Eastern view of Purgatory

[Fuerza]

Does this mean that after death, a soul goes for a “foretaste”, and then, from that single place/state, it may go either to Eternal Bliss, or Eternal Damnation?

Just to be clear, it’s not necessarily either place. The Orthodox believe that the souls in “heaven” will all ultimately be saved. The souls in “hell” however could technically go either way before the final judgement, as some of these souls will be saved by the prayers of the righteous on earth (we Catholics would say that this latter group is in fact in purgatory, but the Orthodox don’t like it when we point this out ).

Catholics also believe a type of intermediate state before the final judgement, but we think about it in different terms. In Catholicism, the state of the soul without the body can be seen as a kind of middle state or “foretaste”, since any rewards or punishments are only spiritual at this point and therefore incomplete. Only after the resurrection of the body will we receive our final reward or punishment, since then the effects will be both spiritual and physical.

 

[Fuerza]

Yes, that is a popular school of thought. I believe it is strictly spoken of as a “state” and never as a “place”. Orthodoxy speaks in terms of states in the afterlife - never places - Even heaven and hell are referred to as states.

Generally it is believed the saved recieve a foretaste of Joy, while the damned recieve a foretaste of damnation ie. until the Lord’s Day when all will be revealed and the state of the soul is eternally set.

As for the second paragraph, that seems a little odd to me. I’ve never seen the word “mortal sin” used in an Orthodox context before and also the translation seems very bad, so I think it would be fitting to read the original Greek to understand what the 2nd paragraph is talking about.

To be honest, in modern books which contrast Orthodoxy with Roman Catholicism, I havent really seen Purgatory directly as an issue brought up. It is only usually brought up as showing how one false doctrine (ie Original Sin) can lead to multiple other false doctrines (theological oppinions or dogmas) out of necessity (ie. Purgatory, Indulgances, Immaculate Conception, etc…).

Let us remember what the Treaty of Brest had in mind for the Unia “Let us no longer discuss the specifics of Purgatory”.

God bless.

The document also presents a very Catholic understanding of Original Sin by the way. With reagrd to the Treaty of Brest, you are correct. It said not to debate about the ***specifics ***of purgatory. The core doctrine, however (that there is a transitional state which some souls must undergo en route to heaven, and that prayers for souls in such a state are beneficial) is not optional.

As for indulgences, it was the sale of them that constituted an abuse, not the concept itself. The concept is that prayers and almsgiving can be offered for the dead. The almsgiving portion, however, got out of control and turned into the selling of “spiritual welfare”. This was and has always been contrary to Catholic teaching. The sinfulness of those involved does not negate the basic concept.

Also, while I’m at it, both purgatory and the Immaculate Conception were at least at one time considered possible theological opinions in the east. Where were they formally condemened as heresy? How can something be a valid opinion for the EO but heresy for the Catholic Church?

 

[Fuerza]

I guess the Orthodox really don’t give much weight to the Synod of Jerusalem,

The Synod of Jerusalem was a LOCAL council, not an Ecumenical one, and Orthodoxy has always been selective in how and how much of a LOCAL council is to be received.

While I fully understand that local councils are not held to be infallible, I don’t get why one which taught supposedly “heretical” teachings by today’s EO standards has not been condemned.

 

[chrisb]

Dear brother ematouk,

Since Orthodox believe that even those experiencing the foretaste of hell have a chance of entering heaven
…
Well. I think you can see how easy it is for Latins to think that there is no qualitative difference between their belief in Purgatory and the Orthodox belief.

Peace mardukm,

The Latin Fathers have made an unnecessary and frankly false distinction between the cleansing fires and punitive fires. In doing so that have elaborated where there was no elaboration and thus departed from the deposit of the Faith of the East and the West. In doing so, they have created division among us where done was necessary. Vatican II was an attempt to move away from this innovations but the Western Church is doing it under subterfuge… hiding from the fact of their previous errors. They should be more honest and return to the Holy Orthodox and Catholic Faith of the consensual teachings of the Fathers.

 

[chrisb]

Also, while I’m at it, both purgatory and the Immaculate Conception were at least at one time considered possible theological opinions in the east. Where were they formally condemened as heresy? How can something be a valid opinion for the EO but heresy for the Catholic Church?

It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned. They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition). The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.

 

[Mickey]

It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned. They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition). The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.

Correct. Why would the Holy Orthodox Church condemn something that they have never recogonized as dogma and was adopted by the the West only?

 

[DL82]

“Originally Posted by chrisb
It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned. They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition). The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.”

But not all of the Fathers taught the core doctrines of the Christian faith by consensus, Origen believed in the pre-existence of the human soul, for example, and Justin Martyr denied the equality of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

Yet, as time goes on, the Holy Spirit moves in the Church to lead it into a fuller understanding of the truth, as Christ promised He would teach us all things. So some opinions are rightly elevated to doctrines, and others are rightly declared heretical.

That’s my (western) understanding of it, anyway.

 

[chrisb]

“Originally Posted by chrisb
It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned. They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition). The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.”

But not all of the Fathers taught the core doctrines of the Christian faith by consensus, Origen believed in the pre-existence of the human soul, for example, and Justin Martyr denied the equality of the three persons of the Holy Trinity.

Yet, as time goes on, the Holy Spirit moves in the Church to lead it into a fuller understanding of the truth, as Christ promised He would teach us all things. So some opinions are rightly elevated to doctrines, and others are rightly declared heretical.

That’s my (western) understanding of it, anyway.

Then such things would not be ‘consensual’ teachings of the Fathers now would they?

Such things must be studied with the Councils for their orthodoxy and if found to be not consensual but not against the Councils then it is left as opinion.

 

[belgianwaffles9]

It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned. They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition). The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.

You just won the Wrongness Contest!

 

[tdgesq]

Then such things would not be ‘consensual’ teachings of the Fathers now would they?

Such things must be studied with the Councils for their orthodoxy and if found to be not consensual but not against the Councils then it is left as opinion.

The fact remains, the Synod of Jerusalem, local council though it may be, taught the particulars of the final things. It does not have the force of an ecumenical council obviously. Was it wrong for the synod to teach what is merely a theological “opinion” to the faithful? And if not, why is it that the RCC should be excoriated for doing the same?

It departs from the consensual teaching of the Fathers when one elevates an opinion ‘as’ dogma. This is the grave error of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the teachings you have mentioned.

The dogmatic expressions of the RCC are limited on the issue of Purgatory, which has already been pointed out to you. If theological deductions and opinions are taught according to our tradition to the faithful, then how is this any worse than what the Jerusalem Synod did? I don’t think what it did was wrong at all. In fact, I don’t have any disagreement with its content related to the final things.

They are ‘not’ dogma, that is the whole problem. The West has elevated mere ‘opinions’ as being ‘part’ of Holy Orthodoxy. This can not be allowed to stand. It must be undone for the sake of Holy Orthodoxy (i.e. Holy Tradition).

You were invited to present the dogmatic statements of the Church on Purgatory rather than the compiled works of Ott. You didn’t rise to the challenge. If what you are claiming is that the RCC teaches things that are not specifically taught in ecumenical councils, then that is of course true. So do the Orthodox. The Jerusalem Synod being a prime example.

The West must return to the consensual teachings of the Fathers and put aside this ‘opinions’ as 'sacred dogmas). This is the whole point.

Could you please tell us then what the consensual teaching is of the Fathers on the afterlife and Hades? Apparently it isn’t what the Council of Jerusalem taught. I’d like to know exactly what teaching it would be that the RCC needs to return to.

 

[quadphone]

I have understood that one makes an ongoing journey closer and closer to God. It has been my understanding that this journey that this journey is for eternity.

The term “purgatory” does not exist in Byzantine theology.

I have been told that St. Maximos the Confessor talks about this; someone please correct if I’m wrong.

God bless you all.

 

[Badaliyyah]

I have understood that one makes an ongoing journey closer and closer to God. It has been my understanding that this journey that this journey is for eternity.

Nyssa certainly says something very similar.

salaam.

 

[chrisb]

I have understood that one makes an ongoing journey closer and closer to God. It has been my understanding that this journey that this journey is for eternity.

The term “purgatory” does not exist in Byzantine theology.

I have been told that St. Maximos the Confessor talks about this; someone please correct if I’m wrong.

God bless you all.

Grace and Peace,

There is no satisfaction necessarily toward the merciful. Purgatory doesn’t exist in the consensual teachings of the Fathers because they did not have a distinction between the a cleansing and a punitive fire as was developed in the West.

 

[Ghosty]

Grace and Peace,

There is no satisfaction necessarily toward the merciful. Purgatory doesn’t exist in the consensual teachings of the Fathers because they did not have a distinction between the a cleansing and a punitive fire as was developed in the West.

There’s no traditional distinction in the West, either, except that the destination of those being cleansed is ultimately union with God, while the eternally damned are not being cleansed, but are merely suffering.

Traditionally, Purgatory was understood as “Hell”, and was referred to as such in official documents like the Catechism of Trent. The only way they can be regarded as “different places” is due to the distinction of the ends of the individual souls involved.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I have understood that one makes an ongoing journey closer and closer to God. It has been my understanding that this journey that this journey is for eternity.

The only problem I have with this definition is that it makes eternity into a temporal measure, which seems contrary to its actual meaning (no-time). If eternity “goes on forever”, then it’s not truly outside of time, but just the endless measure of time. This seems to contradict the traditional meaning and use of the term, and it also means that there was a measure of time that God existed “before” He made the world, which raises a whole host of theological problems (such as the fact that you can’t have a moment that comes after another without ultimately having a “first moment”, since every moment follows on a previous one; this would mean that God “had to start sometime”, or else He never would have existed at all).

In short, if there is a “before” and “after” in eternity, then by definition it’s not actually eternity. If there is a moment when you can say “I’m closer to God now than I was before”, you’re not in eternity.

The reference to St. Maximos the Confessor supporting the notion of Purgatory is likely this one:

“This purification does not concern those who have arrived at a perfect love of God, but those who have not reached complete perfection, and whose virtues are mixed in with sins. These latter will appear before the tribunal of judgment, and, following an examination of their good and evil actions, they will be tried as by fire; their bad works will be expiated by a just fear and pain” (Questions and Doubts on The Church, the Liturgy, and the Soul of Man, question 10; A.D. 649).

There may be more quotes from him, or this one might be spurious or out-of-context; I’ve not read this quote firsthand in the original source, but only seen it in apologetics on the topic.

Taken as-is, though, it’s a pretty obvious reference to Purgation, and even to the passage from St. Paul about our works being tested by fire that Latins often use (and Byzantines often criticize as a misrepresentation of Scripture).

Incidently, I’ve heard that St. Basil’s homilies on Isaiah also contain some pretty explicit references to cleansing fire as a kind of penance or medicinal punishment for those who are Saved".

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ora_et_Labora_1]

So, just to get this straight: apart from particulars, Catholics and Orthodox fundamentally hold the same view - that some sort of preparation/cleasing/whatever happens after one dies. Is this correct?

 

[theistgal]

So, just to get this straight: apart from particulars, Catholics and Orthodox fundamentally hold the same view - that some sort of preparation/cleasing/whatever happens after one dies. Is this correct?

Some Anglicans believe that as well (C.S. Lewis certainly did).

Of course, when it comes to theology, the devil is in the details!

 

[Volodymyr]

T
Traditionally, Purgatory was understood as “Hell”, and was referred to as such in official documents like the Catechism of Trent. The only way they can be regarded as “different places” is due to the distinction of the ends of the individual souls involved.

Peace and God bless!

Most Respected Ghosty:

This is very interesting. Orthodox believe that Christ is Lord of Hell and can at his will save souls there. I have been told Catolics had to believe in Purgatoire because they believe Hell is in control only of Satana and those there cannot possibly obey to Christ. This I was told because they view Hell now to be only as it was before Christ conquered it - as an inescapable place. But why, friend Ghosty, does Catolic church create a place - why did church change from simply Hell to creating a place or state or whatever?? All of such quotes by Church Fathers would be very interesting perhaps to Protestants who do not believe in praying for dead to help them - but for Orthodox - these do not support idea of Purgatoire - only of Praying for Dead which we already do.

 

[Aramis]

Volodomyr:

It’s a terminology difference. The RO concept of Hell includes both the Catholic Hell (the place of eternal punishment for those who are incapable of turning themselves to ask for Christ’s mercy) and Purgatory (the place of continuing theosis after death outside of heaven; inside heaven one continues theosis, but one must be sufficiently along to be admitted to heaven).

The Dogmatic definition for purgatory is pretty vague… a place or state outside of heaven where one is not yet condemned to eternal damnation, where a process of purgation of ones sins continues.

Christ himself points out that not all will be admitted to heaven. Not that he couldn’t save them all, but that not all will chose to be saved. Christ requires humans to CHOOSE salvation.

Those who make the choice for eternal damnation are in hell. No Question (except who they are). But those who have died and are not yet in heaven, are they in hell? Roman theology says “We don’t know, but we know that not all are condemned at the initial judgement at the moment of their death, and not all who are not condemned are immediately admitted to heaven;” that state or place where they exist is purgatory.

 

[Volodymyr]

Roman theology says "We don’t know, …

But why my friend mousquetaire Alaskian why did you not stop with that - we don’t know.

This is unclear to me why Roman Catolics always must not accept lack of understanding - why cannot accept that all is not known to believers. Instead - make up places, rules and dogmas so can tell world that everything know and understand. This is odd form of intellectual pride. This kind scholasticism so much revered by Catolics but only in many cases only pompous “definitions” which make them happy - at least this is how I see this tendency of Roman Catolics to always have to have complete explanation - even if requires making things up.