Byzantines and Plenary indulgence

[mardukm]

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

Really though, your charge of it being a polemic actually is odd to me. I guess it goes to show there is some truth to what my pappa used to say “It all depends whose ox is being gored.”

So for a third time and for good measure, except to offer one’s speculation or personal reading of the Fathers can a definitive teaching of contradistinction vis. Purgatory be offered by the autocephalous polyarchy that is the communion of individual Orthodox churches?

So far, emoticons and barbs aside, the answer seems to be no. At best you can offer you personally don’t agree, and you and your bishops personally read the Fathers and interpret the councils you accept otherwise. But that personal reading is neither binding nor necessarily self evident. On that last point, enter the schools of thought up to and including the Kieven Baroque period where numerous canonical hierarchs and theologians implicitly and explicitly reaffirmed Roman schools of thought on this and many other matters.

Though I can appreciate your zeal, I’m afraid I must agree with brother Mickey that your statements are polemical, and this for several reasons.

1. The Eastern Orthodox HAVE an authoritative mechanism called the pan-Orthodox Council. It functioned pretty well during the Protestant Reformation in order to reject particularly Protestant heresies.
2. You can’t charge the EO of not having an authoritative mechanism simply because it has not exercised it in a while. The fact is that it is available to them.
3. There are many things in the Fathers that are quite explicit, and the EO has ever felt a need to dogmatize or officially reject these teachings. The same is true to a certain extent in the Catholic Church, BTW.
4. In the Catholic Church, we accept the authoritative and infallible status of a teaching that is proposed by all the bishops in union with the Pope even though they are scattered throughout the world. Why do you think the EO do not have the same sense of that authority?

Of course, I admit my defense of Eastern Orthodoxy only goes so far. The points I mentioned above only apply during ordinary circumstances in the day to day life of the average EO Christian. Since EO Christians are in this situation most of the time, it is polemic of you to thrust them in an extreme situation and then draw a sensationalist conclusion from that (it’s something EO polemicists often do as well regarding papal teaching, which I equally hate).

Having said that, however, I will agree with you insofar as the fact that the EO believe in doctrine and practice that the teaching authority of the bishop can be subordinated to the judgment of laypeople. This is an EO innovation that needs to be dispelled by them before reunion can occur, or at least simply accept that the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox ecclesiogical belief is patristic and acceptable. I admit it would be exceedingly difficult for EO hierarchs to change their ecclesiological belief and practice once again, and take away the authority of the lay people to judge her bishops.

The question to me is whether or not the belief that the lay Church can judge the episcopate is an extraordinary paradigm, or the ordinary belief of the average lay person. If the latter, that is simply unacceptable and I would agree your comments to brother Mickey are NOT polemic. But I don’t think we should automatically assign such irreverence for the episcopate to our EO brethren. I think we should judge it on a case-by-case basis. For instance, last year, some members of an Eastern Orthodox Church made a public spectacle of their bishop’s small change in the liturgy. I would certainly be inclined to apply your statements to those Eastern Orthodox who showed such disrespect for their bishop. But it would be altogether polemic to assume that such disrespect for external ecclesiastical authoriity, exists normally and consistently within Eastern Orthodoxy.

That is what I am getting at, and perhaps that is what brother Mickey is also getting at.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk

As an Orthodox, I like the teaching of the distinction between essence and energies, but I would not hold it binding on every believer. If a believer chose to use another distinction such as that used in the west between “essence and being” or if they didn’t understand the issue and thought to use no distinction at all, I would not accuse them of heresy or forbid communion. I hardly think it is rebuttling a heresy concerning Christ or the economy of salvation and I do not think it affects our salvation if we think otherwise.

But I can safely say I am a Hesychast believer.

God bless.

I like you.

If I encountered more EO like you, I would be more comfortable with calling Eastern Orthodoxy “Catholic.” Unfortunately, the large percentage of EO I’ve met actually condemn the Latins for not believing in the Energies/Essence distinction exactly as EO proposes it to be believed. In fact, the purpose of the Energies/Essence distinction is to address the issue of the otherness of God from creation. The Latins fully acknowledge (and always have) the fact that the creature can never become the Essence of what God is. It’s just that they have a different theological system to express it.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[ematouk]

Dear brother ematouk

I like you.

If I encountered more EO like you, I would be more comfortable with calling Eastern Orthodoxy “Catholic.” Unfortunately, the large percentage of EO I’ve met actually condemn the Latins for not believing in the Energies/Essence distinction exactly as EO proposes it to be believed. In fact, the purpose of the Energies/Essence distinction is to address the issue of the otherness of God from creation. The Latins fully acknowledge (and always have) the fact that the creature can never become the Essence of what God is. It’s just that they have a different theological system to express it.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

There are some Orthodox who have misconcieved ideas of Catholicism, just as there are Catholics who condemn the Orthodox as “Protestant heretics”. The same sword cuts both ways.

I went to a Maronite Catholic church recently where for the very fact I am an Orthodox Christian, was called a “Protestant”. I was pretty much equated with being a “bible-only baptist” to others. But I do not condemn the Catholic Church for the misunderstanding of some of the people.

All you can do is work for unity in your own church. Correct your Catholic brethren when the time arises and communion will be much closer then it seems.

Please do not condemn the Orthodox Church on account of some of its members. Bishop Kallistos Ware coined the phrase “The Orthodox Church is the right church filled with the wrong people”. Not all Orthodox are Anti-Catholic. Like me, I’m not anti-Catholic, I am simply not a Catholic.

But thankyou for answering my questions regarding indulgences and purgatory. But I’m still wondering if it is Catholic dogma that a person needs to believe indulgences are efficacious after death? Because that is something I can not accept at the moment.

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ematouk

But thankyou for answering my questions regarding indulgences and purgatory. But I’m still wondering if it is Catholic dogma that a person needs to believe indulgences are efficacious after death? Because that is something I can not accept at the moment.

God bless.

The point of your concern is certainly not dogma in the Catholic Church. Rest assured. You are already aware of the two dogmatic points regarding Indulgences on which the Catholic Church insists, and this is not one of them (though certainly a lot of Latins believe it does apply to the afterlife). I’m not saying this to try to convert you by making Catholicism (in all its fullness, Latin, Eastern and Oriental) more palatable. I’m saying it just for the sake of understanding.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk

You argue as though you have something to prove.

Well. I always try, as Scripture exhorts, to be ready to give an answer for the faith that lies in me.

You even accuse the orthodox of deceptive invalid arguments with the hope of decieving people (Sophistry).

You must be using an abridged dictionary (seriously, I have the unabridged Webster’s dictionary, which is my third bible). The primary definition of sophistry is the use of clever argumentation, even though the argumentation may be invalid. The act of being deceptive is not inherent in the definition, brother. Brother Mickey and I are friends. Far be it from me to accuse him of deception.

Rather then attack our beliefs you do the thing that you accuse us of - Sophistry. You use ad hominem attacks rather then addressing the issues of dispute (and since your latin should be excellent being a Catholic you should know what *ad hominem *means)

No Orthodox Council condemns Purgatory, but I as an individual Orthodox reject it in favour of mystery. Can mystery be erronious? If so then you charge St Paul with heresy when he says “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). And again “This is a profound mystery” (Ephesians 5:32). And again “pray for us, too, that God may open a door for our message, so that we may proclaim the mystery of Christ, for which I am in chains” (Colossians 4:3).

You’re jumping the gun, brother. I’ve never accused an Orthodox Council of condemning Purgatory. In fact, brother ASimpleSinner has made quite a point of it. Maybe you haven’t read all my posts (especially post#67).

As an Eastern Catholic, you should thank the Eastern Orthodox. Without us the role of the Patriarch would not have been gradually restored to its more ancient position in the Catholic church under the past 2 popes.

Actually, brother, I am not an Eastern Catholic, but an Oriental Catholic (translated to Catholicism from a non-Chalcedonian - i.e., Oriental Orthodox - Church). And I have expressed my gripes about Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology more than once (you can do a search for them if you want, or we can talk about them here in the public forum or by PM). I personally would not assign any credit to Eastern Orthodoxy for the renewal of Patriarchal prerogatives in the Catholic Church. I would give the credit to Oriental Orthodox influence, if anything.

May God bless us and help us work towards unity.

Amen and Amen!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ASimpleSinner]

Dear brother ASimpleSinner,

Though I can appreciate your zeal, I’m afraid I must agree with brother Mickey that your statements are polemical, and this for several reasons.

1. The Eastern Orthodox HAVE an authoritative mechanism called the pan-Orthodox Council. It functioned pretty well during the Protestant Reformation in order to reject particularly Protestant heresies.
2. You can’t charge the EO of not having an authoritative mechanism simply because it has not exercised it in a while. The fact is that it is available to them.
3. There are many things in the Fathers that are quite explicit, and the EO has ever felt a need to dogmatize or officially reject these teachings. The same is true to a certain extent in the Catholic Church, BTW.
4. In the Catholic Church, we accept the authoritative and infallible status of a teaching that is proposed by all the bishops in union with the Pope even though they are scattered throughout the world. Why do you think the EO do not have the same sense of that authority?

Of course, I admit my defense of Eastern Orthodoxy only goes so far. The points I mentioned above only apply during ordinary circumstances in the day to day life of the average EO Christian. Since EO Christians are in this situation most of the time, it is polemic of you to thrust them in an extreme situation and then draw a sensationalist conclusion from that (it’s something EO polemicists often do as well regarding papal teaching, which I equally hate).

Having said that, however, I will agree with you insofar as the fact that the EO believe in doctrine and practice that the teaching authority of the bishop can be subordinated to the judgment of laypeople. This is an EO innovation that needs to be dispelled by them before reunion can occur, or at least simply accept that the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox ecclesiogical belief is patristic and acceptable. I admit it would be exceedingly difficult for EO hierarchs to change their ecclesiological belief and practice once again, and take away the authority of the lay people to judge her bishops.

The question to me is whether or not the belief that the lay Church can judge the episcopate is an extraordinary paradigm, or the ordinary belief of the average lay person. If the latter, that is simply unacceptable and I would agree your comments to brother Mickey are NOT polemic. But I don’t think we should automatically assign such irreverence for the episcopate to our EO brethren. I think we should judge it on a case-by-case basis. For instance, last year, some members of an Eastern Orthodox Church made a public spectacle of their bishop’s small change in the liturgy. I would certainly be inclined to apply your statements to those Eastern Orthodox who showed such disrespect for their bishop. But it would be altogether polemic to assume that such disrespect for external ecclesiastical authoriity, exists normally and consistently within Eastern Orthodoxy.

That is what I am getting at, and perhaps that is what brother Mickey is also getting at.

Blessings,
Marduk

I will kindly disagree, but appreciate your respectful and considered reply.

At the risk of belaboring the matter, one then has to be able to call on our count on the ability of pan-jurisdictional councils to be called and to be accepted. (I also would invite a new thread exploring how the teachings of these councils are actually authoratative!)

In the mean time (and I grant Rome does not act at the speed of light!) widely divergent opinions on matters ranging from the legitimacy of the western rite to artificial birth control seem to perpetuate controversy that would be most undue should the matter actually be able to be resolved in the fashion you offer.

Of course from these regional councils and meetings, others would say that the process of “reception” by lay affirmation is a different issue… Florence taught us that!

Between counting on such a council to be called, and waiting in turn to see how it is received, there can be no small amount of “lag time” where one must hope they are on the correct side…

Still, interestingly, no convened or universally recieved intra-Orthodox council has actually, to my knowledge, actually taught with authority that Rome is in error on the issue of purgatory and indulgences. (The little matter that started this thread!) So my point remains that contra-distinctive stances against what Rome affirms is, at best, pious speculation.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

But thankyou for answering my questions regarding indulgences and purgatory. But I’m still wondering if it is Catholic dogma that a person needs to believe indulgences are efficacious after death? Because that is something I can not accept at the moment.

God bless.

Thank you for your thoughtful post and your question.

Before answering, can I ask you to better explain what you mean by “indulgences are efficacious after death”?

 

[ematouk]

ASimpleSinner:

Thank you for your thoughtful post and your question.

Before answering, can I ask you to better explain what you mean by “indulgences are efficacious after death”?

Indulgences (If I am using the term correctly, because I dont think they were called indulgences back then, but “pardening”) in the early church were granted by the local bishop to lessen the time of penance of already forgiven sins if a person showed contrition and repentence before the rest of the congregation.

Eg. If a person did works of charity and donated to the poor on top of his work of penance, this is a clear indication to the bishop that the person has repented (eg. from theft) and thus the bishop would lessen the time of penance (what ever the penance for the sin was).

This is is shown in some early church fathers such as St Basil the great who lessens the time of penance of forbidding Eucharist and saying private prayers to some person of his time. I cant remember where it is, but I remember reading it.

I’m not sure if reducing time of penance = an indulgence, but if that is so then I would happily be willing to accept indulgences as they apply to people on Earth. But as for applying them to people in the temporary state of purification after death, I can not accept this teaching.

Restating the question. Does a Catholic need to believe an indulgence can be applied to people in the temporary purification state after death? Because I would only be willing accept “indulgences” or “pardening” to apply to people on Earth. Also like the early church I would have to say a local bishop and not the pope alone can grant them. I’m not sure if the Early church allowed priests to parden penance, but I know for sure any bishop could (after all St Basil was Archbishop of Caesarea, not Pope of Rome).

God bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother ematouk,

Indulgences (If I am using the term correctly, because I dont think they were called indulgences back then, but “pardening”) in the early church were granted by the local bishop to lessen the time of penance of already forgiven sins if a person showed contrition and repentence before the rest of the congregation.

Yes, they were called indulgences. “Pardoning” refers to the forgiveness of the sin itself, not the lessening or cancelling of the penance. Here is Canon 11 of the Ecumenical Council of Nice:
As many as fell without necessity, even if therefore undeserving of indulgence, yet some indulgence shall be shown them and they shall be prostrators for 12 years.

Canon 2 from the Council of Ancyra (314 A.D.), one of the local Councils whose canons were accepted by the 6th and 7th Ecumenical Councils:
*It is likewise decreed that deacons who have sacrificed and afterwards resumed conflict, shall enjoy ther other honours, but shall abstain from every sacred ministry, neither bringing forth the bread and the cup, nor making proclamations. Nevertheless, if any of the bishops shall observe in them distress of mind and meek humiliation, it shall be lawful to the bishops to grant more indulgence, or to take away [what has been granted.

Canon 16 of the ecumenical Council of Chalcedon:
It is not lawful for a virgin who has dedicated herself to the Lord God, nor for monks, to marry; and if they are found to have done this, let them be excommunicated. But we decree that in every place the bishop shall have the power of indulgence towards them.

There are numerous others, but I think I’ve made my point.

I’m not sure if reducing time of penance = an indulgence, but if that is so then I would happily be willing to accept indulgences as they apply to people on Earth.

Yes. The reduction (or even cancelling) of the time of penance is exactly what an indulgence is.

But as for applying them to people in the temporary state of purification after death, I can not accept this teaching.

Please permit me to explain the concept a little bit more to you (I am not Latin Catholic, but I’ve read a lot about it, since I needed to know what I was getting into before translating from Orthodoxy to Catholicism; I’ve found the idea of applying indulgences to souls after death completely orthodox).

You already know the basics of what an indulgence is - the Church’s act of lessening or cancelling penance for sin already pardoned (FYI, penance is ALSO known as “temporal punishment” in the Latin Church) as the result of sincere, penitential acts by the pardoned sinner.

Now consider that both our Churches teach that the suffrages and prayers of the faithful on earth can help the souls being perfected/purified after death.

I see your problem with the Latin teaching, because I used to have that problem too. Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) believes that the soul is perfected after death, but it is not punished. Since there is no punishment that needs to be reduced, what use can indulgences have for souls after death?

Well, brother ematouk, please understand this:
In Latin soteriology, indulgences are gained by penitential acts - that is, the penance/temporal punishment of a sin is reduced or cancelled by these sincere actions. Latin teaching assumes one of two things: either 1) one has satisfied the temporal punishment due to one’s sins in this lifetime, in which case, indulgence for that soul after death is no longer needed; or 2) one does not satisfy the temporal punishment in this lifetime. Upon death, one no longer has the benefit of performing penitential acts to gain an indulgence or lessening of one’s temporal punishment. The only help a soul “in” Purgatory has are the suffrages and prayers of the Church on earth.

SO INDEED, INDULGENCES BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ONE’s SOUL AFTER DEATH.

So far, I assume you agree with everything I’ve stated. Now the question comes - “what about the soul of another? Can a Christian on earth gain an indulgence for the soul of another in the afterlife?”

From my study of Latin soteriology, the answer is a resounding “NO.”

Please consider this: Latin teaching states that the primary beneficiary of one’s penitential acts is oneself, which first and foremost increases holiness, and secondly, gains an indulgence to lessen one’s penance. Any acts one performs beyond what is necessary for the satisfaction of one’s temporal punishment/penance is no longer applicable as an indulgence. The value of those acts goes into what Latins call the Treasury of Merits.

CONT’d**

 

[mardukm]

CONT’d

The Treasury of Merits is nothing more, nothing less than the Latin expression for what the Orthodox would call Grace. This is what increases holiness in a soul - IOW, the process of theosis.

Now, it is important to understand that in Latin soteriology, punishment (God’s Justice) for a Christian is one of the means to increase holiness. They ALWAYS go hand in hand. If one undergoes punishment, one increases in holiness (as indeed the book of Hebrews asserts, “God punishes us for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness”).

Since punishment is for the purpose of increasing holiness, what happens when holiness is increased from the Treasury of Merits (or, IOW, God’s Grace)? Naturally, the punishment one would have had to undergo in order to increase in that holiness will no longer be necessary.

It is common parlance for a Latin to “gain an indulgence for a dead relative.” In reality, a Catholic does not help a soul in Purgatory with his or her suffrages and prayers by gaining that soul an indulgence. Rather, one’s suffrages and prayers help the soul in Purgatory by helping to increase the holiness of that soul. Since in Latin soteriology, punishment increases holiness, it would be counterproductive to gain an indulgence for/ decrease the punishment of a soul in Purgatory. Interestingly, and perhaps sadly, many Latin Catholics do not realize this about their doctrine of Merit and Indulgences. Many Latin Catholics fail to realize that their suffrages and prayers for a loved one’s soul are not meant to gain an indulgence for that soul (i.e., lessen the punishment); rather, the suffrages and prayers are intended to increase the holiness of the loved one’s soul. That the punishment is decreased is really a mere by-product of the primary purpose of our suffrages and prayers for the souls of the physically dead.

I hope that helps you out. I would appreciate your comments and response.

Also like the early church I would have to say a local bishop and not the pope alone can grant them. I’m not sure if the Early church allowed priests to parden penance, but I know for sure any bishop could (after all St Basil was Archbishop of Caesarea, not Pope of Rome).

Brother, who ever told you that only the Pope can grant indulgences in the Catholic Church? The power of indulgences is part and parcel of the power of the keys, a power possessed by ALL bishops, not just the Pope. That is what the Catholic Church teaches.

I hope you don’t mind my asking - where have you acquired your knowledge of the Catholic Church - from the Catholic Church, or from a NON-Catholic Church? I find it strange that you were unaware that the term “indulgence” is a patristic term, not just a Catholic term. And it’s strange that you think only the Pope can grant indulgences in the Catholic Church. I am glad that you have come onto this website. I am not trying to convert you (heck, I think we need more Eastern Orthodox like YOU), but I am concerned that you are getting a lot of false info from non-Catholic sources. If you want to know what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches, this is the place to be.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

You did not ask for proof of Purgatory. You asked for proof of a third state

Yet purgatory is defined as a third place and/or state?

 

[Mickey]

Sophistry in Eastern Orthodox apologetic thought seems pretty common. I’m not yet certain if it is part and parcel of Eastern Orthodoxy itself, or if it is simply something lacking in her lay apologetics

Your odd and continual accusations of sophistry do not help your case. You know quite well that essence/energies is not a legalistic doctrine in the Holy Orthodox Church.

 

[Mickey]

Eastern Orthodoxy is not universal

Sure it is.

I used to believe this. I have only stopped believing it within the past year.

Tis a sad shame.

This is why it generally has not learned to be accepting of Western or Oriental theological terminologies and thoughts.

Your psychological diagnosis is amusing. But it is much simpler than that. Non acceptance of some Western theological terminolgies has much to do with non acceptance of the “development of doctrine”.

 

[Mickey]

Meditate on the scriptural exhortation in my signature line below, brother.

Yes. I have done that often. I felt the pain of the schism while in communion with Rome–and I feel it as an Orthodox Christian.

Calling one another non-universal sophists caught in a paradox probably does not help matters much.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Yes. I have done that often. I felt the pain of the schism while in communion with Rome–and I feel it as an Orthodox Christian.

Calling one another non-universal sophists caught in a paradox probably does not help matters much.

I was just watching the Wizard of Oz with my niece, and there was a scene where the Wizard started spewing alliterative insults with multiple adjectives at the cowardly lion and the scarecrow. Your last sentence reminds me of that.

Well, brother, I cannot in good conscience call Eastern Orthodoxy “Catholic” because of the very nature of her teachings which accept as valid no other apostolic Tradition but her own. And I’m not talking about the claim to be “the one Church,” but rather the inability to understand, or even attempt to understand the Truth expressed in the other Christian Traditions, and therefore presenting a roadblock to unity. However, I am very comfortable with calling individual Eastern Orthodox Christians “Catholic” because of their open-mindedness to the idea that the same Truth can be expressed in the different Traditions (Eastern, Western, Oriental) in different ways. For instance, I would call brother ematouk “Orthodox Catholic.” I can count on one hand some other Eastern Orthodox Christians to which I would easily and gladly grant that name.

Sophists? Yes. I have been there and used all the same arguments, but after my own study, not depending on polemic literature, I have come to discover that there is absolutely no merit in the Orthodox (Eastern or Oriental) polemic against the Catholic Church (keep in mind, as I’ve always stated, that it’s only when Orthodox apologists argue against the Catholic Church that they fail miserably; if they stuck to explaining and defending Orthodoxy itself, Eastern or Oriental, they would have a much better time of it).

Paradox? Can’t see why an Orthodox Christian would be insulted when someone acknowledges the paradoxy within Orthodoxy that Orthodoxy prides itself on possessing (for it evinces an appreciation for mystery).

Abundant Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

I was just watching the Wizard of Oz with my niece, and there was a scene where the Wizard started spewing alliterative insults with multiple adjectives at the cowardly lion and the scarecrow. Your last sentence reminds me of that.

I am glad I could provide some amusement for you.

Well, brother, I cannot in good conscience call Eastern Orthodoxy “Catholic”

Tis a shame indeed—brother.

but rather the inability to understand, or even attempt to understand the Truth expressed in the other Christian Traditions, and therefore presenting a roadblock to unity.

Road blocks run both ways. You may not see it, nor admit it, but you have your bias.

I can count on one hand some other Eastern Orthodox Christians to which I would easily and gladly grant that name.

Good thing we do not count on your determination to say who is Catholic or not.

keep in mind, as I’ve always stated, that it’s only when Orthodox apologists argue against the Catholic Church that they fail miserably;

Funny. I see it the other way around.

Paradox? Can’t see why an Orthodox Christian would be insulted…

par·a·dox * *1.a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth. 2.a self-contradictory and false proposition. 3.any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature. 4.an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

You said that you use paradox to describe yourself sometimes. That is fine. But it might be wise to refrain from using it to describe others–brother.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

A very informative thread! Everyone should be commended for their efforts to dialogue on this issue with such depths. I’ve learned a great deal following along.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

I am glad I could provide some amusement for you.

I just wanted to be clear that the comparison was with regards to the use of adjectives/descriptives, not that I perceived an insult in what you wrote.

Road blocks run both ways. You may not see it, nor admit it, but you have your bias.

I can see the roadblocks both ways. Which is why I promote unity and understanding at all times possible between East, West and Orient. I also know this is the general mien of West and Orient. Unfortunately, I think most would agree that the East would rather impose itself, rather than try to understand (the past actions of the Latins notwithstanding). What have you done lately to help the East understand the West or Orient?

Good thing we do not count on your determination to say who is Catholic or not.

Indeed, brother!!!

Funny. I see it the other way around.

I see it both ways. When the horse tries to relate what the cow is saying, or vice-versa, the horse always fails miserably. Better to let the horse speak for itself, and the cow to speak for itself. Unfortunately, Eastern Orthodox are more wont to try to (mis)represent Catholicism than the other way around. And everyone knows this to be true because the Catholic Church officially regards the EO as apostolic brothers, whereas the EO often do not return the same consideration. I recall succinctly a discussion in CAF (several, actually) in the past about proselytization and the situation in Russia. Catholics were stating that the ROC is hypocritical since it has Churches in traditionally Catholic countries, and the Catholic Church does not complain. The EO posters were quite direct that the EO do not feel the obligation to NOT proselytize in Catholic countries because she believes the Catholic Church is in heresy. So even though you may get some Catholic polemic here and there against the EO, the vast majority of the polemic is from EO trying to (mis)represent Catholicism.

par·a·dox * *1.a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.

You said that you use paradox to describe yourself sometimes. That is fine. But it might be wise to refrain from using it to describe others–brother.

I am always inclined to intend to use the most edifying definition of any words I use (which is normally the PRIMARY definition). I guess there are those who are inclined to think the worst. Well, sorry if it insulted you, bro. As a young Orthodox Christian, I guess you are not as comfortable with the definition of paradox above as other Orthodox Christians.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[ematouk]

Dear brother ematouk,

Yes, they were called indulgences. “Pardoning” refers to the forgiveness of the sin itself, not the lessening or cancelling of the penance.

Yes. The reduction (or even cancelling) of the time of penance is exactly what an indulgence is.

Thankyou. I have not exactly studied indulgences much at all and there is very limited resources I can find on the net in their regards. Newadvent only served to confuse me with words and terms I have never seen before, also I was taught indulgences and purgatory back at Catholic highschool (while I was still an atheist) before my conversion to Orthodoxy.

Please permit me to explain the concept a little bit more to you (I am not Latin Catholic, but I’ve read a lot about it, since I needed to know what I was getting into before translating from Orthodoxy to Catholicism; I’ve found the idea of applying indulgences to souls after death completely orthodox).

You already know the basics of what an indulgence is - the Church’s act of lessening or cancelling penance for sin already pardoned (FYI, penance is ALSO known as “temporal punishment” in the Latin Church) as the result of sincere, penitential acts by the pardoned sinner.

Now consider that both our Churches teach that the suffrages and prayers of the faithful on earth can help the souls being perfected/purified after death.

I see your problem with the Latin teaching, because I used to have that problem too. Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) believes that the soul is perfected after death, but it is not punished. Since there is no punishment that needs to be reduced, what use can indulgences have for souls after death?

Well, brother ematouk, please understand this:
In Latin soteriology, indulgences are gained by penitential acts - that is, the penance/temporal punishment of a sin is reduced or cancelled by these sincere actions. Latin teaching assumes one of two things: either 1) one has satisfied the temporal punishment due to one’s sins in this lifetime, in which case, indulgence for that soul after death is no longer needed; or 2) one does not satisfy the temporal punishment in this lifetime. Upon death, one no longer has the benefit of performing penitential acts to gain an indulgence or lessening of one’s temporal punishment. The only help a soul “in” Purgatory has are the suffrages and prayers of the Church on earth.

SO INDEED, INDULGENCES BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO ONE’s SOUL AFTER DEATH.

So far, I assume you agree with everything I’ve stated.

Ok, you are teaching the latin doctrine in a very different way to how I was taught at school. I was never taught anything about indulgences increasing holiness in latin theology, but only that they they remove temporal punishments (which you said = penance).

Now the question comes - "what about the soul of another?

Can a Christian on earth gain an indulgence for the soul of another in the afterlife?"

From my study of Latin soteriology, the answer is a resounding “NO.”

I was told at school I could buy a mass card (which was sold outside the church) and by which temporal punishments are lessened. I was told I could buy one for a loved one who has departed this life even.

Is this just poor information on account of the lay people? I have not really gone back to a Roman Catholic church since my school days so I dont know if they still do this (occasionally I go to the maronite church with my friends, and I havent seen them do this). But when I read about Martin Luther and his reformation against purgatory and indulgences, it brings back memories of school days and begs the question “has anything really changed since the council of Trent?” Is Johann Tetzel really dead? or does he still exist in the mind of the Catholic faithful? (I’m not trying to be pessimistic here, but I’m suggesting that perhaps the Catholic faithful NEED to be educated more on what they actually believe)

Please consider this: Latin teaching states that the primary beneficiary of one’s penitential acts is oneself, which first and foremost increases holiness, and secondly, gains an indulgence to lessen one’s penance. Any acts one performs beyond what is necessary for the satisfaction of one’s temporal punishment/penance is no longer applicable as an indulgence. The value of those acts goes into what Latins call the Treasury of Merits.

Excuse my ignorance, but isn’t penance given pastorally by the confession father for the sin confessed to him? Or is a certain penance legalistically bestowed for each sin forgiven? If say the confession father asks his parishioner to pray the rosary once a day for 40 days, and he does it. Does this mean that hypothetical parishioner no longer has any temporal punishments to undergo in purgatory if say the person dies right after saying the last rosary prayer? (Sry if my question sounds a bit protestant, but I’m just trying to get a bit of clarity here)

 

[ematouk]

The Treasury of Merits is nothing more, nothing less than the Latin expression for what the Orthodox would call Grace. This is what increases holiness in a soul - IOW, the process of theosis.

Wow. Maybe its just the wording which sounds a bit repulsive to me. Merit in my oppinion suggests the person is earning something. If earning grace, it sounds rediculous. “One only is holy, One only is the Lord, Jesus Christ” it says in the liturgy of St Basil. And then we all go up to take the Eucharist because we are only holy in Christ - He makes us holy. I like the Orthodox wording better, it makes it sound like striving for something, rather then earning something based on achievement.

Are there different schools of thought on this issue? or are all Catholics pretty much unanimous on this teaching?

Now, it is important to understand that in Latin soteriology, punishment (God’s Justice) for a Christian is one of the means to increase holiness. They ALWAYS go hand in hand. If one undergoes punishment, one increases in holiness (as indeed the book of Hebrews asserts, “God punishes us for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness”).

“For they {our Earthly fathers} indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it” (Hebrews 12:10-11)

I can see what you mean, that perhaps people in the afterlife are chastened by the Lord so that they may increase in holiness. But, I dont really see holiness as a direct byproduct of being chastened. I see it more of an indirect byproduct.

For example, if a man punishes us, this tests our faith and may cause us to either fall, or to strengthen our faith much stronger. There is so many ppl I know who because of the death of a loved one, turn away from God.

On the other hand, when the Lord chastens us he calls us to repentence. The chastening in my oppinion doesnt cause the holiness, but may cause repentence which promotes holiness.

I dont see how this applies to those in purgatory though, because after death I thought a person’s destiny is set? I do not see how these punishments result in repentence.

It is common parlance for a Latin to “gain an indulgence for a dead relative.” In reality, a Catholic does not help a soul in Purgatory with his or her suffrages and prayers by gaining that soul an indulgence. Rather, one’s suffrages and prayers help the soul in Purgatory by helping to increase the holiness of that soul. Since in Latin soteriology, punishment increases holiness, it would be counterproductive to gain an indulgence for/ decrease the punishment of a soul in Purgatory.

Ahh, ok… Im starting to understand the Catholic view a bit better now. I really think the average lay Catholic needs to be educated on this issue, because there are so many times I hear people emphasising the by-product and not mentioning the “increased holiness” part. In fact, this is the first time I’ve heard of this increased holiness part.

Brother, who ever told you that only the Pope can grant indulgences in the Catholic Church? The power of indulgences is part and parcel of the power of the keys, a power possessed by ALL bishops, not just the Pope. That is what the Catholic Church teaches.

The keys possessed by all bishops and not just the pope? Thats very strange, Ive never heard this from a Catholic before. When discussing Ecclesiology it seems people emphasise only the Pope has the keys (as the successor of Peter), but when discussing this topic it seems you are emphasising that every bishop has the keys (which I 100% agree with).

I hope you don’t mind my asking - where have you acquired your knowledge of the Catholic Church - from the Catholic Church, or from a NON-Catholic Church? I find it strange that you were unaware that the term “indulgence” is a patristic term, not just a Catholic term. And it’s strange that you think only the Pope can grant indulgences in the Catholic Church. I am glad that you have come onto this website. I am not trying to convert you (heck, I think we need more Eastern Orthodox like YOU), but I am concerned that you are getting a lot of false info from non-Catholic sources. If you want to know what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches, this is the place to be.

May God bless you Mardukm. I mostly acquired my knowledge as an Atheist at Catholic highschool. I was interested in learning Catholic faith, as a weapon against Christians in general. (a lot has changed - repentence). In short I learned from the Catholics themselves. I also learned a bit from Catholic apologetics websites, but they dont really portrey the whole picture, and they tend to be against the Protestants then anything else.

I didnt really study much of indulgences at all. This is why I started up this discussion. I have a very basic knowledge of indulgences. They were mentioned abundently in Catholic school, but they have little mention in the Orthodox Church I have noticed.

No worries. If my whole school couldnt convert me to become a Catholic. I dont think you can. lol.

I work for unity. But firstly honesty. I do not believe in false union. I also enjoy reading Orthodox writers, they seem to write with more understandable language and less language that goes over my head. I also find the Orthodox church much more mystical and in awe before the omnipotent God, while I see dry “syllogistic deduction” in the Roman confession. I feel much more like I’m experiencing the faith in Orthodoxy, while in the Roman confession, it simply felt like I was studying the faith.

May God bless us all to work towards unity.