Examining Orthodox Theology

[GaryTaylor]

I’m glad you enjoy the Eastern music, Gary; but I suspect that many of your fellow Catholics will insist that this Orthodox understanding of the possibility of post-mortem interior change is contrary to the authoritative teaching of the Latin Church, as witnessed by the passage you cite from Garrigou-Lagrange and the article on the particular judgment in the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there is an irreversible particular judgment,and if we knew that a particular person was damned (which we cannot know, of course, apart from special revelation), then it makes no sense to pray for the damned. Prayers are beneficial only for those who have been judged as saved and are in the process of purgation. At least that is how I understand Latin doctrine. Am I wrong?

No its a give and take combination.

We pray for the departed, we have no way of knowing who is in hell etc. While certain indications of a Soul certainly give us glimpse, we can not know for certain.

So no the East is not contrary, though there are points which are rough. “Merit” for example always comes up without explicit definition which you caught. In fact I was just talking about that on another thread. So language/terminology are an obstacle also. Marybeloved tuned into the CCC which I keep on hand, however, by the CCC we have to revert to the footnotes for more in-depth reading, not difficult, just more research.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CFUQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicnewsagency.com%2Fresource.php%3Fn%3D474&ei=40YmUMC3MLC26QGEroCIDg&usg=AFQjCNFtwj9Pty24tgU74vY51Gl527i5yQ&sig2=4qz3MyDRYzxr9tAT7OoYlw

Heres a better perspective on hell which the church does not in particular state anyone specific is in hell. So in this sense we are praying for the departed and not only the faithful departed. I agree we do not know for certain nor can the Church’s claim to.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CEkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rosarychurch.net%2Fanswers%2Fqa101998b.html&ei=JEomUICPAaiW6wHo5YDwBA&usg=AFQjCNF3h6lxoP0HENuFIQdB2_y_h0fk6g&sig2=cYjUugLczFd7lMBSHyxqOw

The Church professes her faith in the Athanasian Creed: “They that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire”

The Church has repeatedly defined this truth, e.g. in the profession of faith made in the Second Council of Lyons (Denx., n. 464) and in the Decree of Union in the Council of Florence (Denz., N. 693): “the souls of those who depart in mortal sin, or only in original sin, go down immediately into hell, to be visited, however, with unequal punishments” (poenis disparibus). This would be from the Doctrine of hell which is continued from Particular Judgement. Its here…

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CE4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fcathen%2F07207a.htm&ei=Pk8mUM3cBajF6wGcroHoDQ&usg=AFQjCNELLm-QAnp220tEFbkOICJQ-e2ijw&sig2=RiAVRuY3XdBURJarhta3sQ

Also at the end of that link note- Eternity of hell, which has been greatly debated by the Churchs and became the main issue of Origen.

Here’s Father Hardin which you’ll note the Latin Catholic Church ammends at Florence to the East.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CF4QFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Farchives%2FEschatology%2FEschatology_006.htm&ei=C1MmUP6cE-SE0QG4kYCIDw&usg=AFQjCNGAdLMg78gsZyKSFQDwEQXqHCZR-Q&sig2=YE6N1275v4d_g4-AVaSFKA

I see the debate East/West more vivid in the Beatific Vision. Yet we have to admit that here we are speaking of a reality which we only have indications of through the Spiritual/Mystics and the Apostles, such as Paul with his Vision and taken to the 3rd Heaven. The aspect of hell and prayers I’m not sure I’m clearly understanding you. Are we of different opinions on this point…(your post)

“Is it at all possible that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death? It is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. It may, however, be possible for one to repent through a “change of heart,” a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as [he] found himself in hell. Indeed, in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, but once in hell he realized that God was his only hope for salvation. Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the church. Thus existence after death has its own dynamics. … On the basis of what ha been said above, it may be said that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather a continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his or her lifetime.” (Christ the Conqueror of Hell, pp. 216-217)

I’m understanding the above yet I’m not seeing it connect to scripture content. For example here is Luke.

22 Now it happened that the poor man died and was carried away by the angels into Abraham’s embrace. The rich man also died and was buried.

23 'In his torment in Hades he looked up and saw Abraham a long way off with Lazarus in his embrace.

24 So he cried out, “Father Abraham, pity me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in agony in these flames.”

25 Abraham said, "My son, remember that during your life you had your fill of good things, just as Lazarus his fill of bad. Now he is being comforted here while you are in agony.

26 But that is not all: between us and you a great gulf has been fixed, to prevent those who want to cross from our side to yours or from your side to ours."

27 'So he said, "Father, I beg you then to send Lazarus to my father’s house,

28 since I have five brothers, to give them warning so that they do not come to this place of torment too."

29 Abraham said, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them listen to them.”

30 The rich man replied, “Ah no, father Abraham, but if someone comes to them from the dead, they will repent.”

 

[GaryTaylor]

It is important to note that East and West are not merely the same things said in a different way. It is not like one sentense said in English and the other in Chinese. You have to take into account the cultural background of the English or Americans into context of their culture and the nuances of the language. For example in the Philippines a formal pleasantry is that when someone walks into a room and another person is eating (someone you know, not a stranger, so you won’t see this in restaurants) the person eating invites the other person to share the meal. And the polite response is to say “no”. In Western culture is doesn’t make sense but that is how it is.

The same way with the faith. Theology is built up on a lot of things, culture, philosophy, language, etc. How the Eastern faith developed is completely different from how the West developed from its very core. The understanding of sin itself is different, and thus everything else follows from that. That is why in the West it was necessary to define the Immaculate Conception because of how the West understands sin. And in the East it doesn’t make sense, again because of how sin is understood. And that extends to everything else, salvation, why did Jesus become man, how did his death on the cross saved us, etc.

The East / West is compatible with St.Athanasius and St Augustine on sin. Nevertheless I agree we are talking different language with Greek/Latin and then terminology, and culture. Even as we’re talking on the other thread Essence/Energies and [St] Gregory [in the Eastern Church]. We have to first understand with East/West Catholics in Communion with Rome, this isn’t of issue with Pope Benedict. Certainly he is fully aware of it, and while I would hesitate to speak for him, yet it seems to me he has no issue in any of this. Though I find the above conversation new and of interest to me.

 

[FrKimel]

No its a give and take combination.

“Is it at all possible that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death? It is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. It may, however, be possible for one to repent through a “change of heart,” a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as [he] found himself in hell. Indeed, in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, but once in hell he realized that God was his only hope for salvation. Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the church. Thus existence after death has its own dynamics. … On the basis of what ha been said above, it may be said that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather a continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his or her lifetime.” (Christ the Conqueror of Hell, pp. 216-217)

I’m understanding the above yet I’m not seeing it connect to scripture content.

I suspect that Met Hilarion would reply that Scripture is to be interpreted through the liturgical practice of the Church. And let’s not forget the many stories from 1st millennium Christianity where the saints prayed sinners and pagans out to Hell. The pagan Emperor Trajan was allegedly saved by the prayers of Pope Gregory the Great.

At a practical level, the difference between the Catholic view (we pray for all the departed because we do not know who is damned and who is not) and the Orthodox view (we pray for all the departed because interior conversion remains possible for all until the Final Judgment) amounts to hardly any difference at all. We both pray for the departed. But the difference perhaps becomes clearer when we address the question of universal salvation. Though there are many Orthodox who believe, just as most Latins do, that Hell will indeed be populated by at least one human being (many? most?), there remains within Orthodoxy the vital conviction that all will be saved by the grace and mercy of God. This hope, so clearly articulated by Origen, was advanced by two great saints of the Church, St Gregory Nyssen and St Isaac of Syria, and is represented in modern Orthodoxy by Met Kallistos Ware, Met Hilarion Alfeyev, and Sergius Bulgakov. Despite what individual Orthodox believers may think, the simple fact is that the universalist hope espoused by these individuals have never been formally condemned by the Orthodox Church. St Isaac the Syrian in particular is revered throughout the Orthodox world.

The hope for universal salvation is found, in a mitigated form, in the Catholic Church. I’m thinking here of Hans Urs von Balthasar in particular. But the Latin doctrine of the particular judgment makes it more to believe and confess this hope. If one’s eternal destiny is established by the decisions made in this life, how can we truly hope for the salvation of those individuals who have lived lives of sin, violence, iniquity, and disbelief? Compare the universal hope of von Balthasar with the almost universal hope articulated by Pope Benedict in Spe salvi. The theology of Pope Benedict was profoundly influenced by Balthasar, but he does not speak of a universalist hope. He is confident that some human beings are and will be damned. If this is what one believes, how can one reasonably and authentically pray for the salvation of all?

 

[Marybeloved]

I suspect that Met Hilarion would reply that Scripture is to be interpreted through the liturgical practice of the Church. And let’s not forget the many stories from 1st millennium Christianity where the saints prayed sinners and pagans out to Hell. The pagan Emperor Trajan was allegedly saved by the prayers of Pope Gregory the Great.

At a practical level, the difference between the Catholic view (we pray for all the departed because we do not know who is damned and who is not) and the Orthodox view (we pray for all the departed because interior conversion remains possible for all until the Final Judgment) amounts to hardly any difference at all. We both pray for the departed. But the difference perhaps becomes clearer when we address the question of universal salvation. Though there are many Orthodox who believe, just as most Latins do, that Hell will indeed be populated by at least one human being (many? most?), there remains within Orthodoxy the vital conviction that all will be saved by the grace and mercy of God. This hope, so clearly articulated by Origen, was advanced by two great saints of the Church, St Gregory Nyssen and St Isaac of Syria, and is represented in modern Orthodoxy by Met Kallistos Ware, Met Hilarion Alfeyev, and Sergius Bulgakov. Despite what individual Orthodox believers may think, the simple fact is that the universalist hope espoused by these individuals have never been formally condemned by the Orthodox Church. St Isaac the Syrian in particular is revered throughout the Orthodox world.

The hope for universal salvation is found, in a mitigated form, in the Catholic Church. I’m thinking here of Hans Urs von Balthasar in particular. But the Latin doctrine of the particular judgment makes it more to believe and confess this hope. If one’s eternal destiny is established by the decisions made in this life, how can we truly hope for the salvation of those individuals who have lived lives of sin, violence, iniquity, and disbelief? Compare the universal hope of von Balthasar with the almost universal hope articulated by Pope Benedict in Spe salvi. The theology of Pope Benedict was profoundly influenced by Balthasar, but he does not speak of a universalist hope. He is confident that some human beings are and will be damned. If this is what one believes, how can one reasonably and authentically pray for the salvation of all?

I think I believe in this hope too. That it’s entirely possible that all will be saved. I think the way to reconcile this in latin thought is the grace of the last moment where even the worst sinner can be converted in dying.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I suspect that Met Hilarion would reply that Scripture is to be interpreted through the liturgical practice of the Church. And let’s not forget the many stories from 1st millennium Christianity where the saints prayed sinners and pagans out to Hell. The pagan Emperor Trajan was allegedly saved by the prayers of Pope Gregory the Great.

At a practical level, the difference between the Catholic view (we pray for all the departed because we do not know who is damned and who is not) and the Orthodox view (we pray for all the departed because interior conversion remains possible for all until the Final Judgment) amounts to hardly any difference at all. We both pray for the departed. But the difference perhaps becomes clearer when we address the question of universal salvation. Though there are many Orthodox who believe, just as most Latins do, that Hell will indeed be populated by at least one human being (many? most?), there remains within Orthodoxy the vital conviction that all will be saved by the grace and mercy of God. This hope, so clearly articulated by Origen, was advanced by two great saints of the Church, St Gregory Nyssen and St Isaac of Syria, and is represented in modern Orthodoxy by Met Kallistos Ware, Met Hilarion Alfeyev, and Sergius Bulgakov. Despite what individual Orthodox believers may think, the simple fact is that the universalist hope espoused by these individuals have never been formally condemned by the Orthodox Church. St Isaac the Syrian in particular is revered throughout the Orthodox world.

The hope for universal salvation is found, in a mitigated form, in the Catholic Church. I’m thinking here of Hans Urs von Balthasar in particular. But the Latin doctrine of the particular judgment makes it more to believe and confess this hope. If one’s eternal destiny is established by the decisions made in this life, how can we truly hope for the salvation of those individuals who have lived lives of sin, violence, iniquity, and disbelief? Compare the universal hope of von Balthasar with the almost universal hope articulated by Pope Benedict in Spe salvi. The theology of Pope Benedict was profoundly influenced by Balthasar, but he does not speak of a universalist hope. He is confident that some human beings are and will be damned. If this is what one believes, how can one reasonably and authentically pray for the salvation of all?

I believe so, the Latin Church resolves to particular judgement then general judgement or final judgement.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FParticular_judgment&ei=tpsmULFggsbrAeXrgeAM&usg=AFQjCNHXFbv82l_SyQEIBUb6YvR2RAX1oQ&sig2=rjnCjD3v8p2xlLvXttqpaA

How can one reasonably and authentically pray for the salvation of all? Far by me to speak for Pope Benedict. I pray daily for the conversion of sinners and all the souls who passed on. Give us this day our daily bread,: and forgive us our trespasses,: as we forgive those who trespass against us. As for those who out and out reject the Lord I would imagine its Mercy all the way to judgement. I suppose from here its fair to ask how we feel about no salvation outside the church also.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think I believe in this hope too. That it’s entirely possible that all will be saved. I think the way to reconcile this in latin thought is the grace of the last moment where even the worst sinner can be converted in dying.

Right, good thief, bad thief on the Cross.

 

[FrKimel]

The hope for universal salvation is found, in a mitigated form, in the Catholic Church. I’m thinking here of Hans Urs von Balthasar in particular. But the Latin doctrine of the particular judgment makes it more to believe and confess this hope.

I just noticed that I omitted a word in the second sentence above. It should read: “But the Latin doctrine of the particular judgment makes it more difficult to believe and confess this hope.”

 

[Jvrlns]

But doesn’t repentance after death contradict the dogma that defines the finality of death in relation to change of heart? Wouldn’t it be heretical for a catholic to believe that?

I have also heard that prayers for the departed can be retroactive, i.e. if I pray for the eternal salvation of someone who has departed, God can answer my prayer before that person died, otherwise it would be pointless to pray for the eternal salvation of the departed.

 

[Jvrlns]

A comparison of Paul Evdokimov’s statement on the intermediate state and the doctrinal statement on the GOARCH website suggests that Orthodox Christians presently disagree on the nature of the intermediate state and the finality of the particular judgment. I wonder if this is a difference between the Greek and Slavic traditions. I do not know enough to offer an opinion. But I do suggest that the spiritual practices of Orthodox Christians, i.e., the way we pray for the departed in our formal and informal prayers, support the interpretation of Evdokimov that the intermediate state is a spiritually creative time.

The real difference between the GOARCH statement and Evdokmov (and many other Orthodox Christians) is located on the question of the finality of the particular judgment. The GOARCH statement agrees with the magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church that the eschatological destiny of the individual is irreversibly set at the moment of death. Many Orthodox Christians, however, do not believe and teach this. In addition to Evdokimov, I cite Met Kallistos Ware, Met Hilarion Alfeyev, Fr Sergius Bulgakov. We appeal to the Kneeling Prayers that are offered on the Feast of Pentecost:

Compare also the Akathist for the Departed.

If you are looking for a difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy (or at least some expressions of Orthodoxy), you may want to discuss the question of the irreversible finality of the particular judgment.

From the GOARCH website:

"The Christian Church places this judgment at the very moment of the death of the individual for two reasons:

1. Any moral progress of the soul is excluded after its separation from the body; and
2. there is no hope of repentance or betterment after death."

This is very interesting. Do these statements not also do away with eternal growth after death? It was my understanding that eternal growth was almost universally believed in the EOC.

 

[Cavaradossi]

From the GOARCH website:

"The Christian Church places this judgment at the very moment of the death of the individual for two reasons:

1. Any moral progress of the soul is excluded after its separation from the body; and
2. there is no hope of repentance or betterment after death."

This is very interesting. Do these statements not also do away with eternal growth after death? It was my understanding that eternal growth was almost universally believed in the EOC.

They are talking about the temporal state between death and resurrection. The soul is universally believed to be incomplete without a body (this is in contrast to the Platonists, who had no use for the body, and considered it to be a prison), and so, some would speculate that repentance or any change of state between death and the resurrection is impossible.

 

[Marybeloved]

But doesn’t repentance after death contradict the dogma that defines the finality of death in relation to change of heart? Wouldn’t it be heretical for a catholic to believe that?

I have also heard that prayers for the departed can be retroactive, i.e. if I pray for the eternal salvation of someone who has departed, God can answer my prayer before that person died, otherwise it would be pointless to pray for the eternal salvation of the departed

I’ve never heard of that (in bold) at all! It’s very interesting though. Certainly, in light of the IC dogma, I can see the thinking behind it. And I don’t think we Catholics can believe in the conversion of a damned soul (if there are any) beyond the grave. But it’s certainly possible that God saves everyone before they die. If what you’ve said there is true, then I suppose it’ll be more like God applying the grace to a dying soul or in his lifetime, in view of all the future prayers that will be offered to God for him. I can’t imagine that it could be like the sci-fi films where there are parallel timelines etc, or the person actually dies and goes to hell, then God changes something in his past timelines/life, like applying Grace, and then that changes his future so that he doesn’t die and go to hell! Once one steps out of space-time, I think his orientation towards or away from God is fixed. I think the CC understanding is that space-time, or the cosmos, is the opportunity for choosing to love God or be independent from him. Death cannot come until God decides that a complete (free) or irrevocable choice has been made, one way or another, with all the Grace afforded to that soul to choose God. That’s what I believe.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right basically we’ve been contemplating the Particular Judgement. Fr Kimal bought up an interesting point in regard to a link I posted by Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, who taught at the Angelicum…

"Particular judgment, then, takes place at that first instant when it is true to say that the soul is separated.

THUS TERMINATES THE TIME OF MERIT AND DEMERIT. Otherwise a soul in purgatory could still be lost, and a soul condemned could still be saved. But the souls in purgatory have arrived at the goal of their merit, though not yet at eternal beatitude. These souls are still free, but this freedom is not sufficient for merit, because one of the conditions for merit is that the person meriting be still in via, be still a viator, traveler.

At the moment of the particular judgment the soul does not see God intuitively, otherwise it would already be beatified. Neither does it, except in occasional cases, see the humanity of Christ. Rather, by an infused light, it knows God as sovereign judge, knows the Redeemer as judge of the living and the dead. Preachers, following the example of the Fathers, illustrate this doctrine by image and example. But the doctrine itself is reduced to the points we have mentioned.

Blessed are those who take their purgatory on earth, by generous acceptance of daily trials. The multiple sacrifices of daily life purify and perfect their love, and by this love they will be judged."

Course this leads into the final judgement.

“terminates the time of merit and demerit” is the grey area. Merit being first presented by Augustine then later elaborated on at Trent and of course others St Theresa of Lisieux etc. In short merit is a continuity of Grace. From Augustine “The merits of our good works are gifts of the Divine goodness, Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due…Our Merits are Gods gifts”.

For a complete understanding on Merit CCC- 2006-2011

Father Hardin futher elaborates- "When we speak of the souls of the just in purgatory we are referring to those that leave the body in the state of sanctifying grace and are therefore destined by right to enter heaven. Their particular judgment was favorable, although conditional: provided they are first cleansed to appear before God. The condition is always fulfilled.

The poor souls in purgatory still have the stains of sin within them. This means two things. First, it means that the souls have not yet paid the temporal penalty due, either for venial sins, or for mortal sins whose guilt was forgiven before death. It may also mean the venial sins themselves, which were not forgiven either as to guilt or punishment before death. It is not certain whether the guilt of venial sins is strictly speaking remitted after death, and if so, how the remission takes place.

We should also distinguish between the expiatory punishments that the poor souls in purgatory pay and the penalties of satisfaction which souls in a state of grace pay before death. Whereas before death a soul can cleanse itself by freely choosing to suffer for its sins, and can gain merit for this suffering, a soul in purgatory can not so choose and gains no merit for the suffering and no increase in glory. Rather, it is cleansed according to the demands of Divine Justice."

The Catholic practice of offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead is known as offering suffrages. These suffrages are offered both by the individuals and by the Church. They are intended to obtain for the poor soul, either partial or total remission of punishment still to be endured.

Who are the faithful that can pray effectively for the poor souls? They are primarily all baptized Christians but may be anyone in a state of grace. At least the state of grace is probably necessary to gain indulgences for the dead.

The angels and saints in heaven can also help these souls in purgatory and obtain a mitigation of their pains. When they do so, the process is not by way of merit or of satisfaction, but only through petition. A study of the Church’s official prayers reveals that saints and the angelic spirits are invoked for the Church Suffering (i.e., those in purgatory), but always to intercede and never otherwise.

This is basically where Fr Kimbal left off in regards to merit after time/flesh-earth or this reality which is temporal which presents a two-fold arguement. Which without doubt is a valid interesting thought. Ironic about a week or so ago a few friends and I had this basic conversation. One suggested that certainly _____ and ______ and ______ are in hell. I suggested that while this may appear self evident we simply do not know nor do we assign souls to hell. The third friend suggested that if this was indeed the case we would in fact have compiled a list. Which of course is impossible. Then when we arrive at a more sublime level we encounter no salvation outside the church.

So yes all this is worthy of contemplation. Fr Hardins link which I pasted somewhere here also comments on this in his conclusion. Along with Patriarch of Jerusalem “The Confession of Dositheus” - We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to each hath wrought. For when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For, after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation. Such as though involved in mortal sins have not departed in despair but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing any fruits of repentance—by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in find by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction—of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to their sins which they have committed.
But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness through the prayers of the priests and the good works which the relative of each perform for their departed—especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing the highest degree—which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. It is not known, of course, when they will be released. We know and believe that there is deliverance for them from their dire condition, before the common resurrection and judgment, but we do not know when. (Decree XVII).

Here is Fr Hardins link for those who would link to gain further understanding of what we have been talking about.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therealpresence.org%2Farchives%2FEschatology%2FEschatology_006.htm&ei=0YwnUNTGKKni0QG4vIDADA&usg=AFQjCNGAdLMg78gsZyKSFQDwEQXqHCZR-Q&sig2=JlWD724y8EXefwCSdozXfA

Purgatory isn’t a fully defined doctine.

 

[FrKimel]

C. S. Lewis speculates on the efficacy of prayer for events in the past in the appendix “On ‘Special Providences’” in his book Miracles. He writes:

When we are praying about the result, say, of a battle or a medical consultation the thought will often cross our minds that (if only we knew it) the event is already decided one way or the other. I believe this to be no good reason for ceasing our prayers. The event certainly has been decided–in a sense it was decided “before all worlds.” But one of the things taken into account in deciding it, and therefore one of the things that really cause it to happen, may be this very prayer that we are now offering. Thus, shocking as it may sound, I conclude that we can at noon become part causes of an event occurring at ten a.m. …The imagination will, no doubt, try to play all sorts of tricks on us at this point. It will ask, “This if I stop praying can God go back and algter what has already happened?” No. The event has already happened and one of its causes has been the fact that you are asking such questions instead of praying. It will ask, “Then if I begin to pray can God go back and alter what has already happened?” No. The event has already happened and one of its causes is your present prayer. Thus something does really depend on my choice. My free act contributes to the cosmic shape. That contribution is made in eterntiy or “before all worlds”; but my consciousness of contributing reaches me at a particular point in the time-series.

The following question may be asked: If we can reasonably pray for an event which must in fact have happened or failed to happen several hours ago, why can we not pray for an event which we know not to have happened? e.g. pray for the safety of someone who, as we know, was killed yesterday. What makes the difference is precisely our knowledge. The known event states God’s will. It is psychologically impossible to pray for what we know to be unobtainable; and if it were possible the prayer would sin against the duty of submission to God’s known will.

Lewis’s argument depends on a particular construal of eternity and its relation to creaturely time (see the chapter on time and eternity in Mere Christianity), but accepting his understanding of God “outside of time,” I can see the logic of his argument. As long as stand in a position of ignorance, as long as I do not know, e.g., whether a given sinner died in a state of mortal sin and has therefore eternally damned himself, then it makes sense for me to pray for his conversion and repentance and thus to pray for his salvation. From my perspective my prayer is being offered after the person’s death, but from the divine perspective, God is hearing my prayer in his eternal now, as he hears and answers all prayers.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There is no concept of purgatory in Orthodoxy.

Orthodox Christians pray for the dead. “A rose by any other name” and all that…

One of the other things that draw me to Orthodox christianity is its stance on deification, or *theosis: *

Again, from:

And (emphasis in bold and italics are mine):

I wrote in a Facebook note:

In most protestant and in Catholic theology, it’s all about the “vicarious atonement,” that now allows us as humans to enter Heaven, where in Catholic theology we can lose salvation and we are commanded to try to conform ourselves to being Christ-like, but the empahsis isn’t as much as in the Orthodox church.

The Orthodox postion of theosis, of the whole point of life and religion is to master our “passions” or sins and become like Christ, like God, is appealing, however, it also seems like a lot of work. All the official Orthodox theology pages I’ve resarched stress the sacramental or aesthetic life: of constant prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and Mass or Liturgy/“Sacred Mysteries” attendance. And values monasticism, living the aesthetic life, above all. For many Western Catholics and Protestants like me, making that much of a lifestyle change is very difficult, if not impossible. We’d rather go to Mass and Confession, obey all the bare minimums of the Church’s precepts, or, as some Protestants, just accept Jesus as savior and that’s it, period. Oh, yeah, maybe read the Bible, say a prayer now and then, and, if you feel up to it, “fellowship” with other believers on a weekend or two. (Of course, I am only speaking of a select portion of the Catholic and protestant population, not for everyone.)

I would like to live more of a sacramental or aesthetic life, but I find myself drawn to the world and worldly things too much and find it difficult, if not downright impossible, to master my “passions” or sins. Yet, that does sound like to me the whole point of following Christ, of being a Christian: to master our sins (“passions”) and become Christ-like. Not just to be forgiven of my sins (past, present, and future) and have an eternally secured ticket (Blessed Assurance) to Heaven. So am I just dooomed? Thoughts?

What do you think about "theosis"?

-Chris

Like Constantine said a few pages ago, theosis is the objective of Christianity. The Latin Church ought to emphasize it more, as it is, after all, a part of Catholic teaching as well as Orthodox teaching.

Just bear one thing in mind:

You can admire and appreciate Orthodoxy without being in the least troubled in your Catholicism. Obviously as a Catholic you can admire what is good and true in any religious tradition, but in the case of Orthodoxy there’s very little for Catholics to object to except the simple fact that they aren’t in communion with Rome.

So you shouldn’t be surprised that your experiences with Orthodoxy are positive, and you should only allow that to shake your allegiance to Rome if you decide that the Orthodox are correct in saying that Rome has fallen into heresy.

I say this because one of the things my friends often tell me when I say I still think I should become Catholic (after having considered the matter for about 17 years now and having dropped out of RCIA 13 years ago) is, “But you seem to admire Orthodoxy so much–why don’t you become Orthodox?”

Edwin

Exactly.

But that is the simple fact, the East does not have any theology on purgatory because there was never one. The West developed purgatory out of the belief in praying for the dead and what happens in that process. The East, in keeping with early Church tradition, prays for the dead and believes in the deliverance of those we pray for. But there are no specifics such as Purgatory. There never was, so there is nothing to compare, nothing to understand.

But Constantine, purgatory isn’t a “specific” at all. There’s all of, what, three paragraphs in the Catechism on purgatory, out of many thousands. Yes, we pray for the dead, and those prayers can be efficacious. The rest is just gravy, even in Latin Christianity.

You speak of what the East does and believes. As Father Kimel (who is Orthodox) indicated earlier, lex orandi, lex credendi truly is the rule of faith and life in Orthodox Christianity. And it is by that very standard that Latins see so clearly the evidence for spiritual purification after death in Orthodox Christianity…

Father Kimel then went on to specify that the Orthodox at Florence rejected the idea that purgatory is a place, and the idea that it involves physical fire. And that Orthodoxy today rejects all juridical interpretations of this intermediate state.

And I agree with the Orthodox on that. As a Catholic, I agree with them. And so do the famous 20th century western Christians that Father Kimel pointed out: C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

It is important to note that East and West are not merely the same things said in a different way. It is not like one sentense said in English and the other in Chinese. You have to take into account the cultural background of the English or Americans into context of their culture and the nuances of the language. For example in the Philippines a formal pleasantry is that when someone walks into a room and another person is eating (someone you know, not a stranger, so you won’t see this in restaurants) the person eating invites the other person to share the meal. And the polite response is to say “no”. In Western culture is doesn’t make sense but that is how it is.

The same way with the faith. Theology is built up on a lot of things, culture, philosophy, language, etc. How the Eastern faith developed is completely different from how the West developed from its very core. The understanding of sin itself is different, and thus everything else follows from that. That is why in the West it was necessary to define the Immaculate Conception because of how the West understands sin. And in the East it doesn’t make sense, again because of how sin is understood. And that extends to everything else, salvation, why did Jesus become man, how did his death on the cross saved us, etc.

This is a very good and important point, but I wouldn’t phrase it by saying, “East and West are not merely the same things said in a different way.” Not because that sentence is wrong, but because it is ambiguous.

East and West are not merely saying the same things in a different way, if by that you mean that they are not articulating the same concepts.

But East and West are saying the same things in a different way, if by that we mean identifying and describing (in an intrinsically limited way, of course) the same heavenly mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Orthodox Christians pray for the dead. “A rose by any other name” and all that…

No, it is not a rose by any other name. Purgatory is completely alien thing to Eastern theology. Yes, there is prayers for the dead, but that is where the similarities begin and end. There is no purgatorial fire, no process of getting to heaven, no third state. Roman Catholics believe that when you are in purgatory, you are guaranteed to be in heaven at some point. That concept doesn’t exist in the East.

But Constantine, purgatory isn’t a “specific” at all. There’s all of, what, three paragraphs in the Catechism on purgatory, out of many thousands. Yes, we pray for the dead, and those prayers can be efficacious. The rest is just gravy, even in Latin Christianity.

The fact that there are three paragraphs. You can say the same of many teachings in Roman Catholicism that is mentioned a few times only in the CCC. That doesn’t make it any less important or any less true. If purgatory isn’t that specific or that important, I’m sure the Roman Catholic Church could have just trashed the idea at the Council of Florence to reunite with the Orthodox.

You speak of what the East does and believes. As Father Kimel (who is Orthodox) indicated earlier, lex orandi, lex credendi truly is the rule of faith and life in Orthodox Christianity. And it is by that very standard that Latins see so clearly the evidence for spiritual purification after death in Orthodox Christianity…

Father Kimel then went on to specify that the Orthodox at Florence rejected the idea that purgatory is a place, and the idea that it involves physical fire. And that Orthodoxy today rejects all juridical interpretations of this intermediate state.

And I agree with the Orthodox on that. As a Catholic, I agree with them. And so do the famous 20th century western Christians that Father Kimel pointed out: C.S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, and then-Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.

Same comment as above, if it isn’t what it is, why didn’t the Roman Church give way at Florence?

This is a very good and important point, but I wouldn’t phrase it by saying, “East and West are not merely the same things said in a different way.” Not because that sentence is wrong, but because it is ambiguous.

East and West are not merely saying the same things in a different way, if by that you mean that they are not articulating the same concepts.

But East and West are saying the same things in a different way, if by that we mean identifying and describing (in an intrinsically limited way, of course) the same heavenly mysteries of the Kingdom of God.

East and West have completely different understanding of completely different viewpoints. One case in point, some people will ask if Orthodox Churches think that Roman Catholic Sacraments are valid or not. Orthodoxy doesn’t view Sacraments in terms of validity or not. They don’t even have the same formulation as Roman Catholics do on what determines validity or not.

 

[dvdjs]

Here are some lines from the Catholic Encyclopedia that can help dispel some misinformation on this thread.

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.

At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine (Enarration on Psalm 37, no. 3) speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, “gravior erit ignis quam quidquid potest homo pati in hac vita” (P.L., col. 397). Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”. How this fire affects the souls of the departed the Doctors do not know, and in such matters it is well to heed the warning of the Council of Trent when it commands the bishops “to exclude from their preaching difficult and subtle questions which tend not to edification’, and from the discussion of which there is no increase either in piety or devotion” (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”).

At Florence there was agreement that there is no dogmatic definition of a “place” or of a literal fire. There is no definition of how the “fire” affects the soul of the departed. But the idea of “fire” is commonly used because it has always been commonly used. And it has always had the common sense of a refining fire.

“Even as in the same fire gold glistens and straw smokes, so in the same fire the sinner burns and the elect is cleansed.” Pope St. Gregory I, 6th century, quoted from St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei i, 8)

The Orthodox frequently discuss the experience of the departed of a foretaste of their eternal fate. Knowledge of destiny is not ruled out.

The Orthodox have been engaged in the discussion of the Sacraments of the Latins for the earliest time of schism - even in the disputes prior to the schism of 1054. It has also been engaged from the earliest times about the sacraments of other, non-orthodox, Christian Churches.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, Mark of Ephesus states…

“The souls of those who depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by worthy fruits of repentance, are cleansed after death by cleansing pains.”

All the Council agree’d…

“But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones [what Catholics call “venial sins”] over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place.”

Mark of Ephesus disagreed “only” on two points. He did not believe that torture in Purgatory was limited to fire. He believed that it could take many forms, and so preferred the use of the generic term “pains” in place of “fire.” He also objected to Purgatory being referred to as being “in some place”. Thus his above quote. Source of quotes of the Saint are below.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oocities.org%2Fathens%2FAtrium%2F8410%2Fget-clean.html&ei=WiMoUJbkIKSh6wGNgYGYAg&usg=AFQjCNGuA4p1v5lNLEhcII-3aey4W0d0wA&sig2=aVDQ3rJ4OlIsda0AIzz-oQ

 

[GaryTaylor]

Purgatory is completely alien thing to Eastern theology.

And you came to this conclusion how?

 

[Cavaradossi]

And you came to this conclusion how?

The very question of whether the Orthodox “believe in Purgatory” is a flawed one. I might as well ask if Catholics believe in grace (the meaning of which differs between Latin and Eastern theology). The word became specifically attached to certain Latin teachings concerning Purgatory as a place where people are cleansed by painful fire. The proper answer is no, we do not believe in Purgatory as it historically has been taught by the Latin West, but we do believe in some form of cleansing after death.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Right, Mark of Ephesus states…

“The souls of those who depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by worthy fruits of repentance, are cleansed after death by cleansing pains.”

All the Council agree’d…

“But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones [what Catholics call “venial sins”] over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place.”

Mark of Ephesus disagreed “only” on two points. He did not believe that torture in Purgatory was limited to fire. He believed that it could take many forms, and so preferred the use of the generic term “pains” in place of “fire.” He also objected to Purgatory being referred to as being “in some place”. Thus his above quote. Source of quotes of the Saint are below.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CFYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oocities.org%2Fathens%2FAtrium%2F8410%2Fget-clean.html&ei=WiMoUJbkIKSh6wGNgYGYAg&usg=AFQjCNGuA4p1v5lNLEhcII-3aey4W0d0wA&sig2=aVDQ3rJ4OlIsda0AIzz-oQ

You have the quotations flipped. The first quotation is the council, and the second is St. Mark of Ephesus. The word ‘pains’ is the Council’s word, not St. Mark’s. From what I recall, he vehemently opposed the idea that sins forgiven by God necessitate that the sinner be punished.