Debating the filioque

[Wandile]

There is one verse from Revelation which may have implications for this discussion.

“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
(Revelation 22:1)

Now it is worth noting a few things. First, the verb used is the same as in the Creed. Second, is the way St. John speaks of the Divine Persons. God refers to the Father, as is the usual case for the New Testament, the Lamb is Christ the Son, and the River of Water of Life refers to the Holy Spirit as in John’s Gospel (cf. Jn 7:38-39). John speaks of one river proceeds from one source, the throne of God and of the Lamb. This seems to reflect the definition of Florence that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle through one spiration. I would be hesitant to say that this definitively proves the Latin doctrine, but I would hope this would give Orthodox polemicists pause before insisting that St. John affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone when the verse from his Gospel does not use the word alone and he speaks of procession of the Holy Spirit in reference to the Father and the Son in his Apocalypse.

I’ll refrain from commenting on the other Orthodox objections. I don’t want to misrepresent the Orthodox views, which I’m not sure that I fully understand.

Very interesting indeed:thumbsup:

 

[frjohnmorris]

There is one verse from Revelation which may have implications for this discussion.

“And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding (ἐκπορευόμενον) out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
(Revelation 22:1)

Now it is worth noting a few things. First, the verb used is the same as in the Creed. Second, is the way St. John speaks of the Divine Persons. God refers to the Father, as is the usual case for the New Testament, the Lamb is Christ the Son, and the River of Water of Life refers to the Holy Spirit as in John’s Gospel (cf. Jn 7:38-39). John speaks of one river proceeds from one source, the throne of God and of the Lamb. This seems to reflect the definition of Florence that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one principle through one spiration. I would be hesitant to say that this definitively proves the Latin doctrine, but I would hope this would give Orthodox polemicists pause before insisting that St. John affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone when the verse from his Gospel does not use the word alone and he speaks of procession of the Holy Spirit in reference to the Father and the Son in his Apocalypse.

I’ll refrain from commenting on the other Orthodox objections. I don’t want to misrepresent the Orthodox views, which I’m not sure that I fully understand.

But you have misrepresented the Bible. The only text that clearly speaks of the Procession of the Holy Spirit is John 15:26 “But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;” That means that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son. Thus the Orthodox doctrine and language is completely Biblical. The Father is the source or the Son, who is begotten of the Father and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Augustine’s theology which defines the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son implies the inferiority of the Holy Spirit. It is also a vain attempt to understand the mystery of the Trinity with human reason. As Lossky wrote, the God of the filioque is the God of the philosophers.
When taken in context, together with the Second Coming of Christ Rev. 22:1 refers to the sanctification of the universe. Thus the verse in Revelation refers to the economic Trinity, that is the work of the Trinity for our salvation. In that context you can say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, although it would be more accurate to say, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son, or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[sw85]

Augustine’s theology which defines the Holy Spirit as the love between the Father and the Son implies the inferiority of the Holy Spirit.

How is that the case?

 

[frjohnmorris]

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church
should agree with this Church [of Rome] , on account of its preeminent authority

St Irenaeus of Lyon

I want to comment on the above quot from St. Irenaeus of Lyons. You have to put it in its proper geographical and historical context. St. Irenaeus was writing from Gaul, or France. France at that time was under the authority of the Patriarch of the West. Therefore it is only logical that a Bishop of a city in France would refer his readers to the authority of of his Patriarch, the Bishop of Rome. He was also writing that sentence as part of a larger argument that the Bishops in Apostolic Succession have more authenticity than the self-proclaimed leaders of the Gnostic sects that he was opposing in his work. Rome is the only see in the West that can claim Apostolic foundation. Therefore, since he was writing in the West, it is logical that he would refer to the authority of Rome in his work. Had he written the work in another place, he would have written the same thing about any number of sees founded by an Apostle.
It is also to note that at that point in history, Rome had a primacy of honor and not jurisdiction. Rome made no pretense to anything like the claims of the modern papacy. It made no claims to universal jurisdiction and recognized the rights of what were to become the other Patriarchates to administer their sees without interference from Rome. Finally, Rome made no pretense that its Bishop is infallible or above the authority of an Ecumenical Council. The Eastern Church never questioned the position of Rome as first among equals or its primacy of honor.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

You still don’t understand. Jesus bends when He comes to us. He is ever so Perfect and without sin yet He still communicates to us at our level so that hopefully you will get to His level. If the Orthodox are correct and I know they are than it is more right for us to imitate our Lord Jesus when dealing with people who have not a clue what those decisions from the past Ecumenical decisions had meant for the Orthodox Church. What I was trying to say is make friends with them first and once mutual friendship and fellowship exists than other important issues just as you mentioned can be easily discussed.

It is one thing to make friends and work together on charity and other such projects than it is to compromise the teaching of the Church by entering into Communion with another Christian group before we have reached doctrinal agreement. The Orthodox Church is very much involved in ecumenical activities. We have a very active and fruitful dialogue on the national and international level with the Roman Catholic Church. We tried dialogue with the Episcopalians, but broke it when they went against Apostolic Tradition and began to ordain women. Now that they have gone even further and ordain openly practicing homosexuals and lesbians and allow the blessing of same sex unions, I am against further dialogue with them because it would give them a recognition that they do not deserve after they have gone so far against traditional Christian Biblical morality. I myself participated in the national dialogue with the Lutherans, but the Lutherans broke off the dialogue themselves when they realized that we would not compromise our Orthodox Faith by entering into Communion with them before we reach doctrinal agreement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[chimo]

It is one thing to make friends and work together on charity and other such projects than it is to compromise the teaching of the Church by entering into Communion with another Christian group before we have reached doctrinal agreement. The Orthodox Church is very much involved in ecumenical activities. We have a very active and fruitful dialogue on the national and international level with the Roman Catholic Church. We tried dialogue with the Episcopalians, but broke it when they went against Apostolic Tradition and began to ordain women. Now that they have gone even further and ordain openly practicing homosexuals and lesbians and allow the blessing of same sex unions, I am against further dialogue with them because it would give them a recognition that they do not deserve after they have gone so far against traditional Christian Biblical morality. I myself participated in the national dialogue with the Lutherans, but the Lutherans broke off the dialogue themselves when they realized that we would not compromise our Orthodox Faith by entering into Communion with them before we reach doctrinal agreement.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father I was not referring to discussions at the higher state of Church government but more to the lower state which the Laity can be involve. I realise the difficulty is with the higher state which Bishops and theologians get involve with but these discussions by no means effect the Laity at all because they hardly know about them. I was more concerned at the local level. I agree with you about the other Churches since there is hardly anything that is going to bring us together but Rome is different. She has not entered into what these other Churches are engaging into such as the Anglicans and Lutherans. The prospect of a united Church between Orthodox and Catholics is more possible than any where else. What I was trying to say at the local level we would try to understand each other better by first putting away our differences for a time so that mutual understanding and fellowship can develop. The problem at the local level is hardly anyone knows what the other believes so that there is this “fear” if one can say that exists between us. I call this “fear” sometimes as “stubbornness” because we will not take the time to know the other. I believe if we as Orthodox incorporate some Catholic teachings into our Catechisms and the Catholics incorporate some Orthodox teachings into their Catechisms this “fear” might just go away.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father I was not referring to discussions at the higher state of Church government but more to the lower state which the Laity can be involve. I realise the difficulty is with the higher state which Bishops and theologians get involve with but these discussions by no means effect the Laity at all because they hardly know about them. I was more concerned at the local level. I agree with you about the other Churches since there is hardly anything that is going to bring us together but Rome is different. She has not entered into what these other Churches are engaging into such as the Anglicans and Lutherans. The prospect of a united Church between Orthodox and Catholics is more possible than any where else. What I was trying to say at the local level we would try to understand each other better by first putting away our differences for a time so that mutual understanding and fellowship can develop. The problem at the local level is hardly anyone knows what the other believes so that there is this “fear” if one can say that exists between us. I call this “fear” sometimes as “stubbornness” because we will not take the time to know the other. I believe if we as Orthodox incorporate some Catholic teachings into our Catechisms and the Catholics incorporate some Orthodox teachings into their Catechisms this “fear” might just go away.

We already work together with the Catholics on the local level in most places. I get along very well with the local Catholic clergy and have had several very pleasant exchanges with the local Catholic Bishop. The Chalice set that I use for the Divine Liturgy was given to our parish by one of the local Catholic Churches back in the 1950s. Next month, I am doing a wedding between a Catholic man and a woman from my parish. When I finish the Orthodox wedding, the local Catholic Priest will give words of encouragement and a blessing to the couple. Every year, the local Catholic school invites me to attend Mass because most of the youth of my parish and several teachers are members of my parish. I sent both my children to Catholic schools. I did get some rather strange looks when I attended parent functions dressed as a priest.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[chimo]

We already work together with the Catholics on the local level in most places. I get along very well with the local Catholic clergy and have had several very pleasant exchanges with the local Catholic Bishop. The Chalice set that I use for the Divine Liturgy was given to our parish by one of the local Catholic Churches back in the 1950s. Next month, I am doing a wedding between a Catholic man and a woman from my parish. When I finish the Orthodox wedding, the local Catholic Priest will give words of encouragement and a blessing to the couple. Every year, the local Catholic school invites me to attend Mass because most of the youth of my parish and several teachers are members of my parish. I sent both my children to Catholic schools. I did get some rather strange looks when I attended parent functions dressed as a priest.

Archpriest John W. Morris

That is very good Father. The more the better. However a lot of people do not have the same contacts as you and I can have. I was proposing that we would teach about each other within our two Churches some concepts and teachings which would invite people to know more. It is not the difficult to incorporate more important concepts and teachings that would inspire more fellowship. All we have to do is to teach it. Imagine Orthodox will be able to teach some Catholic teachings and concepts and Catholics will be able to teach some important Orthodox teachings and concepts. So far we are not dong this.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

That is very good Father. The more the better. However a lot of people do not have the same contacts as you and I can have. I was proposing that we would teach about each other within our two Churches some concepts and teachings which would invite people to know more. It is not the difficult to incorporate more important concepts and teachings that would inspire more fellowship. All we have to do is to teach it. Imagine Orthodox will be able to teach some Catholic teachings and concepts and Catholics will be able to teach some important Orthodox teachings and concepts. So far we are not dong this.

How can we get to know each other more than Father John has already stated?

Teach Latin concepts? In what context? I am not trying to be belligerent, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. We can certainly talk about what unites us, in that the Latin Church was Orthodox for centuries…but what else is there?

 

[chimo]

How can we get to know each other more than Father John has already stated?

Teach Latin concepts? In what context? I am not trying to be belligerent, I am trying to understand where you are coming from. We can certainly talk about what unites us, in that the Latin Church was Orthodox for centuries…but what else is there?

Thank you for your inquire.

There is much more than what meets the eye in our two Churches. The Churches can actually help each other to be better Orthodox, to be better Catholics. The one thing that marriage can do for a man and woman is the woman can make the man a better man and the man can make the woman a better woman. It can be the same for our two branches of our Church. The Catholic can make the Orthodox a better Orthodox and the Orthodox can make the Catholic a better Catholic.

I have a notion that is not what is similar that will unites us but more our differences that will unite us. Any good marriage depends on this synergy between two people. And it is interesting that one gets marriage so that the other will help complete you. The fact is when you are not yet married it is because you are lacking in something. That something is that person who will help to complete you. In this same analogy is what the Eastern Church can be for the Western Church and vice versa.

We are in fact in our two Churches lacking in something. We are incomplete. The other can help complete it. It can be that simple. The Catholic Church goes about teaching more what is the Discipline of God more than what is His Mercy. The Catholic Church is the Church per excellence in understanding God’s Justice. The Eastern Church has the ability to teach more on the Mercy of God. Here the Eastern Church is per excellence in revealing His Mercy more than His Justice. Here in one Church it is more disciplined in its form and structure while the other Church is more inclined towards nurturing. The West is more the disciplinarian and the East more the Nurturer. Discipline and Nurturing are the two aspects of parenting. You need both the Discipline and the Nurturing.

While both Churches have both these aspects within their structures it is not in the same level. The West leans more to Discipline and the East leans more to Nurturing, These two aspects in “parenting” are what makes up our two Churches gifted more in the West toward Disciplining (Justice) and gifted more in the East toward Nurturing (Mercy). This is why Rome developed the teaching on Purgatory for Purgatory is a by product of the Discipline of God in order that His Justice can be satisfied. You can be saved either way, by His Justice or by His Mercy. The problem for the Church back in the olden days was to figure out how God can save us when we experience for instance His Mercy but we will not exercise this same Mercy to our neighbor. The Catholic Church with her gifted insights into the Justice of God came through with the teaching on Purgatory. For some reason the Eastern Church is lacking in this teaching because the Eastern Church’s gift is more the revealing on God’s Mercy. It would be the advantage of Catholics to look at the Eastern Church and to the Church’s teachings on Mercy for it resembles very much the Divine Mercy messages that Jesus had given to St. Maria Faustina. The Lord Jesus though His messages to Maria is revealing to the West something of the East for in truth this is what is lacking in the West.

In truth both Churches can help complete the other. I will give you one more example. The Catholic Church teaches more about Redemptive Suffering which in my opinion is the crown jewel teaching from Rome. It is a very beautiful teaching that for some reason the East does not have in its entirety. While Redemptive Suffering can help explain how God can make young people into saints in very short process the Eastern Church has a teaching that helps explain in becoming a saint in a longer process. Theosis or the deification process of the East is a treasure to behold and it is this process that produces most of our saints. It is closely linked to the Transfiguration while the Redemptive Suffering process is more closely linked to the Passion. These two processes would help our two Churches once we learn to adapt both of them into our lives.

These are only some examples where both our Churches can help each other.

 

[Aramis]

O RLY? I was under the impression that our liturgy was translated from Slavonic. I stand corrected.

It’s one of the “big complaints” about the “Teal Terror”… mind you, the translations are pretty close, anyway. But the Commission did go back to the greek texts for it. A couple dozen specific wording changes happened.

Msgr. Levkulic’s translation was from the Slavonic.

On the third hand, however, most every translation into English is pretty close. The Russian-American Hapgood Translation is close enough to be familiar, and is also from the Slavonic to English.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I do not agree with your proposal because what you are calling for is mixing doctrines that contradict each other. There are real issues that need to be resolved between us. They cannot be ignored for to ignore them is to ignore the importance of correct doctrine, one thing that distinguishes both Catholicism and Orthodoxy from most modern liberal Protestant groups. You mentioned marriage. If a couple is trying to restore a broken marriage the last thing that they should do is ignore the differences between them that led to the falling apart of the marriage. The same thin is true for reunion between two Churches that were once united. We have to face the difficult issues that led to the division and which have developed since the division to create a real unity with a unified doctrine otherwise it will be a a reunion in name only and not a real reunion.
I am all for discussions to resolve our differences and restore Communion, but there are some Roman Catholic doctrines that Orthodox cannot accept, one of them is purgatory. We believe that when we repent of our sins, go to Confession and receive Absolution, our sins are completely forgiven. We do not to have to do penance or works of satisfaction to earn merit for the forgiveness of sins, or suffer in purgatory if we have not earned enough merit to enter into Heaven. There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ did for us. Even you admitted that the West “developed” the doctrine of purgatory. There is a way out of this conflicting doctrine. Orthodoxy does accept the teaching of the Fathers that our spiritual progress continues in Heaven. Perhaps Rome can redefine purgatory by eliminating the legalistic aspects that produced the idea of having to personally offer God penance and transform it into the idea that our spiritual progress and purification continues after death.
Nor can we accept the idea of indulgences. The whole concept of a Treasury of Merit controlled by the Bishop of Rome is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. We believe as I have written above that God’s forgiveness is a gift of grace. One can do special acts of devotion or make pilgrimages to holy places, but as a means of spiritual growth, not to earn an indulgence by transferring merit from merit earned by the Saints. The Orthodox recoil at the idea of tying merit to salvation.
These are but a few of the examples of issues that have to be resolved before Communion can be restored between Orthodoxy and Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[chimo]

I do not agree with your proposal because what you are calling for is mixing doctrines that contradict each other. There are real issues that need to be resolved between us. They cannot be ignored for to ignore them is to ignore the importance of correct doctrine, one thing that distinguishes both Catholicism and Orthodoxy from most modern liberal Protestant groups. You mentioned marriage. If a couple is trying to restore a broken marriage the last thing that they should do is ignore the differences between them that led to the falling apart of the marriage. The same thin is true for reunion between two Churches that were once united. We have to face the difficult issues that led to the division and which have developed since the division to create a real unity with a unified doctrine otherwise it will be a a reunion in name only and not a real reunion.
I am all for discussions to resolve our differences and restore Communion, but there are some Roman Catholic doctrines that Orthodox cannot accept, one of them is purgatory. We believe that when we repent of our sins, go to Confession and receive Absolution, our sins are completely forgiven. We do not to have to do penance or works of satisfaction to earn merit for the forgiveness of sins, or suffer in purgatory if we have not earned enough merit to enter into Heaven. There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ did for us. Even you admitted that the West “developed” the doctrine of purgatory. There is a way out of this conflicting doctrine. Orthodoxy does accept the teaching of the Fathers that our spiritual progress continues in Heaven. Perhaps Rome can redefine purgatory by eliminating the legalistic aspects that produced the idea of having to personally offer God penance and transform it into the idea that our spiritual progress and purification continues after death.
Nor can we accept the idea of indulgences. The whole concept of a Treasury of Merit controlled by the Bishop of Rome is completely foreign to Orthodoxy. We believe as I have written above that God’s forgiveness is a gift of grace. One can do special acts of devotion or make pilgrimages to holy places, but as a means of spiritual growth, not to earn an indulgence by transferring merit from merit earned by the Saints. The Orthodox recoil at the idea of tying merit to salvation.
These are but a few of the examples of issues that have to be resolved before Communion can be restored between Orthodoxy and Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father the understanding of Purgatory is simply what God does for us when we are lazy and disobedient in putting God’s Mercy into practice. Purgatory is for the lazy and disobedient ones, the couch potatoes. What God does at death is He removes those couches from these people. Since these people cannot glorify God during their life they are not going to glorify Him after they die. They need to learn to do this. This is what Purgatory does for you. For those who love God and are willing to extend His Mercy than Purgatory is not necessary for them. You can’t after death glorify God if you haven’t done so in this life. God only continues what is there (your attitude) at death.

People may be forgiven at Church but if they turn against their neighbor right after forgiveness than how can this forgiveness qualify them for complete forgiveness? Our Lord Jesus revealed to us about a person who was unwillingly to forgive someone who owed a small debt and when the King found out, he took that same person back into prison until he can pay back the last penny. Certainly our Lord Jesus is referring to Purgatory here because in His words He said he will get out. Purgatory deals with your own lack of love. I don’t teach about what doing works to satisfy our sins because this type of teaching does not involve the motive why we do this which is based solely on love.

When I call about differences in marriage I am referring to our gifts that we have. For instance I may be good at listening and my wife is good at talking. I may be good in leaning from observing while she learns best from reading. These are only some examples.

I don’t think Father, Rome is pushing their people to "merit: heaven today. May be in the past this was done but I think Rome is becoming more aware of what motivates God and it is love on both sides. However if one only loves when he or she is loved than I suspect this is natural. If however one loves and does not get love in return but still loves afterwards then this is more praiseworthy. Perhaps we do receive more from God when we accept the difficulties of what life and people give to us but we return back with more love. Perhaps this is what is needed to be taught.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I am an historian and approach theology through the history of doctrine. The whole idea of purgatory comes from the teaching that we must offer God enough personal acts of penance to earn satisfaction from our sins. If we have not offered God enough penance we must suffer in purgatory before we can enter Heaven. This teaching first surfaced in Tertullian. My point is that Christ paid the full price for our sins. As St. Paul wrote, we are saved by grace through faith, not through works. The Fathers tell us that repentance is a second baptism, that restores us to the state we were after we were baptized.
When we sincerely repent, go to Confession and receive Absolution, we are completely forgiven. At that moment we are completely purified of our sins. If we sin again, even right after Confession, as we all will, we must repent again. The life of a Christian is one of constant repentance. Every day, I say a prayer of repentance for the sins that I committed that day before I go to bed. If we repent of our sins in the last moments of our life, but die before a priest can give us Confession, God will forgive the sins we have committed because He will honor our intentions. Besides, the priest says a prayer of absolution over the dead body at the end of the funeral service that absolves the person for their sins if they have sincerely repented before their death.
I find your couch potato example confusing. We are either forgiven or we are not forgiven. If we are forgiven the forgiveness is complete. If we confess out state of sinfulness we are forgiven even if we have committed a sin without knowing it or have forgotten to confess a sin. In the Orthodox prayer of absolution, the priest announces forgiveness for all sins, including the sins that we have not confessed “either through ignorance or forgetfulness…” Finally the priest says, “Go in peace having no further care for your sins.”
However, as the Fathers teach our spiritual progress towards deification continues in Heaven after death. That spiritual growth will take care of the “couch potatoes.” We do not have to reach a certain state of perfection to enter Heaven, we only have to begun our spiritual progress towards deification.
Thus my objection to purgatory is not the idea that further spiritual growth is needed after we die, because we are all in different stages of our deification, but that we must earn forgiveness of sins by works of penance, which historically is the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Mutual agreement that our spiritual progress continues after death, is my proposal for the resolution of the disagreement over purgatory. I do believe that modern Roman Catholicism has evolved away from the medieval concept of earning merit is a condition for the forgiveness of sins.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[chimo]

I am an historian and approach theology through the history of doctrine. The whole idea of purgatory comes from the teaching that we must offer God enough personal acts of penance to earn satisfaction from our sins. If we have not offered God enough penance we must suffer in purgatory before we can enter Heaven. This teaching first surfaced in Tertullian. My point is that Christ paid the full price for our sins. As St. Paul wrote, we are saved by grace through faith, not through works. The Fathers tell us that repentance is a second baptism, that restores us to the state we were after we were baptized.
When we sincerely repent, go to Confession and receive Absolution, we are completely forgiven. At that moment we are completely purified of our sins. If we sin again, even right after Confession, as we all will, we must repent again. The life of a Christian is one of constant repentance. Every day, I say a prayer of repentance for the sins that I committed that day before I go to bed. If we repent of our sins in the last moments of our life, but die before a priest can give us Confession, God will forgive the sins we have committed because He will honor our intentions. Besides, the priest says a prayer of absolution over the dead body at the end of the funeral service that absolves the person for their sins if they have sincerely repented before their death.
I find your couch potato example confusing. We are either forgiven or we are not forgiven. If we are forgiven the forgiveness is complete. If we confess out state of sinfulness we are forgiven even if we have committed a sin without knowing it or have forgotten to confess a sin. In the Orthodox prayer of absolution, the priest announces forgiveness for all sins, including the sins that we have not confessed “either through ignorance or forgetfulness…” Finally the priest says, “Go in peace having no further care for your sins.”
However, as the Fathers teach our spiritual progress towards deification continues in Heaven after death. That spiritual growth will take care of the “couch potatoes.” We do not have to reach a certain state of perfection to enter Heaven, we only have to begun our spiritual progress towards deification.
Thus my objection to purgatory is not the idea that further spiritual growth is needed after we die, because we are all in different stages of our deification, but that we must earn forgiveness of sins by works of penance, which historically is the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Mutual agreement that our spiritual progress continues after death, is my proposal for the resolution of the disagreement over purgatory. I do believe that modern Roman Catholicism has evolved away from the medieval concept of earning merit is a condition for the forgiveness of sins.
Archpriest John W. Morris

I guess I am referring to those who do not confess Father. This is what I meant by “couch potatoes”. Those people who do not show repentance in this life is what I was referring to. In truth Purgatory is practically useless in this life but it serves God’s purpose in the next life. After death is when Purgatory is valuable for it can produce all that was missing in your life when you should have acquired while living. I teach that Purgatory starts in this life. It is actually a state of being or more accurately it is your attitude before God. If you have not deserve Heaven at death and are not worthy of hell (for you need to be in a state of hell for it to continue into the next life) than you are still in a Purgatory state. A Purgatory state was mentioned by Jesus to St. Maria Faustina when He revealed to her those souls who still need to be retained in their Purgatory state. He said to her, “My Mercy does not want this but Justice demands it.” It refers mainly to the Discipline of God who can still save you through His Justice. It is interesting that most of the departed never experiences the Justice of God until it is in the next life if Justice is to be served to saved them. The teaching of Purgatory in my opinion Father can distract you from your purpose to love God and to allow His love to penetrate you. It doesn’t have to be taught. It can be mentioned but the truth is this. Mercy needs to be taught more. Love needs to be taught more. To be in a relationship built on love needs to be taught more. While Purgatory offers this Discipline it need not to be the forefront in teaching about God. Purgatory will always take care of itself when you love Jesus and you allow His love to enter you. There is a teaching from Rome that classifies sin into two categories, venial and mortal. Mortal sins when committed drives away from the person who commits it all the grace that Baptism has given to you and all other graces afterwards. In other words Jesus leaves you. Jesus told Maria Faustina, the Divine Mercy saint from Poland that the only sin that drives Him out from a soul is a mortal sin. This does not mean the person is condemned but it means this person is without God anymore. To reclaim back God one needs to avail themselves to Confession. When a person commits only venial sins than the grace of God or more specifically the Holy Spirit does not leave you. A person who dies with a lot of mortal sins before repenting may end up in a state of hell. A person who commits only venial sins still has the Holy Spirit in them so that at death this Holy Spirit still remains in them. Perhaps this is the state of those souls who continue into Purgatory. They still have some presence of the Holy Spirit in them but they still need more.

 

[AndyP2010]

Thus my objection to purgatory is not the** idea that further spiritual growth is needed after we die, because we are all in different stages of our deification**, but that we must earn forgiveness of sins by works of penance, which historically is the foundation for the doctrine of purgatory. Mutual agreement that our spiritual progress continues after death, is my proposal for the resolution of the disagreement over purgatory. I do believe that modern Roman Catholicism has evolved away from the medieval concept of earning merit is a condition for the forgiveness of sins.
Archpriest John W. Morris

Speaking as a Catholic what I have bolded, if I understand you correctly, is what purgatory is about. Works of penance do not effect our salvation, only the Lords grace of mercy given due to my repentance and confession do that. Penance is for my spiritual growth toward deification. If I go to confession and truly repent of my sin and the priest absolves me, the sin is forgiven right away, the penance that I am given is for the furthering of spiritual growth. Failure on my part to do my penance only denies my spiritual growth, the sin is still forgiven. Now then if I die and have not met the needs of that growth, then that growth needs happen before I can enter fully into glory. That is what we in the west call Purgatory.

 

[AndyP2010]

continued…

Of course we in the west talk of these things in terms of the Lords infinite justice being tempered by his infinite mercy and it sounds more legalistic than it is.

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611

Here is a link to the Cathechism of Catholic Church. That way you can track down the foot notes if you wish to see what passages of Scripture, writings of the fathers or Popes or council documents if you wish. 611 is from a homily by St John Chrysostom

 

[frjohnmorris]

I guess I am referring to those who do not confess Father. This is what I meant by “couch potatoes”. Those people who do not show repentance in this life is what I was referring to. In truth Purgatory is practically useless in this life but it serves God’s purpose in the next life. After death is when Purgatory is valuable for it can produce all that was missing in your life when you should have acquired while living. I teach that Purgatory starts in this life. It is actually a state of being or more accurately it is your attitude before God. If you have not deserve Heaven at death and are not worthy of hell (for you need to be in a state of hell for it to continue into the next life) than you are still in a Purgatory state. A Purgatory state was mentioned by Jesus to St. Maria Faustina when He revealed to her those souls who still need to be retained in their Purgatory state. He said to her, “My Mercy does not want this but Justice demands it.” It refers mainly to the Discipline of God who can still save you through His Justice. It is interesting that most of the departed never experiences the Justice of God until it is in the next life if Justice is to be served to saved them. The teaching of Purgatory in my opinion Father can distract you from your purpose to love God and to allow His love to penetrate you. It doesn’t have to be taught. It can be mentioned but the truth is this. Mercy needs to be taught more. Love needs to be taught more. To be in a relationship built on love needs to be taught more. While Purgatory offers this Discipline it need not to be the forefront in teaching about God. Purgatory will always take care of itself when you love Jesus and you allow His love to enter you. There is a teaching from Rome that classifies sin into two categories, venial and mortal. Mortal sins when committed drives away from the person who commits it all the grace that Baptism has given to you and all other graces afterwards. In other words Jesus leaves you. Jesus told Maria Faustina, the Divine Mercy saint from Poland that the only sin that drives Him out from a soul is a mortal sin. This does not mean the person is condemned but it means this person is without God anymore. To reclaim back God one needs to avail themselves to Confession. When a person commits only venial sins than the grace of God or more specifically the Holy Spirit does not leave you. A person who dies with a lot of mortal sins before repenting may end up in a state of hell. A person who commits only venial sins still has the Holy Spirit in them so that at death this Holy Spirit still remains in them. Perhaps this is the state of those souls who continue into Purgatory. They still have some presence of the Holy Spirit in them but they still need more.

This is a complex subject.
I do not want to insult you or offend Roman Catholics, but we would not base doctrine on the visions of any one Saint, but base doctrine on Holy Tradition which is expressed by the Holy Scriptures, the consensus of the Fathers and contemporary theologians, the worship of the Church, the decisions of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and Pan-Orthodox Councils such as those that declared the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas the official teachings of the Orthodox Church.
Orthodoxy teaches that one does not have to name all their sins in Confession, but that they have to confess that they are a sinner in need of God’s grace. Therefore if their confession that they are a sinner is sincere it does not matter if they have forgotten something as long as they are repentant for all their sins known and unknown.
We do not distinguish as sharply as Roman Catholics between mortal and venial sins. Obviously, however, there are sins like murder and adultery that are worse than other sins. We would reject the teaching that God ever leaves us even after a mortal sin. I think that this is because we start from a different place. We do not believe in the Augustinian doctrine of original sin. We believe that we inherit the consequences of ancestral sin, but are only guilty of our own sins. Thus we do not believe in inherited guilt. We also believe that no sin can completely destroy the Image of God in which we are all created.
We also believe that God’s justice was satisfied on the Cross. There is a hymn sung by Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics during the pre-Lenten season, “Thou hast nailed my sins to the Cross…” There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ has done for us on the Cross. Indeed, if we rely on our own spiritual works to earn forgiveness of sins, we are not relying on Christ. Thus we think of spiritual growth, rather than purification. It is like when we have been ill and have been healed, but are still weak and need to recuperate. The sin has been forgiven, but we are still weak and need further spiritual growth.
Where we can come together is that we believe that spiritual growth continues after death. Even those in Heaven continue their spiritual growth towards deification.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Zekariya]

There is nothing that we can do that can add to what Christ has done for us on the Cross. Indeed, if we rely on our own spiritual works to earn forgiveness of sins, we are not relying on Christ. Thus we think of spiritual growth, rather than purification. It is like when we have been ill and have been healed, but are still weak and need to recuperate. The sin has been forgiven, but we are still weak and need further spiritual growth.

I have never heard of Purgatory or penance forgiving any sins. Here is my understanding of this Western teaching:

Only those who die in a state of grace are in purgatory.

When you commit a mortal sin after baptism, there is eternal punishment and temporal punishment that you must pay. After confession all of your sins are forgiven and your eternal punishment (if the sins were mortal) is removed. There is still temporal punishment to pay.

An example: A lapsed Catholic murders a man. His temporal punishment is life in prison. He confesses the sin (with true repentance) and is absolved. He still must pay the temporal punishment either in prison for life or in purgatory. The penance that the priest gives you lessens your temporal punishment.

Our penance, sufferings, prayers, and indulgences lessen some of our temporal punishment.

An indulgence can pay for part or all of our temporal punishments that we earn from sin that we commit. When we die, if we have not paid for all of our temporal punishments, we will pay for them in purgatory.

A partial indulgence remits part of our temporal punishment. A plenary indulgence remits all of our temporal punishment we have earned up to that point.

Note: Baptism remits all sins and temporal punishment. Confession remits only sins.

We can gain indulgences for the poor souls in purgatory and pray for them.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Speaking as a Catholic what I have bolded, if I understand you correctly, is what purgatory is about. Works of penance do not effect our salvation, only the Lords grace of mercy given due to my repentance and confession do that. Penance is for my spiritual growth toward deification. If I go to confession and truly repent of my sin and the priest absolves me, the sin is forgiven right away, the penance that I am given is for the furthering of spiritual growth. Failure on my part to do my penance only denies my spiritual growth, the sin is still forgiven. Now then if I die and have not met the needs of that growth, then that growth needs happen before I can enter fully into glory. That is what we in the west call Purgatory.

As I have written before the Fathers teach that we continue our spiritual growth even in Heaven. No one reaches full deification in this life. Even the great Saints were consumed with the knowledge of their own imperfections and need for further spiritual growth towards full deification. Therefore purgatory is unnecessary because no one enters Heaven fully deified.

Archpriest John W. Morris