Byzantines and Plenary indulgence

  • Thread starter Thread starter ematouk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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).
Is it not usually the Latin Church that imposes Herself on others? Especially the Eastern Catholics when it comes to Latinizations?
When the horse tries to relate what the cow is saying, or vice-versa, the horse always fails miserably.
Animal farm again! 😃
Unfortunately, Eastern Orthodox are more wont to try to (mis)represent Catholicism than the other way around.
Opinion. That is not my experience.
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.
This issue goes very deep and has been the subject of many threads. In short, if the Orthodox Church does not shout from the roof tops that the Catholic Church is a true apostolic Church, it is not an act of arrogance or uncharity.
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.
I remember hearing something about that. Russia is also concerned about protestant proselytization. I have not heard much more about it. I think Russia is simply trying to protect Her Orthodox Tradition.
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.
Officially, Holy Orthodox usually says nothing. I do not often hear the word “heresy”. I sometimes hear “heterodox”.
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.
Perhaps it is more widespread where you live. 🤷
As a young Orthodox Christian, I guess you are not as comfortable with the definition of paradox above as other Orthodox Christians.
Perhaps the Orthodox Christians where you live are comfortable being called paradoxical. I do not know any who care to be identified as such. The primary definition is not very edifyiing.

Thank you for your apology my brother in Christ.
 
In short I learned from the Catholics themselves.
God bless you ematouk. Like you, I also learned from the Roman Catholics. Sadly, at least two generations were taught incorrectly. I was taught incorrectly regarding subjects such as indulgences and limbo (to name a couple). In later years, I attempted to learn what the Church really teaches about those subjects. But I often found myself lost in scholastic logic and/or double talk. Perhaps I was not intelligent enought o grasp it. But I got tired of trying to understand the endless Latin definitions and logic. However, I do appreciate posters such as mardukm who try to put this stuff in terms that ignoramuses such as myself might understand. 😃

It is sad to me that so many were/are taught incorrectly.
I work for unity. But firstly honesty. I do not believe in false union.
Amen!
I also enjoy reading Orthodox writers, they seem to write with more understandable language and less language that goes over my head.
Amen! Amen!
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.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif
 
Dear brother ematouk,
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).
Sorry if I was unclear. The indulgence does not increase holiness. The penitential act does (whether it is prescribed penance or one’s willful holy act). Does that clear it up?
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.
I don’t know about Mass cards. The Latin Churches I’ve attended (I’ve only been Catholic for about 4 years) do not distribute them. Maybe that’s something in the past. I’ve heard of intention cards which people use to request that a Mass is offered for someone (oneself, or a loved one, living or deceased) - is that the same thing? I’ll assume it is.

In any case, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the greatest act that can grant an indulgence (I’m sure you would agree), so I do not see that this would be a problem for you. Certainly, one can buy a Mass card for oneself and take advantage of the indulgence the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass provides when one is still alive.

As far as the deceased loved one is concerned, that has already been explained. When the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is offered for the departed, the benefit given to the departed soul is NOT an indulgence, but rather the superabundant Merit Christ gained on the Cross (IOW, Grace). This increases the holiness of the departed soul (and as a fringe benefit, that would reduce the punishments in the afterlife that a departed soul would otherwise experience.

Does that help explain it?
Is this just poor information on account of the lay people?..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.
👍 Oh - and don’t confuse us Oriental and Eastern Catholics with those Latin Catholics.😉 😃
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)
Yes. Traditionally, in the Latin and Oriental Traditions, penance is given by the priest (I’m not sure about the Eastern Tradition as I have been told - correct me if I’m wrong - the EO don’t focus much on the penitential aspects of the Faith). In the Latin Church, the norm today is for the priest to assign some penitential prayers, with the expectation that the sinner will, being truly contrite, perform other penitential acts of one’s own choosing. I asked a Latin priest about it once, and he told me the prayers themselves do not make full satisfaction.

There has never been a one-to-one correspondence in the Latin Church of a certain temporal punishment/penance assigned to a particular sin (*though this was certainly the case in the early Church!:eek: * - and non-Catholics call Catholics legalistic!:rolleyes: :rotfl:). Notice that the old pious practice of “one Hail Mary = 5 years out of Purgatory” (just as an example) never assumes that one knows the full extent of the penance God requires for a sin. Given this, it is rather unrealistic to assume a confessor or confessee will know exactly what is needed to satisfy God’s justice.

In the Oriental Tradition (Orthodox and Catholic) one is encouraged - even expected - to live a penitential LIFE in general, for one’s own sins, as well as for others, either in this life or in the next. Thus, one is always sure to satisfy penance, and have works stored up for the benefit of others (i.e., suffrage).

One last thing. There is a type of indulgence called a plenary indulgence that is able to satisfy ALL temporal punishment due to sin. While there are many types of indulgences that can be granted by any bishop, a plenary indulgence is reserved to the Pope alone.

I hope that has helped explain it a bit more. I really do appreciate your questions.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk
 
One last thing. There is a type of indulgence called a plenary indulgence that is able to satisfy ALL temporal punishment due to sin. While there are many types of indulgences that can be granted by any bishop, a plenary indulgence is reserved to the Pope alone.
I have heard (or read) that it is virtually impossible to receive a plenary indulgence because one must be completely detatched from sin. Is this true?
 
Dear brother ematouk,
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.
I mentioned this earlier, and I don’t recall if it was in response to you. Forgive me if it sounds insulting (not my intention at all), but the complaints about Merit should not be coming from an Orthodox Christian (if one studies what it really is). I know MOST PROTESTANTS have a lot of problems with it, but that is because these Protestants do not accept the apostolic teaching that one can actually DO something about one’s salvation. This teaching distinguishes Protestantism from both Catholicism and Orthodoxy - IOW, the teaching is a COMMON patristic heritage of Catholics and Orthodox. A former poster named Father Ambrose called this principle “synergy” - that BOTH God and man participate to bring about the salvation of the man.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “for every meritorious act has for its main object the increase of grace and of eternal glory.

In this light, I hope you can see that Merit is nothing more nor less than the Grace God gives to a person because of the holy works he/she does that results in the increase of holiness in a person tending towards salvation (as the Apostle says, "work out your own salvation). It does seem to have a lot to do with the wording, but I think this is one of the things that can be easily worked out between Orthodox and Catholics, with sincere meditation on the Apostle’s exhortation (contained in my signature line below) regarding not arguing about words. Catholics and Orthodox actually believe the same thing, but Latin Catholics have their own theological language to express it that is different from the Orthodox - but the difference is ONLY IN THE LANGUAGE.

In truth, we ARE earning our salvation, because we truly participate in it. But it is an “earning” (a “working out of one’s own salvation,” if you will) that we know cannot be achieved ON OUR OWN, but only by the Grace of God - and that is the difference between the Pelagians and the true patristic teaching on the matter.

But if there is anything I would like for you to take away from this discussion about what the Latins teach about Merit, it is this. Merit is given by God NOT OUT OF OBLIGATION TO WHAT WE DO, BUT OUT OF A FREE CHOICE. God could have chosen to save us another way. He could also choose not to give us Merit (or Grace). In truth, the economy of salvation has been established by God Himself. HE set the standards; HE set the rewards. Our works do not obligate Him to do anything.
Are there different schools of thought on this issue? or are all Catholics pretty much unanimous on this teaching?
Latin Catholics are unanimous on the matter because it is dogma according to the Council of Trent. Eastern and Oriental Catholics are in communion with the Latin Church on the matter because we understand that the SUBSTANCE of the Latin teaching on Merit is also what we believe as Orthodox (in communion with Rome) - with due consideration for my Catholic brethren who have no counterparts in Orthodoxy.

One last thing on this issue is important to mention. Merit is sometimes called “Created Grace” in the Latin Church. This has caused some problems for some Eastern brethren. These Easterns argue that since Grace is divine, it cannot be created. Please understand that when the Latins use the term “Created Grace,” they do NOT use the term “Created” to denote the nature of Grace itself (which indeed is divine and UNcreated); rather it is in reference to the fact that within the creature who acquires the Grace, it is NOT NATURAL OR INHERENT. Relative to the creature who acquires it, Grace is something completely new - in short, something “created” - within it. Do you understand what I’ve explained? Please respond.

If you, brother ematouk, ever hear this objection (or other objections about Merit) from your fellow Orthodox, I hope that you can respond with what I have stated, which will help foster understanding and unity between our Churches — one person at a time.🙂

“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.

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.

👍 :clapping: You are right. That is also what the Latins teach. The punishment/chastening reforms the mind, heart and will of the person towards God, and thereby holiness. The value is not in the punishment/chastening itself.

CONT’d
 
CONT’d
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.
One can respond in two ways that are easy for Orthodox to understand.
  1. There is no question of a person’s destiny changing in Purgatory (after all, as the Apostle says, after death there is only judgment). All souls in Purgatory will “go” to Heaven. In fact, I’ve heard it said that Purgatory is merely a PART of heaven.
SIDENOTE: During my swim across the Tiber, I took the time to search the Scripture for any possible allusion to a purgatorial “place” “in” Heaven. The Book of Revelation actually mentions a sea of glass as though of fire in front of the heavenly throne. That made me think of the lake of fire meant for Satan and his angels for the sake of eternal punishment. I thought to myself that this body of water (“sea”) would be perfectly analogous to the lake of fire, except that the fiery sea of glass would be the fires of the Holy Spirit cleansing or purging a soul for the sake of heavenly glory. It did not get me believing in Purgatory, but it made me open to the possibility that the Catholics might not be so crazy after all.😃
  1. What occurs in Purgatory, what occurs as a result of punishment or chastisement, according to the Latin teaching is not merely a volitional shift of the mind, heart, and soul towards God. It is also a metaphysical change in the very essence of the soul of the creature that will permit it to come into full union with Divinity. In every sense of the word, it is theosis.
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.
Sanctification (or, increase in holiness) is part and parcel of Catholic (Western, Eastern, and Oriental) soteriology. It is true that the average lay Latin Catholic focuses more on the Justice of God rather than the Grace of God. But indeed that is a matter of instruction. Latin Catholics need to learn, accept and appreciate the FULLNESS of what Latin Catholicism teaches. It would make the perception of non-Catholics towards Catholicism that much better, and the efforts towards unity that much more productive.
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).
😃 Sorry, bro. I wish I could agree, but that is not what I am saying. I am not saying that all bishops possess the keys. I am saying that all bishops possess the POWER of the keys. Scripture clearly and in no uncertain terms indicates that the keys themselves were given to Peter ALONE, though the POWER of the keys (the power to bind and loose) was given to ALL the Apostles. And that is what is handed down in the Apostolic Succession - the keys to the Successor of Peter, and the power of the keys to ALL (bishops, that is).

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Looking forward to all your questions and comments, in this thread and others you may start.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Mickey.
God bless you ematouk. Like you, I also learned from the Roman Catholics. Sadly, at least two generations were taught incorrectly. I was taught incorrectly regarding subjects such as indulgences and limbo (to name a couple). In later years, I attempted to learn what the Church really teaches about those subjects. But I often found myself lost in scholastic logic and/or double talk. Perhaps I was not intelligent enought o grasp it. But I got tired of trying to understand the endless Latin definitions and logic.
Brother, I KNOW where you are coming from. My swim across the Tiber didn’t take three years for nothing! :rotfl:

Abundant blessings,
Marduk
 
I have heard (or read) that it is virtually impossible to receive a plenary indulgence because one must be completely detatched from sin. Is this true?
Technically we must be free from all attachment to sin. BUT, rules like these in the Western Church are always interperated through the lense of Charity and we really mean by free from attachment to sin is that we have made an intellectual decision (one that bears fruit in our actions) to repent of all our sins. It does not mean that we know that we won’t fall in the futrure. But at that point, we have repented of our sins as Christ calls us to.
 
“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.
Meditate on that passage and you’ll come to a better understanding of Latin spirituality, I think. It can be taken in the sense of God “getting His anger out on us”, but that is not the way the Latin tradition understands it. Rather, God gives us chastisement in order to keep us growing; we take up our Cross and become more united to Christ.

The “punishment”, in this sense, has to do with the unpleasant nature of this conformity with Christ, not necessarily with God having to enact a judgement (though God’s Justice is certainly present as well); Christ’s Glorification didn’t come pleasantly either, remember. The Latin tradition tends to emphasize this aspect a lot, perhaps more than any of the other Apostolic traditions, but doing so hardly makes it unApostolic. If anything I’d say it’s a necessary reminder of Apostolic Faith to the Church, just as other traditions have their own specialties and focuses that are truly Apostolic and enriching for us all.

This is why you’ll hear Latins speaking of “offering up” their sufferings to God, or thanking God for infirmities and unpleasantries in life. It’s part of the tradition that these difficulties are gifts from God that strengthen us and help us grow in Holiness, just as Christ was Glorified by the Cross. We even have mystic Saints in the Latin tradition who recommend turning away from even Spiritual delights, not in order to be morbid, but because 1 ) they are not the true substance of Grace, but rather a pleasant side-effect, 2 ) they can be misleading, because many things, even diabolic influences, can cause pleasant Spiritual feelings, and 3 ) Christ Himself denied them in accepting humiliation and death on the Cross, and we are most perfectly conformed to Him when we take on all that He took on; while He was perfectly God and not ever forsaken, He was still able to recite the Psalm that said “my God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” He was denying Himself the Spiritual pleasantry of His very Being in order to most perfectly confront evil.

Purgatory can be likened to the proccess after death by which the human soul turns from created pleasures and joys, and fully embraces God, just as we do with our penances and fastings on Earth. Fasting, for example, isn’t pleasant by any stretch (and is therefore a punishment, in the classic sense of the term meaning something that is unpleasant but which repairs), but it is part of our spiritual growth and leads to a much greater reward and happiness. Purgatory is kind of like a final fasting period of sorts. 🙂

On Merit: Mardukm has already ably dealt with the matter, but I’ll just add that merit is basically the Latin theological way of explaining that when we work with Grace, Grace increases. God gives us Grace, we do good works, we pray, ect, and Grace abounds within us more. It’s not an obligation on the part of God, but a natural outgrowth of our relationship with Him.

Both the initial gift of Grace and the increase are purely from God’s abundant Goodness and generosity, but there is a sense in which we work with the initial Gift as a means of increasing it, and that is called Merit in theological terms. An analogy would be the proper investment of received money, like Christ’s parable of the rich man who gave his servants money and one buried it while the other invested and returned with more than he had initially been given. Merit is the ever-increasing bounty of Grace that is tied to our (and the Saint’s) cooperation with God; a kind of personal and corporate theosis, to use a Greek term.

The theological terminology and approach isn’t necessarily present in the Byzantine tradition, but its practical application can be seen whenever we offer a Divine Liturgy on a deceased person’s behalf, with the knowledge that it helps to Sanctify them; that is an example of us applying our “merits” (cooperation with the Divine Grace through the Divine Liturgy) to another in need. Applying indulgences to a dead loved one works on a similar principle (and is found in Scripture, incidently, in Second Maccabees). 🙂

Hope that helps!

Peace and God bless!
 
My swim across the Tiber didn’t take three years for nothing!
I hear ya brother! As a Catholic in communion with Rome, I studied for far more than three years–the difference is–my studies led me to Holy Orthodoxy! 👍
 
How does one know that they have complete detachment from sin—even venial sin?
You have the disposition of repentance from all sin known and unknown. Have not ever had this disposition?
 
You have the disposition of repentance from all sin known and unknown.
I see what you are saying–but all definitions I have ever read, use the wording “complete detachment from sin–even venial sin”.

I see nothing that says that you must merely have a “disposition of repentance”.

I agree that “disposition of repentance” is certainly attainable. But “complete detachment from all sin” seems rather difficult.

Even the holiest hermit living in a cave may have unclean thoughts.
 
I see what you are saying–but all definitions I have ever read, use the wording “complete detachment from sin–even venial sin”.

I see nothing that says that you must merely have a “disposition of repentance”.

I agree that “disposition of repentance” is certainly attainable. But “complete detachment from all sin” seems rather difficult.

Even the holiest hermit living in a cave may have unclean thoughts.
I understand what you are saying, but if I am to believe that man has free will, I must believe that he can be repentant of all sins. Thus, in this sense, he is free from all attachment to sin.
 
40.png
mardukm:
Sorry if I was unclear. The indulgence does not increase holiness. The penitential act does (whether it is prescribed penance or one’s willful holy act). Does that clear it up?
Ok, now im a bit confused. Sorry I’m a bit ignorant of this, but if you say it is the penitential act that increases holiness, then how does the indulgence actually work in the case of the dead?

Like how is the person who is in purgatory “made holier” by an indulgence gained on Earth by a loved one? I ask this because the dead person didnt do anything. I fail to see how they did any penitential acts. Sorry ur statement has just muddled it up in my mind.

The same is true for the mass. You say that Orthodox Christians believe the liturgies for the departed sanctify the souls of the departed and make them holier. But I have never come across this in my church, nor in my reading. I havent really studied this topic in depth though, but would you please point me to an Orthodox source which confirms this? I was unaware of this belief. I was always told the prayers for the dead are to give the dead person comfort and confidence before the throne of God on the Day of Judgement much like how Paul prayed for Onesiphorus “that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Timothy 1:18).
40.png
mardukm:
In the Oriental Tradition (Orthodox and Catholic) one is encouraged - even expected - to live a penitential LIFE in general, for one’s own sins, as well as for others, either in this life or in the next. Thus, one is always sure to satisfy penance, and have works stored up for the benefit of others (i.e., suffrage).
I agree 100% with this. I very much like the Coptic Orthodox Church. I liked Pope kyrillos and I like Pope Shenouda. I just await the day when us EO sign the document of communion with the OO. Anyways thats my personal oppinion - I dont want to go off topic.
40.png
mardukm:
One last thing. There is a type of indulgence called a plenary indulgence that is able to satisfy ALL temporal punishment due to sin. While there are many types of indulgences that can be granted by any bishop, a plenary indulgence is reserved to the Pope alone.
Ahh, yes I heard about this. Like Pope John Paul issued one for the Jubilee year. I always wondered, why doesnt the Pope just apply these indulgences to everyone and thus eliminate the need for purgatory. Wouldnt that be great? I heard his vault of indulgences is unlimited due to the overabundent merit of Christ. So technically cant he just apply it permanently to everyone? (I know u’ll probably be laughing at me because to a Catholic it probably sounds like a funny question, but it is honest)
40.png
mardukm:
A former poster named Father Ambrose called this principle “synergy” - that BOTH God and man participate to bring about the salvation of the man.
I agree 100% with synergy. But I misunderstood what “Merit” was. It sounds very strange to me. I don’t understand why the Roman Church cant just use the word “grace”. lol. And I thought learning Calvinist terminology was overwhelming.
40.png
mardukm:
If you, brother ematouk, ever hear this objection (or other objections about Merit) from your fellow Orthodox, I hope that you can respond with what I have stated, which will help foster understanding and unity between our Churches — one person at a time
In all honesty, I havent really ever heard any anti-Catholic comments in my church or any of the Orthodox Churches I’ve attended. I’ve seen a few anti-Catholic articles on the net and a few anti-Catholic forum posters though. But if it comes up, I could point them to this forum, but I wouldnt be able to explain it off the top of my head… it still sounds a bit strange that the terminology developed.

Like us EO have been seperated from the OO for over 1600 years and yet I can easily understand Coptic Orthodox articles of faith and perfectly understand what they are saying if I attend their bible studies. But as for the Latins, who have only been seperated from us for about 1000 years, their theological language seems completely alien to me. I dont mean this in an offensive way, and I duely hope nobody takes offense, but its simply an observation.
40.png
mardukm:
You are right. That is also what the Latins teach. The punishment/chastening reforms the mind, heart and will of the person towards God, and thereby holiness. The value is not in the punishment/chastening itself.
Does the Catholic church believe a person can repent after death? Can someone in purgatory - from the suffering - turn away from God and fall into hell?

Earthly chastisement can bring us closer to God or cause us to fall away, this is the test of our faith. Is it the same for purgatory? If not, then why not?
40.png
mardukm:
I am not saying that all bishops possess the keys. I am saying that all bishops possess the POWER of the keys. Scripture clearly and in no uncertain terms indicates that the keys themselves were given to Peter ALONE, though the POWER of the keys (the power to bind and loose) was given to ALL the Apostles. And that is what is handed down in the Apostolic Succession - the keys to the Successor of Peter, and the power of the keys to ALL (bishops, that is).
Yes, that sounds more Catholic to me. Even though I disagree with it.

Thankyou also to Ghosty, your posts are always enlightening.

God bless you both for helping me understand.
 
Dear brother ematouk
I agree 100% with synergy. But I misunderstood what “Merit” was. It sounds very strange to me. I don’t understand why the Roman Church cant just use the word “grace”. lol. And I thought learning Calvinist terminology was overwhelming.
There are so many things to which I want to respond (and not just from your posts), and I will. However, I’m in a rush and this is the only portion I feel comfortable answering in a thorough manner in such a short time (the rest will come later:) ).

The term “Merit” did not come about until the Reformation. As you know, the Latin Church defines many things - but its not out of a crazy desire to do so (despite what non-Catholic polemicists claim). She does it because she has been responding to a lot of heterodox ideas in the West (the West, unlike the East, has always been rich in free and liberal thought).

You have to understand that “grace” during the Reformation was being bandied about by the Protestants to denote FREE and UNMERITED favor from God. This was in line with the Protestant idea that the human person has absolutely no involvement in his/her salvation. Salvation was ALL God’s grace, and NOTHING of man. THAT is why the language of the Latin Church changed. , though the Faith ever remained the same.

Also please realize that the Latin word from which “merit” is derived does NOT denote “something owed.” It is simply something given to a person as a result of onone’s works.

I have more to say but I need to go. Next time, i proimise to respond to everything.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Like how is the person who is in purgatory “made holier” by an indulgence gained on Earth by a loved one? I ask this because the dead person didnt do anything. I fail to see how they did any penitential acts. Sorry ur statement has just muddled it up in my mind.

The same is true for the mass. You say that Orthodox Christians believe the liturgies for the departed sanctify the souls of the departed and make them holier. But I have never come across this in my church, nor in my reading. I havent really studied this topic in depth though, but would you please point me to an Orthodox source which confirms this?
St. Xenia of Petersburg

Specifically: “Before her repose, God granted St. Xenia the knowledge of her husband’s redemption. By forgetting herself, devoting the next forty-five years of her life to God, and committing all her charitable acts in her husband’s name, St. Xenia won his salvation.”

http://www.lillian-csernica.com/XENIA.JPG
 
40.png
Ghosty:
The theological terminology and approach isn’t necessarily present in the Byzantine tradition, but its practical application can be seen whenever we offer a Divine Liturgy on a deceased person’s behalf, with the knowledge that it helps to Sanctify them; that is an example of us applying our “merits” (cooperation with the Divine Grace through the Divine Liturgy) to another in need. Applying indulgences to a dead loved one works on a similar principle (and is found in Scripture, incidently, in Second Maccabees).
40.png
Woodstock:
St. Xenia of Petersburg

Specifically: “Before her repose, God granted St. Xenia the knowledge of her husband’s redemption. By forgetting herself, devoting the next forty-five years of her life to God, and committing all her charitable acts in her husband’s name, St. Xenia won his salvation.”
Thankyou for these posts. But I still do not see “sanctification” or “making holier” of dead persons by the liturgy of the departed in Orthodox teaching. I have never been taught this and I have been searching for a while and I still can not see it in any Orthodox source (on the net nor in my Orthodox book collection).

That passage about St Xenia the fool for Christ isnt speaking about sanctification of souls in the place of waiting after death. It is speaking about that same passage I quoted from St Paul when he prayed for Onesiphorus “that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Timothy 1:18).

St Xenia won her husbands salvation, after he had died. This is common Orthodox belief because we say “Pray for one another… The prayer of a righteous man has great power” (James 5:16). By praying for the dead we hope that God will be merciful and grant them pardon of their sins… But we do not know for sure if the Lord will forgive them, we hope.

Here is an Orthodox article which explains prayer for the dead:

theologic.com/oflweb/inhome/prydead.htm

The only place I have heard that Orthodox believe in sanctification of souls in the place of waiting due to the liturgy of the departed is on this forum. Can anyone please quote an Orthodox source for me which says this or an Orthodox saint?

God bless. Thankyou all for helping me understand this topic more in depth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top