Eastern Catholics and Purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter BVMFatima
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dear brother (sister?),
devoutchristian said:
I was using punishment interchangeably with suffering.
Click to expand...
Even in common parlance, “punishment” and “suffering” are not equivalent things.

Just a suggestion - Eastern and Oriental Catholics have a different theological language/perspective than Latin Catholics. In this thread, there have already been three instances from you (IIRC) that will either “go over” our heads or will be met with objections -
(1) The use of the term “double procession” with the filioque;
(2) The recent question on “venial sin.”
(3) Using the term “punishment” as a synonym for “suffering.”

You are a Latin Catholic, so it is understandable that you write from a Latin perspective. I guess what I’m saying is that the way you write might or will illicit strong reactions here in the ECF.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
devoutchristian said:
Do you object to the concept of forgiven sins still needing to be purified or do you merely object to the concept of them needing to be punished?
Click to expand...
We do not object to the idea that sin leaves a wound upon the sinner which needs to be healed. What we object to is that God must punish forgiven sin. If a sin has been forgiven, then punishment from God is unnecessary, because that which demands punishment, the sin, has been remitted and forgiven.
 
mardukm said:
The satisfaction of God’s Justice for the righteous in this life is a doctrine of the Oriental Tradition. Your belief and my belief coexist in the Catholic Church in peace and unity.👍
Click to expand...
I do not believe so. We cannot accept a theology which believes it is justified to draw the conclusion that because God is just, he must therefore by necessity punish sins. This confuses economy with theology, and is a complete affront to the sovereignty of God.
mardukm said:
Every bishop has it. Why should there be a bias against the bishop of Rome?🤷
Click to expand...
We reject the theology behind indulgences, that sins must be punished and that this punishment due is what is remitted by the indulgence. Either sins are forgiven and not punished, or they are not forgiven, and we are punished for them with eternal hell-fire, as Mark of Ephesus demonstrated at Florence.
 
Cavaradossi said:
We do not object to the idea that sin leaves a wound upon the sinner which needs to be healed.
Click to expand...
Do you object to the idea that such healing would involve pain of some kind?
Cavaradossi said:
We cannot accept a theology which believes it is justified to draw the conclusion that because God is just, he must therefore by necessity punish sins.
Click to expand...
You seem to be making a distinction between satisfaction and sanctification that doesn’t exist in Catholic theology.
 
twf said:
How many Latin Catholics actually practice indulgences? Haha. I think it is one of those “little secrets” of the modern Church. That being said, don’t forget that indulgences aren’t just for the dead - we can also obtain indulgences for ourselves while alive. The ancient practice from which indulgences developed was the bishop’s power to reduce the required penance for certain sins. In the East this developed into what you call economy (still practiced today - how many Orthodox priests impose years of penance on the faithful, even if a serious sin is committed?)…in the West it developed into indulgences.
Click to expand...
A lot do actually. I don’t know here in North America, but in the Philippines they do. And our particular traditions are built around earning indulgences, even though a lot of people do not realize it. For example, there are indulgences for visiting a grave and praying for the departed duing All Saints and All Souls day. In Philippine tradition, we visit the graves at this time of the year and people actually camp in the cemeteries. Its a huge cultural-religious tradition. Most do not know the indulgences part but it evolved from there and people do it year after year.

Economy and indulgences are not the same thing. Economy is applied to this life, not to the next. Economy is more compatible with Dispensation, not Indulgences.
 
mardukm said:
What part is incompatible with “your” theology? Is it the idea that there is purification or increase in holiness after death? Is it that there might be some suffering involved in this process? Is it the idea that our prayers and suffrages on earth and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass aid these souls in the afterlife? This is all that “Purgatory” is according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. To repeat, exactly what part is incompatible with “your” theology?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Cavadarossi already covered it, we do not beleive in any sort of punishment or pain for those who are destined for heaven. We do not believe in penalties for sins already forgiven. Theosis is completely different from Purgatory. Purgatory is you are not in the presence of God yet, but will be so after you have been completely purified. Theosis says your communion with God is based on the merits of your earthly life, but it is not a fixed state. As you continue to pray and live with God, you approach him closer and closer and your experience is greater and greater. This is not achieved by pain and suffering, and you begin already in communion with God. And there is never an end point, because God is infinite you are forever approaching Him, forever increasing in communion with Him.
 
“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.
 
dcointin said:
“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.
Click to expand...
Read again, it said “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.”

Lesser faults = venial sins.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Read again, it said “As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire.”

Lesser faults = venial sins.
Click to expand...
Would this be referring to a purification of the soul or of punishment to make satisfaction? Or perhaps both?
 
devoutchristian said:
Do you object to the idea that such healing would involve pain of some kind?
Click to expand...
No, we do not deny that being healed of the wounds caused by personal sins could possibly be painful, but with two qualifications. The first is that this cleansing typically remains for us in the realm of eschatology, that is, we will be cleansed at the resurrection. The pain experienced by sinners in the intermediate state is caused by being deprived of the light of God, and we believe that by praying for these souls, God may yet forgive them of their transgressions, and save them from damnation at the time of the resurrection. We also do not believe, unlike Roman Catholics, that people receive either hell or heaven before the bodily resurrection, but that they only receive a foretaste.

The second is that this cleansing is not necessarily done to satisfy the justice and holiness of God. We do not ascribe any necessity to God as far as economy is concerned, only in things which are theology proper.
devoutchristian said:
You seem to be making a distinction between satisfaction and sanctification that doesn’t exist in Catholic theology.
Click to expand...
Does the suffering of those in purgatory satisfy God’s justice? If so, we cannot accept it.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The second is that this cleansing is not necessarily done to satisfy the justice and holiness of God.
Click to expand...
Would you object to the satisfaction of God’s Justice occurring as a result of suffering which was already neccessary for the sanctification of the soul?
Cavaradossi said:
Does the suffering of those in purgatory satisfy God’s justice?
Click to expand...
Yes, it also sanctifies the souls themselves. Catholic theology doesn’t see the sanctification of their souls and satisfaction of God’s Justice as separate.
 
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the EO Patriarch of Jerusalem used to grant indulgences. For example, I recall reading that Nicodemus the Hagiorite requested an indulgence in a letter, and that a 19th century council in Constantinople condemned the sale (but not issuance) of indulgences.

If accurate, how are we to understand this if the entire theology of indulgences is at odds with Eastern theology? Were these indulgences somehow different from the western understanding of the term?
 
Sepp said:
If accurate, how are we to understand this if the entire theology of indulgences is at odds with Eastern theology?
Click to expand...
I guess that it’s one of the things that they’ve changed since the schism.
 
Sepp said:
Please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the EO Patriarch of Jerusalem used to grant indulgences. For example, I recall reading that Nicodemus the Hagiorite requested an indulgence in a letter, and that a 19th century council in Constantinople condemned the sale (but not issuance) of indulgences.

If accurate, how are we to understand this if the entire theology of indulgences is at odds with Eastern theology? Were these indulgences somehow different from the western understanding of the term?
Click to expand...
While this is a topic I know very little about, I have read that they were offered only for a short time and only by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so this would not be considered a universal practice among the Eastern Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top