Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception [Archive]

Marjorie

18th May 2005, 11:45 PM

In reference to Purgatory, you were entirely correct in noting that Orthodoxy allows for purification after death, and even the help of prayers for this (though prayers for the dead do not necessarily correlate to helping those dead in purification.) What Orthodoxy rejects is the common Catholic rationale for this, which has to do with a different theological language basically. Catholic theologians generally say that after mortal sins are forgiven, a 'temporal punishment' remains to be expiated, which can only be done through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and the Blessed Virgin and the saints, etc.

Orthodoxy, coming from a different background, just sees this outlook as needlessly mechanical. We do not necessarily see the need of the insistence on the temporal punishment remaining after forgiveness, and the idea of 'superabundant merits' sounds strange and almost dangerous to Orthodox (though I wouldn't say heretical.) This hints at the actual difference here: that Orthodoxy, non-Scholastic, does not define itself in such terms, does not see the need for such philosophical categories. There is a different theological 'feel' in Orthodoxy of Divine Mystery.

The same thing happens with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. We too love the Blessed Virgin and call her all-holy and immaculate, but we simply do not define original sin in the same way. The idea of God removing from a certain soul a specific 'stain,' but not the consequences of the Fall such as sickness and suffering and death is contrary to Orthodoxy simply because we see the consequences of the Fall as original sin itself. So the only stain to remove *is* those things which Catholics (despite what many anti-Catholics might think) do not think Mary was absolved from. Orthodox also have a very strong tradition of seeing Mary as the face of the Church, "the eschatological icon" of the Church as the Catholic Catechism rightly points out. We see Mary as the great example, the root of Jesse from which Christ flowered forth. She is Creation itself, joined to Christ and made holy through Him... she IS the Church, the first Christian, the Christian par excellence. To say that the Theotokos was in some sense separated from our fallen existence seems wrong to us because of this. This also is connected to some extent with the difference in the Western and Eastern approaches to Marian devotion... this is a matter of emphasis, not dogmatics, but the West tends to view Mary primarily as the Blessed Virgin whilst the East tends to view Mary primarily as Theotokos, i.e. the Birthgiver-of-God. This is also why it is very rare to see an icon of Mary where she is without Christ (the Annunciation icon being an exception.) We see her primarily as the "unwedded bride" who was joined forever with God, thereby mystically representing us who are joined to God eternally.

So anyway what all this is adding up to is that (at least in my opinion) it's not the doctrine of purgatory or the doctrine of the IC and so on that makes Catholicism 'heterodox,' but simply the fact that Catholicism and Orthodoxy have very different worldviews. It's not a matter of East and West... the Western Fathers always had a slightly different approach but it was never the kind of chasm that exists now and has existed for almost a millenium now. It's been happening pretty much since Anselm, in our opinions. Orthodoxy places a great deal of stock on phronema, worldview, on the very way and method by which we think and live...

In our view, Catholicism's heterodoxy is not found in these doctrines per se but in the strange way that the correct beliefs are interpreted within the Catholic Church. It's not that Purgatory is heterodox; it's that the very true doctrine of purification after death in Catholicism is interpreted in a theological language very foreign to Orthodoxy. It's not that the IC is heterodox; it's that the very true doctrine of the purity of the Mother of God in Catholicism is interpreted in a theological language very foreign to Orthodoxy.

None of this, of course, proves Orthodoxy right or Catholicism wrong. One could just as easily use all of this, as Scott Hahn does briefly in Rome Sweet Home, to dismiss Orthodoxy as stagnant while Catholicism found better and more accurate ways of explaining doctrine.

I hope this answers your questions and you did not view this simply as a mindless dismissal of Catholic doctrine... I really do love Catholicism itself and my Catholic brothers and sisters. :hug:

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Rilian

18th May 2005, 11:47 PM

Life after death - Particular judgment as a foretaste of heaven and hell before the universal judgment. There is no dogma surrounding this state or what takes place there.

Conception of the Theotokos - Announced by angels, aged parents, brought salvation to the world. Conceived as we are with the same nature.

Rilian

18th May 2005, 11:51 PM

the idea of 'superabundant merits' sounds strange and almost dangerous to Orthodox (though I wouldn't say heretical.)

Superabundant merits and Supererogatory works both underlie critical aspects of the Latin dogmas of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. They don't just sound dangerous, they are heterical.

sin_vladimirov

18th May 2005, 11:52 PM

What is the Greek rendering of this verse? (The English translation of the Greek rendering, that is. ;) )
Greg

Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, on account of which all have sinned (ONT V. 12.)

PS I was never here.;)

Marjorie

18th May 2005, 11:54 PM

Superabundant merits and Supererogatory works both underlie critical aspects of the Latin dogmas of Purgatory and the Immaculate Conception. They don't just sound dangerous, they are heterical.

That may well be; forgive me if I have misrepresented the Orthodox position...

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

18th May 2005, 11:55 PM

Marjorie,

I have to admit that you lost me a couple times here in this post...but that's probably my fault.

;)

At any rate!

What I almost hear you saying is something I posted in another thread:

Well, and see, that's one of a handful of key differences that, in my opinion, are not conflicting but complementary between East and West. While the West has a penchant for words, the east prefers deeds.

When you use a lot of words to explain any aspect of the faith, there ends up existing a fine line sometimes between penetrating the mystery and, well, "verbal diarrhea", or overkill. Verbally penetrating any mystery more deeply than we knew it before, generally helps us to appeciate and live it out better. However, we can also overdo it and put too much emphasis on verbalizing and not enough on simply living it and appreciating it for what it is - mystery.

I strongly suspect this is where the East's argument comes in. Note that they believe in something very, very similar to the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory (if not the exact same things) and yet these beliefs dont even seem to have "names". Why not? Because they're the East and they don't like verbalizing this stuff any more than they have to. (Which, I myself happen to appreciate. But there comes a point, just the same, at which...Ya know?)

Anyway...

How does that sound to you?

Greg

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:01 AM

I think you definitely are on to something there... I don't know if it is an aversion to words as much as an aversion to categorization, though. It ultimately stems from the differences between apophatic and cataphatic theology, IMO... as the cornerstone of Orthodox theology is that God is not known rationally but only through direct experience and communion, often we are wary of pointing at something and saying "that's what it is..." simply because we're more comfortable saying what things are *not* and then experiencing the reality thereof which words themselves cannot describe. In fact pretty much all differences in Orthodox and Catholic theology and practice (as theology IS practice and practice IS theology and there's no way to separate them) can in some way be boiled down to this difference in how God is viewed.

I'm sorry that I lost you! I often get tangled up in my own thoughts and become incoherent. If you want clarification on any point I'll try to help.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 12:05 AM

Therefore, even as through one man sin entered into world, and death through sin, and thus death passed to all men, on account of which all have sinned (ONT V. 12.)

PS I was never here.;)

:) Ok.

Matrona,

(Since Vladi is not here...)

The RSV: Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned --

I'm not seeing any qualitative difference...?

Greg

StChristopherofPalestine

19th May 2005, 12:08 AM

Matrona

19th May 2005, 12:09 AM

Here's a cool article on Original Sin: http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/frjr_sin.aspx

Also, I just got through reading Clark Carlton's The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church. He has a bit of an "attitude" but it is a really nice and simple overview on how and why Roman Catholic teachings are not compatible with Orthodox doctrine. If I were independently wealthy, I would send a free copy to anyone who wanted one. I like the part where Carlton needles Scott Hahn's Rome Sweet Home. (I mean, Hahn spent two paragraphs on us, and referred to Fr. Peter Gillquist as "Peter Gilquist [sic]"--how disrespectful!)

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:11 AM

I'm not seeing any qualitative difference...?

Greg

I believe the difference is that the Greek version implies that since all die, all sin... whereas the other versions imply that since all have sinned, all die...

Yet even taking the RSV quote there, I don't find it a problem if it is understood correctly.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:12 AM

We do not believe in the Immaculate Conception. That doctrine takes away the glory from the Theotokos by saying she was made sinless, not that she strived for it. St. John Maximovitch covers this in his book "The Orthodox Veneration of Mary the Birthgiver of God."

Exactly, it cuts at the very heart of what she achieved and it is built on a faulty understanding of the Fall.

Purgatory is not just a minor difference, this article (http://www.stjohndc.org/russian/orthhtrdx/e_P09.htm) describes the difference well.

I wonder why if Catholics think we believe the same things they took five pages to slam us over the Filioque. That seems odd to me.

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:14 AM

This link (http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.05.htm) as well has a good summary of the refutation of the Latin doctrine of Purgatory by St. Mark Eugenikos at the pseudo-council of Florence.

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:15 AM

Is St. Mark Eugenikos the same as St. Mark of Ephesus?

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:18 AM

He is Marjorie. Along with St. Photios the Great and St. Gregory Palamas he is one of the three latter day pillars of Orthodoxy.

InnerPhyre

19th May 2005, 12:18 AM

Interesting info. I've enjoyed reading these responses. One thing that should be noted though, is that purgatory isn't something that's well defined. There's been a lot of speculation about it with temporal punishment and what not, but all that's required for us to believe is that it exists, and it's a way of purifying us if we are not ready to enter heaven. The way I understand purgatory is this (several priests have told me this is an accurate understanding). We cannot sin in heaven, but nomatter how holy we become here on earth, the vast majority of us still stumble and miss the mark daily. Purgatory is the process by which we are finally rid of any of that last bit of sinful imperfection that will allow us to experience God completely in heaven. This cleansing may be a painful process. I don't know.

sin_vladimirov

19th May 2005, 12:20 AM

Is St. Mark Eugenikos the same as St. Mark of Ephesus?

In IC XC,
Marjorie

:thumbsup:

http://www.ephesus.com/Orthodox/St.Mark-of-Ephesus.txt

:cool:

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 12:21 AM

Catholic rationale for this, which has to do with a different theological language basically. Catholic theologians generally say that after mortal sins are forgiven, a 'temporal punishment' remains to be expiated, which can only be done through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and the Blessed Virgin and the saints, etc.

I’m not sure of which theologians you might be referencing, but here is what the Catechism says:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609

The punishments of sin

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."84

I myself am not seeing any qualitative difference at this point between Eastern and Western perspectives.

You (or anybody else)?

Greg

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:24 AM

One thing that should be noted though, is that purgatory isn't something that's well defined.

It was in the past, in several councils. Here's what New Advent says (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm). I'm sure that will elicit a "that's not what the catechism says", but the catechism has completely watered this teaching down. That's not good either in my book. If something is an eternal truth, it's an eternal truth.

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:26 AM

They have left the un Orthodox idea of temporal punishment in.

InnerPhyre

19th May 2005, 12:29 AM

It was in the past, in several councils. Here's what New Advent says (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm). I'm sure that will elicit a "that's not what the catechism says", but the catechism has completely watered this teaching down. That's not good either in my book. If something is an eternal truth, it's an eternal truth.

Yes yes we're not moving closer to you. We're moving away etc. I know :)

Matrona

19th May 2005, 12:32 AM

I'm not seeing any qualitative difference...?

Latin Vulgate: "As sin came into the world through one man in whom [in quo] all men sinned, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men."

Greek NT: "As sin came into the world through one man, and through sin, death, so death spread to all men, because of which [eph ho] all men sinned".

(Props to my CT professor from this past semester. I know I complained a lot about his "Western Captivity," but quoting him makes me look smart.)

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:34 AM

Mike (InnerPhyre) is correct in that there is a lot of room in the doctrine of Purgatory for opposing the rationale which I summarized... however, it is traditionally the Catholic doctrine, as explained by the Catholic Encyclopedia:

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wis. x, 2), but still condemned him "to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow" until he returned unto dust. God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the "land of promise" (Num., xx, 12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (II Kings, xii, 13, 14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matt., iii, 8; Luke, xvii, 3; iii, 3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15030c.htm) (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm).

Of course this is very much connected with the Catholic view of indulgences and superabudant merits and so on, which is summed up well by the Baltimore Catechism here (http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/faith/bc3-21.htm).

So while it may be possible (as far as I know) to be Catholic and reject the 'sins forgiven but temporal punishment remains' and 'superabundant merits of Christ and Mary and the saints can be applied to those in Purgatory,' it is part of the Catholic tradition which Orthodoxy rejects.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:35 AM

Gosh darn it, Rilian, you beat me to New Advent. :P

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:35 AM

Yes yes we're not moving closer to you. We're moving away etc. I know :)

Let me put it this way, and please be patient with me.

The catechism has greatly simplified this doctrine, and yes it is more in line with our view. What we're saying is this was not what the RCC historically taught. Papal agents were not our selling indulgences for a fuzzy, poorly defined place where "something, we're not sure what" goes on. The Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy were not arguing against something they found acceptable. They were not idiots.

So the thread will go like this. We'll go over all the historical stuff and explain what the difference is and in the end most likely the result will be "well the catechism says this and it sounds the same, so we believe the same thing".

We don't though. Either what the RCC taught in the 15th century is true, or suddenly it's not true. Either way I don't see any common ground. The old doctrine was wrong, and if it has been changed, what does that say about dogma in the RCC? Either way, we're on different tracks.

I'm sorry to be a pain, but it's true.

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:36 AM

Gosh darn it, Rilian, you beat me to New Advent. :P

In IC XC,
Marjorie

It's one of my favorite reference sites.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 12:37 AM

They have left the un Orthodox idea of temporal punishment in.

Base on what I've posted above from the Catechism, how is the Catholic idea of temporal punishment different from the Orthodox view of the same issue?

Greg

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:39 AM

I really don't see any problem with what is said in the 1994 Catechism, but I agree with Rilian; it's somewhat diluted from what traditionally has been held by the Catholic Church.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Rilian

19th May 2005, 12:41 AM

Base on what I've posted above from the Catechism, how is the Catholic idea of temporal punishment different from the Orthodox view of the same issue?

Greg

We don't believe God is actively punishing people somewhere to stip off their sins. We don't believe we can buy indulgences to mitigate their suffering.

podriscoll

19th May 2005, 12:43 AM

Catholic theologians generally say that after mortal sins are forgiven, a 'temporal punishment' remains to be expiated, which can only be done through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and the Blessed Virgin and the saints, etc.

That is not entirly correct Catholic dogma does not require any temporal punishment After forgivness, but it does require temporal punishment for Non Mortal or Vienal sins

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:46 AM

That is not entirly correct Catholic dogma does not require any temporal punishment After forgivness, but it does require temporal punishment for Non Mortal or Vienal sins

Well, apparently what I said is believed by some Catholics at least, as New Advent says that "temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God."

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Matrona

19th May 2005, 12:48 AM

I'm uncomfortable with the general concept of going back on doctrine/dogma, period. Shouldn't teachings become more defined as time goes on, not less defined?

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:50 AM

I'm uncomfortable with the general concept of going back on doctrine/dogma, period.

Oh, me too, I was just saying that what was written in the '94 version, if someone were to hand it to me without me knowing the 2000-year old history of the Catholic Church, wouldn't seem too off to me.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 12:55 AM

Let me put it this way, and please be patient with me.

The catechism has greatly simplified this doctrine, and yes it is more in line with our view. What we're saying is this was not what the RCC historically taught. Papal agents were not our selling indulgences for a fuzzy, poorly defined place where "something, we're not sure what" goes on. The Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy were not arguing against something they found acceptable. They were not idiots.

So the thread will go like this. We'll go over all the historical stuff and explain what the difference is and in the end most likely the result will be "well the catechism says this and it sounds the same, so we believe the same thing".

We don't though. Either what the RCC taught in the 15th century is true, or suddenly it's not true. Either way I don't see any common ground. The old doctrine was wrong, and if it has been changed, what does that say about dogma in the RCC? Either way, we're on different tracks.

I'm sorry to be a pain, but it's true.

Rilian,

Whether or not Catholics and Orthodox fully agree on the state if purification of souls after death remains, in this thread, to be seen. What I would offer for your consideration in the meantime is the following:

Just because Orthodox fathers have disputed something and Orthodox fathers are intelligent doesn't automatically guarantee that those fathers really understood what it was they were attmepting to controvert in the first place. (Which is not a reference to intelligence level but to cultural differences.) Nor does it guarantee that the doctrine of Purgatory has always been represented with full accuracy. As Im sure you well know, the faith itself is one thing. How any of us represent sit to another can be something entirely different.

Case in point - The selling of indulgences. A serious sin, but one which all too many celrics engaged in back in the day, misrepresenting the truth about Purgatory and how it's not a place you can "buy" your way out of.

Further more, as you also know, truth is not black and white, but hierarchical. To place all of everything that's ever been taught, said about and speculated on Purgatory and throw it al into one bin and then come back and say, "Oh, you're denying some of that now? Tsk, tsk." is entirely unfair and disingenuous.

I would encourage you to make sure of two things:

1) When you reference Catholic teaching on Purgatory, you are referencing official Catholic teaching and not the speculation of anyone, including an encyclopedia.

and

2) That you make sure you really are "translating" that teaching correctly and not misunderstanding what's really being said.

As you yourself said, "The Catechism makes it look like we believe the same thing..."

Well....Wouldn't that just be something if, in fact...

And that is exactly what I am attempting to establish in this thread.

Peace to you,

Greg

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 12:56 AM

But just to keep this in focus somewhat, again, it's not so much that Catholicism says 'temporal punishment' and Orthodoxy doesn't; it's the differing worldviews that produce differences like these... from the Orthodox point of view this is not just theological diversity (there is legitimate theological diversity within Orthodoxy itself, more than in Catholicism because it's not as centralized) but an actual departure from the 'mind of Christ'... Orthodoxy doesn't view the patristic worldview as a product of any culture but as a gift of the Holy Spirit... the Holy Spirit working through our minds and words. We're very conscious of this so for us the completely different mindset of the Catholic Church is the single largest obstacle to union... not just singular issues like purgatory or the IC, etc., which can be viewed largely as symptomatic of a larger problem.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:00 AM

We don't believe God is actively punishing people somewhere to stip off their sins.

You obviously havent read what the Catechism says yet. :(

We don't believe we can buy indulgences to mitigate their suffering.

Already addressed.

Greg

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:01 AM

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:04 AM

sin_vladimirov

19th May 2005, 01:05 AM

They speak Latin.... thats enough...

I mean who wants to speak Latin when those who were Latin (Romans) spoke greek?:doh:

(Joke)

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:10 AM

:doh:

lol

Ok....Step by step...

Are you saying that Orthodoxy does not believe in "temporal punishment" for sins?

Greg

hahaha. I'm sorry.

'Temporal punishment' is a term we wouldn't use. We don't view it as punishment, really, and we don't see it as something that necessitates God's justice and satisfaction exercized in a temporary period. We don't really know what happens at all after death, but yes we would generally say that there is purification after death... "God is a consuming fire" and between death and the Last Day many will be purified by this fire so that they can love Him more perfectly... but it's just not a term we would use.

But my point in that post is that the specific term is *not* the point... but that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have very different mindsets which produce differences like these... there's a reason why Catholicism would say 'temporal punishment' and Orthodoxy would not... they are very different in the way they approach theology... and Orthodoxy views its theological mindset as something that is not optional. There is diversity within the Church, even different approaches (this is best seen in the early Church with the opposite schools of Alexandria and Antioch), but not a complete separation of worldview, because we see our theological worldview as inspired.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Matrona

19th May 2005, 01:19 AM

hahaha. I'm sorry.

'Temporal punishment' is a term we wouldn't use. We don't view it as punishment, really, and we don't see it as something that necessitates God's justice and satisfaction exercized in a temporary period. We don't really know what happens at all after death, but yes we would generally say that there is purification after death.

Theosis begins in this life, and theosis continues after death until we fully partake in the divine nature. The underlined part could be termed 'purification after death.' But personally, I prefer to avoid this term in order to be more exact, and to avoid leading people into mistakenly believing "Orthodox really believe in purgatory they just say they don't because they're schismatic weirdoes!"

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:22 AM

Theosis begins in this life, and theosis continues after death until we fully partake in the divine nature. The underlined part could be termed 'purification after death.' But personally, I prefer to avoid this term in order to be more exact, and to avoid leading people into mistakenly believing "Orthodox really believe in purgatory they just say they don't because they're schismatic weirdoes!"

Yes, Matrona is right. Theosis is our belief; "purification after death" is only how it could be explained technically.

In essence the belief is that there is no reason that our relations with God and our journey towards becoming truly deified and should end after death, as "death is swallowed up in victory"... just as we are purified in life, then we are purified in death, because the Kingdom of God is here on earth, and it is more truly with us when we have parted, and it will be finally here when our bodies and souls are rejoined in resurrection...

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:24 AM

'Temporal punishment' is a term we wouldn't use. We don't view it as punishment, really, and we don't see it as something that necessitates God's justice and satisfaction exercized in a temporary period. We don't really know what happens at all after death, but yes we would generally say that there is purification after death... "God is a consuming fire" and between death and the Last Day many will be purified by this fire so that they can love Him more perfectly... but it's just not a term we would use.

You would not use the term itself, but the concept of the necessity of detaching from sin (which doesn't happen just out of nowhere but through prayer and suffering [1 Peter 4:1]) is true. And that if we do not do this completely in this life, it happens in the next. Right?

But my point in that post is that the specific term is *not* the point... but that Orthodoxy and Catholicism have very different mindsets which produce differences like these... there's a reason why Catholicism would say 'temporal punishment' and Orthodoxy would not... they are very different in the way they approach theology... and Orthodoxy views its theological mindset as something that is not optional. There is diversity within the Church, even different approaches (this is best seen in the early Church with the opposite schools of Alexandria and Antioch), but not a complete separation of worldview, because we see our theological worldview as inspired.

Very enlightening.

And therein does lie the very overcomeable problem between East and West. The West recognizes (now; we too had our problems with this in the past) that someone from Russia is no more superior as a human being than someone in China. We recognize that someone saying "Wie shoen ist es heute!" (German for "How beautiful it is today") and someone else saying, "What a beautiful day it is today!" are not, in fact, two different things, but the same exact thing being expressed using different languages.

The Jews thought theirs was the only way of correctly seeing the world as well, Hebrew the only divinely inspired language...and yet somehow the OT got translated into Greek...;)

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:30 AM

Theosis begins in this life, and theosis continues after death until we fully partake in the divine nature.

And does theosis include actively growing in holiness after death or does it only signify being purified of any attachments to sin that we still have at that point?

Greg

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:33 AM

Very enlightening.

And therein does lie the very overcomeable problem between East and West. The West recognizes (now; we too had our problems with this in the past) that someone from Russia is no more superior as a human being than someone in China. We recognize that someone saying "Wie shoen ist es heute!" (German for "How beautiful it is today") and someone else saying, "What a beautiful day it is today!" are not, in fact, two different things, but the same exact thing being expressed using different languages.

The Jews thought theirs was the only way of correctly seeing the world as well, Hebrew the only divinely inspired language...and yet somehow the OT got translated into Greek...;)

But here's the thing... there's a difference between cultural diversity and actual theological break. There is theological diversity in the Orthodox Church, even many different theological dialects, so to speak. It was the same in the early Church. The obvious example is the difference between the Fathers of the Antiochian School and those of the Alexandrian School. They tended to emphasize different things and would approach the problems in different ways. But the difference between these two Schools was not anywhere near as drastic as the separation that exists between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches today. They were still united in the same basic phronema-- the patristic phronema, the 'mind of Christ.' After 1054 I think there was still a lot of room to reunite even with the papal issue, but by the time of, say, Thomas Aquinas (or even Anselm earlier than this) this is not true. What the Orthodox see here is a break from the way of viewing God and the world given to the world by Christ. It is not just a matter of saying things differently or emphasizing different things, but God is thought of in a profoundly different way, as is Christ, as is the world God created... it's hard to explain, but reading the writings of the earlier Church and those of the Scholastics makes it apparent. It's a paradigm shift. So I do think there is a serious barrier between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

THAT BEING SAID, I do hope for reunion. And shame on us if we don't at least try for it. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon said that hoping for the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism was to hope for something akin to turning water into wine-- but we do have a precedent there to give us hope. :D

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:33 AM

And does theosis include actively growing in holiness after death or does it only signify being purified of any attachments to sin that we still have at that point?

Greg

Both, and more too.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

Marjorie

19th May 2005, 01:40 AM

I need to go to bed, but thanks for an interesting thread, Greg, and I hope we provided a new perspective...

God bless you! :hug:

In IC XC,
Marjorie

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:43 AM

But here's the thing... there's a difference between cultural diversity and actual theological break.

Yes, I agree.

There is theological diversity in the Orthodox Church, even many different theological dialects, so to speak. It was the same in the early Church. The obvious example is the difference between the Fathers of the Antiochian School and those of the Alexandrian School. They tended to emphasize different things and would approach the problems in different ways. But the difference between these two Schools was not anywhere near as drastic as the separation that exists between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches today. They were still united in the same basic phronema-- the patristic phronema, the 'mind of Christ.' After 1054 I think there was still a lot of room to reunite even with the papal issue, but by the time of, say, Thomas Aquinas (or even Anselm earlier than this) this is not true. What the Orthodox see here is a break from the way of viewing God and the world given to the world by Christ. It is not just a matter of saying things differently or emphasizing different things, but God is thought of in a profoundly different way, as is Christ, as is the world God created... it's hard to explain, but reading the writings of the earlier Church and those of the Scholastics makes it apparent. It's a paradigm shift.

There is a dramatic difference between the way a modern American and an Australian aborigene view the world too. And they are both fully and equally human.

I understand what you're getting at and, as indicated, agree with what you've said at the top. I just disagree with the notion that the differences in theological perspectives are as distincitve as to be abel to say that one is still in keeping with Orthodoxy and the other isn't. I mean, especially when the substance of two different things being said is the same thing...???

Anyway...

THAT BEING SAID, I do hope for reunion. And shame on us if we don't at least try for it. Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon said that hoping for the reunion of Orthodoxy and Catholicism was to hope for something akin to turning water into wine-- but we do have a precedent there to give us hope. :D

.....No comment.....lol

;)

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:44 AM

Both, and more too.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

So, it's Orthodox teaching that one can continue to grow in virtue after death?

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:50 AM

Another note-- one problem here in this discussion may also be a difference in how Orthodox and Catholics view theology. From the Orthodox point of view, it is ludicrous that one systematic way of thinking about a doctrine by the Church could somehow *not* be the official belief, because Orthodoxy views the entire Church's consensus over time as the method by which a belief can be assured-- "what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all." So for us it's not a matter of aligning with codified "the official belief" of some external authority, but of aligning with the faith which has been held historically by the Church. This might explain Orthodox inability to comprehend how Catholics can say that they reject all that was traditionally held of Purgatory because it was never codified as dogma.

Almost missed this one...

Yes, here is another difference. (Not insurrmountable.) While Orthodoxy moves vvvvveeeeerrrryyy sssslooooooowwwlly through theology ;) (which in plenty of cases can be a good thing), Catholicism tends to be more "swift" in its verbal fleshing out of theological concepts. This should explain our need as Catholics to say "But is that the official teaching of the Church?" while Orthodox come along and go, ":scratch: What do you mean? Is there a quesiton about that in the first place?"

This is important to keep in mind as you sift through Catholic writings and assert that "Well, so and so said such and such and he's Catholic, so..."

Greg

Matrona

19th May 2005, 01:54 AM

I hope this thread will continue on these same lines. Marjorie deserves major props. :thumbsup:

I was thinking about the changes in the purgatory doctrine and thought to myself, "Self, I know that Roman Catholics believe that their church has the power to 'bind and loose' stuff. That's why some things they thought were mortal sins in the past, aren't considered mortal sins anymore, and all of that. So, maybe that's how they justify making purgatory more vague." So, is it?

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:54 AM

Good night Marjorie.

Thanks for your help. See you tomorrow, God willing.

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 01:56 AM

I was thinking about the changes in the purgatory doctrine and thought to myself, "Self, I know that Roman Catholics believe that their church has the power to 'bind and loose' sins. That's why some things they thought were mortal sins in the past, aren't considered mortal sins anymore, and all of that. So, maybe that's how they justify making purgatory more vague." So, is it?

Speaking of vague...

:)

Could you be more specific for me, please?

Greg

Matrona

19th May 2005, 01:59 AM

Speaking of vague...

:)

Could you be more specific for me, please?

Greg

I guess what I'm asking is, do you (RC's) ascribe the change in the teaching on purgatory to your belief in your church's power to 'bind and loose'?

Sorry, I may be getting mixed up here, it's past 2:00 am and Matrona needs her beauty sleep... :)

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 02:02 AM

I guess what I'm asking is, do you (RC's) ascribe the change in the teaching on purgatory to your belief in your church's power to 'bind and loose'?

Sorry, I may be getting mixed up here, it's past 2:00 am and Matrona needs her beauty sleep... :)

*Greg :wave: from way over on the other side of the country where it's early yet.* ;)

Uuuuummmm.....Sorry, but what has changed in the Church's official teaching on Purgatory?

Greg

Matrona

19th May 2005, 02:03 AM

BTW, in my mind, "reunion" = Roman Catholics coming home to the Orthodox Church. The RC teaching on purgatory could not be considered a theologoumenon by the Orthodox.

Matrona

19th May 2005, 02:06 AM

*Greg :wave: from way over on the other side of the country where it's early yet.* ;)

Uuuuummmm.....Sorry, but what has changed in the Church's official teaching on Purgatory?

Greg

It became more vague.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 02:09 AM

BTW, in my mind, "reunion" = Roman Catholics coming home to the Orthodox Church. The RC teaching on purgatory could not be considered a theologoumenon by the Orthodox.

For clarity's sake, my definition of reunion is not Orthodox "coming home to the Roman Church" in the same way I think you mean "coming home to" above. Eastern Catholic Churches are already up and running and very much real. They must be quite the anomoly, in fact, to Orthodox who consider Catholicism to be heterodox insofar as they are Eastern "Orthodox" in every respect except that they submit to the authority of the Pope. This is all Orthodox reunion with Rome would entail, it seems to me. And we can get to the whole Papacy issue after we solve Purgatory and the Theotokos.

:thumbsup:

:)

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 02:10 AM

It became more vague.

Why do you say that? Where are you getting that idea?

Greg

Matrona

19th May 2005, 02:14 AM

Why do you say that? Where are you getting that idea?

The difference between RC teaching on purgatory in the 15th century and in the 1994 CCC. I was just wondering if that difference might be ascribed to 'the power to bind and loose'.

Matrona

19th May 2005, 02:24 AM

Eastern Catholic Churches are already up and running and very much real. They must be quite the anomoly, in fact, to Orthodox who consider Catholicism to be heterodox insofar as they are Eastern "Orthodox" in every respect except that they submit to the authority of the Pope. This is all Orthodox reunion with Rome would entail, it seems to me. And we can get to the whole Papacy issue after we solve Purgatory and the Theotokos.

My Christian Theology professor from this past semester is a Byzantine Catholic. He told me that he and other Byzantine Catholics do NOT believe in the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc., nor do they 'submit to the authority' of the pope, and that they believe in all the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox. He told me that they simply recognize Pope Benedict as a legitimate bishop and share communion with him, but that they most certainly do not believe in papal supremacy or infallibility. When I asked how they reconciled Roman Catholic doctrines with Orthodox doctrines in order to be in communion, he told me that the Byzantine Catholics simply "agree to disagree" with the Roman Catholics on the issues where doctrines differ.

[/threadjack]

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 02:41 AM

The difference between RC teaching on purgatory in the 15th century and in the 1994 CCC. I was just wondering if that difference might be ascribed to 'the power to bind and loose'.

Sorry, I'm still not sure of what is different about the two? Is there a link you can provide me with official Church teaching from the 15th century on this topic?

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 02:49 AM

My Christian Theology professor from this past semester is a Byzantine Catholic. He told me that he and other Byzantine Catholics do NOT believe in the immaculate conception, purgatory, etc., nor do they 'submit to the authority' of the pope, and that they believe in all the doctrines of the Eastern Orthodox. He told me that they simply recognize Pope Benedict as a legitimate bishop and share communion with him, but that they most certainly do not believe in papal supremacy or infallibility. When I asked how they reconciled Roman Catholic doctrines with Orthodox doctrines in order to be in communion, he told me that the Byzantine Catholics simply "agree to disagree" with the Roman Catholics on the issues where doctrines differ.

[/threadjack]

:scratch:

Was his last name "Blacksheep" by any chance? ;)

I'll I can say is that you'll find 'em in every bunch. Does the name Vladimir Soloviev ring any bells? He was distinctly Catholic as far as the substance of his faith went and yet canonically remained Orthodox throughout the entirety of his life.

Re-read your own words and tell me in what respect the man could be called "Catholic"?

And, in fact, encourage him to take that up with his local bishop. I'm sure His Grace would be quite interested in being informed of this. So would the archpriest pastor of my local Byzantine Catholic church. ;)

Greg

prodromos

19th May 2005, 04:39 AM

I posted this in the thread on OBOB and Greg asked if I would mind posting it here also (I hadn't seen this thread)

the Orthodox position on what happens after death, inasmuch as what has been revealed to us by God, is simply that we receive a foretaste of our final destiny, not that we go through a period of purification. Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.

It pleases God that we pray for one another because this can only increase the love that we have for each other and for God. This love we have for one another does not cease when somebody dies and we are certainly not told anywhere that our prayers for each other cease to move God to compassion and mercy when the ones we are praying for have died. Our prayers to God move Him to heal people both physically and spiritually in this life, and while those who have died are no longer able to change themselves, there is absolutely nothing restricting God from healing them in the next. There is no concept of indulgences or of the superabundant merits of Christ and the saints. It is simply our love and God's mercy.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John

Kolya

19th May 2005, 05:10 AM

Well said, John. Amen!

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 08:02 AM

Matrona,

The Council of Florence on Purgatory:

"If they have died repentant for their sins and having love of God, but have not made satisfaction for things they have done or omitted by fruits worthy of penance, then their souls, after death, are cleansed by the punishment of Purgatory...the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief from such punishment, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and almsgiving and other works of piety which, in accordance with the designation of the Church, are customarily offered by the faithful for each other."

The Council of Trent of Purgatory:

DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

The 1994 Catholic Catechism on Purgatory:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606

1032This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

= = = =

Where's the redaction?

(I must say, incidentally, that I had a much easier time finding decrees on what to do with people who cause spectacles in church - which I was not looking for - than what the Church teaches on Purgatory when it came to the Council of Florence.)

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 08:13 AM

the Orthodox position on what happens after death, inasmuch as what has been revealed to us by God, is simply that we receive a foretaste of our final destiny, not that we go through a period of purification. Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.

John, could you elaborate on what this means? I know that's exactly your point, that we dont know a lot about this state, but...anything? Any more details at all?

My first reaction to what you wrote was, :scratch: "Well, where the heck else are you going to be if you're dead and you're not in Heaven and not in Hell?" Though, after thinking about it for a moment, I recalled the fact that some Christians believe in something called "soulsleep" wherein they believe that one's soul literally sleeps after death until judgment day. But then, from what you wrote, I'm thinking that wouldn't be Orthodox teaching. Hence the query about being able to give me any more details on what you've said above.

You said we receive a "foretaste of our final destiny" right after death...What does that mean?

Peace (and thanks for posting this here),

Greg

Dust and Ashes

19th May 2005, 08:31 AM

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 08:40 AM

The Orthodox belief is that all enter the presence of God upon death and His presence is percieved differently depending upon the condition of one's soul. Someone who lived a pious, godly life will percieve Him as light and warmth, whereas someone who lived a life of selfishness, separated from Him will come to understand the scripture, "our God is a consuming fire."

This doesn't square with John's post. Which of the two is the Orthodox perspective? That we enter God's presence immediately after death, or we don't enter God's presence until later?

Greg

Dust and Ashes

19th May 2005, 08:47 AM

This doesn't square with John's post. Which of the two is the Orthodox perspective? That we enter God's presence immediately after death, or we don't enter God's presence until later?

Greg

I haven't studied this in detail but there is something about a period of time in passing from here into God's presence. Some refer to "tollhouses" but I'm not sure what/if is the "official" teaching regarding this. Sorry for the confusion.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 08:49 AM

I haven't studied this in detail but there is something about a period of sime in passing from here into God's presence. Some refer to "tollhouses" but I'm not sure what/if is the "official" teaching regarding this. Sorry for the confusion.

:cry:

:help:

lol

(Sorry, I was getting so excited there for a moment as I saw both sides converging...:sigh: )

Anybody else? Anybody??

;)

Greg

Dust and Ashes

19th May 2005, 08:53 AM

:cry:

:help:

lol

(Sorry, I was getting so excited there for a moment as I saw both sides converging...:sigh: )

Anybody else? Anybody??

;)

Greg

It seems to me from my very limited understanding of this issue that in Orthodox belief the "purgation" takes place during the passage from earth into God's presence rather than going from here to a place of purgation, then into God's presence.

Benedicta00

19th May 2005, 08:54 AM

Yes, Matrona is right. Theosis is our belief; "purification after death" is only how it could be explained technically.

In essence the belief is that there is no reason that our relations with God and our journey towards becoming truly deified and should end after death, as "death is swallowed up in victory"... just as we are purified in life, then we are purified in death, because the Kingdom of God is here on earth, and it is more truly with us when we have parted, and it will be finally here when our bodies and souls are rejoined in resurrection...

In IC XC,
Marjorie
That is exactly what we believe too. It hasn't been mentioned yet but purgatory is not per say about 'punishment' but about perfection the love you have for God.

I as a Catholic do not look at it has a strict 'punishment' but take no offence at it being called that, just as I don’t look at it any more than any of us would look at 'punishing' children when they misbehave for the sake of just making them pay for what they did.

On earth Catholics do use the term “making amends” for what we did, but not because there is a legalism, a evening the score involved. This is a time of grace, not justice. But by mending the damage we create with sin we advance the peace of the world, draw down grace by uniting ourselves with the sacrifice of Christ and convert hearts. It is the acting out evangelical love, love that saves and it’s that reparation for our sins that advance our own love of God.

The whole process of purgatory is theosis, it is a continuation of the work that has already begun in us here but the difference being, since we have died, we have been freed of the things of the world, Satan and our flesh- now all that we have left is the love we have of God, and what ever love there is, will be perfected. On earth, through suffering and penance, we can actually grow in love but in purgatory, we can only perfect what we have and after this perfection is completed, this will determine the 'amount' of glory we will share in heaven.

So it is only a 'punishment' in a lose term. It is perfection, 'burning' literal or figurative we don't know, the sin attachment in order to complete the process of theosis that has already begun.

In a way purgatory will be harder and easier. Easier because we no longer have the temptations of the world, Satan and the flesh. Harder because as told by some mystics that one day of suffering here isn’t anything compared to the suffering there.

I really don’t see this great difference between Orthodoxy and Catholics on this; it’s a matter of perspective and explaining.

I as a Catholic am in no way out of line looking at it the way you do. The east helps grasp and the west helps us grasp the mysteries as much as our poor brain can.

The problem I have with Orthodoxy is the excuse the term ‘prideful’ rejection that the west can bring something to the table in trying to put into words the unexplainable mysteries of God.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:01 AM

That is exactly what we believe too. It hasn't been mentioned yet but...

I was getting to that...:P

lol

(Wanted to flesh out the whole Orthodox perspective first and then compare and contrast later. *Whispers: Shhhh! No more revealing any secrets until the proper time!* :) )

(Well written post, I must say, though.)

Greg

Benedicta00

19th May 2005, 09:03 AM

It seems to me from my very limited understanding of this issue that in Orthodox belief the "purgation" takes place during the passage from earth into God's presence rather than going from here to a place of purgation, then into God's presence.
The Church has never defined 'where' purgatory is, if it is a place or a state of being. We do not know anything about the amount of time one will spend there too, if any. We say they are ‘in’ purgatory because we just do not have any other words to use.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:03 AM

It seems to me from my very limited understanding of this issue that in Orthodox belief the "purgation" takes place during the passage from earth into God's presence rather than going from here to a place of purgation, then into God's presence.

:scratch:

Anybody else? Confirm? Deny? Offer a different perspective altogether?

:help:

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:07 AM

Suggestion for the moderators:

Rename this thread "Purgatory" and then when we're done with it, I'll start a new one called "Immaculate Conception" and address our Lady there?

Greg

Rilian

19th May 2005, 09:08 AM

This is over several posts

Just because Orthodox fathers have disputed something and Orthodox fathers are intelligent doesn't automatically guarantee that those fathers really understood what it was they were attmepting to controvert in the first place. (Which is not a reference to intelligence level but to cultural differences.) Nor does it guarantee that the doctrine of Purgatory has always been represented with full accuracy. As Im sure you well know, the faith itself is one thing. How any of us represent sit to another can be something entirely different.

St. Mark of Eugenikos understood what was being explained to him. He rejected it. Two Orthodox councils since that time have condemned the Latin teaching of Purgatory.

I would encourage you to make sure of two things:

1) When you reference Catholic teaching on Purgatory, you are referencing official Catholic teaching and not the speculation of anyone, including an encyclopedia.

I have referenced the 94 CCC and the pertinent councils. New Advent just sums up the earlier statements. I’m glad to know New Advent can’t be trusted to accurately present Catholic doctrine. I will not reference it anymore.

As you yourself said, "The Catechism makes it look like we believe the same thing..."

That’s your paraphrase. I said “The catechism has greatly simplified this doctrine, and yes it is more in line with our view”. Those statements do not mean the same thing. What I meant is what I said, the 94 CCC has made changes to the wording.

They must be quite the anomoly, in fact, to Orthodox who consider Catholicism to be heterodox insofar as they are Eastern "Orthodox" in every respect except that they submit to the authority of the Pope.

This is totally false.

The Eastern Rite Catholics are not “Orthodox” in every respect. The most important respect is of course doctrine. By accepting the Unia they have assented to all beliefs of the western church. Shared communion is shared belief. Whether they word things differently or not is irrelevant. In praxis they vary, some maintaining traditions closer to where they came from than others. All have Latinizing incursions at some level.

This doesn't square with John's post. Which of the two is the Orthodox perspective? That we enter God's presence immediately after death, or we don't enter God's presence until later?

John said, ” Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.”

I have no idea where you’re seeing the conflict.

Rilian

19th May 2005, 09:09 AM

:scratch:

Anybody else? Confirm? Deny? Offer a different perspective altogether?

:help:

Greg

The point is there is no definitive dogma on this, there are different viewpoints about what may or may not happen.

icxn

19th May 2005, 09:13 AM

...
As you yourself said, "The Catechism makes it look like we believe the same thing..."

Well....Wouldn't that just be something if, in fact...

And that is exactly what I am attempting to establish in this thread.

Peace to you,

Greg

Hehe... this whole thread reminds me...

The Fox, the Cock and the Dog

One moonlight night a Fox was prowling about a farmer's
hen-coop, and saw a Cock roosting high up beyond his reach. "Good
news, good news!" he cried.

"Why, what is that?" said the Cock.

"King Lion has declared a universal truce. No beast may hurt
a bird henceforth, but all shall dwell together in brotherly
friendship."

"Why, that is good news," said the Cock; "and there I see some
one coming, with whom we can share the good tidings." And so
saying he craned his neck forward and looked afar off.

"What is it you see?" said the Fox.

"It is only my master's Dog that is coming towards us. What,
going so soon?" he continued, as the Fox began to turn away as
soon as he had heard the news. "Will you not stop and
congratulate the Dog on the reign of universal peace?"

"I would gladly do so," said the Fox, "but I fear he may not
have heard of King Lion's decree."

(Aesop fables)

... now where is that dog...

Rilian

19th May 2005, 09:17 AM

Where's the redaction?

For one it greatly reduces the idea that what we do on earth eases or shortens the suffering of those being punished by God in Purgatory to remove their sins. Florence says:

the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief from such punishment, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and almsgiving and other works of piety which, in accordance with the designation of the Church, are customarily offered by the faithful for each other.

Trent says:

But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

The 94 CCC says

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

A complete reduction in what is being said. Think the RCC is embarrassed by indulgences? I do.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:21 AM

St. Mark of Eugenikos understood what was being explained to him. He rejected it.

How do you know that for sure?

Two Orthodox councils since that time have condemned the Latin teaching of Purgatory.

Ibid. on what I said in my last post to you.

I have referenced the 94 CCC and the pertinent councils. New Advent just sums up the earlier statements. I’m glad to know New Advent can’t be trusted to accurately present Catholic doctrine. I will not reference it anymore.

Happy to know that all of here are trying our hardest to understand the others position and not come across in any way as presumptuous or condescending...:(

That’s your paraphrase. I said “The catechism has greatly simplified this doctrine, and yes it is more in line with our view”. Those statements do not mean the same thing. What I meant is what I said, the 94 CCC has made changes to the wording.

Sorry, I missed the part where the Catechism changed the Church's teaching on Purgatory from what was taught at Florence and Trent. They're one and the same teaching, no more, no less.

This is totally false.

The Eastern Rite Catholics are not “Orthodox” in every respect. The most important respect is of course doctrine. By accepting the Unia they have assented to all beliefs of the western church.

Which, I continue to maintain until proven otherwise, are the beliefs of the eastern Church, just couched in different language.

Whether they word things differently or not is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant to pay attention to the fact that when two people are using differnet words to mean the same thing, in spite of the fact that the words are different, they are still talking about the same thing.

In praxis they vary, some maintaining traditions closer to where they came from than others. All have Latinizing incursions at some level.

And you gather this from where?

John said, ” Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.”

I have no idea where you’re seeing the conflict.

The conflict is here:

John: the Orthodox position on what happens after death, inasmuch as what has been revealed to us by God, is simply that we receive a foretaste of our final destiny, not that we go through a period of purification. Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.

Forgivensinner: The Orthodox belief is that all enter the presence of God upon death and His presence is percieved differently depending upon the condition of one's soul. Someone who lived a pious, godly life will percieve Him as light and warmth, whereas someone who lived a life of selfishness, separated from Him will come to understand the scripture, "our God is a consuming fire."

See it now?

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:29 AM

Hehe... this whole thread reminds me...

The Fox, the Cock and the Dog

One moonlight night a Fox was prowling about a farmer's
hen-coop, and saw a Cock roosting high up beyond his reach. "Good
news, good news!" he cried.

"Why, what is that?" said the Cock.

"King Lion has declared a universal truce. No beast may hurt
a bird henceforth, but all shall dwell together in brotherly
friendship."

"Why, that is good news," said the Cock; "and there I see some
one coming, with whom we can share the good tidings." And so
saying he craned his neck forward and looked afar off.

"What is it you see?" said the Fox.

"It is only my master's Dog that is coming towards us. What,
going so soon?" he continued, as the Fox began to turn away as
soon as he had heard the news. "Will you not stop and
congratulate the Dog on the reign of universal peace?"

"I would gladly do so," said the Fox, "but I fear he may not
have heard of King Lion's decree."

(Aesop fables)

... now where is that dog...

I hope you're not suggesting what I think you're suggesting...

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 09:34 AM

For one it greatly reduces the idea that what we do on earth eases or shortens the suffering of those being punished by God in Purgatory to remove their sins. Florence says:

the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief from such punishment, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and almsgiving and other works of piety which, in accordance with the designation of the Church, are customarily offered by the faithful for each other.

Trent says:

But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).

The 94 CCC says

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

A complete reduction in what is being said. Think the RCC is embarrassed by indulgences? I do.

Rilian, you can think whatever you want. If you cannot maintain an charitable attitude in the process, however, I would respectfully request that you not post in this thread insofar as its purpose is to delineate the Orthodox position on "purgatory" as fully as is possible and to contrast that teaching with Catholic teaching on the matter to see if maybe, just maybe we brothers and sisters in the Lord dont actually fully agree on a key issue currently scandalously dividing East and West. The point of the thread is not to bash Catholics, to bash Orthodox, or to in any way demonstrate animosity between the two parties by way of presumptuos statements or any other means of ill will.

Please give this due consideration.

Greg

Rilian

19th May 2005, 09:46 AM

Happy to know that all of here are trying our hardest to understand the others position and not come across in any way as presumptuous or condescending...

We're explaining over and over what the differences are. You say they're not differences, just different ways of understanding the same thing. We disagree, you insinuate we don't really understand the arguments or that the saints and councils didn't understand. etc., etc.

That's condescending.

Sorry, I missed the part where the Catechism changed the Church's teaching on Purgatory from what was taught at Florence and Trent. They're one and the same teaching, no more, no less.

Then what you're saying seems to be at odds with what InneyPhyre said and what the CCC reads like to me. I agree the essentials are still there, which is why I'm still saying we don't believe the same thing. I'm glad we agree on that.

Which, I continue to maintain until proven otherwise, are the beliefs of the eastern Church, just couched in different language.

I have a suspicion you will continue to maintain your belief no matter what we say.

And you gather this from where?

The praxis through attending Eastern Rite liturgies. The assent to doctrine is obvious.

The conflict is here:

John: the Orthodox position on what happens after death, inasmuch as what has been revealed to us by God, is simply that we receive a foretaste of our final destiny, not that we go through a period of purification. Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.

Forgivensinner: The Orthodox belief is that all enter the presence of God upon death and His presence is percieved differently depending upon the condition of one's soul. Someone who lived a pious, godly life will percieve Him as light and warmth, whereas someone who lived a life of selfishness, separated from Him will come to understand the scripture, "our God is a consuming fire."

See it now?

Greg

What John said is probably more accurate.

Rilian

19th May 2005, 09:47 AM

icxn

19th May 2005, 09:49 AM

Rilian, you can think whatever you want. If you cannot maintain an charitable attitude in the process, however, I would respectfully request that you not post in this thread insofar as its purpose is to delineate the Orthodox position on "purgatory" as fully as is possible and to contrast that teaching with Catholic teaching on the matter to see if maybe, just maybe we brothers and sisters in the Lord dont actually fully agree on a key issue currently scandalously dividing East and West. The point of the thread is not to bash Catholics, to bash Orthodox, or to in any way demonstrate animosity between the two parties by way of presumptuos statements or any other means of ill will.

Please give this due consideration.

Greg

... Little Red Riding Hood, hearing the big voice of the wolf, was at first afraid; but believing her grandmother had a cold and was hoarse, answered, "It is your grandchild Little Red Riding Hood, who has brought you a cake and a little pot of butter mother sends you."

The wolf cried out to her, softening his voice as much as he could, "Pull the bobbin, and the latch will go up."

Little Red Riding Hood pulled the bobbin, and the door opened.

The wolf, seeing her come in, said to her, hiding himself under the bedclothes, "Put the cake and the little pot of butter upon the stool, and come get into bed with me."

Little Red Riding Hood took off her clothes and got into bed. She was greatly amazed to see how her grandmother looked in her nightclothes, and said to her, "Grandmother, what big arms you have!"

"All the better to hug you with, my dear."

"Grandmother, what big legs you have!"

"All the better to run with, my child."

"Grandmother, what big ears you have!"

"All the better to hear with, my child."

"Grandmother, what big eyes you have!"

"All the better to see with, my child."

"Grandmother, what big teeth you have got!"

"All the better to eat you up with."

And, saying these words, this wicked wolf fell upon Little Red Riding Hood, and ate her all up. :yum:

... good thing is only a fairy tale...

Alexis OCA

19th May 2005, 10:27 AM

ps139

19th May 2005, 10:30 AM

Think the RCC is embarrassed by indulgences? I do.
I'm embarassed as to how they were abused a few hundred years ago, but the Church never did away with them, and I am not embarassed by them at all.

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 10:37 AM

King,
If YOU want to debate, why not take it to a debate forum.

That's exactly my point, Alexis. I am not looking for a "debate", I'm looking for clarification of the Orthodox position. Hence, my post to Rilian.

Greg

Alexis OCA

19th May 2005, 10:45 AM

That's exactly my point, Alexis. I am not looking for a "debate", I'm looking for clarification of the Orthodox position. Hence, my post to Rilian.

Greg

Your post was rude to Rilian and you still have not answered my question. Something no Orthodox could get away with in OBOB (I speak from experience). You don't set the terms of the dicussions here just because the answers or the tone of the response don't suit you.

Eusebios

19th May 2005, 10:51 AM

[mod hat on] This is a reminder to All non EO posters. You are in the EO forum and therefore may not debate. Please do not even attempt to "stretch" the rules. Fellowship posts and genuine questions are fine, beyonhd that, you are skating on thin ice.[/hat]
Carry on in this light.
In Xp,
Eusebios-Modertor, The Ancient Way

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 10:54 AM

Your post was rude to Rilian

I'm very sorry (not to mention very perplexed) that you feel this way.

and you still have not answered my question.

Why is the question being asked?

Something no Orthodox could get away with in OBOB (I speak from experience).

Not sure of what you're talking about here, so I cant reply.

You don't set the terms of the dicussions here just because the answers or the tone of the response don't suit you.

The terms of the discussion were obviously set long before I ever received any uncharitable replies. The uncharitable replies came after.

;)

Greg

Oblio

19th May 2005, 10:55 AM

Rilian, you can think whatever you want.

[mod hat]
He can also post whatever he wants to within the rules as he is a member of TAW. You however, are a guest here, and may not argue or debate on issues of Orthodox faith and praxis :) Please be respectful of our rules.

Thank you for your cooperation.

[/hat]

Added: simulpost :)

Alexis OCA

19th May 2005, 11:03 AM

Why is the question being asked?
Greg

Forum Rule 6:
Rule No. 6 - "Christians Only" Forums
6.1 Some forums on this website are provided for Christian discussion only as indicated in the category title. To have "Christians Only" forums we need to define who can post there. We need a set of criteria that clearly defines who a Christian is for the purposes of posting in the "Christians Only" forums. This is not for any other reason. We are not speculating as to a person's salvation, faith or beliefs. This rule is not intended to label a member "non-Christian".

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 11:09 AM

[mod hat]
You however, are a guest here, and may not argue or debate on issues of Orthodox faith and praxis :) Please be respectful of our rules.

I would love to be respectful of your rules. I guess I just need a little clarification on them:

1) If someone accuses me of believing or doing something that I dont, am I allowed to correct them?

2) If someone accuses (or, rather, we dont even need to use that word - suggests) that my Church believes or practices something that it doesn't, am I allowed to correct them?

3) If someone is being rude to me, am I allowed to respectfully request that they not be rude?

4) If someone posts something on Orthodox teaching/beliefs and then someone else posts something that seems to contradict the first statement, am I allowed to point this out and ask for clarification?

5) If someone posts something on Orthodox teaching/beliefs/practices/etc. and I do not fully understand what is being said, am I allowed to ask for clarification?

6) If someone suggests that Orthodox teaching and Catholic teaching on a particular matter are divergent and I feel differently, am I allowed to point that out (charitably) and seek further dialogue on the matter, or would I need to simply not say anything in reply?

Thank you for clarifying.

Greg

King of the Nations

19th May 2005, 11:13 AM

Forum Rule 6:
Rule No. 6 - "Christians Only" Forums
6.1 Some forums on this website are provided for Christian discussion only as indicated in the category title. To have "Christians Only" forums we need to define who can post there. We need a set of criteria that clearly defines who a Christian is for the purposes of posting in the "Christians Only" forums. This is not for any other reason. We are not speculating as to a person's salvation, faith or beliefs. This rule is not intended to label a member "non-Christian".

Fair enough...

Yes, I qualify...;)

Greg

Alexis OCA

19th May 2005, 11:19 AM

I would love to be respectful of your rules. I guess I just need a little clarification on them:

They are not OUR rules if by 'our' you mean orthodox. They are the rules of each denomination forum as I understand it. Even yours...whatever you are.

Dust and Ashes

19th May 2005, 11:23 AM

The conflict is here:

John: the Orthodox position on what happens after death, inasmuch as what has been revealed to us by God, is simply that we receive a foretaste of our final destiny, not that we go through a period of purification. Purification occurs immediately upon entering the presence of the All Holy One, that which is of God glowing like precious metal in the fire of God's holiness, and that which is not being consumed by the same.

Forgivensinner: The Orthodox belief is that all enter the presence of God upon death and His presence is percieved differently depending upon the condition of one's soul. Someone who lived a pious, godly life will percieve Him as light and warmth, whereas someone who lived a life of selfishness, separated from Him will come to understand the scripture, "our God is a consuming fire."

See it now?

Greg

I don't see a conflict here, only that I didn't give a detailed answer. I have read and been taught here and in other Orthodox resources almost verbatim what I wrote. Is the fortaste we recieve based on our perception of God's Light or is there another "step" involved such as we pass through a stage of "foretasting", etc?

jsgnpdx

19th May 2005, 11:31 AM

I am surprised that no one has brought up the concept of the "tollhouses" which appears in Orthodoxy, on and off over the ages.

It is unlike purgatory, in that it has nothing to do with punishment for sins and the sinful effects...at least in my understanding...and it very well may have gnostic and pagan influences...but one does find it in Orthodox circles.

The idea being that one passes the angles on the way to heaven and that one must pass through "trials of fire" or purgation "on the way to heaven."

Seraphim Rose made a big deal out of the tollhouses, but he was also well known for mixing Netorianism and Gnosticism in his teachings, as well as confusing Orthodox doctrine with Western Christian techniques of study....

Having spoken to my priest about it...I have been told the Orthodox generally DO agree that many if not most of us pass through some type of trial or purgation, but that Orthodoxy never defines nor defined it because it is not found in scripture or ancient Tradition.

Either way, I don't think it really matters. I just pray that He find me worthy and repentant when I draw my last breath....I leave the rest to Him.

IC XC NIKA,

:crossrc: Joseph

sin_vladimirov

19th May 2005, 12:17 PM

Matrona

19th May 2005, 12:25 PM

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7076.asp

Matrona

19th May 2005, 12:50 PM

King of the Nations, you are welcome as always to ask questions of us in our forum, but you have been condescending and insulting to us in this thread. You cannot know that St. Mark didn't know exactly what he was rejecting, and I think it's quite arrogant to claim that you do. Not only that but you were debating in our forum which is against our rules and is disrespectful. (I spy a ghostie.) Anyway, if you want to debate with us, General Theology has a subforum for denomination-specific stuff now.

Now, being Orthodox, I do believe God purifies us on the way to the general judgment, but everything I've read on the Latin doctrine of purgatory is unacceptable to me as an Orthodox Christian. I remember reading something about an RC apparition of Mary saying something (either attending mass on the first Saturday of each of five months or wearing a particular scapular, I forget which) but that for doing this, she'd do a number of things, including springing the individual in question out of Purgatory on the first Saturday after they died.

Orthodox would have a problem with a lot of this:

--I'm going to sound very protestant here, but doing something (attending mass or wearing a scapular) does not equate to faith. Faith is salvific and works show a salvific faith. Works without faith are dead, too.

--How is this fair between someone who dies on Sunday and someone who dies on Friday? Friday only has to hunker down for the night and then he goes to heaven, but Sunday has to spend the whole week in Purgatory before he gets to go to heaven.

--How can there be Saturday in Purgatory? I think that everything after death would have to be, like God, outside of time. St. Gregory Nazianus said that when we complete theosis we become just as beginningless as God Himself so I would think in the midst of that process, time would apply to us less and less.

Photini

19th May 2005, 01:04 PM

That is exactly what we believe too. It hasn't been mentioned yet but purgatory is not per say about 'punishment' but about perfection the love you have for God.

I as a Catholic do not look at it has a strict 'punishment' but take no offence at it being called that, just as I don’t look at it any more than any of us would look at 'punishing' children when they misbehave for the sake of just making them pay for what they did.

On earth Catholics do use the term “making amends” for what we did, but not because there is a legalism, a evening the score involved. This is a time of grace, not justice. But by mending the damage we create with sin we advance the peace of the world, draw down grace by uniting ourselves with the sacrifice of Christ and convert hearts. It is the acting out evangelical love, love that saves and it’s that reparation for our sins that advance our own love of God.

The whole process of purgatory is theosis, it is a continuation of the work that has already begun in us here but the difference being, since we have died, we have been freed of the things of the world, Satan and our flesh- now all that we have left is the love we have of God, and what ever love there is, will be perfected. On earth, through suffering and penance, we can actually grow in love but in purgatory, we can only perfect what we have and after this perfection is completed, this will determine the 'amount' of glory we will share in heaven.

So it is only a 'punishment' in a lose term. It is perfection, 'burning' literal or figurative we don't know, the sin attachment in order to complete the process of theosis that has already begun.

In a way purgatory will be harder and easier. Easier because we no longer have the temptations of the world, Satan and the flesh. Harder because as told by some mystics that one day of suffering here isn’t anything compared to the suffering there.

I really don’t see this great difference between Orthodoxy and Catholics on this; it’s a matter of perspective and explaining.

I as a Catholic am in no way out of line looking at it the way you do. The east helps grasp and the west helps us grasp the mysteries as much as our poor brain can.

The problem I have with Orthodoxy is the excuse the term ‘prideful’ rejection that the west can bring something to the table in trying to put into words the unexplainable mysteries of God.
Thank you Michelle for this post. YOu've helped me more than you can know to understand RCC teachings.

On a side note, I don't believe it is "prideful" rejection...but the Orthodox Fathers are extreme sticklers for terminology. And I understand and agree with the reasons why.

Photini

19th May 2005, 01:06 PM

Now, being Orthodox, I do believe God purifies us on the way to the general judgment, but everything I've read on the Latin doctrine of purgatory is unacceptable to me as an Orthodox Christian. I remember reading something about an RC apparition of Mary saying something (either attending mass on the first Saturday of each of five months or wearing a particular scapular, I forget which) but that for doing this, she'd do a number of things, including springing the individual in question out of Purgatory on the first Saturday after they died.

Orthodox would have a problem with a lot of this:

--I'm going to sound very protestant here, but doing something (attending mass or wearing a scapular) does not equate to faith. Faith is salvific and works show a salvific faith. Works without faith are dead, too.

--How is this fair between someone who dies on Sunday and someone who dies on Friday? Friday only has to hunker down for the night and then he goes to heaven, but Sunday has to spend the whole week in Purgatory before he gets to go to heaven.

--How can there be Saturday in Purgatory? I think that everything after death would have to be, like God, outside of time. St. Gregory Nazianus said that when we complete theosis we become just as beginningless as God Himself so I would think in the midst of that process, time would apply to us less and less.

Very great post Matrona. And one of the reasons why terminology cannot be taken lightly.

Xpycoctomos

19th May 2005, 01:36 PM

Before I begin, let me just admit, from the beginning, that I am weak, and yes, I am back (if anyone even noticed I've been gone as it probably hasn't even been a week lol... sigh... I'm such a loser.). I have been pulled in by forces that are too strong for me break from.... the force of a good thread :)

This is a loooong thread, and I will admit that I have not read throroughly all of the posts... especiall the latter ones (although I did skim them). So if my point here is redundant, I apologize.

King of Nations,

As Orthodox, while there are certainly common POVs on what happens after death, we are not bound to any dogma or doctine of Purgatory. To be sure, we are bound to certain things that we cannot and should not believe (soul sleep being one of them... and it seems) but I will go as far to say (for the sake of argument only, I am not suggesting that there is no canon or council condemning certain aspects of Catholic Purgatory like punishment) that I could concieve of an Orthodox taking on the Catholic understanding of purgatory (in it's new revised version) and being a "good Orthodox" of relatively sound doctrine. Other TAWers, feel free to shoot down this idea as I may be wrong... but this is not my point. Now, let's say I do see purgatory this way, but my other Orthodox freind Bill does not. In fact he says that the fact he sees the idea of punishment for one's sins being ludicrous and unOrthodox. In the Orthodox Church, he is not guilty of anything for the Orthodox Church doesn't go any further (as a general rule) than what Podromos said in his excellent post. Here's what it comes down to. The Catholic Church says "this is the way it is to be understood, to understand it otherwise would be questioning the Magesterium and would be wrong". Could my friend Bill be a "Catholic in good standing?" In the OC you are free to say, on this point, that this or that belief on what happens right after death is bunk... and, in the OC, the safest POV (At least for layity) is generally "I have ideas, but I don't know... it the end it is all a Mystery and is in God's hands.... and any one of the Patriarchs could be wrong." Is that cool with the Catholic Church? I would guess not. But that is cool with the Orthodox CHurch for to make a dogma about such things is purposeless and only leads one into unnecessary corners.

Personally, I think that this:
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."84
is overspeculative and even wrong. Another Orthodox may be more sympathetic to this, but it is perfectly fine for me to say "I don't agree with this". I have nothing to confess and I would be an Orthodox in perfectly good standing. My patriarch can say that and there would be no reason for division on his part.

You may say that the purpose of dogmatizing such a concept was to make sure the Church continued to do her job in praying for the dead, that God would grant them mercy. Well, if you are at all familiar with the current (and since forever) practice of the East, you are well aware of the fact that Panakhidas (a prayer service for the dead) are, in some parishes, (depending on how old they are andd therefore how many parishioners they have had pass away) almost indistinguishable from the actual Divine Liturgy since there is one every single Sunday, for we are expected to have a prayer service for the dead 40 days after their repose and every year thereafter. I say this not boast of our practices or dedication to praying for those who have gone on before us, but rather to make it clear to you that our such a dogma for us would be seen as unnecessary and superfulous.

Please understand tht I am not trying to be disrespectful in this, but I would suggest that the problem is not so much ours (for we don't hold much docrtrine) but actually, ironically, the RCC's since for you it is dogma and, in reunification, it wouldn't make sense to say that this or that is dogma only in the West and in the East it is a matter of mere theologumen/adiaphora.

In all respect,

John