Eastern view of Purgatory

  • Thread starter Thread starter belgianwaffles9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

belgianwaffles9

Guest
I just read an intro to a funeral sermon by an orthodox bishop who used the occasion to slam black vestments and Latin teachings on purgatory. So it got me wondering; i have a vague understanding about the differences between Orthodox and Catholic views of heaven/purgatory/hell. But i’d like to know more about what the Orthodox believe, and why they believe we are wrong? Furthermore, how do the Eastern Catholic churches reconcile the two different beliefs?

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but hopefully someone can provide a conside answer without me having to read through ten pages of bickering on another thread.
  • pax christi
 
I just read an intro to a funeral sermon by an orthodox bishop who used the occasion to slam black vestments and Latin teachings on purgatory.
Hmmm. My own Orthodox bishop wears black vestments at funerals. And I don’t quite understand how black vestments = purgatory. Anyways …

As to Eastern Orthodox teachings on purgatory and the intermediate state, in my experience it’s a bit difficult to identify anything like a uniform Orthodox teaching on the subject.

Some accounts can sound very much like the basic Catholic account (sans the vivid imagery one sometimes finds in popular Roman Catholic devotion); other accounts sound a bit like the doctrine of “soul sleep”; some (like Russian Orthodox Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev of Vienna) have suggested that hell is really a sort of purgatory; and, of course, many Orthodox prefer to remain quite agnostic about the intermediate state.

I have heard all of these things in my time as an Orthodox Christian. The safe thing to say would be that the Orthodox don’t have an official teaching on the topic.

IIRC, the only problem the Greeks at the Council of Florence had with Purgatory was the imagery of the purifying fire. They wanted to make sure that the Latins did not believe in a literal, material fire; and the Latins assured them that they did not. Presumably, then, the Greeks didn’t have a problem with the basic idea of a postmortem purification of souls, which is all the Catholic Church has ever defined with respect to Purgatory – only that there is one, and those who are undergoing purification can be helped by the prayers, sacrifices, and alms of the faithful.
 
Hormisdas made an excellent response, and I can’t think of anything I would change about it.

All I can add is that the Byzantine “memorial service”, prayed in memory of the departed, is about a) remembering the Resurrection, and b) asking God to forgive the errors of the departed and bring them into the dwelling place of the Saints, in the presence of God.

If we are asking God to forgive and bring the departed to Himself, we are implicitely recognizing that there is SOME cleansing after death, and that our prayers and good works offered in the person’s name certainly benefits them. That is the conciliar definition of Purgatory (the popular Latin imagery, which relates different views on HOW the person is cleansed and grows past their sinful limitations, is not a part of Latin doctrine), so in my opinion, as someone who has attended more Melkite (Byzantine) memorials than I can count, the Byzantine tradition is right in step with the Catholic Church as regards Purgatory.

In fact, if anything the Byzantine tradition (Eastern Orthodox included) does more concious and directed work for those in Purgatory than any other tradition; prayer and alms/good-works for the benediction of the dead is an almost-constant. At least that’s been my experience so far in the Melkite Church.

That being said, I must emphasize, along with Hormisdas, that there is a certain agnosticism about what happens to the dead. We pray for them because we know it can aid them, not because we know exactly what it aids them “against” (and really, how CAN we know what Purgatory really is like, seeing as it’s totally removed from anything we can experience here on Earth).

Peace and God bless!
 
Hay belgianwaffles9,

In regards to Dogma, the Roman Catholic Purgatory only really defines 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Orthodox agree with the Roman Catholics on these 2 points. There is no disagreement thus far.

But, Orthodox Christians almost unanimously reject any idea of “real” purgatorial fire, an idea which is only theological oppinion in the Roman Catholic Church.

I personally choose agnosticism in regards to this “middle state” which most Orthodox call “the final theosis” since this state is one which we transform into gods by God’s grace. Either way, this is not a topic which the EOC has any dogma, but only theological oppinions [it is not considered a topic which will affect a person’s salvation either way eg. If purgatory does exist, I will go there regardless of whether I believe in it or not].

On the other hand, I do not believe purgatory is found in the scriptures and I vehemently object to reading purgatory into the scriptures. St Paul did not teach purgatory, Pope Gregory the Great was the first to teach purgatory (and even Pope Gregory’s doctrine of purgatory was quite vague compared to today’s developed doctrine and probably would be quite acceptable to most Orthodox I think).

If a Catholic wishes to believe in purgatory, that is quite acceptable, but I do not think the nitty gritty of purgatory should be taught as though it was the direct teaching of St Paul - it most certainly is not.

Pope Shenouda wrote a wonderful book showing how the purgatory is not based on the scriptures which is summerised on this website:

suscopts.org/literature/literature.php?subaction=showfull&id=1084916893&archive=&start_from=&ucat=3&

Here is a FAQ written by a byzantine Catholic on Purgatory:

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

God bless. I hope this helps.
 
Grace and Peace,

I’m not sure that Roman Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory is compatible with the consensual patristic teaching. 🤷
 
Care to elaborate?
It’s simply not present in the consensual patristic teaching. Since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has moved away from a detailed definition of their doctrines but their historical theological teachings and practices concerning ‘indulgences’ and ‘Purgatory’ detailed an incompatible theology with the consensual patristic teaching.
 
It’s simply not present in the consensual patristic teaching. Since Vatican II the Roman Catholic Church has moved away from a detailed definition of their doctrines but their historical theological teachings and practices concerning ‘indulgences’ and ‘Purgatory’ detailed an incompatible theology with the consensual patristic teaching.
Explain, please. You’ve said the same thing over and over again; maybe next time, you’ll actually include patristic texts as proof, instead of nonsensical snippets of your personal opinions.
 
Explain, please. You’ve said the same thing over and over again; maybe next time, you’ll actually include patristic texts as proof, instead of nonsensical snippets of your personal opinions.
I think that is the whole point… there is no ‘proof’ because there simply was no Middle-Place called Purgatory in the consensual teaching of the Church. One cannot prove something never existed with evidence because it’s the lack of evidence which proves it never existed in the first place. There is no Purgatory as the Roman Catholic Church has elaborated over the last one thousand years… it doesn’t exist which is way, I believe, Vatican II made their doctrines more squishy. Why do you think they did that?
 
I think that is the whole point… there is no ‘proof’ because there simply was no Middle-Place called Purgatory in the consensual teaching of the Church. One cannot prove something never existed with evidence because it’s the lack of evidence which proves it never existed in the first place. There is no Purgatory as the Roman Catholic Church has elaborated over the last one thousand years… it doesn’t exist which is way, I believe, Vatican II made their doctrines more squishy. Why do you think they did that?
I don’t think the Holy Catholic Church has ever said that Purgatory was a “middle-place.” From what I have read and understand on it, it’s a state of purgation, purification if you will.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew
 
Sorry, Chrisb, this is mere assertion, not argument. You’re going to have to elaborate the reasons behind your assertion, that is, how you’ve come to your conclusion.

I could assert, as some people do, that the doctrine of the Trinity simply is not present in the Bible. More specifically, that would mean that I disagree with the Trinitarian interpretation of certain classic passages. It would not be unreasonable for you to ask me to explain and elaborate my reasons for rejecting the Trinitarian interpretation of these passages.

Likewise, Catholics have certain classic scriptural and patristic passages that they use to explain their belief in Purgatory. I assume that you’ve made a study of these Catholic interpretations, and you’ve come to a reasoned conclusion that they are wrong. I’m simply interested in how exactly you’ve come to that conclusion. Is it unreasonable to ask you to explain why you disagree with the Catholic interpretation of the scriptural and patristic data?
 
I think that is the whole point… there is no ‘proof’ because there simply was no Middle-Place called Purgatory in the consensual teaching of the Church. One cannot prove something never existed with evidence because it’s the lack of evidence which proves it never existed in the first place. There is no Purgatory as the Roman Catholic Church has elaborated over the last one thousand years… it doesn’t exist which is way, I believe, Vatican II made their doctrines more squishy. Why do you think they did that?
Why do I think they did that? You could read a bit of what I’ve written in other threads to know my feelings towards Vatican II. But those feelings are immaterial to this discussion. What is important is that the Church has always and everywhere believed in a final stage of purification before entering into Heaven.

Your writings lead me to believe that you are denying such a process of purification. As others before you in this thread have said, it doesnt matter what you call it. The Latin word is ‘purgatory,’ and Easterns can call it whatever they like. But the Church has always and everywhere believed in its existence.

Since you STILL refuse to actually provide any patristic texts, i can come to no other conclusion that you are either (a) ignorant or (b) malicious and purposefully lying.

Here, I’ll quote some patristic texts for you:

Tertullian

“We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries [the date of death—birth into eternal life]” (The Crown 3:3 [A.D. 211]).

“A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the sacrifice” (Monogamy 10:1–2 [A.D. 216]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

“Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep, for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn sacrifice is laid out” (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).

Gregory of Nyssa

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

John Chrysostom

“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], 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” (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf” (Homilies on Philippians 3:9–10 [A.D. 402]).

Augustine

“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).

“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).

“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).
 
I think that is the whole point… there is no ‘proof’ because there simply was no Middle-Place called Purgatory in the consensual teaching of the Church. One cannot prove something never existed with evidence because it’s the lack of evidence which proves it never existed in the first place. There is no Purgatory as the Roman Catholic Church has elaborated over the last one thousand years… it doesn’t exist which is way, I believe, Vatican II made their doctrines more squishy. Why do you think they did that?
The Fathers all taught that almsgiving and prayers benefitted and comforted the dead, and that their sins are ameliorated by such actions. The Byzantine Liturgy certainly reflects this as well.

The definition of Purgatory is merely that there is a purification after death, and our goodworks can be dedicated on behalf of the dead. That is not only Patristic, it’s found in every Apostolic tradition. I’d be very impressed if you can somehow prove that the Fathers, East and West, did NOT teach to pray for the dead that their sins be forgiven and that they may enter the dwelling place of the Saints; if you DO prove it, you’ve proven that the Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine-rite Catholics are wrong as well. 🤷

Peace and God bless!
 
which is all the Catholic Church has ever defined with respect to Purgatory – only that there is one, and those who are undergoing purification can be helped by the prayers, sacrifices, and alms of the faithful.

**FWIW, the Orthodox teaching of the toll houses (very controversial, btw) says that the sould of the faithful departed are aided by prayers, sacrifices (especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice), and alms and other good works done in their name and memory.

Could it be that purgatory and toll houses are expressing the same truth under different images?**
 
which is all the Catholic Church has ever defined with respect to Purgatory – only that there is one, and those who are undergoing purification can be helped by the prayers, sacrifices, and alms of the faithful.

FWIW, the Orthodox teaching of the toll houses (very controversial, btw) says that the sould of the faithful departed are aided by prayers, sacrifices (especially the Eucharistic Sacrifice), and alms and other good works done in their name and memory.

Could it be that purgatory and toll houses are expressing the same truth under different images?
I think so, though I would hasten to add that Toll-Houses are more akin to the colorful depictions of fire and post-mortum penances found in some Western literature (such as Dante’s Purgatorio). Purgatory, as defined, is a very ambiguous doctrine, and is only a codification of the actions all Apostolic Christians do for the departed.

As a side note, the Eastern Orthodox did sell indulgences for some time (after the sale of indulgences was banned in the Catholic Church), so there is more of a connection than many people realize with all the modern polemics.

That being said, I’m not sure if the indulgences applied to those who died; most of them apparently were sales of forgiveness of sins outside of the Sacrament of Penance, something quite different from the Latin practice, and highly problematic from a Latin perspective.

Peace and God bless!
 
Grace and Peace,

If you look at Purgatory in it’s Pre-Vatican II Dogma, you would see that it isn’t simply an ‘act of purgation’ but that the cleansing fire (purgatorium) is a place and state of temporal penal purification.

What does the actual ‘dogma’ say… The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory. (de fide.)

The Classic Roman Catholic teaching of Purgatory was that it was a place and a state to exact atonement for one’s sins. At least, that was the teaching Pre-Vatican II. Now, Post-Vatican II, we are hearing a very different teaching. Why the change?

Classic Roman Catholic teaching was ‘all about satisfaction’ that is not the Consensual Patristic Teaching which appears to be ‘all about repentance’ but not as a means of establishing atonement (i.e. satisfaction) but purification (i.e. therapeutic).

Purgatory assumes venial sins and/or temporal punishment due to sin. Neither of these are particularly consensual patristic teaching.

St. Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each responded to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence and refuted the Latin distinction between ‘purgatorial fire’ and ‘eternal fire’ as well as the conflating of punishment and mercy present in the Doctrine of Purgation by the Latin Church.
 
As a side note, the Eastern Orthodox did sell indulgences for some time (after the sale of indulgences was banned in the Catholic Church), so there is more of a connection than many people realize with all the modern polemics.

**The only two places I’ve seen this notion is here in your posting and on Wikipedia.

I’ve never heard of such a thing from an Orthodox source or context.**
 
As a side note, the Eastern Orthodox did sell indulgences for some time (after the sale of indulgences was banned in the Catholic Church), so there is more of a connection than many people realize with all the modern polemics.

**The only two places I’ve seen this notion is here in your posting and on Wikipedia.

I’ve never heard of such a thing from an Orthodox source or context.**
Bpbasilpx,

See here for the historical background (with, of course, modern Orthodox interpretation of the phenomenon):

pravoslavie.ru/enarticles/041125153738

And here for a picture of an actual 18th century Orthodox indulgence document:

hrm.ductape.net/blog/index.php?/archives/68-Indulgences.html

Speaking of the excellent (though currently inactive) blog “The Anastasis Dialogue”, it has some interesting posts on Purgatory and Indulgences from a Greek Catholic perspective:

hrm.ductape.net/blog/index.php?/archives/56-Spe-Salvi,-Involuntary-Sin-and-Purgatory.html

hrm.ductape.net/blog/index.php?/archives/67-Purgatory-and-Purgation,-again.html

hrm.ductape.net/blog/index.php?/archives/69-Indulgences,-part-2.html
 
What does the actual ‘dogma’ say… The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory. (de fide.)
What’s the source of this?

The Catholic Encyclopedia states that the Catholic Church’s dogmatic definition of purgatory does not officially go further than what was defined at Florence and Trent. Trent said:

“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).

There are two essential parts of this definition:

(1) That there is a purgatory; and

(2) That the souls there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and by the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

That’s it, and all of it. That’s all a Catholic is absolutely required to believe with respect to purgatory.

As far as I am able to discern, any further language represents theological explanation and elaboration in the Latin Christian theological tradition (from the Latin Fathers and scholastic theologians). You may or may not find that sort of language or understanding among Eastern Catholics. The Union of Brest specifically stated that Greek Catholics are not required to believe all of the Latin theological or devotional elaborations (theologoumena) on purgatory.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has only three paragraphs on purgatory (and note that lack of specific reference to the language that bothers you):

(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. 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 (St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31).

(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.” [2 Macc 12:46]. 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. [Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856]. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

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. [St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. Job 1:5].
 
What’s the source of this?
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott

I’d recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years.

Now you and others may argue that this ‘piece’ of Classic Theology wasn’t ‘infallibly’ spoken or was only tradition with a small “t”. For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce. It’s rationalizing how we ‘change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church’ without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church… and that is weak in my opinion.

For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a ‘place and state’ and that Limbo was a ‘place and state’ but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions. I ask, what happened to ‘truth’? I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn’t because this or that wasn’t spoken infallibly or was actually never ‘really’ part of Tradition but only tradition with a small “t”. I simply can’t believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into… the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Be clear Eastern Orthodoxy has a teaching concerning prayers for the dead. Using texts to support this doesn’t necessary argue for Purgatory as I’ve stated Purgatory is or at least was a very narrowly defined Dogma in Catholicism. Prayer for the dead doesn’t argue for Purgatory (i.e. purgatorial fire).

I could give you a link of an Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory… if you’re interested? It deals with the actual definition of the doctrine as it was defined at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top