Disagree w/ or want argue Orthodox Church teaching? Please post here.

[Joseph_L_Varga]

eh but then you get into ‘free will’…see what I mean?

the pope is still a man, and we are all subject to temptation, the devil…etc…unless popes are -oh whats the word… singular? no…lol…unless popes are exempt somehow in the same way Mary was?? But even then, thatd be like saying popes are born without original sin…how can that be?

and one time I looked up the list of popes (and boy it was a loooong one) just so i had it handy- and it sure does trace back to peter…but…i noticed theres these words like, anti pope…like there was one where his election was questioned and after a committee they said he was an anti pope and he was desposed… ← i have no idea what any of that means.

Thank you for bearing with my ignorance on these matters with charity.

Charlotte, the Popes are surely not like Holy Mary - they are not conceived without sin. One of the Popes (I think Alexander VI) during the Renaissance was so corrupt and immoral, it’s hard to believe. He had a concubine who bore 3 or 4 children to him, he lived with that woman practically as husband and wife, even though he was supposed to stay celibate. Then, he also insisted that his sons become Bishops and Cardinals - one of his sons was a mere child, some 17 or 18 years old, when he made him into a Cardinal or something like that. This Pope also, very probably, was a murderer who poisoned his enemies. Yet, he did not teach any theological errors from the cathedra. It seems to me that you could even have a Pope who is so sinful and unrepentant that he will go to hell, and yet God can even use a person like this and keep him from teaching error.

Another point that comes to mind - God used Judas to accomplish his plans. Judas exercised free will by betraying Jesus, but his actions still were foreseen and used by God.

King Saul from the Old Testament also has a relevant story. He totally fell away and was disobedient to God, but when he went into the company of some prophets, God’s Holy Spirit descended upon him, and he started to prophesize. In fact he fell into a trance-like state. Maybe it is correct to stay that God will even override the free will of the person in certain instances. Such as Balaam not being able to curse Israel, and Saul experiencing a descent of God’s Spirit that made him prophesize.

Yet another funny story is one Pope from the Middle Ages (I don’t remember his name), who wanted to have a Catechism printed with some serious theological errors. However, he unexpectedly died and the erroneous Catechism was never published.

 

[dvdjs]

This is my take … Although in modern times some have attempted to introduce the concept of “Soul Sleep” into Orthodox thought about life after death, it has never been a part of traditional Orthodox teaching - in those specific terms.

I think you are right about this, and I think that the concept is largely repudiated in Orthodoxy, including the idea that you raised above that souls in Hades are “unconscious”. Indeed the prevailing idea is that souls in the Intermediate State perceive a foretaste of their fate, and that those facing hire are in direful torment.

This state of soul ‘rest’ is NOT purgative, and the soul does not when “resting” exert effort towards salvation, which must be done during temporal life.

1. Is the soul in the Intermediate State undergoing purification? Apostolic churches believe that praying and works for the dead has an impact on their rest and life in the world to come. Either God changes or the those whom we pray for are changed. It’s must be the latter.
2. I am not certain where this idea that those at rest cannot “exert effort toward salvation” comes from or its relevance. The CCC exhorts that we “should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the ‘new man’”, that is to purify ourselves, and further advocates the same practices on behalf of the dead. I found nothing in the CCC that suggests that the dead thought to be doing the same on their own behalf.

Overall, the Orthodox things that you said in this post is consistent with Catholic teaching, even though you had earlier taken a different tone.

Most worrying though, are the contemporary Catholic teachings which extend the Purgation dogma, whereby many Catholics argue that souls of many in purgatory, are given permission by God to return as ‘ghosts’ to the earthly plain after death, in order to further work things through which they may not have dealt with in life - including contact with places and people still living.

Never heard of this. But I have read this:

According to the traditional teaching of the Orthodox Church, souls do not leave the earth immediately after their departure from the body. For three days they remain close to the earth and visit the places with which they were associated. Meanwhile, the living show particular consideration to the souls of the deceased by offering memorial prayers and funeral services. During these three days, the personal task of the living is to be reconciled with the departed, to forgive them and to ask their forgiveness.(orthodoxeurope.org/page/10/1.aspx#51)

Purgatory was a Catholic innovation against what the ancient Church taught

While there were disagreements about some details, eg, the image of purgatorial fire, which even at Florence was stipulated as not doctrinal, I don’t believe that there are “ancient” Church teachings against the actual Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. I be interested in hearing more, particularly any ancient commentary.

I must say that the RCC teaching about purgatory, where further cleansing and purification takes place … contradicts many scriptures about the nature of salvation, forgiveness and judgment.

I would be interested your listing the scripture contradicted and the nature of the contradiction.

 

[sidbrown]

Interesting discussion thread guys…

I must say that the RCC teaching about purgatory, where further cleansing and purification takes place seems very far fetched to me - and contradicts many scriptures about the nature of salvation, forgiveness and judgement…

The teaching on Purgatory is based on Scripture and Church Tradition:
See:scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html for complete detail.
A few excerpts:
"Scripture

I. A State After Death of Suffering and Forgiveness
Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
and more…
II. Purification After Death By Fire
1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).
and more at the link…
Tradition / Church Fathers

I. The Early Church’s Belief in Purgatory
“When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, PG 13:445,448 (ante A.D. 394).

and more at:
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

 

[SingleMomMonica]

From what I understand of Eastern Orthodox teaching… God can and does admit some souls into heaven upon their earthly death, and also consigns some to Hell. In both places the soul of the departed is fully concious and aware.

Correct me if am am wrong about this, but Hades is not literally ‘Hell’ in the Greek, it means the grave. Many souls sleep in the grave until judgement.

So if they sleep (unconciously) until judgement - how can purgatory be a place of working through issues of sin etc…? Wouldn’t that require conciousness?

I would be very grateful if Monica could comment on this.

Hi, this is so good that this topic has not died. It has inspired me to stop posting from my memory, which can fail me, and go back to the sources of Orthodox Tradition and re-view them for a clearer picture and understanding on what happens to the soul once separated from the body by Falling Asleep (physical death).

Two books with the same name by different authors are particularly helpful for different reasons: Life After Death by Archbishop John Maximovich focus’ on the Orthodox understanding and pulls from early Church Fathers and the Traditions of the Church and the Traditions as recorded through Icons. Life After Death by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Hierotheos focus on the Orthodox Saint’s teaching when the new Catholic understanding of Purgatory and the like were revealed to the Orthodox during the Council of Ferrara-Florence.
Another book which is an easy read and written for those Orthodox living in the 20th century bombarded by false accounts of “Near-Death Experiences” or “Death Experiences” to help Orthodox know what is real vs. false called The Soul After Death by Fr. Seraphim Rose.

The soul for 2 days after physical death can visit places on earth (Fr. Seraphim, St. Archbishop John Maximovich, St. Theophan the Recluse and St. Macarius of Alexandria of the 4th century)

The soul on the 3rd day after physical death passes through evil spirits to be tested different sins commonly referred to as ATH which is a Particular Judgement. If they make it through the ATH without being taken by the demons, then they proceed as listed below. (St. John Maximovich, St. Theophan the Recluse, Fr. Seraphim, Bishop Ignatius, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Anthony the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Macarius the Great, St. Isaiah the Recluse of the 6th century, St. Hesychius of the 5th century, St. Gregory the Dialogist, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Damascene, the Icon of and Tradition of the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God aka the Dormition and even the Divine Services of the Orthodox Church Tone 4, Friday, 8th Canticle of the Canon of Matins)

The soul after the 3rd and prior the 40th day after physical death still does not know the final outcome and is taken to visit places in heaven and hell. (St. Macarius of Alexandria, St.John Maximovich, Fr. Seraphim Rose and the Life of Theodora)

The soul between the 40th day after physical death and up to the Resurrection and Last Judgement are receiving a foretaste of either eternal torchures or eternal joy. It is possible during this time for those receiving a foretaste of hell to have changes in their soul as the Final Judgement has not yet taken place. (St. John Maximovich, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life of Martyr Perpetua and the Life of the Nun Athanasia)

The Orthodox fully rejects the notion of Purgatory. The Catholic idea of Purgatory was first laid out by Cardinal Julian on June 4th 1438 during the Council of Ferrara-Florence…he stated that there are 3 places. 1 for Saints, 1 for the Unrepented and 1 intermediate place of purifying fire - specifically for those who have repented of their sins, but had not yet had time to fulfill thhe penance given to them by their spiritual father - some are there for a short period of time and others for longer. Also that the fire experienced in Purgatory is not the everlasting fire or eternal fire/divine energies of God, but is a created temporial fire.

Purgatory was rejected by the Orthodox for several reasons including the fact that the Catholics said this fire is separate from the everlasting fire, that this fire is created, and that men are purified by this fire. (St. Mark Evgenikos Metropolitan of Ephesus, St. Symeon the New Theologian)

There’s a lot more to it than that, but hopefully this helps. If not, I highly recommend reading in their entirety the 3 books I mentioned above to get a basic Orthodox understanding.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

I must say that the RCC teaching about purgatory, where further cleansing and purification takes place seems very far fetched to me - and contradicts many scriptures about the nature of salvation, forgiveness and judgement…I cannot accept that this RCC dogma has any reasonable basis in scripture, or in the ancient traditions of the Church Fathers. Indeed, there is much in scripture which directly contradicts such a teaching.

The dogma of Purgatory maintains only: (1) that there is a state after death that is not heaven or hell wherein a soul in need of perfection or cleansing can undergo such a process; (2) the prayers and suffrages of the Church on earth – especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Church in Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qorbono --can help those in this third state after death. Can you point out exactly what it is in those two points of dogma that is against the ancient tradition of the Fathers?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister SMM,

Purgatory was rejected by the Orthodox for several reasons including the fact that the Catholics said this fire is separate from the everlasting fire, that this fire is created, and that men are purified by this fire. (St. Mark Evgenikos Metropolitan of Ephesus, St. Symeon the New Theologian)

The whole problem with this is that he was complaining against something that was not dogmatized by Florence. I gave brother Andrew the Catholic dogma of Purgatory in the previous post. Please dispense with the straw men, and address the real dogma of the Catholic Church.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

The teaching on Purgatory is based on Scripture and Church Tradition:
See:scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html for complete detail.
A few excerpts:
"Scripture

II. Purification After Death By Fire
1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation).
and more at the link…
Tradition / Church Fathers

and more at:
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

It’s funny that you reference 1 Cor. 3:10-15 because I had a question about that very passage during my time looking into Orthodoxy.

I was told to read the passage in context 1 Cor. 3:5-17 as it was written not to the laity, but specifically to the ministers (bishops and priests of the Church) letting them know that their judgement will include the work they did with the laity. If they (the bishops and priests) need to take care when building onto the Church as they want to build the Church with people who will be saved when tested by the uncreated eternal fire/divine energies of God not with people who will be burned up by that same fire…it is their (bishops and priests) responsibilty to teach the laity well how to live a life which will end with their salvation. This passage is a warning to bishops and priests that their work in adding to the building of the Church will be tested and not all of their parishioners may be saved, but even if their work, their parishioners are burned up (went to hell), there is still the chance that they (the bishops and priests) may be saved.

The section of 1 Cor. 3 this is in is entitled “Wisdom in the Apostolic Ministry”…it’s written for the hierarchy of the Church, not the laity and heirarchy.

Reading Sacred Scripture in context is SO very important so that theological errors are not made.

 

[sidbrown]

The Orthodox fully rejects the notion of Purgatory. .

For why Catholics believe in Purgatory see:
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm
cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/a105.htm

The above links give rock solid proofs for the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

 

[dvdjs]

The dogma of Purgatory maintains only: (1) that there is a state after death that is not heaven or hell wherein a soul in need of perfection or cleansing can undergo such a process; (2) the prayers and suffrages of the Church on earth – especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Church in Mass/Divine Liturgy/Qorbono --can help those in this third state after death. Can you point out exactly what it is in those two points of dogma that is against the ancient tradition of the Fathers?

Indeed. And to pick up on SMM’s post, the issue of the purgatorial fire was agreed at Florence as not being an essential in the Latin teaching. As to the “three places” issue, here is a passage from a contemporary Orthodox catechism (Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.):

Q. Into how many Stages may the life of man after death be divided and what
are these Stages?

A. Into three (3) Stages:

    1)  The time from the moment of death to the Second Coming of Christ.
    2)  The time during                      the Second Coming of Christ.
    3)  The time after                       the Second Coming of Christ.

                    FIRST STAGE

Q. What becomes of man [after death before the second coming]

A. At the instant when a man dies, the body goes to the earth and is disolved
into the elements of which it is composed, and the soul undergoes a
preliminary divine judgement.

    1.  If he has believed in Jesus Christ, kept His faith incorrupt,

repented his sins before his death, and done good deeds, he is led where
God assigns him and lives in happiness until the Second Coming of Christ.

    2.  But if he has been an unbeliever, or believed in Christ, but

corrupted His faith, or sinned after Baptism and did not repent before he
died, and did not do good deeds, he is taken where God assigns him and
lives unhappy until the Second Coming of Christ.

    3.  But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and

having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of
good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God
assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine
Righteousness considers proper.

Q. How many therefore, and what are the conditions one or another of which
each man meets immediately at the instant of death?

A. The conditions are three (3):

    1.  one of happiness, which will be made complete and eternal after

the general judgement,

    2.  one of unhappiness, which will be made worse and eternal after the

general judgement,

    3.  one of temporary unhappiness, which will be changed to happiness

some time before the general judgement.

Finally, it should be noted that the ATH ideas that SMM is posting are very controversial within Orthodoxy. Some feel that are essential teachings, others that they are neo-Gnostic heresy.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

For why Catholics believe in Purgatory see:
scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
staycatholic.com/ecf_purgatory.htm
cin.org/users/jgallegos/purg.htm
bringyou.to/apologetics/a105.htm

The above links give rock solid proofs for the Catholic teaching on Purgatory.

From a quote you provided from the 1st link you list above, I have already shown how reading the quoted passage in context reflects the Orthodox view and crushes “rock solid proof for the Catholic teaching on Purgatory”.

I don’t feel the need to look up and crush with the Truth the rest of your “rock solid proofs” as it Sat. Afternoon and I’ve got a lot to do. The very fact that one of them can be crushed is enough proof for me that the rest can be too, since it’s not as “rock solid” as you indicate.

Have a great Sat.!

Everybody, let’s all make it a point to go to Confession today…positive peer pressure here on CAF!

 

[dvdjs]

Indeed. And to pick up on SMM’s post, the issue of the purgatorial fire was agreed at Florence as not being an essential in the Latin teaching. As to the “three places” issue, here is a passage from a contemporary Orthodox catechism (Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.)

Finally, it should be noted that the ATH ideas that SMM is posting are very controversial within Orthodoxy. Some feel that are essential teachings, others that they are neo-Gnostic heresy.

 

[sidbrown]

From a quote you provided from the 1st link you list above, I have already shown how reading the quoted passage in context reflects the Orthodox view and crushes “rock solid proof for the Catholic teaching on Purgatory”.

I don’t feel the need to look up and crush with the Truth the rest of your “rock solid proofs” as it Sat. Afternoon and I’ve got a lot to do. The very fact that one of them can be crushed is enough proof for me that the rest can be too, since it’s not as “rock solid” as you indicate.

Have a great Sat.!

Everybody, let’s all make it a point to go to Confession today…positive peer pressure here on CAF!

This is one area where Catholicism makes more sense. I see and understand the rock solid proof for the existence of purgatory both from Scripture and from the Fathers and also from the Council of Florence, I have given the links above and anyone can easily verify for himself the reality of Purgatory. And already, it has been shown in post #109 that Orthodox catechisms posit the existence of something which is virtually indistinguishable from Catholic purgatory, while we see on this thread that Orthodox faithful deny it. This just does not make any sense.
" here is a passage from a contemporary Orthodox catechism (Rev. Constas H. Demetry, D. D.):
…3. But if he was a believer, and did not corrupt the faith, and
having sinned, did indeed repent, but did not reach the performance of
good deeds to prove his repentance by actions, then he is led where God
assigns him, that he may be punished temporarily, as long as Divine
Righteousness considers proper."

 

[Melchior]

My thoughts are that it is a shameful thing to lower yourself to such a level that you would say such things about Saints who stood so valantly for the Truth during a time when the whole world was bent on rejecting the Truth.

My thoughts are that you ought to get to know Sts. Photius and Mark by praying to them and reading the full account of their lives and the miracles that surrounded them in life and after their deaths, rather than speak ill of them.

My thoughts are that it’s simply not polite to call recognized Saints “rebel” and persons with “double motives”.

My thoughts are that this type of behavior will certainly not get any Orthodox Christian to believe in the Catholic point of view of things.

My thoughts are: I wonder what Melchior’s motives are in saying such terrible things about these two Saints?

My thoughts are - whatever the motive is, it can’t be good.

Much the same can be said of Luther and Calvin by devout Lutherans and Reformed. I did not say they were without virtue but I am offering a view of history that reflects reality. If you find that offensive I cannot help that - but you are dismissing me rather than engaging a valid point. If you read about Photios encounters with the Pope with an open mind I cannot see how one can not question his actions given his relation to the Emperor and Ignatios. Red flags should go up. He appeals to the pope as a final authority until the pope denies his request.

Mark of Ephesus defied an ecumenical council.

These are the facts of history. We may view them differently but from any objective standard both “rebelled” against authorities they adhered too, until those authorities disagreed with them.

So how is questioning on what they did so bad? I was not trying to offend.

I am curious about your reversion to Orthodoxy. How did you reconcile those difficult issues that made you go back to Rome? I am genuinely interested. No bad motives.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

I am curious about your reversion to Orthodoxy. How did you reconcile those difficult issues that made you go back to Rome? I am genuinely interested. No bad motives.

I will respond to you privately regarding my “reversion” which was just made official through Confession this past Saturday.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Thanks to all forum members who kindly posted their information and perspectives on the issue of Purgatory… and the essence of differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches here.

I have looked at parts (but not the entirity) of the volumes of references cited, and am grateful to those who posted them: especially SMMonica (Eastern Orthodox); Sidbrown (Roman Catholic); Marduk (Oriental Orthodox) and dvdjs (Eastern/ Byzantine Catholic).

I am going to have to learn to be far more precise with my research and expression in this forum given such knowledgable contributions here!

I firstly point out that of the four Church traditions listed above, there are definitely 3 (and perhaps even 4) distinct teachings and approaches to “Purgatory”.

This controversy is understandable given the serious implications that the Roman Catholic dogma has for the nature of forgiveness, repentance and ultimately salvation of departed souls.

1. Many Eastern Catholics/ Byzantine Catholics disagree not only with the use of the term “purgatory”, but with it’s nature and role in salvation. The dispute comes down to the question of whether the departed soul “changes” in any way, or whether the way God judges the departed soul changes - which is the fundamental dispute between EO & RC teachings.

For example, the treaty that formalised the admission of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church into the full communion of the Roman Catholic Church refers to this when it stated: " We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church…". An agreement to disagree is not the same thing as full concurrence.

1. Many Eastern Catholics/ Oriental Orthodox have confirmed full agreement with Rome on every aspect of the purgatory dogma - considering any debate about language’ not to be salient. The Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is one example of this.
2. Roman Catholics clearly teach that the departed soul may itself change in purgatory, and ‘purify’ from temporal sin and imperfect repentance, and strong (unresolved) attachment to temporal sin and other temporal matters.

A “Fidelity” website of the Roman Catholic Church, in full accord with the Papacy and the Magisterium in Rome confirms this. The Padre Pio 'Spiritual Warfare’ site teaches that some departed souls in purgatory are given permission by God to visit the temporal plane, places and people in order to convey messages to the living (potentially playing an active role in their salvation), or to entreat the living for prayer, or to learn to let go of other earthly involvements etc…

1. The Eastern Orthodox Church does acknowledge an intermediate state (often referred to as Hades or the grave) between Heaven and Hell, where some souls abide after Particular Judgement (3 and 40 days after death), until either the Final Judgement after the Second Coming of Christ, or beforehand by Divine Mercy alone.

It acknowledges that some righteous souls are assumed into Heaven after Particular judgement - eg: The Most Holy Virgin and Saints etc…

Ukrainian Metropolitain of Kiev - Petro Mohila (1596-1646) in his Orthodox Confession which was adopted by the Orthodox Council of Jassy - Romania (1642) professes:

"many are freed from the prison of hell … through the good works of the living and the Church’s prayers for them, most of all through the unbloody sacrifice, which is offered on certain days for all the living and the dead" (question 64); and (under the heading “How must one consider the purgatorial fire?”) “the Church rightly performs for them the unbloody sacrifice and prayers, but they do not cleanse themselves by suffering something. But, the Church never maintained that which pertains to the fanciful stories of some concerning the souls of their dead, who have not done penance and are punished, as it were, in streams, springs and swamps” (question 66)."

The Eastern Orthodox Church has also never taught the doctrine of “Soul Sleep” as a completely ‘unconcious’ state - as is taught by some protestant denominations such as Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists - also known as “Conditional Immortality”.

Eastern Orthodox teach that souls asleep in Hades are concious of “light” - also known as the Divine presence, in which case they are at “rest”. They are also concious of “darkness” - also known as the absence of the Divine presence, in which case they are in “torment”. These souls also are conscious of the possibility that their Final Judgement outcome may be subject to change, through Divine Grace and Mercy alone, responding to the activities of the living (prayer, fasting, acts of mercy and offerings of the ‘unbloody sacrifice’).

The 1672 Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem confirms this in every respect as follows:

**“the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought” (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

 

[sidbrown]

The 1672 Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem confirms this in every respect as follows:

***“the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought” (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some “depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, ***and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not.”

The souls of some depart into Hades and endure punishment being aware of their future release ?
This sounds virtually identical to the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and as well an admission of the existence of venial sins.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

It is tempting to look at just a few words of EO teaching and then ascribe a totally different meaning to the overall consensus teaching of our Church.

Our teaching is NOT virtually identical to yours - and differs fundamentally as to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness and ultimate access to salvation. These are not trifles, or based upon differing use of words and language as many Catholics (but not all) argue.

The fact that we Eastern Orthodox acknowledge and intermediate state between heaven and hell, prayer and other acts done by the living on behalf of the dead etc… in no way means that we agree with Roman Catholic dogma concerning the state of purgatory, the activity or efforts of the soul in that state, or the nature of sin as viewed by God.

The opposite is true.

The entirity of the quotes from Jassy and Jerusalem clearly show this truth - Roman Catholic dogma and extended teaching on purgatory being specifically repudiated, and even referred to as “fanciful”.

According to the EO - many teachings which are described as dogmatic re purgatory, and others actively taught as logical extensions of that dogma (Padre Pio etc…) are rightly condemned and considered heresy by the EO Church.

 

[sidbrown]

It is tempting to look at just a few words of EO teaching and then ascribe a totally different meaning to the overall consensus teaching of our Church.

Our teaching is NOT virtually identical to yours - and differs fundamentally as to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness and ultimate access to salvation. These are not trifles, or based upon differing use of words and language as many Catholics (but not all) argue.

The fact that we Eastern Orthodox acknowledge and intermediate state between heaven and hell, prayer and other acts done by the living on behalf of the dead etc… in no way means that we agree with Roman Catholic dogma concerning the state of purgatory, the activity or efforts of the soul in that state, or the nature of sin as viewed by God.

The opposite is true.

The entirity of the quotes from Jassy and Jerusalem clearly show this truth - Roman Catholic dogma and extended teaching on purgatory being specifically repudiated, and even referred to as “fanciful”.

I would say you are making a mountain out of a molehill, or maybe no molehill at all.

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Andrew,

I had a feeling you would turn out to be as wise in these matters as you have proven to be. A theologian undercover! I hope to learn much from you here!

Is it true that one of the primary differences from the Orthodox view and the Catholic view of Purgatory is that Catholics, as described in the Ferrara-Florence Council, say that the Fire (of Purgatory) is created and is temporary…in otherwords not God’s Eternal Divine Energies? Or is there something more too it than that?

Monica

It is tempting to look at just a few words of EO teaching and then ascribe a totally different meaning to the overall consensus teaching of our Church.

Our teaching is NOT virtually identical to yours - and differs fundamentally as to the nature of sin, repentance, forgiveness and ultimate access to salvation. These are not trifles, or based upon differing use of words and language as many Catholics (but not all) argue.

The fact that we Eastern Orthodox acknowledge and intermediate state between heaven and hell, prayer and other acts done by the living on behalf of the dead etc… in no way means that we agree with Roman Catholic dogma concerning the state of purgatory, the activity or efforts of the soul in that state, or the nature of sin as viewed by God.

The opposite is true.

The entirity of the quotes from Jassy and Jerusalem clearly show this truth - Roman Catholic dogma and extended teaching on purgatory being specifically repudiated, and even referred to as “fanciful”.

According to the EO - many teachings which are described as dogmatic re purgatory, and others actively taught as logical extensions of that dogma (Padre Pio etc…) are rightly condemned and considered heresy by the EO Church.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Mountains and Molehills???

Roman Catholic dogma, relating to Purgatory IS a mountain, metaphorically speaking.

The Unity of Western Christianity was “rent usunder” because of what you regard as a non-issue - to the dismay of the Eastern Orthodox, and many in your own Church.

The Reformation, Church division, inquisitions, deaths & wars etc… and not to mention, millions of western christians (protestants) choosing to reject apostolic succession and falling into further error (as understood by both RC and EO Churches) cannot legitimately be described as a “molehill”.

More like a tragedy for the whole Church - and what was a key trigger?

Roman Catholic dogma on purgatory and related matters - innovated & defined post schism, led to and caused a fracture in The Body of Christ, which for the first 1500 years of Christian history, had been preserved intact - by the very teaching that we Eastern Orthodox still adhere to.

Not a molehill.

It is not my position that Roman Catholics revert to pre-schism teaching - but I do think an acknowledgement of the fundamental core differences between yourselves and we Eastern orthodox should not be too much to ask… surely?