W
WesleyF
Guest
Are Eastern Rite Catholics in full communion with the Catholic church? Do they believe in purgatory?
- Status
B
bilop
Guest
They are in full communion. Any Catholic may receive the Sacraments and fufill their Sunday obligation in any Catholic Church.
Eastern Thology (both Catholic and Orthodox) differs from Latin theology in that it is much less precise, and much more open to understanding things as mysteries that don’t need specific explanation.
Easterns do believe in a purification after death before entering Heaven, and do pray for the souls of the deceased, which are the essentials of purgatory. They do not necessaruly define it exactly as Catholics do.
God Bless
U
Ungcsertez
Guest
Yes, the Eastern and Oriental Particular Churches in Union with the Roman Catholic Church are Catholic. No, Eastern Churches do not profess purgatorial theology.
U-C
A
Aramis
Guest
We accept the minimum definition of purgatory from the dogmatic declaration.
It is a place or state where one is neither condemned permanently to hell nor admitted to heaven, where ongoing purification may take place.
We do not, however, use the puratorial fire concept, nor the system of indulgences.
W
WesleyF
Guest
What do mean by not using it? Do you mean to say that you don’t believe in these things?
J
jheii
Guest
I am not an Eastern Catholic, so I apologize and invite correction if anything I say is inaccurate.
I would say that the Eastern Catholic stance on these issues is one of passive non-belief, rather than active disbelief. As someone previously said, they do hold to all of the dogmatically defined definitions. However, they do not teach “purgatory” in the same sense we Latins do. This is not because the think that we are absolutely wrong (disbelief), but because their system of theology–again, as a previous poster already stated–leaves more room for ‘mystery’ in understanding the process of purification after death. Hope that helped.
They do believe that prayers for the dead are effectual, just like the Orthodox do. This means they believe the dead benefit from prayers offered for them by the living, which of course, they do not need if they are in heaven, and are useless if they are in hell. They do not use the term “purgatory” or use “fire” as an image of purification. But they do believe in it even if they don’t express it the same way we do. And their expressions yield great insight into the understanding of the state of purification.
For that matter, we Latins are not bound to believe that purgatory consists of “fire”. We are bound to accept it as a place of purification for heaven. I prefer to think of Purgatory as a joyful place, and why wouldn’t it be? If I find myself there, I’m happy to know that I’m assured of my salvation, and that I’ll see God soon. So the “pain”, if you can call it that would be one of excited longing, perhaps the same kind of longing for one’s wedding night. It’s painful to wait, even though you know it’s a foregone conclusion.
The Easterns’ expressions are very much in line with Catholic teaching, and are very useful for everyone to learn.
S
S_J_Thaikattil
Guest
Since I’m a member of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church (Kerala, India) which is in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, I’d like to add a word from my limited knowledge of my church.
As per custom, I was baptized on the eighth day after my birth, received First Holy Communion at age seven and Confirmation at age fourteen in the Syro-Malabar Church.
I can recall being taught only from the Catechism book of the Roman Catholic Church. All I know for certain about difference is the rite used during Mass. We use the East-Syrian Rite, and until Vatican II the Syriac language was used, which closely resembles Aramaic. As a child I can recall Syriac being used during consecration, when the exact words of Jesus were used. Mass is called Qurbana (supposedly meaning “Offering” in Aramaic/Hebrew).
We do believe in Purgatory, and we refer to it as the place of purification.
However I have been attending only the Roman Catholic church from about the age of 15 (I’m now 49) because I had no access to Syro-Malabar Churches in places where I lived (there are not many outside Kerala, India).
As per custom, I was baptized on the eighth day after my birth, received First Holy Communion at age seven and Confirmation at age fourteen in the Syro-Malabar Church.
I can recall being taught only from the Catechism book of the Roman Catholic Church. All I know for certain about difference is the rite used during Mass. We use the East-Syrian Rite, and until Vatican II the Syriac language was used, which closely resembles Aramaic. As a child I can recall Syriac being used during consecration, when the exact words of Jesus were used. Mass is called Qurbana (supposedly meaning “Offering” in Aramaic/Hebrew).
We do believe in Purgatory, and we refer to it as the place of purification.
However I have been attending only the Roman Catholic church from about the age of 15 (I’m now 49) because I had no access to Syro-Malabar Churches in places where I lived (there are not many outside Kerala, India).
A
Aramis
Guest
I should have specified in my prior post that the ‘We’ was pretty much ‘Catholics of the Byzantine Rite’… Each Rite has differences in theology, many of which have been suppressed and/or latinized away. Because of our close ties to our Byzantine Orthodox brethren, the Byzantine Catholics have a large published body of Orthodox theology by which to measure our own.
A
a_pilgrim
Guest
It’s probably worth stating here that not only are the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Catholic Church (and by “Catholic church” in the above quote I am assuming you are referring to the Latin Church), but the Latin Church is, by reciprocal relationship, in full communion with each of the 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches as well. None is more “Catholic” than the other. Despite her relative immensity vis a vis the Eastern Catholic Churches (all 22 combined!), the Latin Church is not to be viewed as the yardstick by which Catholicism is to be measured, as I believe your quote hints at.
All 23 sui iuris Churches within the Catholic communion share the same dogmatic beliefs, as has been stated by others, despite the fact that the individual interpretation and emphasis of these beliefs may differ from Church to Church. ALL Catholics hold to the belief in a purification process of sorts after death - exactly how each views the specifics of this purification process is subject to interpretation, colored in large part by the individual Church’s liturgical praxes and theological constructs in general. No one interpretation of this process is “more correct” or “more Catholic” than another.
J
JW55
Guest
Aramis-
Would Purgatory be considered as Dogma of the Catholic Church? From a previous thread I read, there sometimes seems hard to distinguish between what is doctrine and what is dogma. I still am not clear where Purgatory falls in that area.
If it is Dogma, how much latitude do we have in it’s interpretation? It sounds like the Eastern Catholic interpretation is close to the Roman Catholic interpretation with a few minor differences.
Purgatory appears to be a belief that we must largely accept via tradition, rahter than a clear scriptural reference., I assume there is more room for differences of opinion.
Since there isn’t acceptance of the purgatorial fire in the Eastern Catholic Church, does that mean that Purgatory would be just a state of waiting’ or what kind of purification is believed to take place? Do Eastern Catholics believe suffering takes place in Purgatory?
Sorry if my inquiry is unclear.
Thanks.
A
Aramis
Guest
It was declared dogmatic recently, but the definition in the declaration was sufficiently vague as to not destroy byzantine theology. Several latins I know are quite upset about how the dogmatic definition is so bland and doesn’t mention fire, indulgences, nor suffering…
S
student_of_God
Guest
what exactly is the dogmatic definition ?
G
Ghosty
Guest
Essentially that there is purification after death, and that our prayers and Liturgies in this life help those who have passed on. That is the “definition of Purgatory”; the fire and the suffering and the waiting period, and all other details, are not part of any dogma of Purgatory but merely theological opinions and descriptions.
Peace and God bless!
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Wesley,
The act of giving an “indulgence” is equivalent to what Easterns and Orientals would term “economy.” In the early Church, an “indulgence” was the term used for the act of a bishop to lessen or soften the usual penalty for a particular sin (e.g. St.Basil) . This indulgence was given only after evidence of a repentant life - in other words, good works. Latin Catholics still use the word “indulgence” to refer to this practice, while Eastern and Oriental Catholics prefer to use the term “economy” (IOW, the term “indulgence” fell out of use in the vocabulary of Eastern and Oriental Catholics)
Like Latins, Easterns and Orientals also use “indulgences” for the dead. But, once again, Eastern and Orientals don’t actually use the term “indulgences” as regards this practice. We prefer to SIMPLY say that our prayers and suffrages can help those in the afterlife.
Different from the Easterns (from my understanding), and similar to the Latins, Orientals also utilize specifically PENITENTIAL ACTS to help those in the afterlife.
The Latin DOGMA on indulgences simply states that 1) indulgences are helpful to the Christian, 2) God has granted the Church the power to give indulgences, and 3) the efficacy of indulgences is derived from the superabundant merits of Christ. Like the specific dogma regarding Purgatory, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LATIN DOGMA ON INDULGENCES THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE TO EASTERN OR ORIENTAL SENSIBILITIES.
However, there is a portion of the general Latin teaching on indulgences - the portion that is NOT dogmatized, AFAIK - that is objectionable to Eastern and Oriental sensibilities. Namely, the idea that indulgences are meant to take away the punishment for sins. To Easterns and Orientals, an “indulgence” - or at least our own version of it - is not applied to take away punishment, but rather to increase holiness.
At this point, there is a difference between the Eastern and Oriental understanding of why this particular facet of the Latin teaching is objectionable. Easterns (from my understanding) don’t agree with the penitential aspects of the Latin teaching, and would say that Christians don’t need to make up for temporal punishment at all, but would only require increase in holiness. Orientals, on the other hand, generally do agree with the need for temporal punishment as a means to increase holiness. Thus, whereas an Eastern might argue, “why apply an indulgence to take something away that was not there to begin with (i.e., temporal punishsment)?”, an Oriental would argue, “why apply an indulgence to take something away that is meant to lead to holiness (i.e., temporal punishment)?”
I hope that was not too confusing.
Blessings,
Marduk
The following is a clarification of brother Aramis’ comment that the Eastern Church does not use “indulgences.”
The act of giving an “indulgence” is equivalent to what Easterns and Orientals would term “economy.” In the early Church, an “indulgence” was the term used for the act of a bishop to lessen or soften the usual penalty for a particular sin (e.g. St.Basil) . This indulgence was given only after evidence of a repentant life - in other words, good works. Latin Catholics still use the word “indulgence” to refer to this practice, while Eastern and Oriental Catholics prefer to use the term “economy” (IOW, the term “indulgence” fell out of use in the vocabulary of Eastern and Oriental Catholics)
Like Latins, Easterns and Orientals also use “indulgences” for the dead. But, once again, Eastern and Orientals don’t actually use the term “indulgences” as regards this practice. We prefer to SIMPLY say that our prayers and suffrages can help those in the afterlife.
Different from the Easterns (from my understanding), and similar to the Latins, Orientals also utilize specifically PENITENTIAL ACTS to help those in the afterlife.
The Latin DOGMA on indulgences simply states that 1) indulgences are helpful to the Christian, 2) God has granted the Church the power to give indulgences, and 3) the efficacy of indulgences is derived from the superabundant merits of Christ. Like the specific dogma regarding Purgatory, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LATIN DOGMA ON INDULGENCES THAT IS OBJECTIONABLE TO EASTERN OR ORIENTAL SENSIBILITIES.
However, there is a portion of the general Latin teaching on indulgences - the portion that is NOT dogmatized, AFAIK - that is objectionable to Eastern and Oriental sensibilities. Namely, the idea that indulgences are meant to take away the punishment for sins. To Easterns and Orientals, an “indulgence” - or at least our own version of it - is not applied to take away punishment, but rather to increase holiness.
At this point, there is a difference between the Eastern and Oriental understanding of why this particular facet of the Latin teaching is objectionable. Easterns (from my understanding) don’t agree with the penitential aspects of the Latin teaching, and would say that Christians don’t need to make up for temporal punishment at all, but would only require increase in holiness. Orientals, on the other hand, generally do agree with the need for temporal punishment as a means to increase holiness. Thus, whereas an Eastern might argue, “why apply an indulgence to take something away that was not there to begin with (i.e., temporal punishsment)?”, an Oriental would argue, “why apply an indulgence to take something away that is meant to lead to holiness (i.e., temporal punishment)?”
I hope that was not too confusing.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status