Does the treasury of merit exist?

[Bluegoat]

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?

As far as I understand, there is not really the idea that people go to Heaven or Hell upon their death (at least in the EO, I can’t speak for the OO here). Those who die - all of them - go into a spiritual state where they are given a kind of foretaste of Heaven or Hell, and it is in that state that they await the final judgment and Resurrection. In this stage it is possible for our prayers to influence those souls. Later, after the second coming, there will be the Resurrection and final judgement.

Hell for the Orthodox is often not thought of in terms of being separated from God or in a different place. Often it is thought of in terms of all, including the wicked, being bathed in the unquenchable fire of God’s love. The good experience this as joy and bliss, the wicked as terrible pain. So this is why those waiting for the Resurrection experience a foretaste of the final judgement.

Many Orthodox writers have talked about a kind of purification that happens at death, to everyone who comes to be in God’s presence. If achieving a kind of union with God we necessarily leave things behind us. But it the act of coming into this union itself which is purifying, not some kind of external act we must complete before we come into God’s presence. And this process of union happens to us on Earth as well.

What is different about their conception from Purgatory is that there is no concept of a debt of any kind that has to be paid, and there is no concept of the Treasury of Merits that the Church can lend out like it is a bank, and there is no idea that some people like saints or even Mary can somehow do more than is required by God so their Merits go into some kind of pool.

There is also the simple answer, which is our prayers for the dead could be applied by God to help the person before he or she died. You could pray for John Wayne today and God could still make your prayer effectual for him in the past.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi, just an observation:

If, as saint Chrysostom (4th century archbishop of Constantinople) - says, and “those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their souls” - and therefore are not immediately enjoying the beatific vision in heaven then they must be in some sort of a temporal state of isolation - yes, no, maybe?

Also, I am told that the eastern orthodox routinely offer prayers on behalf of those who have passed on as well as celebrating divine liturgies on their behalf and it doesn’t seem that they would do that if they did not, in some way, agree with the following:

There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven.

Prayer is efficacious for those souls who are in this temporary state.

 

[dzheremi]

Hey dzheremi, just an observation:

If, as saint Chrysostom (4th century archbishop of Constantinople) - says, and “those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their souls” - and therefore are not immediately enjoying the beatific vision in heaven then they must be in some sort of a temporal state of isolation - yes, no, maybe?

I’ve never heard any EO talk about the “beautific vision”. That might be an RC thing only. Anyway, why is this support for purgatory? He says that their wealth does not prepare consolation for their souls. This is no different than what you might find in the Holy Bible, in passages that I doubt any Catholic would interpret as having anything to do with purgatory (the famous “camel through the eye of a needle” in Matthew 19:24, for instance). How do you see this as supporting purgatory?

 

[joe370]

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.

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.

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.

Right now I am looking for John Chrysostom’s entire Homily…

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;8343179]I’ve never heard any EO talk about the “beautific vision”. That might be an RC thing only. Anyway, why is this support for purgatory? He says that their wealth does not prepare consolation for their souls. This is no different than what you might find in the Holy Bible, in passages that I doubt any Catholic would interpret as having anything to do with purgatory (the famous “camel through the eye of a needle” in Matthew 19:24, for instance). How do you see this as supporting purgatory?

I didn’t mention purgatory. I said, “If a place of purification is not necessary then what were these guys talking about?”

I am certainly not trying to sell the concept of purgatory to you. I deeply respect your beliefs brother and would never try to dissuade you… Just a fun dialogue… All I was suggesting is that st. John Chrysostom believed in some sort of temporary state for souls that do not go directly to heaven, which was why he said what he said in the quote below. Surely there is no need to weep for souls in heaven and those in hell can not benefit from our prayers, assistance, assembly and giving of alms to the poor on their behalf, done in their defense of those who have departed in the faith:

*“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extant of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. 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.” St. John Chrysostom (“Homilies on Philippians” c. 402 A.D.) *

Here is the whole thing:

newadvent.org/fathers/220141.htm

John Chrysostom - Homily 41 on First Corinthians - Just scroll down to 1 Corinthians 15:46

Excerpt:

“Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why do you doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? Since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, “that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf.” 2 Corinthians 1:11 Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us. Therefore with boldness do we then intreat for the whole world, and name their names with those of martyrs, of confessors, of priests. For in truth one body are we all, though some members are more glorious than others; and it is possible from every source to gather pardon for them, from our prayers, from our gifts in their behalf, from those whose names are named with theirs. Why therefore do you grieve? Why mourn, when it is in your power to gather so much pardon for the departed?”

 

[dzheremi]

Alright, that was poorly phrased on my part. How do you see this as supporting your idea? (We’ll leave out what we call the idea, since it’s more about what you think the passage means than what you’d call it.)

 

[joe370]

Alright, that was poorly phrased on my part. How do you see this as supporting your idea? (We’ll leave out what we call the idea, since it’s more about what you think the passage means than what you’d call it.)

Are you referring to the idea of a transitory purification for a soul, as a soul is transitioning from death to Heaven, in order to be perfectly conformed to God and thereby divinely disposed to enter into His heavenly kingdom?

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is: if a soul, as suggested by Chrysostom, can benefit from our involvement, be it giving alms to the poor on their behalf, or assisting them via prayer, both of which, according to Chrysostom, are done in the defense of those who have departed in the faith, then these souls are not in heaven yet, for no one is in need of anything in heaven and they surely are not in hell for those in hell cannot benefit from our actions such as prayers.

The second thing that comes to mind is: why didn’t they go directly to heaven upon their demise? The only thing I can come up with is the possibility that the soul didn’t completely meet God’s purification standard, and that’s where we come in. By doing what Chrysostom suggested we can hasten the purification process and the souls eventual entrance into heaven.

Like Blue said,

“Many Orthodox writers have talked about a kind of purification that happens at death, to everyone who comes to be in God’s presence. If achieving a kind of union with God we necessarily leave things behind us. But if the act of coming into this union itself which is purifying, not some kind of external act we must complete before we come into God’s presence. And this process of union happens to us on Earth as well.”

She went on to say,

What is different about their conception from Purgatory is that there is no concept of a debt of any kind that has to be paid, and there is no concept of the Treasury of Merits that the Church can lend out like it is a bank, and there is no idea that some people like saints or even Mary can somehow do more than is required by God so their Merits go into some kind of pool.

I don’t see it as a debt owed for God paid the debt on the cross. I see it more as a soul making retribution (for sins forgiven) - to God’s justice.

Also, no catholic believes the idea, suggested by Blue, that "some people like saints or even Mary can somehow do more than is required by God…

By the way, how do you interpret 1Co 3:14?

 

[dzheremi]

Once again, Joe, I would point out to you that the Orthodox do not have a debt/satisfaction idea of atonement in the first place. That’s an idea that really wasn’t even prevalent in the West for many centuries (poster Mickey once shared a comparison between old Latin hymns of the 5th and the 10th century and the difference in tone and language between the two was shocking. If I can find the post I’ll share it at a later time; it is very illuminating). It is not to satisfy the Father’s sense of justice or having been aggrieved, but for us. Surely, He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities so that we would have peace (cf. Isaiah 53:5), being liberated from the pains of sin (death) by the triumph of His glorious resurrection. Pope Athanasius the Apostolic taught “We are purified by His precious blood from all sins; His blood which does not scream for vengeance like that of Abel.” (Fr. Tadrous Malaty, “The Book of Isaiah”; emphasis mine)

And, since you love St. John the Chrysostom so much (me too!), here is a quote from him: “Through His death He raised the dead as He took up the curse, to free us from it.” (ibid.)

(Edit: I should point out, in anticipation of a possible response that you said you don’t see it as a debt, that ultimately “retribution” is penal substitution by a fancier name, and hence still not good. Please double-check the meaning of “retribution” and let me know if that’s really what you meant, cos I kinda doubt it…or at least I hope so…)

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;8343781]Once again, Joe, I would point out to you that the Orthodox do not have a debt/satisfaction idea of atonement in the first place.

I didn’t suggest it either. I was merely answering your question… Like I mentioned, I don’t see it as a debt owed, for God paid the debt on the cross but rather making retribution (for sins forgiven) - to God’s justice.

I should point out, in anticipation of a possible response that you said you don’t see it as a debt, that ultimately “retribution” is penal substitution by a fancier name, and hence still not good. Please double-check the meaning of “retribution” and let me know if that’s really what you meant, cos I kinda doubt it…or at least I hope so…)

I understand that you disagree with me regarding God’s justice and believe that once a sin is forgiven, God’s justice, regarding forgiven sins, is no longer applicable, which is why you believe that there is no need for something like purgatory. I wish I could embrace that idea for it sure would make the souls transition a lot more pleasant, but I can’t bring myself to embrace it for several reasons, so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree…

That’s an idea that really wasn’t even prevalent in the West for many centuries (poster Mickey once shared a comparison between old Latin hymns of the 5th and the 10th century and the difference in tone and language between the two was shocking. If I can find the post I’ll share it at a later time; it is very illuminating). It is not to satisfy the Father’s sense of justice or having been aggrieved, but for us.

Surely, He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities so that we would have peace (cf. Isaiah 53:5), being liberated from the pains of sin (death) by the triumph of His glorious resurrection. Pope Athanasius the Apostolic taught “We are purified by His precious blood from all sins; His blood which does not scream for vengeance like that of Abel.” (Fr. Tadrous Malaty, “The Book of Isaiah”; emphasis mine)

I agree with all of that, of course.

And, since you love St. John the Chrysostom so much (me too!), here is a quote from him: “Through His death He raised the dead as He took up the curse, to free us from it.” (ibid.)

Another great quote from Saint John:

"Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour’s death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.

By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.

It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.

O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory? "

Got to catch some zzz’s

 

[dzheremi]

But Joe, retribution is “something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment” (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., 2006). So this still carries the same “debt” and “penal substitution” idea that the Orthodox reject. Christ didn’t “repay” the Father, because that’s entirely NOT the point of the crucifixion and resurrection. It is, instead, as the saints I quoted in the previous post put it (which you agreed with): It was for us, not to assuage vengeance, nor for repayment of some imagined debt, or any other reason that can be dreamed up that falls within the debt/substitution paradigm.

There is an amazing hymn in Arabic (and I suppose other languages, too, but I only know it in Arabic) that describes the veneration of our Lord’s passion perfectly: Today is hung upon the tree, in its most famous rendition by Lebanese icon Fairuz.

“Today is hung upon the tree, He who suspended the earth upon the waters…”

It is hard for me to see how such a triumphant view of our Lord can be nurtured by any soteriology that sees His most perfect sacrifice as a payment, either on demand or in any other fashion. Jesus Christ is not a bank. He is the One who has trampled down death by death, offering life to those in the graves…

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi…

But Joe, retribution is “something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment” (American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed., 2006). So this still carries the same “debt” and “penal substitution” idea that the Orthodox reject.

You have switch gears to atonement theology and I understand that they reject it. Regarding the purification of a soul who’s sins have been forgiven, I suppose it really comes down to whether or not sins of a person, forgiven by God, could possibly still have certain consequences or repercussions. If they don’t then it makes sense that all souls, destined for heaven, are transported their immediately, upon their demise, and if they do have consequences or repercussions then some sort of divine punishment makes sense, and in no way would it undermine Jesus’ work on the cross, for Jesus’ work on the cross was to save us from eternal punishment. Like I said before, I definitely like your take on the matter, but my gut says otherwise.

It is, instead, as the saints I quoted in the previous post put it (which you agreed with): It was for us, not to assuage vengeance, nor for repayment of some imagined debt, or any other reason that can be dreamed up that falls within the debt/substitution paradigm… It is hard for me to see how such a triumphant view of our Lord can be nurtured by any soteriology that sees His most perfect sacrifice as a payment, either on demand or in any other fashion. Jesus Christ is not a bank. He is the One who has trampled down death by death, offering life to those in the graves…

This is about the whole ransom theory vs the satisfaction/penal substitution theory. I was only talking about punishment for sins already forgiven, due to consequences, prior to entering into our heavenly home.

There is an amazing hymn in Arabic (and I suppose other languages, too, but I only know it in Arabic) that describes the veneration of our Lord’s passion perfectly: Today is hung upon the tree, in its most famous rendition by Lebanese icon Fairuz.

“Today is hung upon the tree, He who suspended the earth upon the waters…”

Thanks for that youtube; that was awesome…This is one of my favorite songs; check it out…What an inimitable and ineffable experience it must have been for Mary…

youtube.com/watch?v=IfpK6cNPF7Y&feature=related

 

[dzheremi]

If they don’t then it makes sense that all souls, destined for heaven, are transported their immediately, upon their demise, and if they do have consequences or repercussions then some sort of divine punishment makes sense, and in no way would it undermine Jesus’ work on the cross, for Jesus’ work on the cross was to save us from eternal punishment. Like I said before, I definitely like your take on the matter, but my gut says otherwise.

As think I wrote much earlier in this thread, the problem with some of these doctrines is that they set up a false dichotomy whereby “if not A, then B” is supposed to substitute for solid Patristic witness (of the type I’ve already provided from St. John Chrysostom, St. Pope Athanasius the Apostolic, and can provide from many more if you are interested; I didn’t choose more because I doubt that there is anything in any of these quotes that a Catholic would disagree with). But notice that saying “no, this soteriology does not make sense” does not lead, automatically or otherwise, to the conclusion that “all souls, destined for heaven, are transported there immediately”. To believe in that would just be purgatory in reverse, wouldn’t it? It’s not as though because I do not believe in purgatory, I therefore believe that souls go on some sort of fast track to heaven. In fact, I was just reading earlier today where Origen of all people argued against this view that he charged Celsus with upholding (“Against Celsus, Book 3”). Now, Origen can be tricky to read (not all of his opinions are acceptable), but I haven’t seen any teaching against this refutation. The problem as it relates to RC epistemological certainty is that we do not have a systematized view of what happens after death. That’s just not the Orthodox way of doing things, as far as I can tell (hence why even the EO who accept toll houses recognize that they are only opinion, not dogma). I reject your “then B” not any less than your “if not A”.

Thanks for that youtube; that was awesome…This is one of my favorite songs; check it out…What an inimitable and ineffable experience it must have been for Mary…

youtube.com/watch?v=IfpK6cNPF7Y&feature=related

I’m glad you liked it. But about your video: Is there a theological point to make by posting this? I don’t mean that in a rude way, but I don’t understand it. I posted the two Byzantine hymns to show how the Orthodox view the crucifixion and resurrection. Sorry I couldn’t lyrics for the second one, but it’s a very simple chant in Greek and Arabic: “Christ has risen from the dead, trampling death by death, and giving life to those in the graves. This this the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Notice: No debt or penal substitution.

 

[GaryTaylor]

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.

As to repeating with confession on the “same sin”. Not what I was talking about.

However it brings up a good point. There are people who entertain this thought/feeling process for sure, the depth of their guilt overwhelms them and has for some time. So in this sense I see the struggle. Really what is comes down to is the connecting of the self to something that isn’t, by keeping it a secret for much to long. Once this is confessed and released, sure there’s that “Ah” you have gotten this off your chest feeling. However the depth of guilt being over-come, would relate to the healing process over time. On the other hand should the repitition become a verbal issue with a priest, then I imagine they would pick on it on this and correct this on their level. The soul may still need further help though. Guilt will kill you without a doubt and most good moral people I believe carry much to much of this around with them. This would apply on the mortal level.

I don’t see the venial aspect as a major issue, though I know, it could well lead to futher error. I see it as more of a breathing process, your taking in and releasing at Mass. Could this be done without church? I do not know. I imagine anyone who feels the need to purge themself to begin with must have a degree of guilt. hurt, something. They are not feeling whatever they feel for no reason. Though their reason, may have no reason. So they should use the process given to them, or they are using there own, which may be at fault as I state by fault of reason. Thus if spiritual immaturity exists, this may or may not become an issue. Maybe the Catholic Church has a concern level here which exceeds what is needed? I certainly know it doesn’t work in the opposite direction. If you believe so then please explain?

A brother at Scetis was a good fighter.).

Its difficult when we as individuals look at the larger picture, then take up the cause. He couldn’t have did this internally and not externally. For it would have been a constant on his mind internally.

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 would imagine most Christians come to see this struggle my brother. How one may process it on a feeling level will vary from one to the next thus act on it. If one should enage in a cause, is also as we see in the world, very different from one to the next. Rome is engaged in the cause everywhere. Maybe you see something here I am not?

How is this done with the Copics? I’m still not grasping either, as I stated above the connection with Joe’s verse of scripture being rejected so easily, yet you accept the one you posted. I still fail to see the support of the verse, does it exist. If not, why is one more relevant than the next?

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.).

Sin “is” one category. However, let me ask you do you see a difference of getting drunk or commiting a Murder? While “categorie” doesn’t exist, the level and depth does.

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).

I am still missing the why we should raise one up a flag pole and salute it while so quickly rejecting the other? Maybe you can help me understand this?

As far as this text of yours… “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”

Some do not know what to do, some do not know they have a issue, some only know they need help. So the spiritually immature have to be considered. When you state "Does the RC recognize the absolute necessity of struggle in Christian spiritual life? "

This is what the CC does realize when they are dealing with the spiritually “bankrupt” world wide. Those who are just starting on the path in Church/Faith are immature and need to viewed correctly to be helped.

If you truly want to see just how much the CC is doing. Watch EWTN for a couple days. It can be gauged.

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Does the RC recognize the absolute necessity of struggle in Christian spiritual life? "

Just a further comment after re-reading. Couldn’t I relate this directly to the CC process of Confession after reading what I already posted? Does it sound like logic?

One other point, do you believe “bankrupt” is appropriate in the context I used it in?

 

[joe370]

d

zheremi

I’m glad you liked it. But about your video Is there a theological point to make by posting this? I don’t mean that in a rude way, but I don’t understand it. I posted the two Byzantine hymns to show how the Orthodox view the crucifixion and resurrection. Sorry I couldn’t lyrics for the second one, but it’s a very simple chant in Greek and Arabic: “Christ has risen from the dead, trampling death by death, and giving life to those in the graves. This this the day that the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it.” Notice: No debt or penal substitution.

Regarding that video I sent you - Nope. I just happened to be listening to it while I was typing and thought you might enjoy it.

Like I mentioned a couple of times, the whole debt or penal substitution thing really has nothing to do with what I was talking about, but I will discuss it if you want to, or, you could start a thread and raise some points regarding the subject?

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t see it as a debt owed for God paid the debt on the cross. I see it more as a soul making retribution (for sins forgiven) - to God’s justice.

Making retribution is the paying of a debt, by definition.

Also, no catholic believes the idea, suggested by Blue, that "some people like saints or even Mary can somehow do more than is required by God…

It certainly is. IIRC the Catholic Encyclopedia addresses it in some detail. It relates to the source of the merits in the supposed treasury. Whereas most people do not manage to work off their temporal debt for sin, supposedly many saints, especially Mary, have no temporal debt. But they continued through their good works and penances to gain merits - more than they themselves needed to avoid purgatory. These “extra” merits are deposited into the Treasury of Merit, and it is these that the Church draws out when it grants indulgences.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Then the question inverted is, could you be spiritually bankrupt? Of course by Definition?

 

[dzheremi]

As to repeating with confession on the “same sin”. Not what I was talking about.

Then I have misunderstood you. I’m sorry. I’ll try to do better.

On the other hand should the repitition become a verbal issue with a priest, then I imagine they would pick on it on this and correct this on their level.

What do you mean “a verbal issue”? I’m not sure I follow.

The soul may still need further help though. Guilt will kill you without a doubt and most good moral people I believe carry much to much of this around with them. This would apply on the mortal level.

Ditto here. Are you saying that carrying around guilt is a mortal sin, or…well, what are you saying?

They are not feeling whatever they feel for no reason. Though their reason, may have no reason. So they should use the process given to them, or they are using there own, which may be at fault as I state by fault of reason.

Huh? “Though their reason my have no reason”? I don’t understand what you mean here, either. (Sorry, I’m not trying to ignore the point you’re making, I’m really just not seeing it. This is some kind of word salad to me.)

Its difficult when we as individuals look at the larger picture, then take up the cause. He couldn’t have did this internally and not externally. For it would have been a constant on his mind internally.

Well yeah, that is sort of related to my point in bringing that up. This is the opposite of the disposition nurtured by any system that would lessen any sin. The brother saw that the memory was a problem for him, and in order to come to revile it (since he could not do this purely “internally”, as you’ve put it, say by dedicating himself to not thinking about her) he soaked his cloak in the stench of her decayed body in order to associate displeasure with thoughts of her. If he had treated the remembrance of the woman as a venial matter (or maybe even less…I don’t recall anything in the Bible against remembering a beautiful woman, though of course it is in a monastic context that this presents a stumbling block, as it keeps the monk tied to the world), he might have never been able to do away with this impulse. I would think that situations like this apply to more than just monks, but also to you and me (hence another reason why I won’t accept “venial” sins; it leads to spiritual laziness in our fight against the demons).

I would imagine most Christians come to see this struggle my brother.

I was wondering about the view of the RC leadership that has set up the various distinctions by which its believers are supposed to live, not individuals. My experience in the RC tells me that not many RCs outside of places like this messageboard (where people are more likely to argue over doctrine) pay attention to these various distinctions, but I would still think that the outlook of the leadership, as the central authority in a very centralized church, could tell much about the ethos of the faith as it is understood in RC tradition.

How is this done with the Copics? I’m still not grasping either, as I stated above the connection with Joe’s verse of scripture being rejected so easily, yet you accept the one you posted. I still fail to see the support of the verse, does it exist. If not, why is one more relevant than the next?

The Coptic Church is a church of martyrs, first and foremost, monastic down to its marrow. What you wrote above with regard to how individuals in the RC experience their struggle applies to the Coptic Orthodox, too, but the overall focus is very different. Asceticism is not just alive in the church; it is the way of life of the church. This is why we can look at the brother in Scetis or any other number of major historic or contemporary examples (e.g., Tamav Irini) to show us the absolute necessity of struggle in the growth of the spirit. I’m not sure that message is always given the same centrality in the RC (maybe in the ECC or OCC as they are generally closer to the Orthodox in their practices; I don’t know).

Sin “is” one category. However, let me ask you do you see a difference of getting drunk or commiting a Murder? While “categorie” doesn’t exist, the level and depth does.

What do you mean sin itself is a category? We are talking about the RC division of sin into various categories, are we not? And I already agreed (and provided quotes from HH Pope Shenouda III to back it up) that while all sins are the same in taking us away from God, they are not all the same in their gravity. Obviously stealing pencils from work is not the same as killing someone or whatever, but we still do not categorize them into “venial” and “mortal” sins for reasons explored in almost every post in this thread.

the spiritually “bankrupt” world wide

If you truly want to see just how much the CC is doing. Watch EWTN for a couple days. It can be gauged.

I did just last night. It was supposed to be a program on the saints of China but was actually some sort of cathedral dedication or something with lots of terrible organ music and faux-operatic singing. Then it was some British guy talking about how we shouldn’t be arrogant in front of other faiths just because we have the fullness of truth and they don’t. Then I realized the Chinese program wouldn’t be on, so I turned it off and went to bed. Ho hum. The ratio of spiritually edifying material to, um…other material on EWTN is not commendable. More Fulton Sheen and Mitch Pacwa (assuming he has a good guest) and less “Dana and Friends” and Shakespeare (and similar dreck) would be wonderful. I wish I could afford CTV/Aghapy.

 

[dzheremi]

Then the question inverted is, could you be spiritually bankrupt? Of course by Definition?

Me myself? I don’t know. I hope not, but that’s probably not realistic. “Bankruptcy” as a state could have different meanings to different people. To me I would think all unrepented sin would leave someone (me) in that state, though I question the use of the term since I don’t know how you understand it (and even if I did use this term myself, I don’t think it would apply to Christians at the beginning of their journey).

So, “by definition”, no. No one is spiritually bankrupt (I’ll take that as a synonym for spiritually dead, unless you clarify that you mean otherwise) by definition, but may become so by smothering the Spirit within them under the weight of unrepented intentional sin. To believe otherwise doesn’t seem like it would fit either the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic ways of viewing things; it would seem to fit the “Once Saved Always Saved” crowd, who we both agree are wrong.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Me myself? I don’t know. I hope not, but that’s probably not realistic. “Bankruptcy” as a state could have different meanings to different people. To me I would think all unrepented sin would leave someone (me) in that state, though I question the use of the term since I don’t know how you understand it (and even if I did use this term myself, I don’t think it would apply to Christians at the beginning of their journey).

So, “by definition”, no. No one is spiritually bankrupt (I’ll take that as a synonym for spiritually dead, unless you clarify that you mean otherwise) by definition, but may become so by smothering the Spirit within them under the weight of unrepented intentional sin. To believe otherwise doesn’t seem like it would fit either the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic ways of viewing things; it would seem to fit the “Once Saved Always Saved” crowd, who we both agree are wrong.

‘Because thou sayest, I am “rich”, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and “poor”, and blind, and naked’ Revelation 3:17.

Doesn’t Jesus make the connection here? Rich and Poor are used so many times in Bible.

Proverbs 11:1 says:
A false “balance” is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.

What is the “balance” related to?

In the strictest since of the word, its debatable. However the analogy is used frequently. Ecclesiastes with Solomon goes into great depth with explaining the lack of Spiritual self. Of course he ties it in with wealth also.

Not only this, but the Mystics and then todays authors such as Gerald May MD connect as in this case psychiatry to spiritual well being through levels and increase/decrease and value. Or Jacobs Ladder with ascend/descend or increase/decrease. And the Mystics expand on their value as the increase occurs.

However, also in this sense the visable and invisable are unknown. What we do see are the spiritually lacking those who are decreased in spiritual wealth.