Byzantines and Plenary indulgence

[Aramis]

Purgatory is dogmatic. The Roman system of indulgences and the Roman understanding of what purgatory is is merely doctrine within the Roman Church.

Suffice it to say, the “requisite” teaching of purgatory is that there is a place/state where individuals continuing their theosis are neither in heaven, hell nor earth, until they get far enough along to enter heaven.

The system of indulgences is doctrinal and disciplinary within the Roman Church, and merely constructively instructive within the framework of theosis which permeates Byzantine doctrine.

The practices involved in obtaining indulgences are of special merit, yes, but lacking the concept of delayed penance (part of the roman concept of purgatory’s purpose), “taking time off from purgatory” is meaningless.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t know. You tell me.

I asked you. You are Eastern Catholic.

I remember it being rather frustrating as an Orthodox Christian to have my priest unable to explain to me WHY we prayed for the dead.

Holy Orthodoxy does not know or accept purgatory. The Orthodox Church prays for the dead and believes that such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God.

 

[Saponaria]

So the practices involved in indulgences are of merit. And what about the indulgences? Do you belief the indulgences are of merit themselves? Are they only of merit to those whose concepts it fits with?

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I asked you. You are Eastern Catholic.
Holy Orthodoxy does not know or accept purgatory. The Orthodox Church prays for the dead and believes that such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God.

Says whom?

Where is it taught that “such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God”?

How is saying “such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God” anymore than similar pious speculation?

In a conciliar church without councils, who or which council has definatively defined the after-life experience contra-purgatory with binding authority?

At best this distinction is pious opinion on equal footing with Latin concepts of purgatory or sometime popular-piety of tollhouse sotierology.

At best Eastern parties may be free to speculate Rome has over-defined something that is vaguely understood. Contra-definition, without a council goes against the heart of this objection though.

 

[Mickey]

Where is it taught that “such prayer brings people who have died in holiness closer to God”

Theosis is continual.

At best this distinction is pious opinion on equal footing with Latin concepts of purgatory or sometime popular-piety of tollhouse sotierology.

Purgatory is Latin doctrine–tollhouses are theological speculation.

At best Eastern parties may be free to speculate Rome has over-defined something that is vaguely understood."

Amen.

Contra-definition, without a council goes against the heart of this objection though.

I know not of what you speak. There is no contra-definition. There is no Orthodox definition whatsoever of this third place or holding tank of purification through fire.

It is simply “prayers for the dead”.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Theosis is continual.
Purgatory is Latin doctrine–tollhouses are theological speculation.
Amen.
I know not of what you speak. There is no contra-definition. There is no Orthodox definition whatsoever of this third place or holding tank of purification through fire.

It is simply “prayers for the dead”.

Mickey I believe that you only cherry-picked my post to see what you would like to see….

Again, at best, the Orthodox can say Rome over-defined, and do so with pious speculation on thier part. As a concilair church without councils to speak to the contrary, the best they can offer is the theological speculation that Rome is wrong… Not definitive pronouncement of such. So you are right, there is not contra-definition… According to the ecclesiology offered by popular apologists, there could be none without a council wherein (even a minority of unrepresentitive) bishops can be understood to be speaking truth …

And then being that there is no contra-definition, who is left to actually definitively pronounce it wrong?

So yes Purgatory is Latin doctrine. At best all you can do is offer that you speculate they over shot the definition.

If all you can definitively assert is that they over-shot what is allowable, your best is to say ‘It is simply “prayers for the dead”.’

If there is no more definition than that in the East, than it is as reasonable as any proposition to say that theosis is continued with an experience of purgation wherein souls are cleansed of sin… Beint that such stain or presense is antithetical to an experience of being filled with God, for whose soul could be emptied out (kenosis) to be totally filled (theosis) with God and still have room for even the tiniest vestigal remnant of sin?

In the end, this is a polemic - on the papacy and its right or lack thereof to teach and convene councils that teach in a definative manner - looking for a place to happen.

As it stands, all things being equal, and without a council to define this as error and a magisterial body to back that speculation up, you are left with nothing but pious opinion that they got vague details wrong.

 

[mardukm]

The problem is that the Western Church declares an anathema on those who reject some of the things you might se as “non-essential”.

Can you please give an example or two of such a case? I’ve never seen this, especially when one pays attention to the essentials of what is being dogmatically taught as distinct from what brother Aramis calls “mere” doctrine.

 

[mardukm]

"Aramis:

Indulgences are doctrine, not dogma…

Not according to the council of trent.

Despite the decree of Trent, I believe I can agree with brother Aramis.

The ONLY two dogmatic points about the doctrine of indulgences according to Trent are:

1. That the Church has the power to grant them.
2. They are spiritually benefical to Christians.

NO EASTERN OR ORIENTAL CATHOLIC DENIES THESE DOGMATIC POINTS ABOUT INDULGENCES, especially when one understands the history of indulgences. In fact, the early Church, as exemplified by the canons of the ecumenical councils, and (off-hand) St. Basil, often practiced the granting of indulgences. Indulgences were nothing more nor less than the power of the bishop to ameliorate or lessen the punishment attached to a particular sin, upon evidence of the sinner’s penitiential works. For instance, murder entailed deprivation of communion for 20 years. Upon evidence of true contrition (i.e., evidence of sincere penitential works), a bishop had the authority to lessen this punishment.

I think one can see how the Latin praxis and doctrine has somewhat evolved from this.

Now, the two dogmatic points decreed by Trent certainly do not comprise the ENTIRE doctrine of indulgences according to the Latin Church. I believe brother Aramis is right insofar that there are many things about the doctrine of indulgences - things peculiarly Latin - that are indeed NOT dogma.

The Latin Church has dogmatized only what is true and patristic about the doctrine of indulgences. All else about it remains, as brother Aramis stated, “mere” doctrine.

Food for thought.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

OOPS! I’d like to correct the following:

The Latin Church has dogmatized only what is true and patristic about the doctrine of indulgences. All else about it remains, as brother Aramis stated, “mere” doctrine.

to:

The CATHOLIC Church has dogmatized only what is true and patristic about the doctrine of indulgences. All else about it remains, as brother Aramis stated, “mere” doctrine.

 

[ematouk]

Mickey I believe that you only cherry-picked my post to see what you would like to see….

Again, at best, the Orthodox can say Rome over-defined, and do so with pious speculation on thier part. As a concilair church without councils to speak to the contrary, the best they can offer is the theological speculation that Rome is wrong… Not definitive pronouncement of such. So you are right, there is not contra-definition… According to the ecclesiology offered by popular apologists, there could be none without a council wherein (even a minority of unrepresentitive) bishops can be understood to be speaking truth …

And then being that there is no contra-definition, who is left to actually definitively pronounce it wrong?

So yes Purgatory is Latin doctrine. At best all you can do is offer that you speculate they over shot the definition.

If all you can definitively assert is that they over-shot what is allowable, your best is to say ‘It is simply “prayers for the dead”.’

If there is no more definition than that in the East, than it is as reasonable as any proposition to say that theosis is continued with an experience of purgation wherein souls are cleansed of sin… Beint that such stain or presense is antithetical to an experience of being filled with God, for whose soul could be emptied out (kenosis) to be totally filled (theosis) with God and still have room for even the tiniest vestigal remnant of sin?

In the end, this is a polemic - on the papacy and its right or lack thereof to teach and convene councils that teach in a definative manner - looking for a place to happen.

As it stands, all things being equal, and without a council to define this as error and a magisterial body to back that speculation up, you are left with nothing but pious opinion that they got vague details wrong.

As an Orthodox, I can safely say I accept the 2 dogmatic points about purgatory. That there is a purification before entering heaven and that prayers have effect in this state.

But I can not accept the Latin nitty gritty of purgatory, nor do I like the word ‘purgatory’ because of all the historical baggage which makes me quite uncomfortable.

The Orthodox Church makes absolutely no definition of purgatory, let alone a contra-definition. We agree with St Paul who taught mysteriously prayers for the dead “The Lord grant to him [Onesiphorus] that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Timothy 1:18). Prayers for the dead are to comfort their souls in the hope they may recieve mercy on the Day of Judgement.

Mystery should not be defined in my opinion. The Orthodox Church agrees with St Antony of Egypt whom God told “Antony attend to yourself; for these are the judgements of God, and it is not for you to know them.” (Apophthegmata p65; Antony, 2)

I also do not accept indulgences because I do not accept purgatory. The whole realm is mystery and should not be defined. Indulgences seem extremely legalistic in my opinion and makes God out to be our divine accountant rather then our Father in heaven. Rather then forgetting our sins and remembering it no more, He punishes for every sin He has already forgiven - and it is ironically called mercy that He takes away some of it, due to the merit earned by doing works which God Himself gave us the ability to do (Ephesians 2:10).

It also makes no sense to me that anyone could even dare to earn merit. I see it almost contradictory, as though a mere creature has the right to tell his creator - “You owe me for doing this good deed for which you gave me the time, abilities and strength to do”. The standard is perfection “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), and when the standard is perfection, I can not see how anyone can earn overabundant merit?

I feel the whole question belongs to the realm of theological opinion, after all St Paul told us “learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other” (1 Corinthians 4:6). Again he says “For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). And this is coming from someone who ascended to the third heaven and yelled “Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!” (Romans 11:33).

I will be praying for unity.

But my question remains and I do not think anyone has yet answered me. Indulgences are dogma in the Catholic confession, what does it do for a byzantine Catholic who does not believe in the latin nitty gritty of purgatory?

Are there any Byzantine Catholic websites which have articles on purgatory?

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

Did you read my post #28? Could you comment on it please?

I would also like to respond to some things you stated:

But I can not accept the Latin nitty gritty of purgatory, nor do I like the word ‘purgatory’ because of all the historical baggage which makes me quite uncomfortable.

Neither are Eastern and Oriental Catholics required to accept the Latin “nitty gritty” of purgatory.

The Orthodox Church makes absolutely no definition of purgatory, let alone a contra-definition. We agree with St Paul who taught mysteriously prayers for the dead “The Lord grant to him [Onesiphorus] that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Timothy 1:18). Prayers for the dead are to comfort their souls in the hope they may recieve mercy on the Day of Judgement.

Mystery should not be defined in my opinion. The Orthodox Church agrees with St Antony of Egypt whom God told “Antony attend to yourself; for these are the judgements of God, and it is not for you to know them.” (Apophthegmata p65; Antony, 2)

I agree with your statements here. I would ask you to be aware that definitions are given only for things that has been given to us by God to know. In other words, it ALREADY exists in the faith (i.e., knowledge) of the Church. Whether it is defined or not does not matter, and should not be a cause for division. That the Church knows it and believes it is what matters.

I also do not accept indulgences because I do not accept purgatory.

After reading my post #28, would you be willing to revise this statement? Do you disagree with the two dogmatic points (I mentioned it in my post) about indulgences that the Catholic Church has proposed?

It also makes no sense to me that anyone could even dare to earn merit. I see it almost contradictory, as though a mere creature has the right to tell his creator - “You owe me for doing this good deed for which you gave me the time, abilities and strength to do”. The standard is perfection “Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48), and when the standard is perfection, I can not see how anyone can earn overabundant merit?

I have heard this argument before, but not from an Orthodox Christian. Rather, it is a common PROTESTANT argument. It is normally attached to the Protestant rejection that we can do ANYTHING AT ALL for our salvation. If we CAN do something for our own salvation, then that entails “merit.” In other words, YOU/WE have done something to gain something. There’s no way around it. Fine, don’t use the terminology of “merit,” but you as an Orthodox believe the very same thing that Latins do. There’s no point in arguing over words, wouldn’t you agree (see my signature below for a scriptural exhortation).

But my question remains and I do not think anyone has yet answered me. Indulgences are dogma in the Catholic confession, what does it do for a byzantine Catholic who does not believe in the latin nitty gritty of purgatory?

I believe my post#28 has answered your question. Do you find anything disagreeable about the two dogmatic points of Trent’s decree on indulgences?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Saponaria]

<<Mystery should not be defined in my opinion. The Orthodox Church agrees with St Antony of Egypt whom God told “Antony attend to yourself; for these are the judgements of God, and it is not for you to know them.” (Apophthegmata p65; Antony, 2)>>

First of all, can someone tell me how to only quote part of a post rather than the entire one?

What you have said is part of why I am not Orthodox any longer. I simply can not stand the blatant contradiction in a statement like this. The Orthodox have done plenty of defining of mystery. However when in comes down to the fact that they really have not done any in a long time like with the lack of Ecumenical Councils it gets pushed off as if they simply don’t define mystery. Phhbt! No Baptists could maybe claim this but not Orthodox. We don’t just say Jesus is the Son of God but we know nothing more and we won’t define anything regarding his divinity and humanity. It’s a mystery…

 

[Mickey]

Mickey I believe that you only cherry-picked my post to see what you would like to see.

Again, at best, the Orthodox can say Rome over-defined

As a concilair church without councils to speak to the contrary

The Holy Orthodox Church has seven great councils that guide them. I see nothing of purgatory there.

So you are right, there is not contra-definition

Correct.

And then being that there is no contra-definition, who is left to actually definitively pronounce it wrong?

The concept of purgatory did not exist in the Church for the first 1200 years or so.

So yes Purgatory is Latin doctrine. At best all you can do is offer that you speculate they over shot the definition.

How does one define something that did not exist for more than a millenium?

If there is no more definition than that in the East, than it is as reasonable as any proposition to say that theosis is continued with an experience of purgation wherein souls are cleansed of sin.

Deification is not the same as being cleansed from sin in an intermediate place.

In the end, this is a polemic - on the papacy and its right or lack thereof to teach and convene councils that teach in a definative manner - looking for a place to happen.

As it stands, all things being equal, and without a council to define this as error and a magisterial body to back that speculation up, you are left with nothing but pious opinion that they got vague details wrong.

Now **that **is polemical.

 

[Mickey]

What you have said is part of why I am not Orthodox any longer.

I do not believe that this thread pertains to testimonies regarding why someone has decided to leave the Orthodox or Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother,

Again, at best, the Orthodox can say Rome over-defined

Are you saying Rome ever-defines generally, or are you saying that the dogma of Purgatory is over-defined. If the latter, then speaking as an Orthodox in communion with Rome, I think the dogmatic decree on Purgatory is something every apostolic Christian can agree on. Purgatory was NOT “over-defined” (if that is what you are saying). I believe the Latin dogma is pretty basically apostolic (if you don’t take into account the TERM “Purgatory”).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

The Holy Orthodox Church has seven great councils that guide them. I see nothing of purgatory there.

This is a puzzling statement coming from you, an Orthodox Christian. You seem to be saying that you ONLY believe what is defined by the Ecumenical Councils. Well, show me where an ecumenical council defined your doctrines from Gregory Palamas.

The concept of purgatory did not exist in the Church for the first 1200 years or so.

The word did not, but the concept was there. Do you want to trade patristic quotes with me?

How does one define something that did not exist for more than a millenium?

Answer: you CAN’T ---- unless it has INDEED existed prior to that time.

Deification is not the same as being cleansed from sin in an intermediate place.

Can you please explain this? I thought purgation, sanctification, and deification all had the same purpose - PERFECTION in the presence of God Who cannot abide sin (or imperfection). If what I have stated is true, perhaps you do not have a proper understanding of purgatory/sanctification as the Latins understand it?

Now **that **is polemical.

I agree. Our beliefs as Orthodox (me in communion with Rome, and you not) that have not been formally defined should not be consigned to the realm of mere “opinion” simply because they have not been formally defined.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I thought purgation, sanctification, and deification all had the same purpose - PERFECTION in the presence of God Who cannot abide sin (or imperfection). If what I have stated is true, perhaps you do not have a proper understanding of purgatory/sanctification as the Latins understand it?

Central to this existential understanding of theology is the Orthodox concept of theosis (deification). This concept emerged very early in Christian history. In particular, St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. c. 202), an important Church Father of the second century, emphasised that the goal of the Christian life is union with God, and that it is through this union that humanity is transformed to become like him. Indeed, Irenaeus was the first to make the statement that “if the Word is made man, it is that men might become gods.” Implicit in this statement is the idea that the Incarnation allows humanity to more fully participate in the divine, and that through union with God, humanity is deified. In fact, the Incarnation not only allows for union with God, this union is the very purpose of the Incarnation. This concept of theosis, or union with God, was repeated by later Fathers. For instance, St. Athanasius the Great (c. 298-372) borrowed the above quote by Irenaeus to defend the divinity of Christ against the attacks of the Arians at the time of the first ecumenical council in Nicea (325). In Athanasius’ eyes, to attack the divinity of Christ was to attack the very possibility of salvation itself, for to deny that God himself became incarnate was to deny the possibility of union with God. Unless Jesus Christ is “of one substance with the Father,” as the Nicene Creed states, there could be no theosis. Therefore, these Fathers stressed the importance of theosis as being the central goal of the Christian life for all Christians, and they vigorously fought any theological formulations which could undermine this soteriology.

Gregory K. Hillis

I suppose if you try hard enough, you could make it appear that purgatory and theosis/deification are analogous–but I don’t buy it.

 

[Mickey]

The word did not, but the concept was there.

Again, I suppose if you want it to be–it can.

Do you want to trade patristic quotes with me?

No thanks. Been there–done that.

 

[Mickey]

I agree. Our beliefs as Orthodox (me in communion with Rome, and you not) that have not been formally defined should not be consigned to the realm of mere “opinion” simply because they have not been formally defined.

Mystery is certainly not the same as “opinion”. Some things should not be defined. Can you say “transubstantiation”.

 

[Mickey]

Well, show me where an ecumenical council defined your doctrines from Gregory Palamas.

Is the teaching on hesychasm considered to be doctrine?

At the heart of this monastic spirituality was the development of hesychasm as a means toward achieving an experience of the divine (theosis), and this development proved to be of immense importance in the history of the Orthodox Church. The term hesychasm is derived from hesychia; a word which denotes tranquillity, stillness, and concerted concentration. As early as the fourth century, the term hesychia was used to describe the life of the desert monk as being one of interior silence and diligence in pursuit of communion with God. While outward ascetic exercises were seen as being beneficial in purifying oneself for communion with God, in the fourth century increasing emphasis was placed on the necessity of inner ceaseless prayer, achieved through diligence and concentration, as a means of experiencing the divine. It was out of this emphasis that the spirituality of hesychasm developed and flourished.

Gregory K. Hillis