Does the treasury of merit exist?

[dzheremi]

However, while I also agree that the actual seperation of venial and mortal is very difficult to dissect. I can’t conclude as an affirmative the CC wrong in this aspect.

The early church did not divide sins into those categories, so I do not think it is outrageous to point that out.

How could anyone? This BIble verse doesn’t prove anything but sola scriptura reading. Where is the consistant context of scripture here? By you own indication of this verse being valid, they why wouldn’t the verse on the Treasury of Merit be valid?

What are you talking about? Joe (a fellow Roman Catholic) is the one that brought the verse up, together with the Roman Catholic understanding, which I wouldn’t think fits under the idea of “sola scriptura”. Neither would the Coptic Orthodox understanding of the same, which is consistent with the view explicitly stated in the Coptic Agpeya (from the 4th-5th century AD).

You ever seen confession’s on Christmas or Easter in the CC? There are lines waiting to confess. Add to this the need then for venial sin to enter the confessional and its a problem. Which was corrected through V-II. If a man become’s detered through his own behavior confessing Mortal sin, what do you suppose happens with venial? It becomes an impossible situation where souls are actually pushed away from God by their repetitive behavior which they have not yet corrected, but are yet working through.

I don’t suppose anything happens with venial sin, because I don’t think that’s the proper distinction to make in the first place. It’s not up to me how others lead their spiritual life, but I do not think that this is a very good defense of the RC idea. The lines are too long already? Seriously? Good! You should be thanking God for that. And people feel bad for having to confess the same sins over and over? Thank God for that, too. It’s when you stop feeling bad that you have a problem. You should always acutely feel your sins, and not become numb to them or lessen them by relegating them to some sort of other category. Remember Psalm 50: “Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin. For I am conscious of my iniquity, and my sin is at all times before me.” (emphasis mine)

 

[GaryTaylor]

“However, this repetition of behavior and repetition of confession caused a reluctance for individuals to continue. For, they felt stupid week after week confessing the same issue. So then confession became both a positive and negative. I believe the church was right to create a seperation in which man could be more enticed to correct his error. However is it for man to judge his own behavior? Well we both see the folly in that I would hope. So venial is painstakenly reduced to the point of eliminating error. Moral is not reduced its magnified so the church cannot error in this manner.”

This is the point.

“I don’t suppose anything happens with venial sin, because I don’t think that’s the proper distinction to make in the first place.”

Right I don’t “think” so either, and that is also why thats sent to the mass and not the confessional.

Whats the difference in the Bible verse you or Joe mentioned? Can you prove your’s in scriptural context? Or is it one verse to make a point? What supports it? I wasn’t there in the 4th century nor were you. So if its patristic show me.

 

[De_Maria]

Who do I need to be?

If you claim that God “needs” something, then you would have to be someone equal to or greater than He. Or, at the very least, someone He appointed to study the question.

Again, I have not made it unnecessary myself by simply declaring so, but I find it unnecessary by simply reading and hearing and absorbing the theology of the Orthodox church, which has existed for 2000 years without this dogma. If the dogma were there in the Orthodox church, of course I would have to conclude that it WOULD BE in fact necessary, using whatever Patristic witness and other defense that would be given. But it isn’t. And the churches get along perfectly well without it, just as without an infallible bishop, without universal jurisdiction for their Pope (in the case of the Copts), etc.

But who claimed it was necessary? Did I? Did the Pope? Did the Catholic Church?

The fact is, that it exists. The Catholic Church recognizes it. Your Church doesn’t.

What if I said? “I don’t think its necessary that the Orthodox Church exist. We were doing quite well for 1000 years without it.”

I would say rather than a question, I’ve come to see it as a criterion. Certainly we are not a “bare minimum” church like those of the Protestants who say “just do X and you will be saved”, but just the same we don’t approach the faith and theology as the Western churches do. So there are many fewer dogmatic pronouncements in the Eastern or Oriental churches as a result. If there is not a necessity to come down on this or that issue with a particular correcting spirit (which need not result in dogmatic definition anyway), then it won’t happen. This is one of the things that I love about Orthodox Christianity: It neither says too little (as that could encourage the faithful to go off on all kinds of spiritually dangerous flights of fancy, in the absence of guidance), nor too much (as that could crush the spirit and the mystery which is essential to the practice and understanding of the faith). In goldilocks’ parlance, it’s just right.

Again, you are arguing your opinion only. If that is the case, then in my opinion, the Orthodox Church says too much. Because where ever it deviates from the Catholic Church, it deviates from the Truth. And there is no need in those errors. Therefore, the Orthodox Church says too much.

But are we merely going to exchange opinions? Or are we going to study the Scriptures and the Fathers?

No. What I’ve found out is that the Orthodox faith, as foreign as can seem in some ways (mostly external, since I’m about as non-Egyptian as a person can be), is the light to my feet and comfort to my soul that I was struggling to find while in union with Rome. As to who is leaving/has left what, obviously from an Orthodox perspective the situation is opposite the way you’ve put it, but that’s okay. God guides all who will listen and go forth in humility and repentance, and I am learning with His help to do both. I hope that others can learn the same in their churches, and be guided to the fullness of the true faith that is Orthodoxy alone. But if they are not, I certainly won’t begrudge them or judge them as individuals. Everyone’s spiritual journey is their own, and only God can know where your heart is.

I pray that God will open the hearts of those who are in Orthodoxy that they will accept the fullness of Truth, which is the Catholic Church.

Forgive me, this is overstated on my part. What I take from the fact that you do agree that they are intimately connected (#79), and your explanation that doctrines are defined “when the people of God asks them to be plainly defined” (#78) is that we essentially agree, in so far as the doctrine of merit explains purgatory in greater detail by providing a means to clarify some of the mechanisms by which a person’s tenure in purgatory may be effected: merit feeds into the understanding of indulgences, indulgences into purgatory, etc. It’s all a rich tapestry or something.

Yes, a rich tapestry of God’s design. The Church merely explains it.

That’s what I meant regarding the relation of purgatory to merits – not that either were invented out of thin air or anything, but that they allow the people who want such details to know the details of what they are to believe.

Amen!

I’m sorry that I’ve phrased things so poorly as to make you think that I’m saying that they were invented out of nothing. I thought I had said the exact opposite at one point in this thread, but I can’t find the reply it’s in, so maybe I didn’t.

No problem. No one is perfect.

Of course, yes. I take full responsibility for every step of my spiritual journey. We all have to.

It’s not one or the other, as both are an opportunity to further discussion. I have learned a great deal from my discussion in this thread, and also had the opportunity to try to explain some of the problems that I have with what I have been told. I’m pretty sure that’s the sign of a good conversation, so long as we do not devolve into some kind shouting match or what have you.

Agreed.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

"…] we definitely reject this belief because if the purifying fire will cleanse us from sin, then Christ’s death was in vain.

That is strange. That is the Protestant objection. Do the Orthodox share that objection with the Protestants? I’m surprised. Because the Protestants don’t believe in prayer for the dead. Therefore, in their theology, the objection is logical. For them, there is no mercy after one dies. One is either in heaven or in hell at that point.

My response to a Protestant is very simpl.e The answer from the Catholic perspective is, “it is because Christ died on the Cross that we are cleansed from sin in Purgatory.”
Hebrews 12:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29For our God is a consuming fire.

Scripture says that in order to be glorified with Christ, we must suffer with Him:
Romans 8:17
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Because suffering in the flesh, does away with sin:
[1 Peter 4:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Peter+4:1&version=KJV)
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;

Therefore, if you haven’t sufferred enough in this life, you will suffer in the next before you receive the crown of life:

Revelation 2:10
Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.

However, as I understood Orthodoxy, they also believe in prayers for the dead:
What the ORTHODOX BELIEVE Concerning prayer for the dead

"If I may respectfully ask, in what sense do the Orthodox pray for the souls of the departed? As you know, this is not a practice within Protestantism."
You ask in what sense do we pray for the souls of the departed. Why, in the same sense that we pray for the souls of those with us because Christ is Risen, trampling down death by death. The barrier between living and dead has been eliminated due to the Resurrection of Christ. Those who are departed are just as much with us and just as much a part of the Church as those who we see living on this earth. There is no longer any separation. And so not only do we pray for them, but they also pray for us; in the same way that you might ask your friends to pray for you and in turn pray for them so also do we pray for each other without concern for the separation of death.
When we pray for either the living or the dead we use the same prayer: “Lord have mercy”, to express our desires. We do not know what to pray for even for those with whom we live because only God knows what is best for our salvation, and so we say “Lord have mercy”. Likewise we do not know the needs and concerns of the departed, but God does and trusting in His knowledge we say, “Lord have mercy”
orthodox.net/articles/about-prayer-for-the-dead.html

Therefore, from the point of view of Orthodox Theology, how does it make sense to make this objection? After all, if you have to pray for the Lord to have mercy on your dead, Christ died in vain. Because you are now saving them by your efforts.

Whereas Purgatory is the mercy of God in action. Those in Purgatory will be saved whether we pray for them or not. God has already written their names in the Book of Life.

The only way we are saved and purified is by the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

That is Catholic doctrine. So what’s your point? Are you saying that you find buckets of blood and pour them over yourself?

Because Catholic doctrine says that it is because Christ shed His blood on the Cross that salvation is available to all those who believe in and obey His Commandments.
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

proof

The first wasn’t a proof, it was an objection without either proof or logic. I have provided both in response.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

against the concept of purgatory is that on the Cross, the Lord said to the thief, ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:43), not Purgatory."

I thank you for providing me an opportunity to preach on the merits of one of my favourite saints. St. Dismas, the Good Thief.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas went straight to paradise without going to purgatory.

1st and foremost, it is Catholic doctrine that if God’s word is efficacious. Therefore, when Jesus, God the Son, said that St. Dismas would be in paradise, it was so.

Second. Notice however, that St. Dismas met every Catholic criteria for entrance into glory.
a. Scripture says that we must suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). Did St. Dismas hang on his own cross right beside the crucified Christ? I think that meets that criteria.

b. Scripture says that suffering in the flesh expiates sin (1 Pet 4:1). Now, St. Dismas was a mere thief. Yet he suffered one of the most heinous deaths known to men, a death on the cross. Therefore, he more than paid for his sin.

c. Scripture also says:
Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
,
And St. Dismas loudly proclaimed the Son of God before men (Luke 23:40).

d. And if that were not enough, St. Dismas words were inscribed in Scripture and have contributed to the salvation of many men for 2000 years. That is a work of gold:
James 5:
20Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas did not go to Purgatory.

– Bishop Moussa … I know do not subscribe to the concept of “toll houses” as some EO do (where it is in no way a dogmatic belief anyway).

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I subscribe to debate by website. I can post as many Catholic websites as you can Orthodox. Maybe more.

Please articulate your arguments if you have any.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[CopticChristian]

cont’d

I thank you for providing me an opportunity to preach on the merits of one of my favourite saints. St. Dismas, the Good Thief.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas went straight to paradise without going to purgatory.

1st and foremost, it is Catholic doctrine that if God’s word is efficacious. Therefore, when Jesus, God the Son, said that St. Dismas would be in paradise, it was so.

Second. Notice however, that St. Dismas met every Catholic criteria for entrance into glory.
a. Scripture says that we must suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). Did St. Dismas hang on his own cross right beside the crucified Christ? I think that meets that criteria.

b. Scripture says that suffering in the flesh expiates sin (1 Pet 4:1). Now, St. Dismas was a mere thief. Yet he suffered one of the most heinous deaths known to men, a death on the cross. Therefore, he more than paid for his sin.

c. Scripture also says:
Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
,
And St. Dismas loudly proclaimed the Son of God before men (Luke 23:40).

d. And if that were not enough, St. Dismas words were inscribed in Scripture and have contributed to the salvation of many men for 2000 years. That is a work of gold:
James 5:
20Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas did not go to Purgatory.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I subscribe to debate by website. I can post as many Catholic websites as you can Orthodox. Maybe more.

Please articulate your arguments if you have any.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I read somewhere, authored by a priest, that these words constitute a work.

rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing; thou art under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly: for we receive the due reward of our deeds. But this man hath done no evil. And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

 

[dzheremi]

"However, this repetition of behavior and repetition of confession caused a reluctance for individuals to continue. For, they felt stupid week after week confessing the same issue. So then confession became both a positive and negative.

I hope I don’t offend people by putting it this way, but shouldn’t you feel stupid for having to confess the same sin over and over again? They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result to come of it. So perhaps “stupid” is not the right word, but it should drive you crazy, to the point where it disgusts you and you revile from it. From the sayings of the Desert Fathers we have this very interesting example of the accomplishment of this (which I admit is incredibly hard to reach, no matter what kind of Christian you are):

A brother at Scetis was a good fighter. The enemy suggested the rememberance of a very beautiful woman to him and he was much afflicted by it. Providentially, another brother who went to Scetis from Egypt said to him, while they were speaking together, “The wife of so and so is dead.” Now it was the woman about whom the ascetic had experienced the conflict. When he heard this, he took his cloak and went to open her tomb by night; he soaked the cloak in the decomposing body. Then he returned to his cell bringing this bad smell with him, and he strove against his thoughts, saying, “here is the desire you are seeking, you have it, be satisfied.” And he chastised himself by means of that bad smell until the warfare in him ceased.

I believe the church was right to create a seperation in which man could be more enticed to correct his error.

I don’t really agree. To be enticed by any other means to do what you should do as a matter of healing your spiritual sickness seems weird to me. Maybe it isn’t wrong, strictly speaking, but it seems like an immature way to go about it. If I am serious about my spiritual life and its direction and its consequences, then I need to develop within myself an understanding that places these above my feelings (“it makes me feel dumb”), my proclivities (e.g., looking for the easier way of doing something very difficult), or anything else. Doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church want to challenge her believers? Does the RC recognize the absolute necessity of struggle in Christian spiritual life?

“I don’t suppose anything happens with venial sin, because I don’t think that’s the proper distinction to make in the first place.”

Right I don’t “think” so either, and that is also why thats sent to the mass and not the confessional.

Perhaps my diplomatic wording obscured my point, as this doesn’t seem to be answering the sentence you quoted. When I wrote that it is an improper distinction, I meant that it is not a correct distinction. These categories of sin do not exist.

Whats the difference in the Bible verse you or Joe mentioned? Can you prove your’s in scriptural context? Or is it one verse to make a point? What supports it? I wasn’t there in the 4th century nor were you. So if its patristic show me.

I referenced the Agpeya (again, 4th-5th century; it took the form that it has today under St. Shenouda the Archimandrite who lived during this time) to substantiate my understanding, as well as HH Pope Shenouda III and various Coptic laypersons. You’ll have to ask Joe370 what he meant by bringing it up in the first place, although I would think that this is relatively self-evident if you look at the context in which he invoked it (as well as my reply).

 

[joe370]

Hey** De Maria.** you raise a good point. Do the Orthodox share the same objection to purgatory as protestants do regarding prayer for the dead, who only believe in eternal heaven or eternal hell, as opposed to a third transitory possibility acting as a sort of staging area of purification, prior to entering heaven?

My response to a Protestant is very simpl.e The answer from the Catholic perspective is, “it is because Christ died on the Cross that we are cleansed from sin in Purgatory.”
Hebrews 12:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

That makes perfect sense… The cleansing fire of purgatory is lit by Christ and leads to Christ.

Regarding the treasury of merits (a deposit of intercessory prayers for the building up of Jesus’ church) - a term, like the Trinity, adopted by the CC, even protestant historians such as J.N.D. Kelly and Philip Schaff, acknowledge:

“A phenomenon of great significance in the patristic period was the rise and gradual development of veneration for the saints, more particularly for the Blessed Virgin Mary. . . Earliest in the field was the cult of martyrs . . . At first it took the form of the reverent preservation of their relics and the annual celebration of their birthday. From this it was a short step, since they were now with Christ in glory, to seeking their help and prayers, and in the third century evidence for the belief in their intercessory power accumulate … By the middle of the same [4th] century, according to Cyril of Jerusalem, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles and martyrs were commemorated in the liturgy so that by their prayers and intercessions God may receive our supplications.”

"In the numerous memorial discourses of the fathers, the martyrs are loaded with eulogies, addressed as present, and besought for their protection. The universal tone of those productions is offensive to the Protestant taste, and can hardly be reconciled with evangelical ideas of the exclusive and all-sufficient mediation of Christ and of justification by pure grace without the merit of works. . . .

However

…The best church fathers, too, never separated the merits of the saints from the merits of Christ, but considered the former as flowing out of the latter." considered the former as flowing out of the latter."

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi…

I hope I don’t offend people by putting it this way, but shouldn’t you feel stupid for having to confess the same sin over and over again? They say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and expecting a different result to come of it…

Not at all. One should feel stupid for offending our Savior by repeating the same sin over and over, but if one does continue the insanity, God has lovingly and mercifully left us with recourse to His forgiveness and Mercy via reconciliation, no matter how long it takes us to get it right. How cool is that!!!

 

[joe370]

dzheremi - I don’t really agree…

People don’t always agree with me; you don’t always agree with Gary and I don’t always agree with you; perhaps this is why Jesus tells us to take it to His church to resolve matters…

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey** De Maria.** you raise a good point. Do the Orthodox share the same objection to purgatory as protestants do regarding prayer for the dead, who only believe in eternal heaven or eternal hell, as opposed to a third transitory possibility acting as a sort of staging area of purification, prior to entering heaven?

It isn’t necessarily accurate to say that the rejection of praying to saints led to the rejection of purgatory by Protestants. To some extent the opposite is probably true - the rejection of purgatory led to some no longer praying to saints, but that isn’t universal.

The Orthodox do pray for the dead.

 

[dzheremi]

If you claim that God “needs” something, then you would have to be someone equal to or greater than He. Or, at the very least, someone He appointed to study the question.

I went back and re-read the post from which you extracted this point to see where I wrote anything about God “needing” something. There’s nothing about that there, so I don’t know where you’re getting this from. I can only repeat what I wrote in that thread to explain why I would reject this idea, which likewise has nothing to do with God needing anything, but with His church and its doctrine and what may or may not be a part of that (respecting the fact that no Catholic is going to agree with my siding with the Orthodox here!): Again, I have not made it unnecessary myself by simply declaring so, but I find it unnecessary by simply reading and hearing and absorbing the theology of the Orthodox church, which has existed for 2000 years without this dogma. So it really has nothing to do with me thinking I’m anyone special to declare this or that piece of RC dogma unnecessary; it’s about the fact that the Orthodox Church has already done so, centuries before I was ever around.

But who claimed it was necessary? Did I? Did the Pope? Did the Catholic Church?

The fact is, that it exists. The Catholic Church recognizes it. Your Church doesn’t.

I see. Is it your opinion then that the Roman Catholic Church promulgates unnecessary doctrine? Because if that’s the case, then we actually agree.

What if I said? “I don’t think its necessary that the Orthodox Church exist. We were doing quite well for 1000 years without it.”

What of it? I’m talking about a doctrine that was not even always there in the church that now affirms it.

But are we merely going to exchange opinions? Or are we going to study the Scriptures and the Fathers?

I don’t know if my links and quotations from Orthodox bishops, priests, and Fathers are being ignored or what, but it is not a matter of my opinion versus your opinion. It is a matter of Orthodox opinion supported by Patristics and consistent tradition in the interpretation of said Patristics and the principles and scriptures they elucidate, and Roman Catholic opinion supported by Patristics and interpretations founded in medieval scholasticism/rationalism and other innovations that are alien to Rome’s own Orthodox past.

 

[joe370]

cont’d

I thank you for providing me an opportunity to preach on the merits of one of my favourite saints. St. Dismas, the Good Thief.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas went straight to paradise without going to purgatory.

1st and foremost, it is Catholic doctrine that if God’s word is efficacious. Therefore, when Jesus, God the Son, said that St. Dismas would be in paradise, it was so.

Second. Notice however, that St. Dismas met every Catholic criteria for entrance into glory.
a. Scripture says that we must suffer with Christ in order to be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). Did St. Dismas hang on his own cross right beside the crucified Christ? I think that meets that criteria.

b. Scripture says that suffering in the flesh expiates sin (1 Pet 4:1). Now, St. Dismas was a mere thief. Yet he suffered one of the most heinous deaths known to men, a death on the cross. Therefore, he more than paid for his sin.

c. Scripture also says:
Matthew 10:32
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
,
And St. Dismas loudly proclaimed the Son of God before men (Luke 23:40).

d. And if that were not enough, St. Dismas words were inscribed in Scripture and have contributed to the salvation of many men for 2000 years. That is a work of gold:
James 5:
20Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

There are many reasons why St. Dismas did not go to Purgatory.

I have no idea what you’re talking about. Nor do I subscribe to debate by website. I can post as many Catholic websites as you can Orthodox. Maybe more.

Please articulate your arguments if you have any.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Food for thought: Even Jewish practices, prior to Christianity, and to this day, reflect belief in a “place” of final purification which they call “Gehenom.”

 

[joe370]

It isn’t necessarily accurate to say that the rejection of praying to saints led to the rejection of purgatory by Protestants. To some extent the opposite is probably true - the rejection of purgatory led to some no longer praying to saints, but that isn’t universal.

The Orthodox do pray for the dead.

I wasn’t suggesting that the rejection of praying to saints led to the rejection of purgatory by Protestants and I agree with you that the rejection of purgatory could have paved the way for some protestants to no longer ask the saints in heaven to pray for them.

I was simply suggesting that De Maria asked a good question, which is:

Do the Orthodox share the same objection to purgatory as protestants do regarding prayer for the dead, who only believe in eternal heaven or eternal hell, as opposed to a third transitory possibility acting as a sort of staging area of purification, prior to entering heaven?

 

[dzheremi]

That is strange. That is the Protestant objection. Do the Orthodox share that objection with the Protestants?

This is an interesting comment. It seems that you think that some positions are inherently “Protestant” or “Catholic” or what have you, such that if any other Christian body seems to agree with them (or your interpretation of what they mean), then that group is embracing a “Protestant” (or ____) view. If that is the case, then I can only point out to you how much of Roman Catholic theology is at the base of Protestant theology. Protestants by and large embrace the debt/atonement view of salvation as inherited from the RC, for instance. Ditto the filioque in the Protestant churches that use it. So are these therefore “Protestant” stances?

The Orthodox Church does object to Purgatory for the reason stated by Bishop Moussa (a Coptic Orthodox bishop, not Protestant). In addition, Fr. Andrew S. Damick makes a similar point in his “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” podcast that deals with EO/RC differences. I know I have linked this before, but here is the Coptic Orthodox objections to purgatory (including their reasons for praying for the dead, despite not believing in purgatory), and here is Fr. Damick’s podcast (I can’t remember which exact episode he addresses purgatory in; obviously one of the two dealing with the RC; they are both worth listening to, as is the whole series). So there you have it: The OO and EO both reject purgatory, on at least some of the same grounds (though the EO and OO have different outlooks as it relates to what they might believe instead, as the OO do not as far as I know have a teaching comparable to the EO “toll houses” that Fr. Damick talks about).

I’m surprised. Because the Protestants don’t believe in prayer for the dead.

See above. This is a red herring. The Orthodox have always prayed for the dead, so whatever Protestant objections may be can’t have anything to do with the Orthodox, as the underlying rationale is so different.

The first wasn’t a proof, it was an objection without either proof or logic. I have provided both in response.

I know declarative statements are fun and all, but they’re not terribly convincing. You are referring here to the quotes from Bishop Moussa, et al.? (Sorry, I’m having trouble tracking what you’re replying to, several pages/replies back.) These may not be your arguments, but these are Orthodox arguments. They do not rely on Latin Catholic logical paradigms any more than RC ideas rely on Eastern apophatic theology. Apples and oranges, my friend.

 

[Bluegoat]

As I understand it, the Orthodox conception of what happens to souls after death sheds a lot of light on the question of prayers from the dead.

But even with a more Western understanding, many Anglicans use prayers for the dead and still reject purgatory. One doesn’t require the other.

 

[dzheremi]

I thank you for providing me an opportunity to preach on the merits of one of my favourite saints. St. Dismas, the Good Thief.

An interesting choice of infinitive verb, but okay…glad to help.

Nor do I subscribe to debate by website.

Good point. I forgot about how we are having this discussion right now face to face, in the same room.

I can post as many Catholic websites as you can Orthodox. Maybe more.

What’s your point? You asked for backing for my views, so I linked to various Orthodox websites that give that backing, mostly repositories of printed material that I do not actually own, like orthodoxebooks.org which collects mostly Coptic Orthodox writings from HH Pope Shenouda III, the other bishops, Fr. Tadrous Yacoub Malaty, and other well-respected illuminators of the Coptic Orthodox faith. This is not “debate by website” any more than literally every single instance of quoting an outside source that you have also done. Please notice how restrictive this complaining and trying to control the discussion is: If you cannot stand to have me argue from my own opinion (as you have made clear by pointing out over and over how I am “only arguing (my) opinion”), and cannot stand any links to the outside sources that have informed this opinion, then effectively you cannot stand to actually discuss these issues. We (both) have sources, and opinions following from interpretations of those sources. Without these, there’s really nothing to talk about.

 

[joe370]

Hey Bluegoat and Ddzheremi…Purgatory, if it exists, seems to be a real gift from God for a soul that hasn’t been perfectly purified and conformed to God’s constitution, but that’s just my opinion. If in fact, upon forgiveness, we must still be as purified as Jesus to enter into His eternal Kingdom, then a transitory purgation sure beats eternal damnation. If the CC is correct, and if not for this cleansing fire lit by God, for souls who have been forgiven, (but still carry with them the stain of the forgiven sin or the remnants of their human nature which is transformed by fire, so that the soul can perfectly share in the divine life of the Trinity) - then the only thing that remains is hell.

As I have mentioned before, eastern/oriental orthodox Christians must believe in some sort of transition from death to Heaven, minus the pain, and of course I can certainly understand why eastern/oriental orthodox Christians would not want to use the word purgatory for it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West; it would certainly seem more befitting to use a Greek word to define their theology, if they were to define it. It is noteworthy to mention the fact that the CC doesn’t even require those eastern churches in communion with Rome to adhere to their understanding of Purgatory:

Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

If a place of purification is not necessary then what were these guys talking about?

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. Clement of Alexandria - 2nd century

**If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. **For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (I Cor., 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood, and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works. Clement of Alexandria - 2nd century

It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage.** It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. **It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the Day of Judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord. Cyprian A.D. 253

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job l:5), **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. John Chrysostom Homilies on First Corinthians 4th century

Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? **But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, **while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf John Chrysostom Homilies on Philippians

Continued…

 

[joe370]

As I understand it, the Orthodox conception of what happens to souls after death sheds a lot of light on the question of prayers from the dead.

But even with a more Western understanding, many Anglicans use prayers for the dead and still reject purgatory. One doesn’t require the other.

Could you perhaps shed some light regarding the beliefs of the Orthodox conception of what happens to souls after death that do not go directly to heaven, and therefore can derive something from our prayers?

 

[dzheremi]

Hey Bluegoat and Ddzheremi…Purgatory, if it exists, seems to be a real gift from God for a soul that hasn’t been perfectly purified and conformed to God’s constitution, but that’s just my opinion.

I am reminded of a particular poster whose name I cannot remember who once tried to advance the idea that, in accordance with His mercy, God offers a last chance for repentance at the moment after death. Byzantine Wolf (an Orthodox poster) and I both wondered about this, as it is not a concept that is found in the early Church (or any other period of Christian history that I know of). When pressed, the poster admitted it was something he had heard from one religious, and was not technically found anywhere, but fit with his own conception of how God’s mercy should work. This is obviously not a very stable ground on which to rest your belief on such an important matter (and I countered then, as I would now, with this sermon by HH Pope Shenouda III). I would say something similar about this purgatory business. Given the seriousness of the subject matter, “if it exists” seems like a refreshingly honest but also disturbingly shaky basis for belief. For your sake, I hope purgatory does exist as you have described it.

It is noteworthy to mention the fact that the CC doesn’t even require those eastern churches in communion with Rome to adhere to their understanding of Purgatory

I’m not sure what to think about this. On one hand, it is good that the RC would not require that of its Eastern branches. On the other hand, from the Orthodox perspective, Rome requiring or not requiring this of any other church is essentially the same, as Rome has no authority to interfere with the doctrine of others either way. She may make suggestions, she may issue her own opinions, but nothing is binding or not binding on Rome’s account.

If a place of purification is not necessary then what were these guys talking about?

Can you provide the titles of the writings these quotes come from? This would make it easier to reference them in context, bring them up with my priest, etc.