Eastern Catholics and Purgatory

[GaryTaylor]

An indulgence is a releasing of the temporal pain, due to such sins as are already forgiven by the Sacrament of penance. An indulgence for the dead remits the pains in purgatory, not by way of absolution or jurisdiction, but only by way of prayer accepted by God.

To gain an indulgence a person must be in a state of grace. “then” perform the particulars required for the obtainment of the indulgence while in a state of grace. You cannot purchase an indulgence nor would it do the soul any good in that the intent is lacking as is the state of grace required as the “absolute.”

Though by the sacrament of penance correctly received and duly received, the contrite sinner is reinstated in the favor and friendship of God and consequently the guilt of eternal damnation cancelled and blotted out, yet it in NO-WAY follows that all the punishment due to our sins is always remitted. Faith teaches us to the contrary; and the Church under the guidance of the HS ever imposes some temporal punishment, which we call satisfaction.

newadvent.org/cathen/02055a.htm

The primitive Church was more remarkable in the ‘severity’ used on these occasion’s; not that there was any doubt about the true or sufficient disposition of the penitent, or the virtue or efficacy of the absolution, yet a satisfaction, or penal austerity, sometimes of seven or ten or more years, often of ten, twenty, or forty days was enjoined in ancient canons.

When we speak of the Pontiff and the orders within his rites, the term, jubilee, which is a solemn plenary indulgence is applied. accompanied with certain privileges, relating to censures and dispositions, granted to the pastors or orders of the Church, and specified in his bulls, or orders directed to them for that purpose. Its granted usually every Twenty Fifth year.
[Key of Heaven]

ewtn.com/jubilee/history/church1.htm

myemail.constantcontact.com/Indulgences-Granted-For-The-Jubilee-Year.html?soid=1106679984540&aid=tHZJKmZHazQ

 

[twf]

Thank you for this, brother Vico. When I was not yet in the Catholic Church, I used to argue that the doctrines of merit, indulgences, and Purgatory detracted from the Sacrifice of the Lord. That was what my non-Catholic teachers taught me. I needed to read what the Catholic Church herself was saying to understand that the very basis of these things, their very efficacy and very existence, depends wholly on the the reality of Christ’s Sacrifice. Merits, indulgences and Purgatory are not effective or can even exist apart from that reality. These doctrines don’t take away from Christ’s Sacrifice, but are the ways that the Grace of Christ’s Sacrifice is applied in the Church.

Of course, as an Oriental, I can do without the notions of scrupulous accounting or vengeance popularly (though not dogmatically) attached to these doctrines.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think that merit, or whatever the Eastern/Oriental equivalent is, is quite explicit in Scripture in numerous places. St. Paul speaks of winning (or earning, if you will) his crown in a number of places. Our Lord makes it clear in various parables (Matthew 25 - the sheep and the goats come to mind) that it is by the merit of our good works (I was hungry and you gave me something to eat…I was naked and you clothed me… etc) that He shall admit us into Paradise. Arguments to the contrary strike me as quite Protestant - Martin Luther’s sola fide heresy. What we must remember is that the Latin Church’s liturgy and theology is very clear that apart from Christ, His sacrifice, and His resurrection, we can do nothing. In baptism we put on Christ, to use the words of St. Paul, and as adopted sons of the Father, Christ enables us to perform good works that are pleasing to the Father and worthy of salvation. These good works flow from the grace He won on the cross. We are said to merit only in that secondary sense - in that we, by an act of our freewill, must consent to cooperate with that grace and perform good works. St. Paul is quite clear in Col. 1:24 that we are to share in the redemptive suffering of Our Lord for our salvation and for the salvation of the Church. Before I became a Catholic I never came across a truly satisfactory answer to the “problem” of suffering. The Gospel of St. John (1:12) tells us that Christ gives us the power to become the sons of God. If we are truly empowered by His grace to be sons of God, then does it not follow that we, following in the footsteps of the one true Divine Son, can merit?

 

[Vico]

I think that merit, or whatever the Eastern/Oriental equivalent is, is quite explicit in Scripture in numerous places. St. Paul speaks of winning (or earning, if you will) his crown in a number of places. Our Lord makes it clear in various parables (Matthew 25 - the sheep and the goats come to mind) that it is by the merit of our good works (I was hungry and you gave me something to eat…I was naked and you clothed me… etc) that He shall admit us into Paradise. Arguments to the contrary strike me as quite Protestant - Martin Luther’s sola fide heresy. What we must remember is that the Latin Church’s liturgy and theology is very clear that apart from Christ, His sacrifice, and His resurrection, we can do nothing. In baptism we put on Christ, to use the words of St. Paul, and as adopted sons of the Father, Christ enables us to perform good works that are pleasing to the Father and worthy of salvation. These good works flow from the grace He won on the cross. We are said to merit only in that secondary sense - in that we, by an act of our freewill, must consent to cooperate with that grace and perform good works. St. Paul is quite clear in Col. 1:24 that we are to share in the redemptive suffering of Our Lord for our salvation and for the salvation of the Church. Before I became a Catholic I never came across a truly satisfactory answer to the “problem” of suffering. The Gospel of St. John (1:12) tells us that Christ gives us the power to become the sons of God. If we are truly empowered by His grace to be sons of God, then does it not follow that we, following in the footsteps of the one true Divine Son, can merit?

Since merit is the divine reward for practice of virtues, yes. God has ordered to reward the good works performed by his grace with an increase of grace, eternal life, and increase of heavenly glory, as shown from his frequent promises, such as the prediction of the Last Judgment, and the Beatitudes. So our supernatural adoption transforms us to the likeness of Christ and by grace co-heirs with Christ to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[devoutchristian]

I think devoutchristian was making that remark in you defense.

That is correct.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I just quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia. Also, there was a relatively recent plenary indulgence given by the Pope and one of the conditions was the INTENTION to have the indulgence. Please back up your claim that one does not have to seek the indulgence directly to earn it. LIke I said, I just quoted the old Catholic Encyclopedia, so it doesn’t seem like you are very “open” to something that teaches the contrary to your claim.

I’ll concede this one. I never bothered much with indulgences anyway. Congratulations mardukm, you finally won one. You’ve been waiting for this a long time :yyeess::clapping:

Nice parroting, but no real understanding of it. Economy seems like what I stated because that is what economy actually is. This remission of normal canonical penalties can serve different, holy purposes, but the act of oikonomia exhibits itself formally in exactly that action. Individual bishops don’t go around changing the rules when a general or plenary body of bishops has agreed on a rule. That’s not the way the Church works, though you pretend to know better.

Aw, hate to ruin your party but you are absolutely wrong on this one. Oikonomia and indulgences are not the same thing, it is really apples and oranges. In a very loose, high level view you can compare certain aspects of both as similar, but that is really a huge, huge stretch. It’s like comparing a sedan to a space shuttle, you can say that people ride both as vehicles but that is all the similarity on it.

Other non-Latins here, thankfully, have expressed the belief of Eastern Catholics much better than you. Statements such as “We believe in something similar but we don’t often call it Purgatory” is more correct and representative of the Eastern (and generally non-Latin) belief than saying “We don’t believe in Purgatory.”

We don’t, and that is a FACT. No polemics or ad homs from you will ever change the truth.

Blessings,
Marduk

People who use your tone of language should never sign with “blessings”.

 

[griego_catolico]

Since the topic has shifted to indulgences, I thought I’d include what the Manual of Indulgences says:

Number 9 of the Norms on Indulgences states the following:

1. Patriarchs can grant the following in every place,even those exempt, of their own patriarchates; in churches of their rite outside the boundaries of their patriarchate; as well as to the faithful of their rite everywhere:
2. a partial indulgence
3. the Papal Blessing with the plenary indulgence
   three times a year according to ordinary law
   and whenever a plenary indulgence is warranted
   for the good of the faithful because of a
   particular religious circumstance or reason.

1. Major archbishops have the same faculty.

Norm #7 states that eparchial bishops have faculties to grant partial indulgences to the faithful within their eparchy or belonging to their jurisdiction living outside the eparchy as well as granting the Papal Blessing with a plenary indulgence (given at the end of a liturgy) three times each year on solemn feasts.

Section 23 of the Manual lists the following prayers from the various Eastern liturgical traditions as carrying an indulgence:

Byzantine:
The Akathist
Evening Prayer (not to be confused with Vespers)
Prayer for the Deceased

Armenian:
A Prayer of Thanksgiving for the Church

Chaldean:
Prayer of the Sanctuary
The Prayer “Lakhu Mara” (To You, O Lord)

Coptic:
Prayer of Incense
Singing the Praises of Mary

Ethiopian:
Prayers for the Forgiveness of Sins
A Prayer to be a Disciple of Christ

Maronite:
A Prayer for the Church
A Prayer of Farewell After the Liturgy, Before Leaving the Church

Syro-Antiochian:
Intercession for the Deceased from Liturgy of Saint James

Sooo, if Eastern Catholics are not supposed to believe in indulgences, why grant eparchs the ability to grant indulgences or have indulgences attached to their prayers???

 

[Denho]

Sooo, if Eastern Catholics are not supposed to believe in indulgences, why grant eparchs the ability to grant indulgences or have indulgences attached to their prayers???

Pointing out a Latinization is proof of what?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Pointing out a Latinization is proof of what?

Which is the Latinization?

Prayer for the Deceased

A Prayer of Thanksgiving for the Church

The Prayer “Lakhu Mara” (To You, O Lord)

Singing the Praises of Mary

A Prayer to be a Disciple of Christ

A Prayer of Farewell After the Liturgy, Before Leaving the Church

Intercession for the Deceased from Liturgy of Saint James

 

[mardukm]

Aw, hate to ruin your party but you are absolutely wrong on this one. Oikonomia and indulgences are not the same thing, it is really apples and oranges. In a very loose, high level view you can compare certain aspects of both as similar, but that is really a huge, huge stretch. It’s like comparing a sedan to a space shuttle, you can say that people ride both as vehicles but that is all the similarity on it.

Well, at least you finally admit at least a similarity.

We don’t, and that is a FACT. No polemics or ad homs from you will ever change the truth.

You couldn’t even respond to my post number 138 properly. I asked you three questions. You did not answer any of them (as usual). Instead, you talked about punishment, whch is not part of the teaching of the Catholic Church on Purgatory, but is a local expression of it by the Latin Church. You could not deny anything in my post number 138, and here you are again making this baseless claim,. You also said in your response that in Purgatory you are not in the presence of God, which is so completely false. Either you never had a proper understanding of Purgatory (even according to Latin thelogy) when you were Latin, or you had a proper understanding, and was somehow brainwashed by reading non-Catholic sources into believing Purgatory was something else.

People who use your tone of language should never sign with “blessings”.

No problem with that comment. I’m used to dealing with the same kind of attitude from my 6 year old daughter - she is overly sensitive about certain things, and when correction is offered to her, she thinks that I do not love her.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[devoutchristian]

We don’t, and that is a FACT.

Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true. You’ve been thoroughly refuted so please quit peddling this nonsense.

People who use your tone of language should never sign with “blessings”.

His tone is just fine.

Sooo, if Eastern Catholics are not supposed to believe in indulgences, why grant eparchs the ability to grant indulgences or have indulgences attached to their prayers???

It must be part of that conspiracy I mentioned earlier.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Don,

Don’t listen to brother CTG’s response in post#147. You are correct that the Catechism does not say anything about punishment. It mentions a purifying fire. CTG, still possessed of a Latin mentality, thinks that “purifying fire” equates to “punishment.” Scripture states God is a purifying fire, and it is God who does the purifying - or perfecting or divinization - in Purgatory (again, contrary to CTG’s comment in another post that God is not present in Purgatory). Our Traditions, of course, don’t necessarily equate “purifying fire” with punishment. But CTG still has a lingering Latin mentality about these things, despite his zealousness for the Eastern Tradition.

Blessings,
Marduk

“III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory
1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607 (954, 1472)
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: (958, 1371, 1479)
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, 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.611”

• Catechism of the Catholic Church

I see nothing in this that requires a belief in undergoing punishment to make satisfaction for venial sins.

 

[devoutchristian]

CTG, still possessed of a Latin mentality, thinks that “purifying fire” equates to “punishment.”

The Catechism refers to the suffering of the souls in purgatory as punishment.

 

[mardukm]

Aw, hate to ruin your party but you are absolutely wrong on this one. Oikonomia and indulgences are not the same thing, it is really apples and oranges. In a very loose, high level view you can compare certain aspects of both as similar, but that is really a huge, huge stretch. It’s like comparing a sedan to a space shuttle, you can say that people ride both as vehicles but that is all the similarity on it.

Let me explain this more clearly.

Oikonomia is generally a condescension from the normative status quo, so to sepak. That is partly why we (the Church as a whole) refers to God’s plan of salvation as “Economy” - because salvation was accomplished through a great condescension by God. The Church has rules (divine and/or ecclesiastical), and the violation of these rules have a normal canonical penalty (the “status quo,” so to speak). These penalites are normally considered part and parcel of the “rule.” When economy is used - for whatever reason - it is used to dispense or mitigate the normal canonical punishment, not the rule itself. For example, when a second marriage is accomplished, it is an application of economy. By that application, the Church is not saying, “the divine rule against divorce and remarriage does not apply to you.” Rather, the Church, in mercy, is saying, “due to your extenuating circumstances, the normal canonical penalty will be remitted or lessened.” That’s the same in every application of economy. The Church and/or individual bishops are not changing or relaxing the rule, but are only mitigating the normal canonical penalty.

That is the same rationale behind an indulgence. When there is evidence of certain good works, an indulgence remitting or lessening the normal canonical penalties (the Latin Church would call it “temporal punishment”; most other Traditions would just call it “penance”) is given.

A lot of people are under the mistaken impression that the doctrine of indulgences is part of the dogma of Purgatory. It is certainly a popular belief, but you won’t find a single magisterial document teaching that. An indulgences is, simply put, a remission of the normal canonical penalty attached to a certain violation of a rule (i.e., a sin). It is intended as an application of oikonomia in relation to penance (or, as the Latins would call it, “temporal punishment”).

Now, every penance is for the purpose of rendering satisfaction to Divine Justice. According to the Oriental Tradition, “satisfying Divine Justice” means nothing more than “meeting God’s demand for holiness.” So penance is all about growing in holiness or sanctification - as Scripture teaches us, if we are not sons of God, we would not be chastised, and chastisement is a way we share and grow in the holiness of God. It is not a “pay-back” for having committed sin. This seems to be the same as what the Council of Trent taught, which equated “Divine Justice” with “holiness” (the “pay-back”/vengeance interpretation of Divine Justice seems to have originated with the Protestants (or at least greatly popularized), not with the Latin Catholics).

The common theology of the Churches stops there. That indulgences can be applied to souls in Purgatory to satisfy Divine Justice is a specifically Latin expression of Sacred Tradition. Non-Latins would generally not refer to the growth in holiness in the afterlife as a continuing “punishment.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother devoutchristian,

The Catechism refers to the suffering of the souls in purgatory as punishment.

Can you give a citation? Thanks ahead of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother devoutchristian

Never mind, I found it. It’s rather revealing. It seems that in Latin Catholic theology “punishment” is defined very differently than how everyone else normally understands the term.

“punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.”

It seems “temporal consequence” would be a more appropriate term to use than “termporal punishment.” As noted in an earlier post (in response to a quote from brother Vico), it seems the term “punishment” is only used as an analogy to distinguish it from the “eternal punishment” of Hell.

I remember reading this several years ago in the Catechism, and had the impression that due to that explanation above, I didn’t have any objection to “temporal punishment” in the unique way it was defined by the Catholic Church. So I’ve always had the idea that the Catholic Church did not teach (at least dogmatically) the idea of “punishment” as people would normally understand it - i.e., as “pay-back.”

The quote given by brother DCointin from the Catechism does not call Purgatory a “punishment” but a “purification.” The thing that is purified in Purgatory is called “temporal punishment,” but the purification of Purgatory is not (dogmatically speaking) punishment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Temporal Consequence works well, pretty much where we started. Prayer is in order.

 

[devoutchristian]

When there is evidence of certain good works, an indulgence remitting or lessening the normal canonical penalties (the Latin Church would call it “temporal punishment”; most other Traditions would just call it “penance”) is given.

An indulgence remits the purgatorial purification due to a forgiven sin, it has nothing to do with canonical penalties.

I didn’t have any objection to “temporal punishment” in the unique way it was defined by the Catholic Church. So I’ve always had the idea that the Catholic Church did not teach (at least dogmatically) the idea of “punishment” as people would normally understand it - i.e., as “pay-back.”

I think our argument is semantical. Do you agree that the suffering of the souls in purgatory is punishment if the word punishment is used as it is in the Catechism?

 

[mardukm]

An indulgence remits the purgatorial purification due to a forgiven sin,

So you are saying that there is no “temporal punishment” on earth, and only in Purgatory? Why do you restrict indulgence to only “purgatorial” purification? Is there a magisterial source that restricts the definition of indulgence in that way?

it has nothing to do with canonical penalties.

In the early Church, the “temporal punishment” due to sin was penance. Penances are canonical penalities because they are imposed by the Church. An indulgence remits this penance. It was an act of economy (penances in the early Church were more intensive and extensive than what any of the Churches have today). The Latin Church has developed in its understanding of “temporal punishment,” and hence of “indulgences.” “Temporal punishment” is no longer perfectly equated with penance, but is more of a condition that can still exist in the afterlife (in short, penance has become merely a subset of a more general concept of “temporal punishment”). I am simply adhering to the patristic concept rather than the later Latin development (not that there is anything wrong or heterodox with that development).

I think our argument is semantical. Do you agree that the suffering of the souls in purgatory is punishment if the word punishment is used as it is in the Catechism?

The Catechism does not call the suffering of the souls in purgatory a punishment, but a purification. The relevant text from the Catechism was quoted by brother Dcointin.

According to the Catechism, “temporal punishment” is more of a condition that naturally results from having sinned, rather than an outside action done on the Christian. What happens in “Purgatory” is that the soul is purified of this condition, not that the soul is punished.

So I would disagree about calling the suffering of the souls in Purgatory a punishment.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Since merit is the divine reward for practice of virtues, yes. God has ordered to reward the good works performed by his grace with an increase of grace, eternal life, and increase of heavenly glory, as shown from his frequent promises, such as the prediction of the Last Judgment, and the Beatitudes. So our supernatural adoption transforms us to the likeness of Christ and by grace co-heirs with Christ to the kingdom of heaven.

I’ve also read (and this had a lasting impression on me when I was on the throes of joining the Catholic communion) that merit is not something earned. The concept of earning normally connotes that the we have put someone under an obligation to pay us after we perform a work. But the Church uses the term “merit” very differently than how the secular world understands the term. I used to think that the Catholic doctrine of “merit” somehow obligates God by our actions. By that misunderstanding, I rejected it. But after reading what it actually means according to Catholic teaching, I found out that the Catholic Church teaches that it is WE who are obligated to holiness and good works by the Law of God, and that “merit” is simply divine reward for our obedience. That is wholly orthodox. I had it all backwards when I was not yet Catholic (I mean, I thought it was God who was obligated by the doctrine of merit ).

Sadly, there are obviously non-Catholic resources who misrepresent the Catholic teaching in this way. Just very recently in this thread, brother CTG claimed that “earning” was part of the Catholic teaching, though I never even mentioned the concept. He claims he has been reading a lot of Eastern Orthodox material, so I assume that is where he is getting his false ideas about Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’ve also read (and this had a lasting impression on me when I was on the throes of joining the Catholic communion) that merit is not something earned. The concept of earning normally connotes that the we have put someone under an obligation to pay us after we perform a work. But the Church uses the term “merit” very differently than how the secular world understands the term. I used to think that the Catholic doctrine of “merit” somehow obligates God by our actions. By that misunderstanding, I rejected it. But after reading what it actually means according to Catholic teaching, I found out that the Catholic Church teaches that it is WE who are obligated to holiness and good works by the Law of God, and that “merit” is simply divine reward for our obedience. That is wholly orthodox. I had it all backwards when I was not yet Catholic (I mean, I thought it was God who was obligated by the doctrine of merit ).

Sadly, there are obviously non-Catholic resources who misrepresent the Catholic teaching in this way. Just very recently in this thread, brother CTG claimed that “earning” was part of the Catholic teaching, though I never even mentioned the concept. He claims he has been reading a lot of Eastern Orthodox material, so I assume that is where he is getting his false ideas about Catholic teaching.

Blessings,
Marduk

Good post, I thought about commenting on this earlier as its often misunderstood.