to debate RCC vs OC because they are trying to find the true Church).

Forgive me if this seems catty... I just... am exhausted by these threads that get so heated and horrid to read. And they are a dreadful witness to our faith, too.

Click to expand...

The OP wasn't about whether there was an Orthodox doctrine of purgatory, but what the Orthodox view of the RCC doctrine of purgatory is, which necessarily would lead to a discussion of what exactly IS the RCC doctrine of purgatory.

My apologies for asking a question.

Michael the Iconographer said:

There is no mortal sin. All sin is deadly and scripture makes it clear there is only one sin that is unforgivable.

Click to expand...

Since when do the Orthodox not believe in mortal sin?

Capital Sin (or Mortal or Deadly sin). Great offenses against God, or moral faults which, if habitual, could result in the spiritual death of the individual. The following sins are considered to be mortal: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. These are the "Seven Deadly Sins" of the phrase.

A Dictionary of Orthodox Terminology - Part 1 — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

ANSWER:

Thank you very much for your enquiry. I will do the best to simply things for you.

In the Orthodox Church there are no "categories" of sin as found in the Christian West.
In the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic catechism, sins were categorized as "mortal" and "venial." In this definition, a "mortal" sin was one which would prevent someone from entering heaven unless one confessed it before death. Not only were such things as pride, lust, and sloth on the list of "mortal" sins, but failing to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation were also considered "mortal" sins. A "venial" sin, according to this line of thinking, did not jeopardize one's salvation. While stealing a car might be considered a "mortal" sin, stealing a candy bar was not. While a "venial" sin did not jeopardize one's salvation, it still needed to be confessed and still may have had time in purgatory attached to it. Another way to see this distinction in Roman Catholic teaching -- and here I simplifyy a tremendously complex line of reasoning -- is as follows: If one commits a mortal sin and dies before confessing it, one would go straight to hell. If one commits a venial sin and dies before confessing it, one would not go straight to hell, but would have to spend time in purgatory before entering heaven.

[The Orthodox Church does not accept the teaching on purgatory that developed in more recent times in Roman Catholicism.]

These categories do not exist in the Orthodox Church. Sin is sin.
The Greek word for sin, amartia, means "to miss the mark." As Christians, the "mark" or "target" for which we "aim" is a Christ-like life, one lived to the best of our ability in line with the teachings, precepts, and commandments of God. When we miss this mark, when we fail to hit this target, we sin. Murder is a sin. Pride and envy are sins. Stealing a car is a sin. Stealing a candy bar is a sin. Refusing to attend the Liturgy is a sin -- but so is attending the Liturgy with hatred for others.

Missing the mark is missing the mark. If we aim at the bullseye and miss, it makes no difference if it is by an inch or a yard. In both cases, we have failed to achieve that for which we strive.

In some Orthodox catechisms one finds lists of the "seven deadly sins." While there can be no doubt that these sins are deadly -- here deadly and "mortal" are synonymous, but "mortal" is not used in the same way as in the Roman Catholic "mortal" sin described above -- they are not "worse" in the ultimate sense than sins that are not on the list.
[In the quote from Fr. Harakas' book, the use of the word "mortal" should not be understood in the Roman Catholic definition of "mortal" outlined above. He clearly defines the term as meaning "unto death," or "deadly."]

For example, one would not find listening to rock and roll music on the list of deadly sins. However, a person who spends all of his or her time listening to such music, to the point that he or she ignores others, isolates himself or herself from people and other activities, and becomes controlled by his or her desire to listen to such music to the exclusion of other important aspects of life, can find himself or herself in a deadly and sinful condition. Listening to the music is not the sin; the music itself is not the sin; becoming obsessed with the music -- and ignoring other aspects of one's life or the importance of loving relationships with others -- is what is sinful.

I cannot produce a list of sins; there are countless things that, while not in and of themselves sinful, can lead one to sin. A list of sins implies that things not found on the list are not sinful. Such is not the case. A better way to look at sin would be the following: Are my actions, my thoughts, my attitudes, my material goods, etc. controlling me, or am I in control of them.
Here I will give you another example: It is not sinful to have a glass of wine or a can of beer. Allowing wine or beer to control me, however, is sinful. Why? Because I have the ability to control what I drink. At the same time, what I drink cannot control me -- unless, of course, I allow it to do so. It would be ridiculous to think that a can of beer can force itself down the throat of a person who does not want to drink it. Whether we speak of wine, beer, watching television, giving attention to our car, gossiping, or whatever -- we have the ability to control these things. What is sinful is allowing these things, which in and of themselves have no power of their own, to control us. What is even more sinful is when we fail to recognize that we are being controlled by something which, in reality, is within our control, or when we rationalize our sins by claiming "I just couldn't help it." Huh? Your television turned itself on and held you captive during nine hours of soap operas while you ignored the needs of your family or coworkers or neighbor?

Concerning Confession, having a list of deadly sins could, in fact, become an obstacle to genuine repentance. For example, imagine that you commit a sin. You look on the list and do not find it listed. It would be very easy to take the attitude that, since it is not on a list of deadly sins, it is not too serious. Hence, you do not feel the need to seek God's forgiveness right away. A week passes and you have completely forgotten about what you had done. You never sought God's forgiveness; as a result, you did not receive it, either. We should go to Confession when we sin -- at the very least, we should ask God to forgive us daily in our personal prayers. We should not see Confession as a time to confess only those sins which may be found on a list.

Rather than worry about developing a list of sins to avoid, it would be much wiser to make a list of virtues and attitudes and ministries to achieve. While it is good to avoid places of temptation, it is better to seek places of inspiration. While it is good to avoid individuals who may lead you to sin, it is better to seek out individuals who will lead you to virtue. While it is good to shun those things which tend to control us, it is better to seek self control over things which have no power over us unless we give them that power.
.

OCA - Q & A - Sin

This would seem to be an area where there is not agreement among Orthodoxy. Good to know.

Although some Christians in the Eastern Orthodox churches do not accept the following, there are devout Orthodox Christians who do accept the teaching about mortal sins, summarized by Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov in his book "A word on death". In this book, the chapter entitled "Mortal sin" starts with the following passage:
It has been said earlier that mortal sin of an Orthodox Christian, not being cured by repentance, submits him to eternal suffering; it has also been said that the unbelievers, Muslims, and other non-orthodox, even here are the possession of hell, and are deprived of any hope of salvation, being deprived of Christ, the only means of salvation. Mortal sins for Christians are the next: heresy, schism, blasphemy, apostasy, witchery, despair, suicide, fornication, adultery, unnatural carnal sins,* incest, drunkenness, sacrilege, murder, theft, robbery, and every cruel and brutal injury. Only one of this sins—suicide—cannot be healed by repentance, and every one of them slays the soul and makes the soul incapable of eternal bliss, until he/she cleans himself/herself with due repentance. If a man falls but once in any of these sins, he dies by soul: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. (James 2:10,11)
Mortal sin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1. Concerning Mortal Sins
According to Gennadios Scholarios, George Koressios, the Orthodox Confession, and Chrysanthos of Jerusalem, mortal sins are those voluntary sins which either corrupt the love for God alone, or the love for neighbor and for God, and which render again the one committing them an enemy of God and liable to the eternal death of hell. [11] Generally speaking, they are: pride, love of money, sexual immorality, envy, gluttony, anger, and despondency, or indifference. [12]
2. Concerning Pardonable Sins
Pardonable sins are those voluntary sins which do not corrupt the love for God or the love for neighbor, nor do they render the person an enemy of God and liable to eternal death, to which transgressions even the Saints are susceptible, according to the words of the Brother of God: For in many things we all sin (Jas. 3:2), and of John: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves (l Jn. 1:8), and according to Canons 125, 126, and 127 of Carthage. These sins, according to Koressios and Chrysanthos, are: idle talk, the initial inclination and agitation of anger, the initial inclination of lust, the initial inclination of hate, a white lie, passing envy, or that which is commonly called jealousy, which is slight grief over the good fortunes of ones neighbor, and the like. [13]
Know also, Spiritual Father, that the many sins which are generally called pardonable are not of one and the same degree, but they are of varying degrees, smaller and larger, lower and higher, and that pardonable sins and mortal sins are two extremes. For in between these extremes there are found varying degrees of sins, beginning from the pardonable ones and proceeding up to the mortal ones, which degrees were not given names by the Ancients, perhaps because they are many and varied according to the class and specific kind of sins, but could have named them if they so desired. Here we name some of them, for the benefit of clarity and for your knowledge, beginning from below: pardonable sins, those near the pardonable, those that are non-mortal, those near the non-mortal, those between the non-mortal and the mortal, those near the mortal, and finally, mortal sins. Here is an example of the sins of the incensive aspect of the soul: The initial movement of anger is pardonable; near to the pardonable is for someone to say harsh words and get hot-tempered. A non-mortal sin is to swear; near the non-mortal is for someone to strike with the hand. Between the non-mortal and the mortal is to strike with a small stick; near the mortal is to strike with a large stick, or with a knife, but not in the area of the head. A mortal sin is to murder. A similar pattern applies to the other sins. Wherefore, those sins nearer to the pardonable end are penanced lighter, while those nearer to the mortal end are more severely penanced. [14]
Concerning Mortal Sins, Pardonable Sins, and Sins of Omission

Actually I'm not sure if it' ever actualy been dogmatized by an Ecumenical Council, either way

RobNJ said:

Actually I'm not sure if it' ever actualy been dogmatized by an Ecumenical Council, either way

Click to expand...

Me either.

I don't have a problem with you guys having a variety of opinions on such things. I do wish that individuals who hold a specific opinion about a topic that has not been officially defined by the Orthodox church wouldn't present their view as being what the "Orthodox" believe. I've run across that issue more than once and it makes it very difficult for someone who is trying to understand to sort it all out when they run into contrary opinions from different Orthodox individuals about what the "Orthodox" believe, and then discover it's not a belief that's ever been officially defined at all.

narnia59 said:

Me either.

I don't have a problem with you guys having a variety of opinions on such things. I do wish that individuals who hold a specific opinion about a topic that has not been officially defined by the Orthodox church wouldn't present their view as being what the "Orthodox" believe. I've run across that issue more than once and it makes it very difficult for someone who is trying to understand to sort it all out when they run into contrary opinions from different Orthodox individuals about what the "Orthodox" believe, and then discover it's not a belief that's ever been officially defined at all.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. It is frustrating.

narnia59 said:

Since when do the Orthodox not believe in mortal sin?

Capital Sin (or Mortal or Deadly sin). Great offenses against God, or moral faults which, if habitual, could result in the spiritual death of the individual. The following sins are considered to be mortal: pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, and sloth. These are the "Seven Deadly Sins" of the phrase.

A Dictionary of Orthodox Terminology - Part 1 — Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America

Click to expand...

Since my bishop and the priest who chrismated me BOTH have told me in person that there is NO such thing as mortal sin within Orthodox Christianity. It is foreign to our train of thoughts. It is not something that would be taught by an Ecumenical Council because Ecumenical Councils for the most part are only called to deal with matters of grave heresy. The last Ecumenical Council was 1200 years ago and IIRC the Western teaching of Mortal Sin did not come into being until after II Nicea.

The GOA is NOT speaking about Roman Catholic mortal sin on their website. Yes, the Orthodox Church does hold there are 7 Deadly Sins, but we teach that because those 7 sins are usually the pathway to a whole host of other sins that will destroy any attempt at living a Christian life. But the Orthodox Church does NOT teach sin in the mortal/venial model that Rome does.

Photini said:

I agree with you. It is frustrating.

Click to expand...

What frustrates me is that Orthodox Christians can't get away with going into OBOB and challenging their teachings without being treated in an uncivil manner, and yet we are far more tolerant of Roman Catholics who come into TAW and openly challenge and debate Orthodoxy. The double standard is sickening.

Michael the Iconographer said:

What frustrates me is that Orthodox Christians can't get away with going into OBOB and challenging their teachings without being treated in an uncivil manner, and yet we are far more tolerant of Roman Catholics who come into TAW and openly challenge and debate Orthodoxy. The double standard is sickening.

Click to expand...

So? TAW is much nicer that OBOB - that should make you happy. And I would also say TAW is much nicer than it was a year or so ago. People try to be kind to others, and I think non-Orthodox posters who come here notice - I have seen a few people comment favorably. No one likes to post at OBOB and that affects how people perceive them. But people from OBOB who are asking questions here are not necessarily the same individuals that are such jerks there.

In any case, how is asking bout what an Orthodox source says challenging your teaching?

Anyway, I hope I won't now get dinged for arguing outside my own forum.

MKJ said:

So? TAW is much nicer that OBOB - that should make you happy. And I would also say TAW is much nicer than it was a year or so ago. People try to be kind to others, and I think non-Orthodox posters who come here notice - I have seen a few people comment favorably. No one likes to post at OBOB and that affects how people perceive them. But people from OBOB who are asking questions here are not necessarily the same individuals that are such jerks there.

In any case, how is asking bout what an Orthodox source says challenging your teaching?

Anyway, I hope I won't now get dinged for arguing outside my own forum.

Click to expand...

MKJ, my comment is not aimed at you. You have been very respectful and are more than welcome here in TAW. I for my own part try to be tolerant and friendly, but there are those who ask the same questions over and over, time after time, who do not seem to understand that Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are not the same religion, and that gets very irritating.

Michael the Iconographer said:

What frustrates me is that Orthodox Christians can't get away with going into OBOB and challenging their teachings without being treated in an uncivil manner, and yet we are far more tolerant of Roman Catholics who come into TAW and openly challenge and debate Orthodoxy. The double standard is sickening.

Click to expand...

I actually haven't found that to be the case in the past few months. No, you can't stomp over there and start challenging their teachings, but questioning and comparing done in a respectful manner is well tolerated there. And I rarely see a thread get locked over there.

MKJ said:

So? TAW is much nicer that OBOB - that should make you happy. And I would also say TAW is much nicer than it was a year or so ago. People try to be kind to others, and I think non-Orthodox posters who come here notice - I have seen a few people comment favorably. No one likes to post at OBOB and that affects how people perceive them. But people from OBOB who are asking questions here are not necessarily the same individuals that are such jerks there.

In any case, how is asking bout what an Orthodox source says challenging your teaching?

Anyway, I hope I won't now get dinged for arguing outside my own forum.

Click to expand...

There's a lot more debate over there for sure.
But TAW has become stuffy, not nicer, and no longer welcomes honest, open discussion like it once did. If we seem nicer, it's only because we succeed in keeping the people who ruffle our feathers from asking any questions. Once they do, people get cranky and threads start getting locked...much like this one probably will. And NOBODY was challenging Orthodox teaching. Not a single person.

To add my personal experience with OBOB...I got crabby at them a couple of weeks ago when they were discussing the Orthodox Church and passing off a lot of misinformation and speculation as fact. I pointed it out and did not get my head bit off. In fact, someone repped me!

Photini said:

Also, and this is off the top of my head. Perhaps the two are not imcompatible, but it seems to me that the belief in indulgences could get in the way of Orthodox theology dealing with the Uncreated Energies of God.

Click to expand...

MoNiCa4316 said:

This is something I've never been able to understand... (energies of God). I can't even remember which church believes they are created and which believes they are uncreated.. or how that relates to God's essence.. sorry can't comment on that at all.

Click to expand...

Fr. John Matusiak is far better at explaining it than me. The following may help shed some light on your inquiry. He gives an overview and then delves into energies/etc. It's long but well worth the read....


The Roman teaching re: indulgences is linked to the notion that, while one is forgiven of one's sins through repentance and the sacrament of confession, one must endure punishment for, or be "purged" of -- one's sins after death, before one can "enter heaven." Hence, according to the Roman understanding, upon death the soul must "enter" a realm/place called "purgatory" -- the root of the word is "purge" -- so that the punishment due them as a result of their sins, even those forgiven in Confession, may be "purged" and their souls may be purified in order to "enter heaven."

An "indulgence" is a "pardon" of sorts by which the "time" one must spend in purgatory is reduced. Since the souls in purgatory cannot repent, they rely on the living to participate in good works, specific prayers, and other activities that "generate" a partial or total [plenary] reduction of time in purgatory. These indulgences are derived from the "merits" of Christ and the saints, who do not need them, and who thus "pass them on" to those who do. For example, reciting certain prayers may result in a "40 day indulgence," which would "reduce the time" a person has to spend in purgatory by 40 days. The person reciting the prayer could apply the indulgence to himself/herself, or could "assign" it to someone who has already died. Certain prayers, actions, works, etc. generate a "plenary" indulgence, which also could be assigned to a soul in purgatory should a person not wish to "credit" to himself or herself. A plenary indulgence "wipes away" all time due in purgatory, and would make it possible, if one is assigning the indulgence to someone who is already departed, for the deceased to be immediately released from purgatory and "enter heaven." [This is in part why in Roman tradition the Mass is celebrated daily for the departed -- not just because in Scripture we read that "it is good to pray for the dead," even though it is not revealed in any detail precisely how our prayers benefit them, but so that those offering such "Masses for the dead" can reduce the "time" the "poor souls in purgatory" must endure their punishment, thereby hastening their "entrance into heaven" and their ability to "behold the Beatific Vision."

So the "merits" that make indulgences possible derive from the unused, superabundant merits accorded Christ, the Mother of God, and the saints.

As you probably know, it was precisely the issue of indulgences that sent Martin Luther over the edge in pursuing reforms in the Roman Church -- plenary indulgences were being offered -- "sold" -- to those who made financial contributions to the building of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome and other for other activities that involved the exchange of money, leading one reformer, Tetzel, to pen the his oft-quoted ditty, "Into the coffer the coin doth ring, and out of hell the soul doth spring."

With regard to the "energies" of God -- spoken of by such writers as Dionysius the Aeropagite and Palamas...

The "essence" of God -- that is, what He is in the very depths of His divine nature -- cannot be fully known to us. That is, as ones possessing the human nature, we cannot fully know or understand, especially on the intellectual level, the very innermost, divine nature of God. In this sense, God is "unknowable."

HOWEVER...

We precisely CAN know God by His "energies" -- that is, by the way He reveals Himself to us in time and space, in His creation, in one another, in His "tangible characteristics" such as love, patience, kindness, longsuffering, etc. God reveals Himself in this manner -- something the Psalms touch upon when we sing/read that the heavens and firmament shout the glory of God. In other words, we cannot know the very innermost essence of the Creator, but we can know the Creator by embracing His creation, which "reveals the glory of God."

Now, with regard to your question as to how "how the belief in indulgences could get in the way of Orthodox theology dealing with the Energies of God," I cannot say, because I cannot discern any way in which the notion of indulgences, which Orthodox Christianity does not share, and the energies of God connect. I suppose that one could argue that the superabundant "merits" possessed by Christ -- merits He obviously does not need for Himself -- could be, if one so chose, considered among His "energies," and that one could deduce that those who reject His merits -- unrepentant sinners -- somehow refuse to know God because they refuse to accept His "merits," or something to this effect, but the fact remains that, since in Orthodox theology there is no intersection between God's energies and "merits" -- in part because the whole "merit" thing is foreign -- there is no conflict since the "merit/purgation" thing does not exist in the first place. As I said, if someone chooses to consider "merits" as an "energy" of God -- which Orthodox Christianity wouldn't -- then one could, in the end, deduce that God's "energies" can only become effective or manifest if one chooses to embrace them, but in the end, this would be to say that God's actions/energies/activities can be limited by the human will and require ascent on the part of humans in order to be "activated," or some such bla bla. So I can't really say how belief in indulgences would get in the way of God's energies, since there de facto is no connection in Orthodox theology -- unless I missed something when I was in seminary.

I might add that, at least as I understand it, the whole notion of purgatory -- enduring punishment after death for sins that were forgiven, especially sacramentally, in this life, with genuine and sincere repentance -- stands in conflict with the image of God's forgiveness as found in the father of the prodigal son, who forgave his son with no strings attached, with no qualifications, with no conditions -- ultimately, the prodigal son's father did NOT say, "I forgive you, my child, since you are clearly repentant, and I will accept you back fully after you have worked three extra months in the field as punishment for taking your inheritance and blowing it, against my will and wishes and suggestion." If the father had sent his son off to the fields to "purge" the effects of his sin or as a punishment or as a "proof" that he was really repentant, then there would be cause in revelation to conclude that a state/place of purgation not only exists, but is required to "get into heaven." But this is not the image of God's forgiveness Christ reveals in this parable -- much less when Christ said to the wise thief, "THIS DAY you will be with me in paradise" instead of saying "NEXT MONTH you will be with me in paradise, since because of your thievery you have to spend 30 days in purgatory to 'purge' the punishment accorded to you for your sin, unless Mary Magdalene says three Our Fathers, three Hail Marys, and three Glory bes on your behalf and obtains a 30-day, or even plenary, indulgence for you, which would then make it possible for you to be with me THIS DAY in paradise." Get the point?

Hope this helps.

Photini said:

There's a lot more debate over there for sure.
But TAW has become stuffy, not nicer, and no longer welcomes honest, open discussion like it once did. If we seem nicer, it's only because we succeed in keeping the people who ruffle our feathers from asking any questions. Once they do, people get cranky and threads start getting locked...much like this one probably will. And NOBODY was challenging Orthodox teaching. Not a single person.

To add my personal experience with OBOB...I got crabby at them a couple of weeks ago when they were discussing the Orthodox Church and passing off a lot of misinformation and speculation as fact. I pointed it out and did not get my head bit off. In fact, someone repped me!

Click to expand...

That's interesting that that is your perception. I found when I first started posting at CF that TAW was quite unapproachable, with people freaking out at the slightest indication that non-Orthodox disagreed, when they were really being conversational. And I find people a lot easier now. But you may be right that it is a bit stuffy - maybe that was part of the problem in that other thread.

I got too cranky to post at OBOB a while ago so I just stopped even reading over there..

Photini said:

Also, and this is off the top of my head. Perhaps the two are not imcompatible, but it seems to me that the belief in indulgences could get in the way of Orthodox theology dealing with the Uncreated Energies of God.

Click to expand...

From listening to my bishop speak a few months ago on the differences between the western approach and the Orthodox approach, he said the two approaches speak different languages which are incompatible with each other. I understand this is just 1 bishop speaking.