Does the treasury of merit exist?

[joe370]

Hey De Maria…

The doctrine of Purgatory is perfectly in line with Scripture on the matter of atonement and redemption:
1 Peter 4:1
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…

Makes sense. I see Purgatory as a continued process of penance, if needed, where Jesus’ work of atonement finds its completion so that the soul can be perfectly united to God, just as adam and eve were perfectly united to God prior to their fall.

1 Peter 4 reminds me of something Catherine Emmerich said: “By the pains of penance must the evil love of self, be rooted out of the flesh…”

As you have mentioned, 1 Corinthians 3 seems pretty clear as well…

Dzheremi said:

Quote:
2. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Salvation

Purgatory would most definitely be against the doctrine of salvation if purgatory was in fact another way to be saved, and of course that is absurd!!! It’s where Christ’s Divine life giving Blood continues to be applied to the soul which was why Jesus said to Saint Faustina: “Let the torrents of My Blood cool down their scorching flames. All these souls are greatly loved by Me…”

Salvation is only by blood and only the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the only purge. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn 1:7)…

Exactly!!! The blood of Christ is the only purge!

I am often told by non-catholics that purgatory goes against the doctrine of Salvation because, according to them, it says that a Christian can work out his/her salvation, to the exclusion of Christ, which is absurd, but when I quote the following passage they never entertain the idea that it is suggesting that a person should work out their salvation, and of course they are right:

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed–not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence–continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling…”

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi, you said:

To believe in the purgatory is to believe of a partial salvation as if Christ came to save us from the shame of sin not from its penalty.

I agree, if in fact those in purgatory never leave the state of purgation, but the fact is: to make it to this state is to ultimately make it to heaven. There is nothing partial about the salvation of souls experiencing purgatory; they are merely being purged by the life giving blood of Christ so they can be perfectly united to God.

If you do not believe in the possibility of a penalty for the penitent then you don’t agree with one of the canons of the council of Nicea, which we discussed earlier. A temporal penalty was imposed by Jesus’ church on the penitent, and this was quite normal for grave sins, as per the canon of Nicea:

“Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.”

This was a clear penalty imposed by Jesus’ church, on the penitent. Why wasn’t the sacrament of confession (free of such penalties) - enough as is the case in the Coptic Church today?

The CC teaches that purgatory is nothing more than a continued process of penance for the penitent, (if said penance was not satisfactorily completed on earth) - where Jesus’ work of atonement finds its completion so that the soul can be perfectly united to God, just as adam and eve were perfectly united to God prior to their fall.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey dzheremi, you said:

I agree, if in fact those in purgatory never leave the state of purgation, but the fact is: to make it to this state is to ultimately make it to heaven. There is nothing partial about the salvation of souls experiencing purgatory; they are merely being purged by the life giving blood of Christ so they can be perfectly united to God.

If you do not believe in the possibility of a penalty for the penitent then you don’t agree with one of the canons of the council of Nicea, which we discussed earlier. A temporal penalty was imposed by Jesus’ church on the penitent, and this was quite normal for grave sins, as per the canon of Nicea:

“Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.”

This was a clear penalty imposed by Jesus’ church, on the penitent. Why wasn’t the sacrament of confession (free of such penalties) - enough as is the case in the Coptic Church today?

The CC teaches that purgatory is nothing more than a continued process of penance for the penitent, (if said penance was not satisfactorily completed on earth) - where Jesus’ work of atonement finds its completion so that the soul can be perfectly united to God, just as adam and eve were perfectly united to God prior to their fall.

Is a penance a penalty though, properly speaking? Not necessarily. One could equally think of it as a kind of a gift, or a spiritual exercise.

 

[joe370]

Is a penance a penalty though, properly speaking? Not necessarily. One could equally think of it as a kind of a gift, or a spiritual exercise.

Good point. I see penance as both a penalty and a gift since penance, for those penitent in the early church, ultimately guided them back into the community of the faithful. The early church as per a canon of Nicea and the penitent belonging to the early church would have most definitely seen their penance as a penalty:

“Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.”

 

[dzheremi]

This is a straw man.

1. I did not say that you hold a Protestant doctrine in common.
2. I said that you hold an objection in common with the Protestants.

Those two statements are not the same thing.

Not a straw man at all, my friend. I apparently have not sufficiently explained my reason for asking you why you think that. Let me try again: To say that we “hold an objection in common with Protestants” doesn’t mean anything if the reason for the objection is different, because then it really isn’t in common. As I mentioned previously, to hold that a particular stance is inherently Protestant regardless of the reasoning behind it is unacceptably retroactive if we are talking about something that the Orthodox have always taught. The Orthodox church taught against the Latin Catholic concept of Protestantism before the Protestants ever existed. So while both groups (Orthodox and Protestants) may object to the same doctrine, their objection is no more in common than you would agree that the Latin Catholic Church endorses Protestant theology due to the surface similarities of both (and really, from an Orthodox perspective, they are more than just surface, since the Protestants inherited and built upon the errors of the Roman Catholics). I suspect you wouldn’t agree that Roman Catholics and Protestants are very close in theology, so perhaps you can see where I am coming from here…

Not only that, but I am astonished that you hold this objection. As this objection demolishes your doctrine. Let me illustrate:

You say:

If that is true, then of what value is Christ’s sacrifice? All you need do is have your Church absolve your sin.

Actually, with due respect to HG Bishop Youssef, I think this may be a mistake on his part, perhaps in translation or just in inexact usage of language (if he wrote this in English originally; I have heard him speak, and it is clear that English is not his first language). Without knowing exactly what was in his mind when he wrote that, I’m not entirely sure how to understand it. I asked some Copts that I know, and they said that it doesn’t seem right to say that, but rather that we pray for the absolution of the dead, that they may be absolved (this is also my experience in the liturgy, so I didn’t think HG Bishop Youssef meant anything different or else I would have addressed it myself earlier).

I checked my own copy of the Liturgy of St. Basil (the most commonly celebrated liturgy in the church) and did not find anything about the church absolving the dead. Rather, a common prayer for the departed in the liturgy is “Ni men Epchois” (Those, O Lord). The text of the prayer is as follows:

“Those, O Lord, whose souls You have taken, repose them in the paradise of joy, in the region of the living forever, in the heavenly Jerusalem, in that abode. And we too, who are sojourners in this place, keep us in Your faith, and grant us Your peace unto the end.”

Some of the prayers for others in the liturgy (the prayers for the departed Popes, for instance) are much more complicated (long, long lists of patriarchs), but still don’t carry the sense of absolving them. Again, I think this was perhaps a mistake on HG Bishop Youssef’s part, but ought not detract from the rest of what is written.

Your objection to Purgatory, demolishes your own doctrine.

See above. The text of the prayer itself ought to answer this objection.

 

[dzheremi]

And so, the question remains, if your Church can simply pray for the absolution of sins, why did Jesus die on the Cross?

See again my previous explanation, with quotes from the text of the liturgy itself. I can also provide for you the texts of the various funerary liturgies used in the church, if you want (I have never been to one myself so I don’t know how they differ, but there are apparently separate texts for men, women, boys, girls, priests, and deacons). Some of the churches have the full texts up on their websites as downloadable power points.

Anyway, I’m not going to get into all your Biblical quotes, as this sort of quote mining can go on forever to no one’s satisfaction. I will, however, repeat a point I made earlier to Joe370: What many Orthodox object to is not the general category that these RC-specific doctrines are tied to (hence, we also pray for the dead without any idea of purgatory), but the idea that any particular non-Orthodox doctrine must follow from the quotes presented. We too believe in and practice prayer for the dead, confession, penance, repentance, and all these things that you guys tie to your system of merits and indulgences and purgatory. Yet we have none of those ideas and don’t see them as appropriate, according to the Orthodox fathers who we strive to follow. This is why I can say honestly and truly that I do believe in every word you have quoted from the holy scripture, but still disbelieve in the medieval doctrines that grew out of the Latin-specific understanding of those scriptures, divorced as it was and is from the interpretation of the same within the bounds of the narrow road that is the Orthodox faith, and the church in which that faith is practiced.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi…

Joe370: What many Orthodox object to is not the general category that these RC-specific doctrines are tied to (hence, we also pray for the dead without any idea of purgatory), but the idea that any particular non-Orthodox doctrine must follow from the quotes presented. We too believe in and practice prayer for the dead, confession, penance, repentance, and all these things that you guys tie to your system of merits and indulgences and purgatory. Yet we have none of those ideas and don’t see them as appropriate, according to the Orthodox fathers who we strive to follow.

No one can fault you for that; quite the opposite. like I said before, I admire your deference to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. In your opinion, what is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 3? I am always open to something that challenges my interpretation of the following verses:

*10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. *

As a former RC yourself, regarding the “practice prayer for the dead, confession, penance, repentance, and all these things” - why do you think that the CC tied the preceding to the system of merits, indulgences and purgatory considering the fact that you do not believe that this system is from God - if you don’t mind me asking?

Things on which we are in agreement?

The idea that something identified as the Treasury of merits by the RCC, (leaving purgatory and indulgences out of it) - equals the powerful prayers of the saints, even though this particular appellation is foreign to the EO?

Saints in heaven have accumulated spiritual merit or spiritual assets or spiritual benefits or whatever word appeals to you and doesn’t offend the eastern sensibility, while doing good work on Earth, and can therefore use them to assist the up-building of Jesus’ church on earth?

 

[dzheremi]

In your opinion, what is Paul talking about in 1 Corinthians 3?

Interestingly, while looking for Orthodox commentaries on the verses you’re asking about, I also came across a second of Fr. Athanasius Iskander’s book “Practical Spirituality” that I think says a lot about our differing approaches to the faith (or, if you’d prefer, why I could not be RC): If you follow after Christian perfection, you have to wean your mind from this addiction to knowledge. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:18-19: “If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.” Spiritual wisdom and worldly wisdom do not go hand in hand.

I am always open to something that challenges my interpretation of the following verses:

*10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. *

St. John Chrysostom wrote homilies on the epistle to the Ephesians that referenced some of these verses, but I have not found anywhere in them where he addresses the fire specifically, which I assume is at the crux of your question. Yet, what is written about the earlier verses is connected to the proper interpretation of the later, so it might be helpful to see what St. John wrote. In the context of elucidating the meaning of the various uses of ‘building’ and related ideas in the Bible, he writes:

Whether you speak of the roof, or of the walls, or of any other part whatsoever, He it is supports the whole. Thus he (St. Paul) elsewhere calls Him a foundation. “For other foundations,” saith he, “can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Corinthians 3:11) “In whom several building,” he saith, “fitly framed together.” Here he displays the perfectness of it, and indicates that one cannot otherwise have a place in it, unless by living with great exactness. …] What then is the object of this building? It is that God may dwell in this temple. For each of you severally is a temple, and all of you together are a temple. And He dwelleth in you as in the body of Christ, and as in a Spiritual temple.

Within this framework, we might ask how the fire relates. I believe that the key is in verse 13, where it is written that “the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.” Related to the above, a person must live with “great exactness” in order to be a proper temple to the Lord. So in this fire, which tests your work, we will see if what you have built survives, or if it burns up. Are you living the life that is proper to being to a temple of God or not? If so, you are rewarded. If not, what you have built is burned up, yet you will survive. Do you see this as related to purgatory because of the fire? Because I think it is clear that the fire is a metaphor for the judgment (hence the fire will test you), not a literal fire. Regarding “yet you will survive”, we do not believe (and I use we to refer to both Catholics and Orthodox here) as some other sects do that those who have not followed God as they should have will be annihilated. They will live on, but without their work which has been burned up. Do we not agree on this point?

So there’s no purgatory here. The fire is a testing, as specifically stated in the verse itself, not a place or plane or what have you.

(cont’d. below)

 

[dzheremi]

As a former RC yourself, regarding the “practice prayer for the dead, confession, penance, repentance, and all these things” - why do you think that the CC tied the preceding to the system of merits, indulgences and purgatory considering the fact that you do not believe that this system is from God - if you don’t mind me asking?

I believe this ties into the earlier quote I gave from Fr. Athanasius. The Roman Catholic Church, and through it all of Western Christianity, has not weaned itself from its addiction to worldly knowledge, in the way that it filters all Godly things through tests of logic and proofs. I won’t even say it is wrong within the context of the way that the RC approaches the faith to have formed these kinds of ideas, but that approach to the faith is exactly the problem that leads to these very unorthodox wanderings and wonderings in the first place. So I stay away from it myself, having found it very alienating and producing coldness, doubt, and distance from God. There is more to be gained from spending an hour in prayer before the icon of Christ than spending years composing complicated treatises that in the end are only so much straw, to paraphrase a famous Catholic theophilosopher.

The idea that something identified as the Treasury of merits by the RCC, (leaving purgatory and indulgences out of it) - equals the powerful prayers of the saints, even though this particular appellation is foreign to the EO?

For what reason does this treasury of merits exist if there is no purgatory or indulgences? I don’t see how you can leave those out and still have this treasury as you conceive of it. And, no, I’m going to have to keep disagreeing here: The prayers of the saints do not in any way constitute or equal a treasury. I do not know about the EO. You will have to ask them. From what I have heard their priests and bishops say, I do not think they believe in this, either. But again, ask them. There are lots of them here.

Saints in heaven have accumulated spiritual merit or spiritual assets or spiritual benefits or whatever word appeals to you and doesn’t offend the eastern sensibility, while doing good work on Earth, and can therefore use them to assist the up-building of Jesus’ church on earth?

See, I know you mean well, but this is still more imposition. The problem in my eyes is not whatever word you use, but the concept itself. There is NO treasury. The saints did not accumulate some sort of spiritual merit to be stored up for other uses by other people. This divorces their works and their guidance from the very real and immediate context in which it is done and given. Read the sayings of the Desert Fathers sometime. If you have the Benedicta Ward translation (as I do), I seem to remember it makes a point in the foreword that the proper reading must keep in mind that none of these words were said for posterity, but were given to the pilgrims and brothers and sisters who asked for them. This is why they retain their immediacy even today. They are directly from the sainted Fathers themselves (the reader receives them as the pilgrim did, for a word of spiritual benefit). It is practical spirituality. Orthodoxy is practical spirituality.

The prayers of the saints are seen similarly: We ask for those prayers as the pilgrims of this world (cf. “Ni men Epchois” from the liturgy of St. Basil, quoted in my previous response to De Maria), and they pray for us DIRECTLY. There is no such removal of the prayers, or the grace, or the Eucharist, or anything else we partake of as Christians, from the actual partaking from/experiencing of it (hence, no treasury of merit, no created graces, and no Eucharistic adoration).

 

[De_Maria]

Hey De Maria…
1 Peter 4 reminds me of something Catherine Emmerich said: “By the pains of penance must the evil love of self, be rooted out of the flesh…”

Purgatory would most definitely be against the doctrine of salvation if purgatory was in fact another way to be saved, and of course that is absurd!!! It’s where Christ’s Divine life giving Blood continues to be applied to the soul which was why Jesus said to Saint Faustina: “Let the torrents of My Blood cool down their scorching flames. All these souls are greatly loved by Me…”

That is great, the way you use the private revelations of the Mystics to enhance the understanding of doctrine. Too many people are afraid to learn from the Mystics. But, in my opinion, they have a better grasp of Christ’s Gospel than mere scholars.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

See again my previous explanation, with quotes from the text of the liturgy itself.

This one? Lets go over it now then:

The Coptic Orthodox view on the Prayer for the Departed

We pray for those who departed from this world not because we believe in the purgatory but following St. Paul who prayed for Onesiphorus saying, “The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Tim 1:18). In that Day meant in the Day of Judgment, as he said “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Tim 4:8). St. Paul was not asking for mercy in the purgatory but on the Day of Judgment when he stands before the Just Judge.

That verse doesn’t say, “day of judgement”. It simply says that day. 1 Cor is also written by St. Paul. Go back to 1 Cor 3:13:
1 Corinthians 3:13
King James Version (KJV)
13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.

What is the day to which he refers here? I say it is the very same day to which he refers in 2 Tim 1:18.

We pray for the departure that God may grant them rest in the place of waiting

Where is this place of waiting and why do they wait there. Scripture has other purgatorial style waiting places:
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.

The Catholic Church recognizes this place as Purgatory. You call it the “place of waiting”. What’s the difference?

for the Day of Judgment has not come yet. Those departed are awaiting without worry or unrest.

I’m curious. You believe in a place of rest without worry, after death, where the dead await their Judgment? What is there to judge then, if the dead have been absolved of their sin by YOUR church?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t you and your church call the Catholic Church arrogant for presuming to explain Purgatory.

What is it, if not arrogance, to presume that YOUR church can usurp the right of God to judge the living and the dead?

The litany for the departed does not mention the purgatory at all.

You don’t believe in Purgatory. Why would you expect it to be mentioned?

We pray saying, “Sustain them in a green pasture, by the water of rest in the paradise of joy, the place out of which grief, sorrow and groaning have fled away” This is definitely not the description of the purgatory for the purgatory contrarily is a place of grief, sorrow and groaning.

Purgatory is the name of the state of being where one undergoes purification. But not all who enter this state are actually purged. Some go there who are in a complete state of grace and need no purging. While others undergo less purging than others.

In addition, those in Purgatory rejoice for their suffering. It is the sign of their imminent glorification with Christ.

Our Church absolves the soul of the departed during the prayer. She absolves her from all the sins she committed while in the flesh. We say to God, 'this soul has departed from us absolved by the church. We do not retain any sin for her…we intercede for her for You O Lord know the weakness of man.

As I said, your objection leveled at the Catholic Church, specifically this one:

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

demolishes that explanation and all your other explanations. Because all I need to do is substitute the logic:
we definitely reject this belief because if the prayers of your church will absolve from sin, then Christ’s death was in vain.

Cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

I can also provide for you the texts of the various funerary liturgies used in the church, if you want (I have never been to one myself so I don’t know how they differ, but there are apparently separate texts for men, women, boys, girls, priests, and deacons). Some of the churches have the full texts up on their websites as downloadable power points.

Please don’t post entire liturgies and expect me to figure out what you mean. Post excerpts pertinent to the question at hand.

Anyway, I’m not going to get into all your Biblical quotes, as this sort of quote mining can go on forever to no one’s satisfaction.

What? Don’t you recognize that YOUR Pope which you posted is using Biblical quotes to support his stance? I am justified then, in going back and showing how he misuses the Scripture.

I will, however, repeat a point I made earlier to Joe370: What many Orthodox object to is not the general category that these RC-specific doctrines are tied to (hence, we also pray for the dead without any idea of purgatory), but the idea that any particular non-Orthodox doctrine must follow from the quotes presented.

In other words, you reserve the right to interpret “the quotes”, whatever they may be, the way you want. Fine.

We reserve the right to compare your quotes to the Fathers of the Church and to Scripture in order to show that Catholic doctrine conforms to those sources better than your Church’s doctrines.

We too believe in and practice prayer for the dead, confession, penance, repentance, and all these things that you guys tie to your system of merits and indulgences and purgatory. Yet we have none of those ideas and don’t see them as appropriate, according to the Orthodox fathers who we strive to follow.

Which you have yet to provide. Although I believe I provided at least three ECF’s on the matter.

Oh and we reserve the right to interpret their quotes as well.

This is why I can say honestly and truly that I do believe in every word you have quoted from the holy scripture, but still disbelieve in the medieval doctrines that grew out of the Latin-specific understanding of those scriptures,

There you go again, accusing the Church of inventing doctrine.

No one is stopping you from ignoring the truth. But the truth remains true whether you believe it or not.

divorced as it was and is from the interpretation of the same within the bounds of the narrow road that is the Orthodox faith, and the church in which that faith is practiced.

So far as I see, it is the Catholic Church which has better explained the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Which is quite right since She is the Church which Jesus Christ established.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[dzheremi]

This one? Lets go over it now then:

No, post 224, where I mention how some of the people I talked to said that it seems that HG Bishop Youssef is not describing precisely what is said in the liturgy (which I did describe by quoting the hymn “Ni Men Epchois”, which is said as a sort of general prayer for absolution after some of the more specific prayers for priests, deacons, etc.). However, subsequent to that post, last night another Coptic friend pointed out that there IS some kind of absolution for the dead (though he hasn’t shown me where it is, and I didn’t find it in my reading over the liturgy of St. Basil the other day), so I guess the jury is out on this until he gets back to me. He did point out, however, and this is what I was going to say before others suggested that there might be other explanations, that just as the RCs believe about their own sacraments, the Coptic Orthodox see everything in terms of CHRIST performing the sacrament: In other words, just as RC reconciliation, any absolution that is given (no matter what context) is given BY Christ, through the priests who are the servants of the sacraments. In that sense (which I 100% agree with, as I did when I was Catholic), there is no such conflict between saying that the Church absolves and that Christ absolves, because the church does not absolve by some sort of power inherent to it, over and against or separate the power of Christ present in it. But this is getting off topic…

As I said, your objection leveled at the Catholic Church, specifically this one:

demolishes that explanation and all your other explanations. Because all I need to do is substitute the logic:
we definitely reject this belief because if the prayers of your church will absolve from sin, then Christ’s death was in vain.

I’ve already addressed this twice now. I am done with it, barring some explanation from my friend about the absolution that he maintains is in some form of the liturgy (I’m assuming one of the funerary liturgies, since I couldn’t find it in my copy of St. Basil’s).

 

[joe370]

dzheremi…

For what reason does this treasury of merits exist if there is no purgatory or indulgences? I don’t see how you can leave those out and still have this treasury as you conceive of it. And, no, I’m going to have to keep disagreeing here:

Surely you agree that the treasury of merits or treasury of prayers, if you will, benefits those of us still sojourning here on earth? Not just those souls experiencing purgation.

The prayers of the saints do not in any way constitute or equal a treasury.

Well, good things are found in treasures, and prayers are most certainly good and beneficial things so I see no problem in referring to the prayers of the saints as a treasury, but if that’s how you feel, then that’s how you feel.

 

[dzheremi]

What? Don’t you recognize that YOUR Pope which you posted is using Biblical quotes to support his stance? I am justified then, in going back and showing how he misuses the Scripture.

Yes, I recognize how HG Bishop Moussa (I believe he was the one who I quoted originally, not HH Pope Shenouda III) uses scripture to back up his point, as do Catholic apologists like yourself. You are missing the point: As we’re looking at the same Bible, we’re dealing with interpretations that neither of us will accept (neither I yours nor you mine), so this really does go on forever and ever. It is right to walk away once it is clear that a consensus cannot be reached, no?

In other words, you reserve the right to interpret “the quotes”, whatever they may be, the way you want. Fine.

This is a rather glib way to put things. Roman Catholic apologists could be charged as doing the same, you know. Again, differing interpretations, but not according to how I want them to be, but according to the consistent interpretation of the Orthodox church on one hand, and the interpretation of the Roman Catholic Church on the other (where they differ). Obviously, my sympathies are with the Orthodox on this issue, and in general.

We reserve the right to compare your quotes to the Fathers of the Church and to Scripture in order to show that Catholic doctrine conforms to those sources better than your Church’s doctrines.

And in that, I do not deny you the right, but I do deny that this is what your interpretation shows.

Which you have yet to provide. Although I believe I provided at least three ECF’s on the matter.

Tell me: Which Early Church Fathers am I supposed to quote about purgatory, when the whole point is that this doctrine was ABSENT from the Fathers?

Anyway, there are plenty of writings that, while not addressing purgatory (because it did not exist yet) do call into question its basis. For instance St. Basil of Alexandria, in his “Stromata”, writes that “Punishment does not avail to him who has sinned, to undo his sin.”

Oh and we reserve the right to interpret their quotes as well.

Who is denying you your right to do anything by disagreeing with you? Not me.

There you go again, accusing the Church of inventing doctrine.

This is really interesting that you would take my words this way. I wrote that the doctrines grew out of Latin understandings of scripture prevalent in the medieval era. If you take this as synonymous with “inventing” things, I would think you might also have some trouble with the RC contention that understanding of doctrine develops in just this way (e.g., we understand things differently now then we did then, and we understood them differently then than we had in even earlier eras).

No one is stopping you from ignoring the truth. But the truth remains true whether you believe it or not.

I understood that you think I am wrong last time you wrote this, thank you.

So far as I see, it is the Catholic Church which has better explained the doctrines of Jesus Christ.

Maybe, but it is the Orthodox church that lives the faith as given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ. We’ll gladly leave the philosophizing to others, as philosophizing about God is not experiencing God.

Which is quite right since She is the Church which Jesus Christ established.

I disagree with the idea that this is the hallmark of the true church (cf. Fr. Athanasius’ “Practical Spirituality” which I quoted earlier to Joe370), and even more with the idea that this is the hallmark of the true faith. But I do respect the fact that you believe so, so I will say no more about this.

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi, let’s assume that the fire, (which tests) - is a metaphor for judgment and not the divine flames of purgatory. After all it does say, “because the Day will bring it to light…”

The saved builder on judgment day, still experiences some sort of loss or suffering prior to their salvation. The builder suffers loss but is saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames, aka judgment.

What, in your opinion, is this suffering or loss the saved person is experiencing via judgment?

 

[joe370]

dzheremi…

Surely you agree that the treasury of merits or treasury of prayers, if you will, benefits those of us still sojourning here on earth? Not just those souls experiencing purgation.

Well, good things are found in treasures, and prayers are most certainly good and beneficial things so I see no problem referring to the prayers of the saints as a treasury, but if that’s how you feel, then that’s how you feel.

 

[dzheremi]

Surely you agree that the treasury of merits or treasury of prayers, if you will, benefits those of us still sojourning here on earth? Not just those souls experiencing purgation.

But, Joe, that’s not what I’m disagreeing with, my friend. As I explicitly stated in the next sentence, I’m disagreeing that the prayers of the saints constitute any sort of treasury (I also disagree with this language of merits, though I see that as enough of a side issue as to not have to address it directly in order to address the treasury). The prayers of the saints most definitely help us, but that doesn’t mean that they form a sort of treasury that we can draw upon in the sort of set up that the Latin church apparently endorses. There is no treasury. Again, one understanding doesn’t necessarily follow the other.

Well, good things are found in treasures, and prayers are most certainly good and beneficial things so I see no problem in referring to the prayers of the saints as a treasury, but if that’s how you feel, then that’s how you feel.

A rose by any other name, eh?

But we do not come up with doctrine that way. I think a lot of this comes down to what I wrote to you earlier: Given the immediacy and practicality of the Orthodox faith (my nouns, for lack of a better way to put it), there really is no need or room for this sort of distinction or concept. We pray that through the prayers of God’s holy saints He may forgive our sins, not so that some of their “graces” or what have you may be stored up for us in a treasury or anywhere else to be drawn on at some future date, (perhaps?) divorced from the actual intercession of the saints.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;8360511]But, Joe, that’s not what I’m disagreeing with, my friend. As I explicitly stated in the next sentence, I’m disagreeing that the prayers of the saints constitute any sort of treasury (I also disagree with this language of merits, though I see that as enough of a side issue as to not have to address it directly in order to address the treasury). The prayers of the saints most definitely help us, but that doesn’t mean that they form a sort of treasury that we can draw upon in the sort of set up that the Latin church apparently endorses. There is no treasury. Again, one understanding doesn’t necessarily follow the other.

I understand your position. I’ll stop harping. LOL…

But we do not come up with doctrine that way. I think a lot of this comes down to what I wrote to you earlier: Given the immediacy and practicality of the Orthodox faith (my nouns, for lack of a better way to put it), there really is no need or room for this sort of distinction or concept. We pray that through the prayers of God’s holy saints He may forgive our sins, not so that some of their “graces” or what have you may be stored up for us in a treasury or anywhere else to be drawn on at some future date, (perhaps?) divorced from the actual intercession of the saints.

Christians belonging to the CC, as you know, also pray that through the prayers of God’s holy saints God may forgive our sins as well as imparting grace in our lives. We all need as much grace as possible.

God bless my brother in Christ…

 

[dzheremi]

What, in your opinion, is this suffering or loss the saved person is experiencing via judgment?

The fire tests the quality of the work, right? Referring back to the earlier verses, nothing can be built but on the foundation that has already been laid, that is Jesus Christ. So those who build will have the quality of their work tested in the fire, and if it is burnt down/lost (say, if they attempt to build it on a worldly foundation), then what they have built is lost, yet they themselves survive. We might compare it to the warning against building one’s house on sand in Matthew. The house that is built on sand is destroyed by the rain and wind, but the foolish builder himself is not said to have to been somehow destroyed as a result. He’s just without a house, because he did not build it on the proper foundation.

The moral of the story in both cases could be told as: Build on Christ ONLY, or you will be left with nothing.

Again, I am not seeing purgatory here.