The Orthodox Catholic Faith

Hello, thank you, blessed feast of the Nativity to you, too.

I have seen that some orthodox people keep icons with the sacred heart even though they do not believe in its theology, before.First, I would ask you what your reason is to keep it.Is it because of emotional reasons, do you like the art, does it remind you of a deceased person, etc.Could it harm you later to keep it in any way when you look at your reason?

I am no priest (and maybe you should better ask your priest about it (and who maybe also has baptised you and knows about your conversion story)) but I believe that if it does not spiritually or emotionally influence you in a bad way it would not be very harmful to keep it. (There would be worse things to keep when one converts from other religions.)

If you decide to get rid of it, and you are not able to give it to someone else, you would still have to burn it (I guess) because it is a depiction of Christ.

To be honest with you, I’d find a way to contact a Priest, preferably at one of these churches. I don’t know exactly how inaccessible these churches are, but he might know someone who could offer you a lift every now and then. And likewise, if it comes down to it, he may provide advice as to whether or not you can go to an Oriental church.

Whether or not you should go to an Oriental church is not in my authority to advise. I don’t know your spiritual state or how well versed you are in the theology and differences between the churches. Close as we are to our Oriental brethren, and desperate as we are to reunite, we’re still separate churches. This is definitely something you’ll need to be in correspondence with an Orthodox (Eastern) priest for. 

I really hope that helps. God bless!

Purgatory is an interesting question because we don’t outright reject the concept, but rather the understanding of it as put forth by the Roman Church. We believe that there is an intermediate state after one’s death prior to their entry into “heaven” or “hell”, and this state corresponds to the spiritual state of their soul. This can be suffering, joy, a form of purification, etc. There is no question that a temporal suffering may occur after one’s death, it’s merely a question of whether or not the purgatorial fire is an existential experience of one’s soul or an actual created fire designed for the purpose to painful purification. 

In the end, everyone goes through the consequence of their spiritual state. A spiritual state which brings one to sin bears the consequence of death/suffering, while repentance and love obviously translate into joy and life. When Christ speaks of not leaving until the last farthing is repaid, he is speaking of this natural consequence of our state.

Hope this explains it. God bless!

Good question, and it's not as cut and dried as many people think. The body is sacred, so we need to consider these questions from a thoroughly Christian point of view. My view is that it is okay to give blood, but never okay to sell it. The life of the human person flows through our blood. That's why we drink the blood of Christ and refuse to drink the blood of animals. It's not a commodity, but it can be a gift.

As for organs, I believe that it is okay to donate organs, but (and this is controversial) not the heart. Our hearts are not just a tool for pumping blood. When the Scripture and the Fathers speak of the mind descending into the heart, when they speak of the prayer of the heart, when they speak of our heart being hardened or softened, they're not just speaking metaphorically. There is a profound reality that underpins these statements. 

There are many, many stories of people who have undergone significant personality changes after a heart transplant. The scientific community presently dismisses such experiences because "we know that our personalities are in our brains." Well, they aren't. They emerge from the complex interface of soul and body that acquires a focal point in our heart. The brain is a tool of the mind.

Hello!

This is not permissible behavior in the Orthodox Church. I think it's reasonable to assume that among thousands of Orthodox Churches in the United States, some would have a "discipline problem". Most Churches generally do not have such behavior except among a few parishioners, and from an official Orthodox perspective, none of these behaviors are condoned. 

Comparing this to the Novus Ordo is a bit difficult, because this isn't something that is encouraged or allowed by the Episcopate. I wont say anything about the liturgical abuses connected to the Novus Ordo, because I realize that many of these are also done against the will of Roman Catholic leadership. 

However, do know that this is highly anomalous. Most Churches will be much more serious, and you may find such differences based on the ethnicity of a parish as well. 

God bless you both, and I pray your experiences with Churches improve in the future.

In Christ,

Hi Anon,

It is a common feature of modern Orthodox polemics to argue that "original sin" is a major difference between Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology. However, this polemic only appeared in the last few decades and does not feature at all in the writings of St. Gregory Palamas or St. Mark of Ephesus, who actually speak of original sin. The Catholic Church does not teach that guilt is imputed to infants. Instead, it teaches that original sin is the "deprivation of sanctifying grace" that is restored at Baptism. Our only disagreement would be on the nature of grace (i.e. the dispute over the divine energies). We believe that infants are born without the Holy Spirit that was given to Adam in Genesis 2:7 and given to the Church at Pentecost. Consequently, they must be baptized and chrismated (we chrismate infants, following the ancient tradition of East and West). I highly recommend Nathaniel McCallum's needed corrective on this issue:

Hi Anon,

The fires of hell that burn the wicked are the same fires that glorify the righteous. Consider that in Isaiah 6, the Prophet is constituted as a prophet when the seraph takes a flaming coal from the altar and puts it in his mouth. As with Moses in Exodus 33-34, the fire of God’s glory lights up the righteous and brightens them. Yet it is the same fire from the altar that kills Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10 when they bring false worship into the Tabernacle. St. John tells us in his Apocalypse (Revelation 14:10) that the wicked will be burned in the presence of the Lamb. Yet later in the book, he tells us that they are outside the holy city (Revelation 21:27). These are two perspectives on the same truth.

St. Paul tells us, quoting the Prophets, that “our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29). That fire will soak all creation. It will burn away the chaff and glorify those who have been united with Christ. This is to say what St. John tells us in the Gospel:(John 3:19-20)  And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

We have been given this life for repentance, as St. Isaac the Syrian says. If we take advantage of it, we will be prepared for the day when the Lord fills all things with Himself. But if we spend our days frivolously, turning inward towards ourselves, rather than outwards towards the Lord and towards others, we will be radically unprepared for the day when there is nowhere else to turn but to the other. If we despise turning away from ourselves, then how much more will we despise that Day!

Hi Anon!

The case against the Immaculate Conception rests not on the idea that Mary's choice at the Annunciation would have been diminished (or not that alone), but rather on the implications of such a teaching for Mary's status as prototype of all Christians. The Theotokos is a symbol of the Church. That is why our priests often have an icon of the Theotokos on the back of their vestments- it represents their service to the Holy Church. That's why in Revelation 12, St. John uses the figure of the Blessed Virgin to represent God's work for the Church. Christ is the source of our life, and the Church is the one who receives the life of Christ. The Theotokos is, as Lossky says, the first human hypostasis (Christ is a divine hypostasis who has assumed a human nature) in whom the whole purpose of God is fulfilled, and is thus a prototype for the Church, the goal and summation of all creation.

But if the Theotokos is saved in a way that is different from other Christians, then her role as proof of Christ's promise of redemption for those born in sin is nullified.

No, that's not against fasting at all. The purpose of fasting is not to refrain from something harmful, as if it were food that was spiritually poisonous; rather, fasting, when properly practiced, helps us to practice denying our own desires - even desires as primal as hunger - so that, when we are faced with our evil, passionate desires, we are accustomed to ignoring those voices. Fasting has always been seen as critical in this struggle against the passions. Significantly to your question, even Christ himself fasted, during his forty days in the desert; if God Incarnate fasted, who are we to think that we do not need fasting? Jesus also taught us how we should behave while we are fasting (Matt. 6:16-18); elsewhere, when Christ's critics asked him why his disciples were not fasting, replied that they would fast when he was gone (Mark 2:18-20).

Hi Anonymous,

I find that many find these difficulties, though they are simple enough to think through.

1) This Catholic teaching is a modern invention, if the Catholic Church recognise the Sacraments of the Orthodox then how can recieving these Sacraments damn someone to Hell? Logically speaking, if you already “fully believe all that Orthodoxy teaches” are you not straying from the Catholic faith already by rejecting the Immaculate conception, Filioque and other modern Catholic fantasies? There can be no damnation by following the Apostolic Faith as Christ taught that "the gates of hell would not prevail" over the Apostolic Church, so I would not panic about this.

2) I would not worry about this, as the Orthodox are also in commmunion with ‘The Rock’ as he was first at Antioch and not Rome (just look at the Bible.) Antioch is a Petrine See and has always been so. Nowhere outside of Rome is it taught that Rome as a See is "the Rock of the Faith’, simply that Peter was. Do not let ahistorical and Heterodox Latin fantasies like this scare you again.

It seems like you are Theologically very tied to the Orthodox ut kept in Rome through their intricate forms of fearmongering, which says more about them than it does about your views. Just attend some Orthodox Liturgies and speak to Local clergy (Avoid online forums as they are no help at these times) who will put things into perspective for you and will help you find your way.

In Xti,