Co the Eastern Catholic Church believe in purgatory?

[tdgesq]

What we are taught can be found in the Liturgy, and pastoral explanations there of. Sheol comes from the Jewish tradition, as Syriacs have many Semitic influences. Christ broke the gates of Sheol (Hades), but until His judgement all souls must wait. Christ bridged the gap between man and God, but we also must wait for our final decision to be made, and the veil is fully lifted. The Syriac tradition fully accepts and teaches theosis, and that our progression and being with God never ends. There is no final point that must be reached prior to being in God’s light, the belief contrary to does not fit with the Syriac understanding of creation and the soteriological ends.

Fascinating. I do not see right off, even in light of the distinction of Latin theology of the particular judgment and the general judgment, that there is necessarily a logical contradiction with the Maronite notion of Sheol. For RC’s this term is reserved either for hell or limbo of the fathers. I don’t really care about the terminology, just what we might mean by it.

It seems to me that the state of those individuals in Sheol must be different depending upon their faithfulness in the world prior to death. I am assuming that the state of the blessed must be different from those who rejected God. If this is true, then it may not conflict at all with the Latin tradition of particular judgment, because they have already been accorded a certain state by God in view of their actions before death.

The question is: what is the state of those who do not merit the punishments of hell, but who nonetheless fell short during their earthly lives? If you don’t have a precise answer for this because there is none forthcoming from your Eastern Traditions, that’s fine. I’ve found that the East is much less likely to sharply define doctrine than the West. And that isn’t a criticism either. Many Western theologians have boxed themselves into what I consider untenable positions by speculating in areas where they simply don’t have adequate revelation. I won’t mention any by name since it just provides off-topic fodder.

I would like to leave theosis and its soteriological implications for later if at all possible. If you feel that this can’t be done under the circumstances, I understand.

 

[mtr01]

So the enacting clause is not ex cathdra. Interesting. This infallibility thing seems more useless than I previously thought.

We already went all over this. The infallible declaration is:

“** that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”

**The phrase “completed the course of her earthly life” was used instead of “died”. Therefore some has assumed, that since it didn’t mention “died” that it is permissible to believe she was assumed before she dies. This, however, goes against Tradition, as well as the teaching in the document itself. I suspect you give some people an inch and they take a mile.

Personally, my guess as to why “completed the course…” was used is that a) it is a more poetic way of saying it; and b) perhaps the Holy Father wanted to avoid the word “died” because the Blessed Mother is indeed alive in Christ.

 

[Ahimsa]

Personally, my guess as to why “completed the course…” was used is that a) it is a more poetic way of saying it; and b) perhaps the Holy Father wanted to avoid the word “died” because the Blessed Mother is indeed alive in Christ.

Check it:

In Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII cited various Church Fathers to trace the longstanding tradition of the belief of the Assumption–St. John Damascene, St. Andrew of Crete, St. Modestus of Jerusalem and St. Gregory of Tours, to name a few. Bishop Theoteknos of Livias (c. 550- 650) delivered one of the most comprehensive early sermons concerning the Assumption: “For Christ took His immaculate flesh from the immaculate flesh of Mary, and if He had prepared a place in heaven for the Apostles, how much more for His mother; if Enoch had been translated and Elijah had gone to heaven, how much more Mary, who like the moon in the midst of the stars shines forth and excels among the prophets and Apostles? For even though her God-bearing body tasted death, it did not undergo corruption, but was preserved incorrupt and undefiled and taken up into heaven with its pure and spotless soul.”

 

[Hesychios]

Is it mentioned anywhere in the declaration the word “died” or variations thereof?

Oh boy, does it ever!

You have got to read that document, it would astound you (it amazed me when I saw it).I don’t have a link right now, but a search should bring it up pretty easily.

Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Magisterium has been far from silent that Mary died.

It’s hard to see how her death can be disputed by Roman Catholics, considering the words of Pope Pius XII in the very document by which he dogmatically defined the Assumption.

People like to say that the Apostolic Constitution “Munificentissimus Deus” by which Pope Pius XII established the dogma of the Assumption in 1950 makes no mention of whether Mary died or did not die. Obviously they have never read Pius XII’s own words.

One only has to read the document to see that the Pope teaches in an exercise of his ordinary Magisterium that she died. For example, he says:

"Thus, to cite an illustrious example, this is set forth in that sacramentary which Adrian I, our predecessor of immortal memory, sent to the Emperor Charlemagne. These words are found in this volume: “Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself.”

and

“As he kept you a virgin in childbirth, thus he has kept your body incorrupt in the tomb and has glorified it by his divine act of transferring it from the tomb.”

and

“They offered more profound explanations of its meaning and nature, bringing out into sharper light the fact that this feast shows, not only that the dead body of the Blessed Virgin Mary remained incorrupt…”

and

“she has received an eternal incorruptibility of the body together with him who has raised her up from the tomb…”

and

“What son would not bring his mother back to life and would not bring her into paradise after her death if he could?”

Al these quotes from the papal document defining the Assumption are incontrovertible proof that the Pope taught that Mary died and was buried in a tomb and from there she was resurrected by her Son.

---

“MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS” Pope Pius XII
http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM

 

[Sailka]

That’s funny because on the EWTN website is a copy of the work: READ ME OR RUE IT by Father Paul O’Sullivan. This book has the APPROVAL OF HIS EMINENCE THE CARDINAL PATRIARCH OF LISBON.
According to this work:
“People do not realize what Purgatory is. They have no conception of its
dreadful pains, and they have no idea of the long years that souls are
detained in these awful fires.”

“WHAT IS PURGATORY?
It is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after
death and in which they suffer the intensest pain.”
ewtn.com/library/SPIRIT/READRUE.TXT

Eastern Churches have Analogous beliefs to our Latin Rite “Pugatory” about cleansing for Heaven.

One Author’s opinion has Very little weight. Selling a book is not endorsing the contents. Mother Angelica herself said that “Purgatory” is not all bad; May be better than Earth. Purgatory does not involve Fire, which is an analogy.

“Purgatory” is a Roman Church word not used by Others.

St John Chrysostom, Eastern Bishop of about 600’s wrote of our offerings for the dead, to bring them ‘consolation’ in modern english.

Perhaps the Best ideas of “Purgatory”, which is Not a Place, but a Condition, Is the 1400’s stone carving over the entrance to the Chartres Cathedral: Being removed from the Presence of God himself for ‘some time’, before Returning to Him, “Cleansed.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has 3 Sections, # 1030-1033, 1030 just saying that one is cleansed before entering heaven, and that Fire was the representation used in the Bible and Church.

The only “Prison of Fire” is the Analogy used for Hell historically. “Purgatory” is Far less than Hell. The Problem is we do not have bodies in the after Life to endure Fire or sit on a cloud, playing a harp. They are Analogies.

 

[Volodymyr]

• St John Chrysostom, Eastern Bishop of about 600’s wrote of our offerings for the dead, to bring them ‘consolation’ in modern english.

Our Father among Saints John Chrysostom died in very early 400’s (fifth centurie). He was Archbishop (Patriarch) of Konstantinopl. His teaching us to pray for dead is not same as to create a special place like Purgatoire. This is as you say a Latinism - which has led to so much confusion. Pray for all dead that they be alive in memory of God. More God has not told us.

 

[Sailka]

• St John Chrysostom, Eastern Bishop of about 600’s wrote of our offerings for the dead, to bring them ‘consolation’ in modern english.

[SIGN]Our Father among Saints John Chrysostom died in very early 400’s (fifth centurie). He was Archbishop (Patriarch) of Konstantinopl. His teaching us to pray for dead is not same as to create a special place like Purgatoire. This is as you say a Latinism - which has led to so much confusion. Pray for all dead that they be alive in memory of God. More God has not told us./[/SIGN]QUOTE]

Thank you for corrections. I have one also. Hell, Heaven and “Purgatory” are not places, but Conditions of Our Soul. The places and fire metaphors were used like Pictures in the first 1500 years, when few could read.
We all agree and Practise praying for the Souls of the Dead. So they may be consoled with God. In Machabees 2, Jewish Warriors prayed for their Dead warrior brothers, immediatelly after Battle, proving how Old the wondeful tradition is.

 

[byrdele]

Hi everyone!

I am just now becoming a Byzantine Catholic myself, so I’m no expert. But I would not be surprised it the view of purgatory is different from the Roman. I’ll have to ask my priest.

I know that the filoque is left out of the Nicene Creed in the Byzantine Church. And that we celebrate the Dormition of Mary and her Assumption into heaven body and soul vs. the Assumption of the live Mary. With the acceptance of the continuation of married priests and what I just mentioned, I wouldn’t be surprised if the view on purgatory is somewhat different.

I know the Coptic Orthodox Church believes in merely a resting place where heaven-bound souls go before Christ comes back and then all the dead will rise. I’m wondering if the Byzantine Catholic Church holds that view. I read the posting and the document from whence it came about the Eastern Catholics believing in a purification of sorts, but not being comfortable with the word Purgatory. I’ll have to investigate that.

This is interesting because I have posted many times on this website and, in looking for the answer to this question, found myself right back here.

I guess for me it’s no big deal - Mary was assumed into Heaven body and soul one way or another, the filoque is just not something I sweat and purgatory is not either. To be honest, even as a Roman Catholic I have sat on the fence over it. I do pray for the dead. But I figure I will find out about it when I die so I just haven’t worried much about it.

It is something which interests me, though - whether or not the Byzantine Catholics have a different view or not considering the other things which have been allowed to continue which don’t exactly line up to the Roman doctrine.

Although this has nothing to do with the question, I have loved Catholicism ever since I came back. I came back to the RC. However, I love it even more when I see that I can go to a Catholic rite which is not Roman and might differ a bit in some doctrinal issues and that the Church is accepting and tolerant of that. It amazes me sometimes just what a glorious Church we have!

I could not have gone Byzantine had it not been Catholic, however, in full communion with Rome and the recognition of the Pope as Peter’s successor.

But I’ll ask about Purgatory and re-post with the answer. I’d rather ask someone at church than rely on the internet because you can get all sorts of varying answers on the topic.

God bless.

byrdele

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace Fr. Ambrose,

As a Roman Catholic (Latin) who has spent much time reflecting on Eastern Orthodoxy and Byzantine Catholicism I can only point to Western Saints like Blessed Catherine of Genoa’s Treatise on Purgatory for serious reflection on the glimpse of these deep mysteries.

I am still of the personal opinion that Western understanding of Purgatory are best understood by the East through the Eastern understanding of Apocatastasis… or River of Fire.

 

[byrdele]

Are there any Eastern Catholics here who would like to explain their belief or non-belief in purgatory?

Good morning, everyone.

I said that, being new to the Byzantine rite, I’d ask my priest. Couldn’t do it - someone else was always talking to him.

Was advised by Cantor to go to a website which led me to Treaty of Brest. Someone has already remarked on this in this website - Article 5 - “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.” (Treaty of Brest, 1595 A.D.) If that was and still is good enough for the Papacy and Vatican, then it should be good enough for all of us, I’d think. It is for me anyway.

In other words, if the Holy Church teaches it, we trust what the Church teaches. So I guess we do believe in Purgatory or, as one member of the church put it when I asked, a transitional period of purging.

When I find out more I’ll drop you all a line. Bye and God bless you all for now!

 

[Hesychios]

Was advised by Cantor to go to a website which led me to Treaty of Brest. Someone has already remarked on this in this website - Article 5 - “We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.” (Treaty of Brest, 1595 A.D.) If that was and still is good enough for the Papacy and Vatican, then it should be good enough for all of us, I’d think. It is for me anyway.

In other words, if the Holy Church teaches it, we trust what the Church teaches. So I guess we do believe in Purgatory or, as one member of the church put it when I asked, a transitional period of purging.

Well, the question is, which “the Holy Church” did these Orthodox bishops mean when they composed this article?

It appears that you are assuming “the Holy Church” means the Papacy. That’s OK for you, but it might not be what others think.

 

[John_Larocque]

I found this interesting as well…

1. We will accept the new calendar, if the old one cannot be, but without any violation of the Paschalia [the Easter cycle] and our other feasts as they were in the time of unity, because we have some special feasts which the Romans do not have; on the sixth of January we celebrate the memory of the Baptism of the Lord Christ and the first revelation of the One God in Trinity. We call this feast Theophany, and on this day we have a special service of the Blessing of Waters.

 

[Diak]

Fr. Ambrose appears to want to again stir up the polemic pot with a question/fuse lighting he has done on many occasions and on many forums.

I am quite amazed that a monk can keep the rigid Russian traditional monastic daily regimen and post with the frequency he does. I would posit to the Moderators that any posts originating from him belong in “Non-Catholic Religions” as a careful examination will reveal a polemic baiting in nearly every occurrance.

I would also strongly recommend everyone interested also read St. Peter Mohyla’s *Orthodox Catechism *on these points which has never been officially abrogated by any Orthodox Patriarch or local council.
FDRLB

 

[byrdele]

Well, the question is, which “the Holy Church” did these Orthodox bishops mean when they composed this article?

It appears that you are assuming “the Holy Church” means the Papacy. That’s OK for you, but it might not be what others think.

I was quoting from a 16th century document. Ecumenism was not exactly the flavor of the day back then. People were burned at the stake over the slightest deviation from doctrine which was preached by whichever church was in power in whichever country. You have to put this statement in historic perspective.

Please do not read any negativity in what I have to say. I’m not angry - I am just stating what I’m stating.

But is the Catholic Church the Holy Church? I believe so. And our doctrine states that it is. What’s the point in belonging to a church if I don’t believe in the doctrine?

Can a Baptist or a Russian Orthodox end up in heaven? Does he believe that Christ is his Redeemer and does he walk with Christ? Does he trust in God to forgive him his sins because he has trusted in Jesus as his Savior? I think we all know the answer to that. Of course. That is what Christ has said.

The Catholic Church is the true church in the sense that it is ‘complete’. Jesus told Simon that his name was no longer Simon but Peter (in Aramaic, ‘kepa’ - and the fact that it’s feminine gender does not denigrate its meaning as some people say when they argue about whether Peter was set up as the first Pope - there is only one word in Aramaic for anything from pebble to boulder - ‘kepa’.) The fact that Christ turned around and rebuked Simon the next minute doesn’t matter (he was really rebuking Satan who was whispering in Peter’s ear and Peter, as he was wont to do, blurted it out - he had foot and mouth disease like so many of us). It doesn’t matter because Peter was human. The Pope himself has a confessor to this day.

What is true to you and true to me - I don’t think that holds with God. God is absolute. God is unchanging. He is always the same. I might say that I don’t think the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that mean the sun won’t rise? Don’t think so. There are certain absolutes in this universe.

However, He is a merciful God. He’s not going to damn to hell the god-fearing Methodist who has walked all of his life with Christ.

I don’t really want to argue the point. For one thing, you are not going to change your mind. I am not going to try to change it. That is between you and God and is none of my business beyond making the statement I have.

Also, the time spent in arguing back and forth could really be better spent, no matter which denomination we are, living and propagating the salvation of Jesus Christ. God gives us free will and thus we are allowed our opinions and we can choose to spend our time arguing or agreeing to disagree (whether the Catholic Church is the true Church or not, or whatever). At this I am signing off.

Good bye and God bless.

 

[Ghosty]

Fr. Ambrose appears to want to again stir up the polemic pot with a question/fuse lighting he has done on many occasions and on many forums.

I am quite amazed that a monk can keep the rigid Russian traditional monastic daily regimen and post with the frequency he does. I would posit to the Moderators that any posts originating from him belong in “Non-Catholic Religions” as a careful examination will reveal a polemic baiting in nearly every occurrance.

I would also strongly recommend everyone interested also read St. Peter Mohyla’s *Orthodox Catechism *on these points which has never been officially abrogated by any Orthodox Patriarch or local council.
FDRLB

Fr. Ambrose’s post was actually from 2007; the thread was brought back by another poster.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Javl]

After God’ forgiveness of sins, doesn’t His justice demand a purgation of them? That is, much like serving time in jail, even though you’re sorry for the crime you’ve commited.
If so, then Purgatory does exist, regardless of what you may call it.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[byrdele]

After God’ forgiveness of sins, doesn’t His justice demand a purgation of them? That is, much like serving time in jail, even though you’re sorry for the crime you’ve commited.
If so, then Purgatory does exist, regardless of what you may call it.

PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem

Hi Javl. Later on I looked up the Treaty of Brest from from the late 16th century, under which many Eastern Christians decided to not break with Rome after all and were re-united. I think I posted it. Anyway, the summing up of the whole Purgatory issue was that there would be no argument but that the (Easterners) would trust in the teachings of the Holy Church (Rome). Since then I’ve talked to my fellow Byzantines (I am becoming Byzantine at this point) and they aid that yes, there is a belief in Purgatory among the Byzantines (I assume all Byzantines) - we are from the Ruthenium Tradition. There are two places in the New Testament from the same sermon from Christ upon which we base Purgatory on (the imprisoned debtor) and there are prayers mentioned for the dead in Maccabees.

God bless.

byrdele

p.s. Peace be unto you as well!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Byrdele,

Hi Javl. Later on I looked up the Treaty of Brest from from the late 16th century, under which many Eastern Christians decided to not break with Rome after all and were re-united. I think I posted it. Anyway, the summing up of the whole Purgatory issue was that there would be no argument but that the (Easterners) would trust in the teachings of the Holy Church (Rome). Since then I’ve talked to my fellow Byzantines (I am becoming Byzantine at this point) and they aid that yes, there is a belief in Purgatory among the Byzantines (I assume all Byzantines) - we are from the Ruthenium Tradition. There are two places in the New Testament from the same sermon from Christ upon which we base Purgatory on (the imprisoned debtor) and there are prayers mentioned for the dead in Maccabees.

Yes, as Catholics, we are all united in our belief that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages and prayers of the Church militant on earth, especially by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

I should stress, however, that there are legitimate differences between the Western, Eastern, and Oriental beliefs in Purgatory. For instance, the Western Catholic Church permits belief in Purgatorial fire (whether, spiritual or real), while the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches do not accept that. Again, the Western Church seems to have a more temporal understanding of Purgatory, given its assignment of “years” for temporal punishment therein, whereas the Eastern and Oriental Churches have a more purely spiritual concept of Purgatory, where “time” really has no meaning (though the Western Church seems to be moving towards the latter view).

Another difference is that the Western Church has a more penitential understanding of Purgatory; the Eastern Churches view Purgatory more as a state of healing and perfection, rather than a place of suffering; and the Oriental Churches, while adhering to the Eastern understanding, likewise accepts that suffering can be a means to spiritual healing and perfection.

Another difference is that the Latin Church teaches that only righteous souls are in Purgatory, whereas the Eastern and Oriental Churches are more willing to accept that even the worst sinners can be in this middle state that is not heaven nor hell. But even in this matter, there is nothing that should dogmatically separate the West from the East and Orient, for 2 reasons:

1. Though the Latin Church formally teaches that those who die in mortal sin go straightaway to Hell (Council of Lyons), she does NOT claim to know who is going to hell, and therefore, like her Eastern and Oriental Brethren, offers general prayers for the dead during her Liturgy.
2. Though Easterns and Orientals will pray for those who are in Hades, there is a general understanding that Hades is not the same as the Western concept of Hell (i.e., ETERNAL separation from God).

In short, none of these differences contradict the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church on Purgatory, nor are these differences sufficient to break the bond of unity between the Catholic Churches,

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[byrdele]

Hi Marmduk,

I agree with what you said except ONE thing - last time I checked, I was woman, so I’m your sister in Christ, not brother -

Thanks for your comments. God bless.

Byrdele