Do Eastern Catholics obtain indulgences?

[MorEphrem]

Vico, you didn’t address anything I said yet you quoted me. I also said we believe in the remission of sin (obviously, that’s the entire point of Christianity) and that’s all the quote you provided attested to. I also said it was not without legitimate hierarchy’s oikonomia to set conditions for the remission of sin. I also spoke specifically about Maronites and you quoted a Melkite text…

What I perceive as inorganically “un-Eastern” is the idea of a temporal punishment of sin. No Eastern patristic text or even modern Eastern theologians who retain continuity with Eastern theology posit temporal punishment as an aspect of sin after its forgiveness. Eastern theology focuses heavily on forgiveness of sin, but it’s bending over backwards to conform to Latin theology to say every time in the Maronite office the priest/congregation prays, “Grant rest to the departed” it is a technical indulgence. Plus that inherently misunderstands the various Eastern theologies… We pray for the entire remission of sin, not just half of it. The Eucharist is for “remission of sin and eternal life,” not the avoiding of eternal punishment pending the infliction of temporal punishment. We pray for the forgiveness of “all sins, seen and unseen, known and unknown.” In the various absolutions we have in the Syriac liturgy they’re full absolutions, they’re not “indulgences” - one need simply read the text and stop trying to distort what is obvious.

Anyone who claims that at least the Oriental Churches have indulgences have never studied an Oriental liturgical text because they would see we ask for the blot out of the entirety of sin, and we truly believe that sin is burned away by the living coal that is the Eucharist.

Aside from the commentary of Bishop John being irrelevant to what I said, he makes the argument that we should not be slavish and discard “Catholic” beliefs. Why are Latin beliefs inherently Catholic? Why don’t Latins adopt our practices if they’re both equally Catholic? Why do the various Oriental Churches not force practices upon each other? I’ve never seen the Syriac Orthodox force the Armenians to conform to their theology or the Copts the Syriacs in some kind of maligned idea of Oriental Orthodoxy. If we already contain the wholeness of truth in our Tradition, why does it need to be modified to be more “Catholic” (i.e. Latin).

 

[RaphaelJ]

Again, can indulgences be understood as a means to theosis? As a Latin, I find it a little jarring to go through Eastern theology because my mind better understands Western Scholasticism.

 

[twf]

Again, can indulgences be understood as a means to theosis? As a Latin, I find it a little jarring to go through Eastern theology because my mind better understands Western Scholasticism.

Certainly penance, in a more general sense, is essential to theosis in the East. While they don’t frame it in terms of temporal penalties, they do believe that penance (prayer, fasting, almsgiving) is essential to growing in holiness and overcoming sin. In the Latin tradition, an indulgence is essentially the Church “reducing” the penance that would otherwise be required for an individual to grow in holiness. Becoming “like God” - deification - is just as much a part of our Latin tradition as it is an Eastern tradition.

In the ancient Church there were often prescribed penances for serious sins. Sometimes these penance took years to complete. Indulgences evolved from the practice of bishops reducing the required penance as an act of mercy.

 

[Jack007]

Thank you!

You’re welcome. but as i said, there is nothing wrong in saying 6.

 

[Vico]

Vico, you didn’t address anything I said yet you quoted me. I also said we believe in the remission of sin (obviously, that’s the entire point of Christianity) and that’s all the quote you provided attested to. I also said it was not without legitimate hierarchy’s oikonomia to set conditions for the remission of sin. I also spoke specifically about Maronites and you quoted a Melkite text…

What I perceive as inorganically “un-Eastern” is the idea of a temporal punishment of sin. No Eastern patristic text or even modern Eastern theologians who retain continuity with Eastern theology posit temporal punishment as an aspect of sin after its forgiveness. Eastern theology focuses heavily on forgiveness of sin, but it’s bending over backwards to conform to Latin theology to say every time in the Maronite office the priest/congregation prays, “Grant rest to the departed” it is a technical indulgence. Plus that inherently misunderstands the various Eastern theologies… We pray for the entire remission of sin, not just half of it. The Eucharist is for “remission of sin and eternal life,” not the avoiding of eternal punishment pending the infliction of temporal punishment. We pray for the forgiveness of “all sins, seen and unseen, known and unknown.” In the various absolutions we have in the Syriac liturgy they’re full absolutions, they’re not “indulgences” - one need simply read the text and stop trying to distort what is obvious.

Anyone who claims that at least the Oriental Churches have indulgences have never studied an Oriental liturgical text because they would see we ask for the blot out of the entirety of sin, and we truly believe that sin is burned away by the living coal that is the Eucharist.

Aside from the commentary of Bishop John being irrelevant to what I said, he makes the argument that we should not be slavish and discard “Catholic” beliefs. Why are Latin beliefs inherently Catholic? Why don’t Latins adopt our practices if they’re both equally Catholic? Why do the various Oriental Churches not force practices upon each other? I’ve never seen the Syriac Orthodox force the Armenians to conform to their theology or the Copts the Syriacs in some kind of maligned idea of Oriental Orthodoxy. If we already contain the wholeness of truth in our Tradition, why does it need to be modified to be more “Catholic” (i.e. Latin).

I’m am sorry for any confusion, I though it was relevant because I was responding to the idea of “inorganic imposition” that you wrote of.

St. John Chrysostom did teach of purification after death. Keep in mind that temporal punishment is allegorical, it means unhealthy attachment to creatures.

It is a matter of not denying dogma, even though it is not in the tradition. The practice is not required nor imposed but made available to all Catholics. An eastern bishop has prerogative but does not need to exercise it. The eastern faithful have the option but doe not need to exercise it. It would be uncharitable to restrict the availability of indulgences to only the Latin Church. An eastern bishop allowing for the grant, does so for the Latin Church as well as others. I believe it is more likely that the Latin Church faithful will utilize the indulgences when they visit the eastern parishes, than eastern Catholics utilizing them.

 

[Merrick]

Keep in mind that temporal punishment is allegorical, it means unhealthy attachment to creatures.

I still get confused by exactly what that means. I’ve asked about this on other parts of the forum, too, but still don’t understand it. Is an unhealthy attachment to creatures a tendency to sin, the habit of sin? If so, I would imagine many people who are baptized still have a habit of sin or an attachment to sin, yet the Latin teaching is that if a newly baptized person should be killed prior to sinning again, the person would bypass purgatory and go straight to heaven. I must be misunderstanding this doctrine somehow I think, but I have never been able to find a clear explanation anywhere.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Let me try and take a stab at it.

In the Latin and Eastern teaching, sin is not a something but a lack of something (grace, God’s presence). When baptized, the neophyte is filled and is not lacking anything, except the openness to receptivity, which can vary depending on the state of each person. The already baptized already have this fill of Grace, but are rejecting it for something else - an unnatural attachment to worldly matters.

It’s like my infant child breaking my vase accidentally vs. my teenager throwing it on the floor and shattering it angrily.

 

[Merrick]

The already baptized already have this fill of Grace, but are rejecting it for something else - an unnatural attachment to worldly matters.

It’s like my infant child breaking my vase accidentally vs. my teenager throwing it on the floor and shattering it angrily.

I’m not sure I follow how exactly this applies to the person baptized on his deathbed who bypasses purgatory in Latin thought. That person wouldn’t have an attachment to creatures because he has been filled with grace by what you are saying, and sin is an absence, not a thing? I’m not sure I follow.

 

[Miserissima]

I’m not sure I follow how exactly this applies to the person baptized on his deathbed who bypasses purgatory in Latin thought.

Because the Sacrament of Baptism washes away *all *sin: original, actual, and internal.

That person wouldn’t have an attachment to creatures because he has been filled with grace by what you are saying, and sin is an absence, not a thing? I’m not sure I follow.

Both. Sin is a conscious decision to omit/reject Grace from our lives. To be “in sin,” or “sinful” is to have an awareness of an absence of Grace.

To illustrate SyroMalankara’s example further, something Father Serpa often says on CAL is this anecdote:

…there is the matter of the temporal punishment due to our individual sins. If you are visiting your mother and drop a pitcher of orange juice on the kitchen floor and apologize for making such a mess, your mother will probaby forgive you. So your act is forgiven. But there is still a mess on the floor. It remains your responsibility to purge yourself of the remaining effects of your blunder, i.e., to clean up the mess. This temporal act of responsibility is what Purgatory is.

You can get a but more from my slideshow, Particular Examen. Part I.

 

[Vico]

I still get confused by exactly what that means. I’ve asked about this on other parts of the forum, too, but still don’t understand it. Is an unhealthy attachment to creatures a tendency to sin, the habit of sin? If so, I would imagine many people who are baptized still have a habit of sin or an attachment to sin, yet the Latin teaching is that if a newly baptized person should be killed prior to sinning again, the person would bypass purgatory and go straight to heaven. I must be misunderstanding this doctrine somehow I think, but I have never been able to find a clear explanation anywhere.

Creatures in the archaic definition includes things. It means that there are still attachments to sin. This occurs because we do not have perfect contrition, and also because we enjoyed the sins and have turned away from them for sake of salvation, but may not have eliminated the taste for them. It is only required when needed.

 

[Merrick]

Creatures in the archaic definition includes things. It means that there are still attachments to sin. This occurs because we do not have perfect contrition, and also because we enjoyed the sins and have turned away from them for sake of salvation, but may not have eliminated the taste for them. It is only required when needed.

I guess I don’t see why this doesn’t apply to the newly baptized. A newly baptized person may still have a taste for their old sins. If he commited murder, he must still deal with temporal consequences in this life, yet not in purgatory. I have not been able to grasp this for months. I’ll probably just ask the priest.

 

[Miserissima]

I guess I don’t see why this doesn’t apply to the newly baptized. A newly baptized person may still have a taste for their old sins. If he commited murder, he must still deal with temporal consequences in this life, yet not in purgatory. I have not been able to grasp this for months. I’ll probably just ask the priest.

It’s the nature of the grace received by each Sacrament, not the sin.

Baptism remits all punishment for each type of sin. Confession does not remit all temporal punishment. The Graces of the Eucharist and Confirmation are blocked until/unless the soul has been to confession. Other types of sacraments (Holy Orders/Marriage) confer an indelible mark on the soul, different from the nature of the Sacrament of Baptism. The Last Rites has an optional form to remit all temporal punishment via the Apostolic Pardon.

 

[Vico]

I guess I don’t see why this doesn’t apply to the newly baptized. A newly baptized person may still have a taste for their old sins. If he committed murder, he must still deal with temporal consequences in this life, yet not in purgatory. I have not been able to grasp this for months. I’ll probably just ask the priest.

It is the attachment that remains after the experience of death that is spoken of. So for the remains of those sins committed before baptism, the purification after death is covered. There are still temporal consequences before death. Christ overthrew the kingdom and power of sin in the sense that man should not fear because at the last day He will exterminate it altogether. (See Romans 6:6.)

Catechism of the Catholic Church1264 Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, as well as an inclination to sin that Tradition calls concupiscence, or metaphorically, “the tinder for sin” (fomes peccati); since concupiscence "is left for us to wrestle with, it cannot harm those who do not consent but manfully resist it by the grace of Jesus Christ."67 Indeed, "an athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules."68

 

[Merrick]

Oh, I see, finally. Thank you!

So moving back toward the original topic, the East and West have quite different theologies on this kind of stuff, yet somehow they are compatible, they are all Catholic. So do different Eastern rites have differing theologies about the afterlife amongst themselves? I heard one of the Eastern rites had a teaching that all the departed are in some sort of place that is neither heaven or hell until the final judgement but can’t recall specifics. It was different from Byzantine theology. I wonder if these types of differences can be found almongst the different rites of Eastern Orthodoxy.

 

[Vico]

Oh, I see, finally. Thank you!

So moving back toward the original topic, the East and West have quite different theologies on this kind of stuff, yet somehow they are compatible, they are all Catholic. So do different Eastern rites have differing theologies about the afterlife amongst themselves? I heard one of the Eastern rites had a teaching that all the departed are in some sort of place that is neither heaven or hell until the final judgement but can’t recall specifics. It was different from Byzantine theology. I wonder if these types of differences can be found almongst the different rites of Eastern Orthodoxy.

The western theology is cataphatic (+) and the eastern, apophatic (-). We see in early writings of the Fathers that Aristotle was favored in the west and Plato in the east, yet it is really neo-Platonism modified for Christianity.

Both east and west believe that Heaven and Hell are real, are experiential conditions rather than physical places, exist in the presence of God because nothing exists outside the presence of God. The Latin Church calls this state of purification Purgatory. The Biblical place of the dead or condition of being dead is called Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek.

The Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church – Bari, June 1987 wrote:
26. During the centuries of the undivided Church, diversity in the theological expression of a doctrine did not endanger sacramental communion. After the schism occurred, East and West continued to develop, but they did this separately from each other. Thus it was no longer possible for them to take unanimous decisions that were valid for both of them.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19870616_bari_en.html

 

[Merrick]

The western theology is cataphatic (+) and the eastern, apophatic (-). We see in early writings of the Fathers that Aristotle was favored in the west and Plato in the east, yet it is really neo-Platonism modified for Christianity.

Both east and west believe that Heaven and Hell are real, are experiential conditions rather than physical places, exist in the presence of God because nothing exists outside the presence of God. The Latin Church calls this state of purification Purgatory. The Biblical place of the dead or condition of being dead is called Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek.

The Joint Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church – Bari, June 1987 wrote:
26. During the centuries of the undivided Church, diversity in the theological expression of a doctrine did not endanger sacramental communion. After the schism occurred, East and West continued to develop, but they did this separately from each other. Thus it was no longer possible for them to take unanimous decisions that were valid for both of them.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19870616_bari_en.html

Are there also differences in theology regarding these matters amongst the various Eastern Catholic rites? or the Eastern Orthodox rites? That is, differences amongst the various Eastern rites between one another, not merely differences from the West.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Are there also differences in theology regarding these matters amongst the various Eastern Catholic rites? or the Eastern Orthodox rites? That is, differences amongst the various Eastern rites between one another, not merely differences from the West.

Absolutely. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more in common with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts, whereas Oriental Catholic Churches have more in common with the Oriental Orthodox, etc

 

[Merrick]

Absolutely. The Eastern Catholic Churches have more in common with their Eastern Orthodox counterparts, whereas Oriental Catholic Churches have more in common with the Oriental Orthodox, etc

Can you give me an example of differences in theology between different Eastern rites regarding the afterlife?

 

[Vico]

Are there also differences in theology regarding these matters amongst the various Eastern Catholic rites? or the Eastern Orthodox rites? That is, differences amongst the various Eastern rites between one another, not merely differences from the West.

Yes, the liturgies have variations and language differences give rise to different expressions.

 

[Merrick]

Yes, the liturgies have variations and language differences give rise to different expressions.

So just as Latin and Eastern Catholics have differences in theology regarding the afterlife centering around purgatory and other concepts, Eastern Catholics also differ amongst their rites in their theology of the afterlife? I’m sorry if this is getting redundant or my questions are confusing. I don’t know much about this topic and don’t know of any sources to research it further. I have only been able to find information about differences between Latin and Eastern Catholic theology on the afterlife (usually centering around purgatory), but I believe I have come across at least some information indicating that Easterners also have different theologies about the afterlife.