Byzantines and Plenary indulgence

[lanceg]

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.

I generally agree with this, I might say it differently, but basically this is my understanding.

i also have my own theologumena about this-

I do not conceive of Heaven, Hell or Purgatory as “places.”

I believe that human beings are in the presence of God after death. They experience the fire of God’s love.

Those who are damned are not deprived of the fire of God’s love, but experience it as torment, because they have not acquired within themselves.

Those who are in “purgatory” in this scenario are further purified by the fire of God’s love, and stripped of their remaining selfishness and egoism. This is a continuing process of Theosis that began at baptism on earth.

Those who have acquired the love of God within themselves, and who have been purified of egoism, experience the fire of God’s love as Paradise. But even for these souls, the process of Theosis continues; it may be that Theosis can never be “final.” But these souls are in a place [metaphorically speaking] of verdure, refreshment, where all sighing and mourning and sorrow has fled, and where the light of Christ is their continual joy. These are those who we think of as “being in heaven.”

 

[SiempreFiel]

Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy. (Joseph Ratzinger, Eschatology, 1977)

 

[Mickey]

Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where man is forced to undergo punishment in a more or less arbitrary fashion.

Council of Trent (1545-1563 CE)

“We constantly hold that purgatory exists, and that the souls of the faithful there **detained **are helped by the prayers of the faithful.”

Detained?!?

 

[mardukm]

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

Do you believe the substance changes like the Latins do? Yes.
Why should it bother you that it was defined? Because I’m Eastern Orthodox and it gives me great pleasure to live in paradox.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Council of Trent (1545-1563 CE)

“*We constantly hold that purgatory exists, and that the souls of the faithful there **detained ***are helped by the prayers of the faithful.”

Detained?!?

It’s a wonder how one can “enter” heaven or be “imprisoned” in Hades. I guess the Lord was teaching that these are real physical places. Well, I won’t argue with Him Eastern Orthodox “logic.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

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

I know you have not been Eastern Orthodox long, but I’m surprised that you are not aware of the Essence/Energies distinction that undergirds Palamite theology.

In any case, can you please show us where the Ecumenical Councils defined Essence and Energies?

 

[mardukm]

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.

An important point about Purgatory according to the Latins is that on cannot have union with God without being cleansed of sin. Latins also often speak of the essential purpose of fire (spiritual or otherwise) as transformative - aligning us closer and closer to the divine - i.e., divinization.

One does not need a stretch of the imagination to see the similarities (perhaps one of the Latin brethern can give the quotes from sources). On the other hand, one really has to try hard NOT to see the analogies – or perhaps simply be content with the hearsay from the cow’s mouth about what the horse has to say.

Blessings,
Marduk.

 

[Mickey]

I know you have not been Eastern Orthodox long, but I’m surprised that you are not aware of the Essence/Energies distinction that undergirds Palamite theology.

You know quite well that I am somewhat versed in Palamite theology and apophaticism. What is your point? Hesychasm can be traced back at least as far as St Maximos the Confessor. It is a theological school of teaching.

Now if Rome did not declare purgatory to be doctrine, you and I would not be having this conversation. One wonders why they did not leave the “doctrine” of purgatory on the same plane as limbo.

 

[Mickey]

In any case, can you please show us where the Ecumenical Councils defined Essence and Energies?

It is not doctrine.

 

[Mickey]

or perhaps simply be content with the hearsay from the cow’s mouth about what the horse has to say. .

I dunno marduk. You say it is misunderstanding. You see strong similarity and analogy. You see cows and horses.

I see major problems with the doctrine of purgatory. I sensed major problems with this doctrine before I even knew of the existence of the Orthodox Church (or the Eastern Catholic Church for that matter).

So you see–I cannot relate to this relatively new doctrine.

But hey–that’s just me.

 

[Mickey]

It’s a wonder how one can “enter” heaven or be “imprisoned” in Hades. I guess the Lord was teaching that these are real physical places. Well, I won’t argue with Him Eastern Orthodox “logic.”

How much easier it would be today if only the Scriptures had told us in no uncertain terms that there is a third place!

A holding tank!

 

[Mickey]

Do you believe the substance changes like the Latins do?

I believe that attempting to define a mystery takes away from the mystery.

Why should it bother you that it was defined? Because I’m Eastern Orthodox and it gives me great pleasure to live in paradox.

That was uncalled for. I do not insult you, there is no need to insult me.

Please show a bit of charity.

 

[johnnykins]

I believe that attempting to define a mystery takes away from the mystery.

You mean like attempting to define the nature of the Trinity or the nature of Jesus Christ? Well, if you believe the Councils that did just that took away from the mystery - that’s your prerogative.

Actually, I think the point that the Orthodox have not definitively addressed purgatory, the filioque or other issues at an Ecumenical Council (let’s not get into Lyons or Florence for obvious reasons) then the matters addressed by the Western Church are at least capable of being acceptable Theologoumens by the Orthodox. (For Eastern Catholics - at the very least the same argument could apply - though I do believe the Eastern Churches affirmatively accept the dogmas above - i.e., dogma is dogma, not eastern or western.) Since Orthodoxy has NOT rejected these doctrines definitively then there is not necessarily any heresy - “heresy” is the REJECTION of dogma. Here, the post-7 councils have NOT been rejected by any council recognized by the Orthodox, and the 7 obviously could not have considered those coming after. Hence, reunion is theoretically possible. Hence, let’s all take a collective Valium.

 

[SiempreFiel]

I believe that attempting to define a mystery takes away from the mystery.

You did not answer the question!

Do you believe the substance changes? Yes or no?

 

[Mickey]

You did not answer the question!?

I sure did.

Do you believe the substance changes? Yes or no?

How about this? Instead of backing me into a corner where I must answer yes or no-- based on your mindset of scholasticism-- I will make a statement.

I believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Is that good for you?

 

[Mickey]

You mean like attempting to define the nature of the Trinity or the nature of Jesus Christ?

The Trinity was dealt with by Ecumenical councils of an undivided Church.

Well, if you believe the Councils that did just that took away from the mystery - that’s your prerogative.

Councils were usually invoked to counter heretical factions.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Dear brother,

Are you saying Rome ever-defines generally, or are you saying that the dogma of Purgatory is over-defined. (Actually “c” none of the above!) 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. (I agree) Purgatory was NOT “over-defined” (I agree) (if that is what you are saying). (I am not.) I believe the Latin dogma is pretty basically apostolic (if you don’t take into account the TERM “Purgatory”). (I agree!)
Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

I am afraid I don’t make myself clear and am misunderstood as a result.

My contention is that under the ecclesiology and pragmantic definations of Orthodoxy, there is NO definative teaching against the Latin concept of purgation (somewhat euphamisticaly referred to by some here as a third “place” - when in fact it could be the case it is not a place at all, but an experience!).

The very best that an Orthodox can do to weigh in on the matter is to offer that *they think what very little definition the Roman Church offers is over defined… But without a teaching or a magisterial authority to actually weigh in and say “In fact this is wrong!” *the sum total of all criticism is as much pious opinion and speculation for them as is the pious parties of the Ukrainian Renaisance a la Orthodox saint and hierarch St. Peter Moghyla who supported it.

This summer I was at a Greek Festival and was looking at some books offered at a gift shop & book store where a rather attractive leather bound tome on the life of the Theotokos caught my eye. Every third page contained a ***sed contra ***teaching or thought to modern Roman teaching where it was stated that the Orthodox knew, for example, the Immaculate conception to be most definately wrong… But such pontifications carry no more weight and are as extra-conciliar as they claim Rome itself to be guilty of.

I suppose the rejoinder they would offer would (perhaps) be something to the effect of the fact they were Orthodox made their machinations or pontifications to rank as pious speculation more worthy than the “heterodox impious heresy”. In turn from there, certain patristic platitudes may be offered… But the fact remains, if the councils are explicitly silent, and there is no teaching authority otherwise to officially make a condemnation of something such as purgatory, the absolute best that an Eastern party can offer in terms of contra-distinction is thier own pious speculation.

An Orthodox priest who entered communion with the Holy See puts it well when he writes:

If I worship the same (“ortho-doxia”) and my practice of the Faith is the same (“ortho-praxis”), in what way am I not Orthodox?

Because you say so?

Or the Patriarch of Moscow?

Or the Patriarch of Constantinople?

Who has the authority in the Orthodox Church to pass judgment on this question?

By Orthodox definition only an Ecumenical Council may do so. It is sophistry to assert that local synods take on the authority of an Ecumenical Council. Equally sophistic is the assertion that an Ecumenical Council really wasn’t one because Mt Athos feared a loss of influence. (To argue that its rejection by a majority of Orthodox Christians made it not Ecumenical begs the question, what about Egypt and the Arian controversy?)

So when it comes to a party on here offering “We Orthodox don’t believe in that and teach it to be wrong.” I assert that the most accurate thing they can say is “As an Orthodox, that question is not definatively resolved by a council I recognize, and I opt to side with a school of thought and say…”

 

[Mickey]

when in fact it could be the case it is not a place at all, but an experience!).

or it could be the case that it is a place.

But without a teaching or a magisterial authority to actually weigh in and say* “In fact this is wrong!” *the sum total of all criticism is as much pious opinion and speculation for them as is the pious parties of the Ukrainian Renaisance a la Orthodox saint and hierarch St. Peter Moghyla who supported it.

One wonders if you ever get weary of repeating this tired polemic.

This summer I was at a Greek Festival and was looking at some books offered at a gift shop.

More personal experiences and anecdotes by ASimpleSinner. :bounce:

I suppose the rejoinder they would offer would (perhaps) be something to the effect of the fact they were Orthodox made their machinations or pontifications to rank as pious speculation more worthy than the “heterodox impious heresy”

You are pretty good at offering rejoiners for the Orthodox.

But the fact remains, if the councils are explicitly silent, and there is no teaching authority otherwise to officially make a condemnation of something such as purgatory, the absolute best that an Eastern party can offer in terms of contra-distinction is thier own pious speculation.

Oh my. Twice in one post this time!

 

[SiempreFiel]

How about this? Instead of backing me into a corner where I must answer yes or no-- based on your mindset of scholasticism-- I will make a statement.

I believe that the Holy Eucharist is the Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Is that good for you?

That is good enough for me!!!

 

[Mickey]

That is good enough for me!!!

God bless you my brother in Christ!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif