Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[Joab_Anias]

And St. Thomas Aquinas is not the dogmatic definition, either.

The dogma itself is vague; it has to be to accommodate both the Latin and the Eastern views.

Perhaps it appears vague because it has pleased the Lord to reveal nothing further than that sins may be forgiven also after death and that the communion of saints extends to us who are in this exile. Though all will be revealed in due time it may not necessarily be here in this realm.

Personally I think mystery is one way God uses to prompt us to consider others beside ourselves be it God himself in prayer, neighbor or those gone before us.

2558 “Great is the mystery of the faith!” The Church professes this mystery in the Apostles’ Creed (Part One) and celebrates it in the sacramental liturgy (Part Two), so that the life of the faithful may be conformed to Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father (Part Three). This mystery, then, requires that the faithful believe in it, that they celebrate it, and that they live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer.

For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy.

Peace.

 

[Aramis]

Perhaps it appears vague because it has pleased the Lord to reveal nothing further than that sins may be forgiven also after death and that the communion of saints extends to us who are in this exile. Though all will be revealed in due time it may not necessarily be here in this realm.

Personally I think mystery is one way God uses to prompt us to consider others beside ourselves be it God himself in prayer, neighbor or those gone before us.

agreed. Mystery is important to faith.

 

[thedejongs]

We Latins have never claimed that purgatory was a place, simply a process, nor have we ever held those being purged are thereby punished.!

Uh, oh. I knew that it would come one of these days-- fulloffaith and I have a little disagreement, I think.

Check out the following (full text may be viewed at ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/ac1967.htm
This is only a very small sample of the very clear Latin teaching on the punitive aspect of Purgatory-- whether it be a state or place:

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES
PAUL BISHOP SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD i.e. Pope of Rome] FOR EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE

These punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls, the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty. Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in his ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community. Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also --though not always in a direct and evident way–as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man, just as they have regarded it as a real and unfathomable offense against God and indeed an ungrateful rejection of the love of God shown us through Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends and not servants.

1. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and–as it is called–reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God, from which there will shine forth throughout the world the sanctity and the splendor of his glory. The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.

That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those “who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions” are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. This is also clearly evidenced in the liturgical prayers with which the Christian community admitted to Holy Communion has addressed God since most ancient times: “We are being justly punished for our sins, but be merciful and free us for the glory of your name.”

For all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins; thus all need the mercy of God to be set free from the penal consequences of sin.

 

[tdgesq]

And St. Thomas Aquinas is not the dogmatic definition, either.

The dogma itself is vague; it has to be to accommodate both the Latin and the Eastern views.

The point is there is no dogmatic definition one way or the other - not for the East and not for the Latins as you set forth here:

The dogmatic definition is that it is possible one can be in neither heaven nor hell, and this state (be it a place or condition) is purgatory.

Wrong. No such dogmatic definition.

 

[Joab_Anias]

For all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins; thus all need the mercy of God to be set free from the penal consequences of sin.[/INDENT]

You left out #2

1. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God’s sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or “purifying” punishments. Therefore it has always been the conviction of the faithful that the paths of evil are fraught with many stumbling blocks and bring adversities, bitterness and harm to those who follow them.

God is unchanging and alone Holy. Our sin seperates us from Him and He mercifully brings us back to Him if we choose to come to Him. Who are we to question His means even if they involve suffering on our part. Suffereing that is self aflicted by our own sins. Suffering that is redemptive that we would not have if we did not sin. Redemption that gives meaning and purpose to our suffering.

The CCC exhorts us to the following:

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. **These two 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. **A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.

I hope this sounds humble and charitable.

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Wrong. No such dogmatic definition.

I think what Aramis meant was that if your in the state of purgatory your neither in heaven or hell.

This would be attested to by the Church teaching as found in the CE:

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:

“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).

Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.

and affirmed by:

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter purgatory.

As well as the CCC:

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. 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:

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

 

[Aramis]

I think what Aramis meant was that if your in the state of purgatory your neither in heaven or hell.

This would be attested to by the Church teaching as found in the CE:

and affirmed by:

As well as the CCC:

Thank you! Precisely. But since I was about to leave for DL, I didn’t have time (nor, to be honest, inclination) to seek out the correct citations to establish the point in detail.

The Roman church has a defined theologumenon of Purgatory as a place and/or state of punishment.

Eastern theologumenia vary, but generally see purgation as a process, accept that it’s neither heaven nor hell, and that theosis continues there, by means left unspecified.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Thank you! Precisely. But since I was about to leave for DL, I didn’t have time (nor, to be honest, inclination) to seek out the correct citations to establish the point in detail.

The Roman church has a defined theologumenon of Purgatory as a place and/or state of punishment.

Sure thing.

Eastern theologumenia vary, but generally see purgation as a process, accept that it’s neither heaven nor hell, and that theosis continues there, by means left unspecified.

Yes. In general they describe the same thing without the couple of understandings you mentioned previously, i.e.: temporal punishment warranted by our sins (bringing judgement upon ourselves and paying the last penny) and application of indulgence (sharing redemptive sufferages of the faithful within the communion of saints for those in need).

Peace.

 

[thedejongs]

You left out #2

Actually, I left out a WHOLE lot more of that “Apostolic Constitution” (the “AC”) than #2- ergo (oops, I used Latin) the link to the entire document. Thanks for looking at it closely.

**These two 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. **

My apologies if it seemed that I was implying that the RCC tteaches that God imposes these punishments as vengeance. However, I think the AC specifically and RC theology in general is quite clear that these punishments are remunerative/expiative (did I just invent a word?) and not solely corrective. This is a very significant difference between RC and EO theology.

Cheers. Thanks to all for putting up with me.

 

[fulloffaith]

Uh, oh. I knew that it would come one of these days-- fulloffaith and I have a little disagreement, I think.

Check out the following (full text may be viewed at ourladyswarriors.org/indulge/ac1967.htm
This is only a very small sample of the very clear Latin teaching on the punitive aspect of Purgatory-- whether it be a state or place:

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
THE DOCTRINE OF INDULGENCES
PAUL BISHOP SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF GOD i.e. Pope of Rome] FOR EVERLASTING REMEMBRANCE

These punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purification of souls, the defense of the sanctity of the moral order and the restoration of the glory of God to its full majesty. Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in his ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community. Christians throughout history have always regarded sin not only as a transgression of divine law but also --though not always in a direct and evident way–as contempt for or disregard of the friendship between God and man, just as they have regarded it as a real and unfathomable offense against God and indeed an ungrateful rejection of the love of God shown us through Jesus Christ, who called his disciples friends and not servants.

1. It is therefore necessary for the full remission and–as it is called–reparation of sins not only that friendship with God be reestablished by a sincere conversion of the mind and amends made for the offense against his wisdom and goodness, but also that all the personal as well as social values and those of universal order itself, which have been diminished or destroyed by sin, be fully reintegrated whether through voluntary reparation which will involve punishment or through acceptance of the punishments established by the just and most holy wisdom of God, from which there will shine forth throughout the world the sanctity and the splendor of his glory. The very existence and the gravity of the punishment enable us to understand the foolishness and malice of sin and its harmful consequences.

That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those “who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions” are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. This is also clearly evidenced in the liturgical prayers with which the Christian community admitted to Holy Communion has addressed God since most ancient times: “We are being justly punished for our sins, but be merciful and free us for the glory of your name.”

For all men who walk this earth daily commit at least venial sins; thus all need the mercy of God to be set free from the penal consequences of sin.

Let me clarify, please. That there was a punitive aspect to purgatory i always knew was taught; i simply mean that purgatory itself is not to be seen as a punishment, but a process of purification.**

 

[Joab_Anias]

Actually, I left out a WHOLE lot more of that “Apostolic Constitution” (the “AC”) than #2- ergo (oops, I used Latin) the link to the entire document. Thanks for looking at it closely.

My apologies if it seemed that I was implying that the RCC tteaches that God imposes these punishments as vengeance. However, I think the AC specifically and RC theology in general is quite clear that these punishments are remunerative/expiative (did I just invent a word?) and not solely corrective. This is a very significant difference between RC and EO theology.

No problem. I think its an easy assumption to make that the dogma might protrait God as a punishing God versus our own sinfulness bringing us down. Just like the state being a place.

Yes the sins are expiated. (maybe I should look the word up). I know my purgations here on Earth are often corrective if I try really hard to let them be if thats what you mean. Though if they are traumatic enough sometimes theres almost no effort on my part. Sort of like getting a DUI and the wine tasting bad after.

Not sure where you see the signifacant difference though.

Pax. (oops now you got me doing it).

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

As Joab and others have pointed out, the expiative (“pay the last penny”) aspect of Purgatory is Biblical. Which, for my money, is about as Eastern as you can get.

But primarily Purgatory is a place/state of purgation. If Latins and Easterners can agree on that, then let’s agree. That is, let’s focus on our areas of agreement, not on our areas of disagreement.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Let me clarify, please. That there was a punitive aspect to purgatory i always knew was taught; i simply mean that purgatory itself is not to be seen as a punishment, but a process of purification.**

Yes. Curing or mortifying myself of a vice or sin can seem punishing but its still good for me. Especially if it gets me closer to God or in Union with Him.

 

[fulloffaith]

Yes. Curing or mortifying myself of a vice or sin can seem punishing but its still good for me. Especially if it gets me closer to God or in Union with Him.

Exactly; thanks for getting it.

 

[thedejongs]

I simply mean that purgatory itself is not to be seen as a punishment, but a process of purification.**

This conversation has been very helpful in clarifying differences between Eastern & Western theology. Thank you for pointing out this distinction.

Although the “let’s focus on our areas of agreement, not on our areas of disagreement” sounds like a great solution to everything, I can’t seriously see St. Nicholas saying this to Arius as Arius expounded his heresy-- rather, St. Nicholas stood up and slapped him a good one. However much modern society pushes off this type of approach as an ideal, those genuinely seeking the Truth will not be satisfied with its results.

Joab Anias, I don’t have down the proper method for multiple quotes, so I’ll do it in-line here. You wrote:
I think its an easy assumption to make that the dogma might protrait God as a punishing God versus our own sinfulness bringing us down.

I think the dogma does not so much portray God as a punishing God as it does define His character as fundamentally unable to accept a human being into full communion with Him unless that human being has satisfied (by suffering punishment) the temporal debt to God incurred by the human being in commission of sin. Cur Deus Homo is inherent in RC theology and the defined dogmas thereof, even if it has not been explicitly defined as dogma itself. Trent and Vatican I use Anselmian terms freely, and it is quite clear that the participants understood the terms to be used in that manner.

(Ott cites a document I have been unable to unearth in which he claims that the Vatican I participants intended to dogmatize satisfaction theory itself. His cite is to: “Coll. Lac. VII”-- does anyone recognize the cite? I can pull it up on Google but can’t discover the name of the full text cited. Any help would be appreciated. I sent a post to the “Ask Apologists” about a month ago with no success and also asked a local Monsignor with an academic bent who spent tons of time in Rome-- same result, though. If anyone recognizes it, I’d welcome a note with the name of the cited text.)

Merci.

 

[Marina14]

I understand that our Eastern brethren have their own theological traditions. Thus, they don’t always express theological teachings the same as latin folks do.

But what about defined doctrine? It is one thing to not use Scholaticism as a method for pondering revealed truth and extrapolating from it, but seems quite another thing to have differing dogmas.

Do the Eastern rites accept the authority of, say, the Immaculate Conception which is dogmatically defined, but springs from Latin theological reasoning about Original Sin? I know the EO have major problems with the IC, but do the Eastern Rites?

“The difference is that we are a risen people - we don’t pray to save our souls - and we don’t wonder if we have merited heaven by enough , piety , study and actions that are prescriptions for Western church models of spiritual development. In our tradition we are already in the Kingdom and our edict is not to save ourselves but to grow in divinity. Our tradition is not one of rules and recipes or ‘how to’s’, placing all the burden on what man has to do ‘to get to heaven when he dies’, but an experiential faith built on relationship with God-Trinity, that transforms and makes us ‘new creatures’ as we open ourselves to God in prayer and receive His deifying love. We do not have to live in doubt as to the ultimate reality of what will happen to us when we die – heaven or hell? The choice is ours. We exercise our free will to choose to become like God or to close God out and become locked in a prison of our own self-centeredness, where the only face we see for all eternity is our own. When we are self-centered, it is impossible for us to love. We must transcend ourselves, move out of ourselves to love. God makes it easy for us to do this and grow by sharing the burden with us. In our church we call this reciprocity between God and man ‘synergy’. God works within us as we consciously center on God in our hearts. That is why our tradition is contemplative not activist. In silence, deep, focused prayer, we allow God to transform us into His ‘likeness’ and move us outward in ‘diakonia’ (service) to others. This process continues for all eternity. It doesn’t end with physical death. Religion is relevant for living now and for all eternity. These are spiritual laws for success in this life and beyond. For Melkites, there is no difference between natural and supernatural. The supernatural is natural for us! We don’t have to suffer now and wait for physical death in order to experience the joy of heaven.” - Quoted from www.melkite.org - to there to check out other differences. I couldn’t fit them all on here.

 

[johnnykins]

Is it just me or is it odd that certain Orthodox on this thread say the EC and RC are at odds, yet the Bishops and theologians of the EC are in communion with the RC - all parties in the CC ostensibly agreeing on all dogma. Maybe there are a few EC here, too, who say there are some issues, too. We know there are EO and CC differences.

BUT, I just haven’t seen where the Melkites or any other EC rite deny any dogma or gainsay any dogma. Individuals may - but that happens all the time. There are differences in theology - but the faith is the same.

Or am I missing something?

 

[East_and_West]

Is it just me or is it odd that certain Orthodox on this thread say the EC and RC are at odds, yet the Bishops and theologians of the EC are in communion with the RC - all parties in the CC ostensibly agreeing on all dogma. Maybe there are a few EC here, too, who say there are some issues, too. We know there are EO and CC differences.

BUT, I just haven’t seen where the Melkites or any other EC rite deny any dogma or gainsay any dogma. Individuals may - but that happens all the time. There are differences in theology - but the faith is the same.

Or am I missing something?

I am not sure but i have been told that the melkite patriarch is a heretic. I was told by And Eastern Orthodox priest that Melkite Patriarch denies Catholic dogmas like the immaculate conception and papal infalibility.

 

[Marina14]

Is it just me or is it odd that certain Orthodox on this thread say the EC and RC are at odds, yet the Bishops and theologians of the EC are in communion with the RC - all parties in the CC ostensibly agreeing on all dogma. Maybe there are a few EC here, too, who say there are some issues, too. We know there are EO and CC differences.

They (at least the Melkite Greek Catholics) are in communion without agreeing on all dogma. An example of this would be: Purgatory.
The Eastern Catholics maintain the communion with Roman Catholics dispite their differences.

Or am I missing something?

Perhaps you would do well to make an appointment with the Melkite Greek Catholic Bishop or Archimantrite or Priest to see what their Church believes/teaches and also speak with imigrants who came to this country directly from the Middle Eastern Countries who have had the Melkite Faith handed down to them from their ancestors going all the way back to the time of Christ and they will tell you themselves what they recognize as Truth/Dogma and what doesn’t. By doing this, you will see that they are Orthodox in Faith/Doctrine/Dogma but have chosen to maintain unity with the Roman Catholic Church inspite of their differences.

 

[Marina14]

I am not sure but i have been told that the melkite patriarch is a heretic. I was told by And Eastern Orthodox priest that Melkite Patriarch denies Catholic dogmas like the immaculate conception and papal infalibility.

The Melkite Patriarch is in full union with Rome and not considered by the Pope as a heretic; however, you are correct that the Melkite Church does deny some Roman dogmas such as immaculate conception (although to be sure they do believe that Mary was and is immaculate without personal sin) and papal infalibility. www.melkite.org