Eastern Rite Theology vs Dogma

[tdgesq]

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

Then you will have to show me the dogmatic definition that defines purgatory as a state that is “neither in heaven or hell.” Remember, this thread is about theology versus dogma. Your statement above is one of speculative theology not of dogmatic theology.

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

Nope. That article does not specify that purgatory is neither in heaven nor hell as dogma. Theologically, the Catholic Encyclopedia states the opposite:

Hell (infernus) in theological usage is a place of punishment after death. Theologians distinguish four meanings of the term hell:

* hell in the strict sense, or the place of punishment for the damned, be they demons or men;
* the limbo of infants (limbus parvulorum), where those who die in original sin alone, and without personal mortal sin, are confined and undergo some kind of punishment;
* the limbo of the Fathers (limbus patrum), in which the souls of the just who died before Christ awaited their admission to heaven; for in the meantime heaven was closed against them in punishment for the sin of Adam;
* **purgatory**, where the just, who die in venial sin or who still owe a debt of temporal punishment for sin, are cleansed by suffering before their admission to heaven.[newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) (Emphasis added).

and affirmed by [Ott’s FCD]:

No, not affirmed by Ott. I read the entire article from my hard copy last night, and what you quoted does not state that purgatory is neither in heaven nor hell.

As well as the CCC:

Read it again. I agree that the punishments of purgatory and hell are different, particularly in terms of eternal vs. temporal punishment, but it does not say that purgatory is neither in heaven nor hell. Here is what Aquinas says:

“On the contrary, Gregory says [The quotation is from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)]: “Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Therefore the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place.” newadvent.org/summa/7001.htm#2

Aquinas goes on to admit that “[n]othing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question.” In other words, he recognizes that he is giving a theological opinion, echoing the warning of Trent about purgatory. “But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful.” history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

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.

Exactly my point Aramis. The Eastern view on this varies. I have debated EO that adamantly deny that their tradition allows for a separate state of purgatory apart from heaven and hell. Ironically, it appears that their theological conclusion on this one narrow point is more akin to Aquinas’. Of course they would disagree with him on nearly every other issue about purgatory and his methodology for his conclusion.

All I am saying is that I see no need for Catholics to start dogmatically defining the place of purgatory, whether a separate state or a level of hell, where no dogmatic decree exists. Differing theological opinions certainly exist.

 

[Marina14]

Ironically, it appears that their theological conclusion on this one narrow point is more akin to Aquinas’.

I find it interesting that you bring up Aquinas - Aquinas also, like many Eastern Catholic Churches/Rites and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, **did not believe and, in fact, taught against the Immaculate Conception **which has become a Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma.

 

[tdgesq]

I find it interesting that you bring up Aquinas - Aquinas also, like many Eastern Catholic Churches/Rites and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, **did not believe and, in fact, taught against the Immaculate Conception **which has become a Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma.

And . . . . so what? I didn’t quote Aquinas with regard to purgatory to demonstrate that he is right. I did it to show that he is in accord with the conclusion of some Eastern traditions on that subject. And the only purpose of that was to show that the “location” of purgatory is not dogmatically defined. I’m attempting to be inclusive of Eastern theology, not the other way around.

 

[JohnPaulSteve]

I find it interesting that you bring up Aquinas - Aquinas also, like many Eastern Catholic Churches/Rites and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, **did not believe and, in fact, taught against the Immaculate Conception **which has become a Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma.

So? Aquinas was wrong. Individual theologians, even very great ones, are not infallible.

The IC is an ancient teaching that comes down to us from the Apostles, from the original Deposit of the Faith. It is implicit in Scripture and increasingly explicit in the teachings of the Fathers (Irenaeus re the New Eve) and Doctors of the Church.

It is the Truth. And the truth is the truth, whether you’re in the East or in the West. The East may choose to clothe the IC dogma in different terminology (e.g., Panaghia), but the fact remains that Our Lady was conceived free from all sin–pure, all-holy, immaculate. Eastern as well as Western Fathers attest this. And it is a de fide article of faith for all Catholics, both Eastern and Latin.

God bless…

 

[fulloffaith]

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

Why does the Church allow Melkites to maintain communion without agreeing with all dogmas, if i may ask?

Thanks.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Then you will have to show me the dogmatic definition that defines purgatory as a state that is “neither in heaven or hell.”

Oh, now I see what your getting at. It wasn’t clear to me before.

There is no definition of where Purgatory is. Do you think there should be or that it may be in Heaven or Hell?

I don’t see what consequence this would be. I’m not even sure I see the consequence between it being a state or thought of as a place.

Some thoughts though about what we do know.

We know if in Purgatory there can be no condemnation from there and Heaven is imminent once our sin is expiated so there is joy in that.

We know that Jesus said there was an eternal fire from whence there is no deliverance.

We know that there is no sin in Heaven and no beatific vision is such a state.

Even the CCC says Purgatory is a state.

If we look at the story of Lazarus and the bosom of abraham we can see that between where Lazarus was and Hell was there was a casm that could not be crossed. Does that make it a part of Hell or a seperate place. I don’t know.

Does any of this define where the state of pugatory physically is. I don’t think so. I don’t think its even important. I know I don’t require a definition. It has got me thinking about Heaven and Hell though and wondering if the are even actual physical places either. I think as they are discribed and we have the ascension and assumption they may be but its still somewhat a mystery, especially about Purgatory. Perhaps Augustine says more in the City of God.

So I guess your right, at this point for me its a mystery if it is a part of Heaven or Hell or not and I am perfectly fine with that. I can easily conclude its not a part of either but someone else may not and I would be equally fine with that too.

Peace.

 

[jj2011]

I find it interesting that you bring up Aquinas - Aquinas also, like many Eastern Catholic Churches/Rites and all Eastern Orthodox Christians, **did not believe and, in fact, taught against the Immaculate Conception **which has become a Roman Catholic doctrine/dogma.

We hear this a lot, but Soloviev defended Catholic teaching from the Russian liturgical books, which call the Mother of God immaculate (spotless), all immaculate, and most pure. Can anyone be conceived in original sin and be immaculate? Can anyone be “partially” immaculate?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

We might accept that it is vaid within Latin theology but we will not insert it into our theology or teaching. It is contradictory to what we teach.

Of course the Theotokos died. We accept that position as Latins (or should), as it is clearly defined in Ineffable Deus that She did die and was assumed bodily after her death into Heaven.

 

[Marina14]

So? Aquinas was wrong. Individual theologians, even very great ones, are not infallible.

The IC is an ancient teaching that comes down to us from the Apostles, from the original Deposit of the Faith. It is implicit in Scripture and increasingly explicit in the teachings of the Fathers (Irenaeus re the New Eve) and Doctors of the Church.

It is the Truth. And the truth is the truth, whether you’re in the East or in the West. The East may choose to clothe the IC dogma in different terminology (e.g., Panaghia), but the fact remains that Our Lady was conceived free from all sin–pure, all-holy, immaculate. Eastern as well as Western Fathers attest this. And it is a de fide article of faith for all Catholics, both Eastern and Latin.

God bless…

You don’t seem to understand the Eastern Catholic point of view re: the Immaculate Conception. The Eastern Christian (Catholic & Orthodox) believes that Mary is without any sin = immaculate; however, Latin/Roman Catholics believe that this is because God gave her a grace which He didn’t give anyone else to make this possible for her but Eastern Christians believe she wasn’t given any special/additional grace but by her own free will, she chose to remain without sin.

The difference has to do with the Roman/Latin Catholic understanding of Original Sin and the Eastern Christian understanding of Original Sin not the Holiness/Purity of Mary.

Latins see OS as something each person born is personally guilty (mortally so spiritually) of because of the free will choice of Adam and Eve whereas the Easterns see OS as transmitted to each person born in it’s effects (tendency towards sickness, sin and death) not in guilt.

So when looking at the Roman Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception - “The Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.” From the Eastern understanding of Original Sin - this then says that she alone was preserved from “all stain of original sin” means that she was incapable of being tempted, getting sick or dying = she’s not fully human. Even Adam and Eve were created with the possibility of being tempted and falling into sin (which they did). The Eastern view of Mary gives her so much more honor than Romans can because we claim she was capable of sin, she was born with Original Sin - the tendancy towards sin - and chose not to on her own accord. This alone makes her unique amongst the entire human race! In Eastern Christianity, we are all created with the capability to choose not to sin, but we all, except Mary (& Jesus), fall into sin.

Glory to the Theotokos, the Panagia, the Immaculate!

By the Roman/Latins claiming that Original Sin transmitts not just the effects of sin, but also the person guilt of mortal sin - they had to come up with a way in which to show Mary as Immaculate from birth so they came up with Immaculate Conception to solve the problem they created with their unique view of Original Sin.
I hope this helps!

 

[Marina14]

We hear this a lot, but Soloviev defended Catholic teaching from the Russian liturgical books, which call the Mother of God immaculate (spotless), all immaculate, and most pure. Can anyone be conceived in original sin and be immaculate? Can anyone be “partially” immaculate?

Yes someone can be conceived in original sin and be immaculate.

The Eastern Christian understanding of Original Sin is what is different between the Western & Eastern Catholic Rites/Orthodox Churches.

Please see my above post in which I do my best at explaining the difference of the understanding of Original Sin between the East and the West.

To be clear: Eastern Christians (Catholics & Orthodox) believe without a doubt that Mary the Mother of our God never sinned! She was and is Immaculate!

 

[Joab_Anias]

The difference has to do with the Roman/Latin Catholic understanding of Original Sin and the Eastern Christian understanding of Original Sin not the Holiness/Purity of Mary.

Latins see OS as something each person born is personally guilty (mortally so spiritually) of because of the free will choice of Adam and Eve whereas the Easterns see OS as transmitted to each person born in it’s effects (tendency towards sickness, sin and death) not in guilt.

It is a misconception to say Romans view OS as a guilt but instead a consequence which is basically what your saying the East sees. There is no desparity;

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.

405 Although it is proper to each individual, original sin **does not have the character of a personal fault **in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

406 The Church’s teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine’s reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God’s grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam’s fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

Peace.

 

[Joab_Anias]

Yes someone can be conceived in original sin and be immaculate.

Impossible.

The Eastern Christian understanding of Original Sin is what is different between the Western & Eastern Catholic Rites/Orthodox Churches.

Misconception.

To be clear: Eastern Christians (Catholics & Orthodox) believe without a doubt that Mary the Mother of our God never sinned! She was and is Immaculate!

491 Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.

Peace.

 

[tdgesq]

Oh, now I see what your getting at. It wasn’t clear to me before.

There is no definition of where Purgatory is. Do you think there should be or that it may be in Heaven or Hell?

I don’t see what consequence this would be. I’m not even sure I see the consequence between it being a state or thought of as a place.

No problem. I could have made myself a little bit clearer on my initial post. It is a big to deal to those whose tradition only include heaven and hell, which does make you wonder where Sheol, Hades or the Limbo of the Fathers is supposed to be. I believe I read an article from EO Bishop Hilarion that implied that it was all a part of hell. I read that a long time ago though, and the article was primarily on the EO theology of Christ descending into hell.

As for the difference between a place and a state, there is a huge potential problem. Some of the Western Fathers, including Augustine I believe, taught that there is actual physical fire in purgatory. Much of the East found that repugnant, and when you start talking about purgatory as a physical location it inevitably brings you back to that discussion. Even though from a dogmatic standpoint, it is unnecessary.

 

[Joab_Anias]

No problem. I could have made myself a little bit clearer on my initial post. It is a big to deal to those whose tradition only include heaven and hell, which does make you wonder where Sheol, Hades or the Limbo of the Fathers is supposed to be. I believe I read an article from EO Bishop Hilarion that implied that it was all a part of hell. I read that a long time ago though, and the article was primarily on the EO theology of Christ descending into hell.

Yes as we say in the Creed Christ decended into hell, yet the place in the Story of Lazarus where Moses and Abraham were was clearly inaccesible from or to hell. This also begs the question of the how long he was there and brings up the matter of our perception of time as related to the timelessness of the next life as Christ is also quoted as telling the theif on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise that same day, yet we know he also went to free those in exile and remained in the tomb for 3 of our days.

As for the difference between a place and a state, there is a huge potential problem. Some of the Western Fathers, including Augustine I believe, taught that there is actual physical fire in purgatory.

At my last reading of Augustine it was my take that the fire in question is a non consuming fire in the sense of anguish. Not a physical or all consuming fire as in hell.

Much of the East found that repugnant, and when you start talking about purgatory as a physical location it inevitably brings you back to that discussion. Even though from a dogmatic standpoint, it is unnecessary.

I agree though feel its still efficatious for us as faithful to be aware that there is forgiveness of sin after death and in that the prospect of a purgation is both hope giving in Gods mercy and at the same time encouraging to do our best to reach the higher state in the next life by santifying ourselves in this life. Not everyone is aware of the theology but are just as well served by the dogma.

Peace.

 

[tdgesq]

So when looking at the Roman Catholic definition of the Immaculate Conception - “The Blessed Virgin Mary in the first instance of her conception was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.”

Correct. That is what Roman Catholics believe.

From the Eastern understanding of Original Sin - this then says that she alone was preserved from “all stain of original sin” means that she was incapable of being tempted, getting sick or dying = she’s not fully human.

Is the term “original sin” one that is part of Eastern tradition? The reason I ask is that it looks to me like we are using the same term for two different understandings. RC’s obviously do not believe that Mary was exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam, including death. I mean, she died. Btw, the de fide statement given above does not claim that she was exempt from those penalties.

Even Adam and Eve were created with the possibility of being tempted and falling into sin (which they did). The Eastern view of Mary gives her so much more honor than Romans can because we claim she was capable of sin, she was born with Original Sin - the tendancy towards sin - and chose not to on her own accord.

I’m sorry, but I don’t know of any Catholic teaching that states conception without original sin makes one incapable of personal sin. I am at liberty to believe that Mary was capable of sin, and most RC theology about Mary wouldn’t make any sense without assuming that she had free will to commit personal sin. She may not have had the tendency to sin (concupiscence) but that is a far cry from stating she was unable to sin. As you pointed out, even Adam and Eve were capable of personal sin without any of the Eastern consequences of original sin. Mary was in the same state as Eve before the Fall, but this time the New Eve (Mary) freely chose to do God’s will. That is what Roman Catholics believe.

This alone makes her unique amongst the entire human race! In Eastern Christianity, we are all created with the capability to choose not to sin, but we all, except Mary (& Jesus), fall into sin.

Yes, it does make her unique and the most blessed among women. But how you’ve decided that her being given an abundance of grace made her choices less worthy is truly baffling to a RC. I don’t think anybody from East or West would deny that we have all been given grace in view of Christ’s merits, especially through baptism. Does that make my free choices to do the good anymore unworthy than if I hadn’t been given that grace to begin with? It is our free cooperation with God’s grace that makes acts good. No less in the case of Mary. Your analysis here of how Roman Catholics view the Immaculate Conception is really off the mark.

 

[thedejongs]

I’m sorry, but I don’t know of any Catholic teaching that states conception without original sin makes one incapable of personal sin. I am at liberty to believe that Mary was capable of sin, and most RC theology about Mary wouldn’t make any sense without assuming that she had free will to commit personal sin. Your analysis here of how Roman Catholics view the Immaculate Conception is really off the mark.

CANON XXIII of the Council of Trent:
“lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”

You may also wish to read Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis affirming RCC doctrine that Mary was immune to sin.

Hope this helps.

 

[chrisb]

CANON XXIII of the Council of Trent:
“lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”

You may also wish to read Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis affirming RCC doctrine that Mary was immune to sin.

Hope this helps.

Grace and Peace,

This canon is and was direct to counter Reformation doctrines of Once-Saved, Always-Saved or otherwise known as the Preservation of the Saints and shouldn’t be taken out of the historic context in which it was given nor without understand it’s subject.

Although I agree that it does attempt to exempt the BVM due to the fact that such an anathema might be considered contradictory to the Churches teaching concerning her Immaculate State. I don’t believe that either one of us would dispute the stainlessness our our BVM (i.e. her sinlessness). Perhaps we might come to disagreement as to the semantics to attribute this state to the active participation of God in our life or if such power is inherent within humanity to achieve without God’s participation…

 

[tdgesq]

CANON XXIII of the Council of Trent:
“lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.”

It doesn’t do any good to cite a canon and leave out the session and chapter. Please cite correctly next time. And just as I stated previously, it does not state that conception without original sin makes one incapable of original sin. It does not state that Mary did not have free will. It does not state that Mary was incapable of sin. It states what I’ve been saying all along, without an abundance of God’s grace no one can avoid sin.

You may also wish to read Pope Pius XII’s Encyclical Mystici Corporis affirming RCC doctrine that Mary was immune to sin.

Lol! I’ve read it. Have you? Give me the exact quote that supports this statement.

Hope this helps.

No. It’s extremely unhelpful for you to take portions out of Ott’s FCD and then pretend like you’ve read the source material.

 

[ronyodish]

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.

On Papal Infallibility, if you have the time, you might want to read the section called Primacy and Infallibility: Final Synodal Remarks from Ch. 5 of a book in regards the Melkite Church at Vatican II. You can read it at the Melkite.org site here:

The Melkite Church at the Council
Chapter 5 – The Constitution of the Church

God bless,

Rony

 

[johnnykins]

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.

Well, as we both know, lots of us have been told lots of things. doesn’t make it true. It’s nonsense that the Patriarch is a heretic. that an orthodox adherent told you that is not surprising. They have a vested interest in it.