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

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hi Marduk,

As the Trent Catechism clearly shows, purgatorial fire is not mere opinion, based upon less that full or absent categorical biblical scripture. Would you care to point out specifically for the EO readers here, which parts of the Catechism are “mere opinion” which Catholics are free to ignore, and which bits are “dogma”?

I can’t wait for you to do that for our edification - and I’m sure the Magisterium of your Church would also be interested to see which parts of the Catechism can be ignored because they are mere, dubious opinion! LOL

That is the correct definition theologumenon - opinion without scriptural confirmation - which can be ignored - right?

Aerial Toll Houses have NEVER risen to the level of “purgatorial fire” in the teaching of the EO Church… ATH is a minority view, and has some indication in Holy Scripture.

We EO have never placed it into any EO Catechism - ever! If we did that it would be Church teaching - and official.

It’s not the same thing at all. ;D LOL

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

1. The soul is not changed by spending time in Hades.
Theosis is an eternal journey according to the Eastern teaching, whether the soul is in Hades or in heaven. The soul is constantly changing in its degree of glory (theosis), and it is not Eastern teaching that the nature of the soul remains static.

1. Only God’s judgment of a soul may change whilst the soul is in Hades.

I don’t understand how this can be, given God’s immutability.

1. There is no temporary purifying fire in Hades - only eternal fire of Hell, in Hell.

Who cares if there is a purifying fire?

1. God’s judgement is not immutable - and never has been, which is why we pray for the dead.

We pray for the dead for God’s grace and mercy upon them. I don’t believe it is for us to delve into God’s inscrutable ways.

1. Souls are not ‘concious’ of their purification in Hades,

Doesn’t make sense if souls are to get a foretaste of their eternal reward in Hades.

and cannot participate in such purification - there is no such thing as “passive purification”.

If you cannot participate in the purification, then that is “passive purification.” Did you intend to add some negatives to the statement - for the way it is now, it is self-contradictory.

Any soul purification requires active participation of that soul - during life.

This part is in agreement with Catholic teaching.

5a. Souls are asleep in Hades in the sense that they “rest” there in the Presence (light), or outside of the Presence (darkness). Torment in Hades is not a redemptive punishment.

This is different from Latin Catholic teaching.. Are you familiar with the Eastern idea that God is everywhere, even in hell?

5b. Souls are also aware of prayers said on their behalf by the living.

This is in agreement with Catholic teaching.

1. There is no such thing as partial or conditional forgiveness - once God forgives, it’s final and he forgets the sin.

This is in agreement with Catholic teaching.

1. There are souls in Heaven who have committed all manner of sin which has been forgiven and forgotten by God.

This is in agreement with Catholic teaching.

1. Souls are not at large once resting in Hades - cannot visit the earthly plane or communicate with the living.

This is in agreement with Catholic teaching, though I have read a contrary teaching from some EO sources.

1. Before resting in Hades, souls may be at large for between 3 and 40 days.

This is different from Latin Catholic teaching.

Dvdjs… if you wish to discuss or debate the details, feel free. Otherwise I’m very happy to do what the Byzantine Catholics did when they joined the Roman Catholic Church - Like them, I’m happy to “Agree to Disagree” about purgatory - and not debate it with you further if that helps.

Amen and Amen!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hi nsper7…

YES there is literally tons of historical work that has been done on this issue - so be discriminating or you might find yourself reading until 2027!!! LOL

You will find “historical” pieces on the Great East West Schism of 1054 which are written:

1. From the Roman Catholic perspective;
2. The Eastern Orthodox perspective;
3. Protestant perspectives; and
4. Independent - historically and theologically - perspective.

Wikipedia has to be independently referreed (or it’s just an editing competition) and would be a reasonable place to start.

If you have any specific questions - I am happy to answer.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

Thank you for the questions:

As the Trent Catechism clearly shows, purgatorial fire is not mere opinion, based upon less that full or absent categorical biblical scripture. Would you care to point out specifically for the EO readers here, which parts of the Catechism are “mere opinion” which Catholics are free to ignore, and which bits are “dogma”?

If you want to know what is dogma - and what is not - in the Catechism of Trent, then all you have to do is read the dogmatic pronouncements of the Council of Trent. Simple enough, I think. You will find that purgatorial fire was not part of the dogma. There is a portion of the dogma on Purgatory (I think it’s in the canons) which state that extremes and exaggerations of the teaching should be avoided. When I read that from Trent, I always imagined it referred to the idea of a real purgatorial fire, among other things.

I can’t wait for you to do that for our edification - and I’m sure the Magisterium of your Church would also be interested to see which parts of the Catechism can be ignored because they are mere, dubious opinion! LOL

That is the correct definition theologumenon - opinion without scriptural confirmation - which can be ignored - right?

I don’t think “without scriptural confirmation” is part of the definition. But as far as Catholics ignoring the teaching of Purgatorial fire, you’ll find Eastern and Oriental Catholics generally ignore that teaching all the time – and that does not demean in any way our identity as Catholics.

Aerial Toll Houses have NEVER risen to the level of “purgatorial fire” in the teaching of the EO Church… ATH is a minority view, and has some indication in Holy Scripture.

We EO have never placed it into any EO Catechism - ever! If we did that it would be Church teaching - and official.

It’s not the same thing at all. ;D LOL

Father Seraphim Rose considered the Toll Houses a dogma of the EOC. I’m not saying it is, but I mention that only to show that the breadth of opinions on the matter within the EOC is similar to the breadth of opinions in the CC on the matter of purgatorial fire - you will find some portions of the EOC preach about Toll Houses as if it were dogma, just as you will find some portions of the CC preach about purgatorial fire as if it were dogma. But in the end, we both know that is not the case, for both Toll Houses AND Purgatorial fire.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[sidbrown]

Father Seraphim Rose considered the Toll Houses a dogma of the EOC.

In the EOC, who determines what is and what is not a dogma?

 

[sidbrown]

1. Before resting in Hades, souls may be at large for between 3 and 40 days.]

First we are told that Orthodox beleive in only heaven or hell.
But now we have something new - Hades.
So are there three places after death or only two? Which is it?
A. 1) Heaven, 2) hell.
OR
B.1) Heaven, 2)hell, 3) hades.

 

[mardukm]

In the EOC, who determines what is and what is not a dogma?

Nowadays, I don’t think the EOC today are willing to admit anybody, much less any single person, determines dogma. The EOC just don’t generally think in dogmatic terms. That’s not to say there are none who do. I’ve met my share of EO apologists who are just as dogmatic as the dogmatism they claim to oppose in the Catholic Church. Offhand, I can think of 5 EO I personally know online who are not like that.

Blessings

 

[sidbrown]

Nowadays, I don’t think the EOC today are willing to admit anybody, much less any single person, determines dogma. The EOC just don’t generally think in dogmatic terms. That’s not to say there are none who do.

Blessings

This only adds to the general confusion on what an Orthodox catechism means when it saysRev. 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."

 

[Madaglan]

Dear brother Madaglan,

As I stated, purgatorial fire is not mentioned in the dogmatic decrees of Trent. Simply put, purgatorial fire is a mere theologoumenon in the life of the Catholic Church as a whole. And no single catechism has the authority of dogma. They can contain dogma, but they may also contain other matters. The Catechism of the Council of Trent is a standard for the Latin Church, not the entire Catholic Church.

What do you think of my comments to sister SingleMomMonica in my previous post?

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that purgatorial fire is more than theologoumenon in the Catholic Church.

I don’t think I’ve yet seen an icon of Aerial Toll-houses, but I’ve seen countless pictures (and even a piece of statuary) of Mary or Jesus pulling souls out of the flames of purgatory. Besides being in the Roman Catechism, purgatorial fire is very much a part of traditional Latin Catholic spirituality. The lives of the Latin Catholic saints tend to foster the belief of purgatorial fire within the Latin Church.

 

[mardukm]

I think that purgatorial fire is more than theologoumenon in the Catholic Church.

I don’t think I’ve yet seen an icon of Aerial Toll-houses, but I’ve seen countless pictures (and even a piece of statuary) of Mary or Jesus pulling souls out of the flames of purgatory. Besides being in the Roman Catechism, purgatorial fire is very much a part of traditional Latin Catholic spirituality. The lives of the Latin Catholic saints tend to foster the belief of purgatorial fire within the Latin Church.

True, but if you think about what theologoumenon is - a belief that anyone is free to believe or disbelieve - that is basically what purgatorial fire is in the Catholic Church as a whole. If you can find a dogma in the Latin Church that makes purgatorial fire a belief that is required under some sort of penalty - even just for Latin Catholics - then I’ll believe you that it is worth complaining about.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Thanks for your questions/ opinions - and here are some responses.

We EO believe that Heaven and Hell have many abodes - some of which God uses to keep the souls of the departed until final judgement. That is why we often speak in terms of the state of the soul, rather than a definitive third and distinct place.

We do not know exactly how many “abodes” of Heaven or Hell there actually are, as this has not been revealed to man by God.

We do not strictly believe in a totally distinct third place seperate from Heaven and Hell as does the RCC. We do not believe also in a temporary created purifying fire in that place Heaven, Hell or any abode thereof.

Some souls rest until final judgement in the light of Gods eternal “uncreated” light or energy (an abode of Heaven).

Does theosis or deification continue in the Heavenly abodes? I would be interested to hear from other EOC members about that. I am aware, that generally our Church teaches that specific efforts towards theosis must take place during biological life on earth.

Some souls rest until final judgement in an abode of Hell, where they either abide outside of the light or presence of God - or alternatively perceive the eternal uncreated energy of God, not as light in a positive sense, but as torment or eternal uncreated fire of Hell.

We do not believe that deification or theosis can proceed in Hell, or anywhere that is outside of the eternal uncreated light of God.

How important is purgatory as a distinct third place - with the accompanying teaching about the purifying fire to the RCC? Well, the Council of Ferrera/ Florence, spent a lot of time on it - and the Latin Church wanted to make acceptance of the temporary purifying fire (and distinct temporary third place) a pre-condition of re-unification with the Orthodox.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

We EO believe that Heaven and Hell have many abodes - some of which God uses to keep the souls of the departed until final judgement. That is why we often speak in terms of the state of the soul, rather than a definitive third and distinct place.

We do not know exactly how many “abodes” of Heaven or Hell there actually are, as this has not been revealed to man by God.

We do not strictly believe in a totally distinct third place seperate from Heaven and Hell as does the RCC. We do not believe also in a temporary created purifying fire in that place Heaven, Hell or any abode thereof.

Believe it or not, this is well within the bounds of Catholic orthodoxy. It is in fact part of the Catholic teaching on the Beatific Vision, that there are different abodes in heaven according to the degree of sanctification/holiness/divinization of the soul.

It is also not at all uncommon to come across the belief within Latin Catholicism that Purgatory is simply another abode within heaven (since all souls in Purgatory are bound for heaven anyway).

Some souls rest until final judgement in the light of Gods eternal “uncreated” light or energy (an abode of Heaven).

Again, this is a distinctive part of the Catholic teaching on the Beatific Vision.

Some souls rest until final judgement in an abode of Hell, where they either abide outside of the light or presence of God - or alternatively perceive the eternal uncreated energy of God, not as light in a positive sense, but as torment or eternal uncreated fire of Hell.

This is Catholic teaching, too.

We do not believe that deification or theosis can proceed in Hell, or anywhere that is outside of the eternal uncreated light of God.

This is a Catholic teaching, too.

How important is purgatory as a distinct third place - with the accompanying teaching about the purifying fire to the RCC? Well, the Council of Ferrera/ Florence, spent a lot of time on it - and the Latin Church wanted to make acceptance of the temporary purifying fire (and distinct temporary third place) a pre-condition of re-unification with the Orthodox.

You should have left out “the accompanying teaching about purifying fire” because, in fact, the teaching of purifying fire did not accompany the dogma of Purgatory at the Council of Florence. Read the decree yourself: “Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.”

No mention of fire whatsoever. There’s not even any mention of a specific third “place.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Marduk,

There is a detailed discussion of Orthodox teaching on purgatory, and the purifying fire, which details Orthodox differences and cites scripture, the fathers, and also details the debates of many Councils… all cited in detail.

It can be found at greekorthodox.com and is very detailed about what Orthodox teaching is and what the Orthodox perceive to be the Catholic teaching.

It is probably worth a look because some of what you have put forward here is definitely contradicted, by my reading and understanding.

I do note however, that simply because something (one thing) might be considered to be potentially within the bounds of, or not inconsistent with another teaching - in isolation… does not solve the controversy. it does not mean, for example that the overall teaching, and practice flowing from it, are the same. It’s not just RC dogmatic statements that are important to the Orthodox, but all associated teraching, belief and practice too.

During this discussion, it has become clear that there are many other differences associated with the overall teachings & practices, which go far beyond the single question of the temporary, created and purifying fire.

Things like what changes - soul or judgement, what is the souls involvement or conciousness, and of course the nature and effect of Gods forgiveness (what sort of sinners are allowed into Heaven) are some of these.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

It is probably worth a look because some of what you have put forward here is definitely contradicted, by my reading and understanding.

Thank you for the offer, brother, but I am aware of the EO teaching, and I have no problem with it. It is when EO attempt to criticize CC teaching that all the inconsistencies in the EO position crops up.

I do note however, that simply because something (one thing) might be considered to be potentially within the bounds of, or not inconsistent with another teaching - in isolation… does not solve the controversy. it does not mean, for example that the overall teaching, and practice flowing from it, are the same. It’s not just RC dogmatic statements that are important to the Orthodox, but all associated teraching, belief and practice too.

That’s fine, but the more important question is whether these differences are a sufficient cause for disunity. Have you ever asked yourself why the very things that should be left as theologoumena are used by the EO as dogmatic statements against the Catholic Church? Please answer that question.

During this discussion, it has become clear that there are many other differences associated with the overall teachings & practices, which go far beyond the single question of the temporary, created and purifying fire.

I have been meaning to ask you – can you please point to a single magisterial document of the Latin Catholic Church that teaches that the fire in Purgatory is “temporary?” I ask because I had the same conception as you and other Orthodox (both EO and OO) before I became Catholic that purgatorial fire was temporary. But as I studied Latin Catholicism more, it seemed to me that what is temporary (or temporal) about Purgatory is the period of purification, not the fire.

I would also ask my Latin brethren for their comments on this issue — is the fire in Purgatory temporary, or is it the purification in Purgatory that is temporary? If the latter, I have a feeling that Mark of Ephesus’ complaint against the Latins’ Purgatory was one big misunderstanding.

Things like what changes - soul or judgement, what is the souls involvement or conciousness, and of course the nature and effect of Gods forgiveness (what sort of sinners are allowed into Heaven) are some of these.

I asked you a question in my post#161, regarding your comment on “passive purification” which seemed inconsistent with the rest of your statements. Can you please clarify that? Thanks, in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Dear brother Andrew,

Thank you for the offer, brother, but I am aware of the EO teaching…

The reason I refer to that website, is that there is a very detailed explanatory treatment of the EO position in the context of RC teaching on these matters… It is complete with ‘proofs’ arising from scripture, statements of the Fathers and also debates held at Councils. Most importantly, it outlines EO reasoning relating to these issues - which even if you are familiar with EO teaching, is helpful to assist with understanding the rationale behind it - not just WHAT we say - but also WHY we say it.

That’s fine, but the more important question is whether these differences are a sufficient cause for disunity…

Good question… especially in the context that there are so many things that our Churches hold in common, and completely agree upon… But any body of belief and practice arising, is more than just any specific category of “statements” - it includes interpretation and use of these as well. Many non RC believers (EO and Protestant) wonder how the RCC reconciles the difference between dogma (things you declare to be absolutely 100% true), and theologumena (things you declare might be true but you are not 100% sure) and how this informs practical teaching and practices of your Church?

It seems to us, that if the RCC ‘stripped everything else away’ - and strictly relied upon “dogma” to inform it’s teachings and practices - it would be a very different Church indeed. You do not take this approach, and neither do we. So it’s relevant.

The question of “unity” between our Churches is one for the appointed heirarchs of both Churches to determine… and discussions continue. But the Orthodox concept of true unity of the faithful is based upon the principle of full agreement and concurrence on all aspects of beliefs and practices. It is for this reason that RCC invitations for the EO to participate in the sacrament of communion in your Church is appreciated, but not recommended to us. Truth is raised as the paramount consideration rather than unity. An agreement to disagree on some things (such as the Byzantine Catholics have entered into with Rome) is not considered sufficient by us for full communion to be achieved with Rome.

I have been meaning to ask you – can you please point to a single magisterial document of the Latin Catholic Church that teaches that the fire in Purgatory is “temporary?”

Well, it’s pretty simple and logical (at least to us)…

1. Heaven is eternal, as is Hell.
2. Gods eternal uncreated energy is perceived by souls in the abodes of Heaven and Hell as “light” and “darkness/ torment/ fire” respectively.
3. The energy of God in Hell (the fire of damnation) is eternal and uncreated - we know it is not redemptive, reformative or purifying in any way. It is punishment - pure and simple.
4. The RCC teaching of purgatory, involves a distinct third place (not Heaven or Hell) where the “fire” purifies and perfects souls.
5. By definition, and logically, such a place, with such a “fire” cannot be anything other than temporary and created seperately for this purpose - until the Final judgement is completed.

The EOC reject any biblical or traditional justification for “purgatory” - on this basis.

As for the Magisterium, we do not find reference to these documents particularly helpful. This is because, of what is NOT stated, and belief and practice which persists in the RCC regardless. For example, regarding purgatory - the Magisterium have NOT definitively stated that souls in purgatory return to the earth as “ghosts” to interract with the living, or earthly places to send messages, entreat prayer or ‘get over’ earthly attachments. However, Catholics in “Fidelity” with the Papacy and the Magisterium - teach this actively and certain practices arise directly as a result. This website does this (look at the advice given in the apologetics - ask a question section) - and says that such teaching and practices “are not inconsistent” with the Magisterium.

We EO totally reject this teaching, and find it absurd - as souls are not at large in this respect, beyond a short period before particular judgement, and are described by Holy scripture and the pronouncements of the Fathers as being at “rest”, “asleep” or “in prison”.

I have a feeling that Mark of Ephesus’ complaint against the Latins’ Purgatory was one big misunderstanding…

Well, it’s not just Mark of Ephesus - but the whole Church (except Rome). And if it was “one big misunderstanding” - and it isn’t, the Bishops of Contantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch or Alexandria might have pointed it out to him when he reported to them, on the Council of Ferrera/ Florence!

I asked you a question in my post#161, regarding your comment on “passive purification”

Simply stated, purification of any soul necessarily requires a few things from that soul, which can ONLY be defined as active participation in the process (eg: Theosis):

1. Cognition and understanding;
2. Will and consent;
3. Actions and behaviours such as learning, repentance, contrition, participation in sacraments, efforts to change attitudes and behaviours.

The EO teaches clearly, that these things are possible during biological earthly life - and not thereafter. What may change thereafter, as a result of efforts of the living faithful, is the way God in His infinite Mercy and Wisdom, chooses to judge the soul of any departed person.

A purifying, purgative process after death (involving “fire” or anything else) other than the Mercy and Forgiveness of the Almighty, just doesn’t happen.

Thanks, in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[SingleMomMonica]

Andrew_Phillip:
Andrew,

Thanks for referencing the website! I look forward to checking it out myself. You can never learn too much

Monica

 

[sidbrown]

Heaven is eternal, as is Hell.

Where does the temporary punishment mentioned by this Orthodox catechism take place?
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."

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Thanks Sid…

Where does it happen (the temporary punishment)?

Well, according to the EOC, it happens wherever God places, or leads the soul of the departed person. It’s up to Him at the point of His particular judgement…

We understand these “places” to be the many abodes which exist (eternally) in both Heaven & Hell.

There is no other place!

Please note also that EO readers here have been advised by Catholic bretheren, that the mere presence of something in the Catechism of the RCC (such as descriptions of the temporary, purifying “fire” in the Catechism of the Council of Trent) do not represent RCC “dogma”.

Our Catechisn certainly reflects our beliefs, and teaching. It should be noted that it does not say anything about the release of souls at the expiation of the pureification process. Rather, it states, when God in His “Divine Righteousness” judges it should occur. Not an objective period determined by purification, but a wholly subjective period, in the hands of God alone.

 

[nsper7]

Thanks Sid…

Where does it happen (the temporary punishment)?

Well, according to the EOC, it happens wherever God places, or leads the soul of the departed person. It’s up to Him at the point of His particular judgement…

We understand these “places” to be the many abodes which exist (eternally) in both Heaven & Hell.

There is no other place!

Would the EOC then say that portions of what Catholics call Purgatory are actually certain abodes of Hell?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Hi there Tiber Swimmer!!!

Well, we EO don’t think so - and our teachers don’t either. We think they speak of a distinct “Third Place”…

But even if they actually do agree with us, and the pre-schism teaching for the first 1000 - 1500 years of the unified New Testament Church - there is a lot of associated teaching about the place of purgatory (what happens there, how and why) that we EO don’t accept.

I would be interested to hear RCC opinion on this, as Marduk seems to be having a bet each way (talking about things ‘not inconsistent’ with the Beatific Vision teaching), whilst Sid and Dvdjs seem to be arguing the opposite - and try in “prove” the existence of RC purgatory - or at least that we EO agree with them on it.

That’s not possible of course - even if the RCC mode of argument here vacillates between “dogma”, “angostia”, theologumena or opinion or any other thing.

The goal posts keep moving, and the sands keep shifting in this discussion. We EOC members believe that dogma is very easy to rely upon because it saves thought, reasoning and rational analysis.