Examining Orthodox Theology

[fnr]

fnr, I think it is fair to say that the entire Latin tradition, including the Thomistic tradition, is against you on this. Remember, until very recently most Catholic theologians have believed that the purgatorial fire is in fact a real, physical fire, and it is this physical fire that generates the pain of sense for the poor souls in purgatory. See the discussion by the 20th century Thomist Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

Fr. Kimel,

I’m not a theologian, but a scientist. And I can’t perceive a soul with my eyes, because my eyes perceive photons bouncing off physical surfaces. I can’t measure a soul with any instrument know to humankind, from the Large Hadron Collider to the Hubbel Space Telescope. Physically, a fire is a chemical reaction of oxidation. A soul is a spiritual thing. I don’t think a physical fire, as we experience it here, can touch a soul.

As for whether I’m against tradition, I’ll point to the quote in my signature from Lumen Gentium, the dogmatic constitution of the Catholic Church. We are a pilgrim church, and tradition learns from the prayerful consideration of the body of Christ in our hearts, guided by the right and proper preaching of the bishops. Thank you for that, Vatican II.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I’m not a theologian, but a scientist.

A SCIENTIST

fnr - That explains the entire technical difficulty we’ve encountered.

There’s not much Doctrine on Purgatory and its not complete. Florence and Trent are used. Course all the church fathers are considered.

So in this respect your opinion is almost as valid as others, course thats “because” your a scientist.

Geez, I’m glad Fr KImbal is here, you guys notice how well the EO behaves while he’s here? …lol.

All joking aside there’s much to contemplate with all this. I tend to go with the spiritual-mystics on this one, but St Mark made an excellent point about that at Florence also. Might be an active imagination.

BTW welcome to CAF.

 

[Peter_J]

The symbolic afterlife depicted in C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce doesn’t include any “third state” either, and yet it unquestionably includes purgatory.

Again, this reminds me of Lewis’ The Great Divorce. What seems like a contradiction - are souls in purgatory guaranteed a “spot in heaven,” so to speak? - isn’t really one at all. If you’ve read the book (you probably have, I think), you know what I mean.

As the main character says at one point, "My Roman Catholic friends would be surprised, for to them souls in Purgatory are already saved. And my Protestant friends would like it no better, for they’d say that the tree lies as it falls.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Geez, I’m glad Fr KImbal is here, you guys notice how well the EO behaves while he’s here? …lol.

There aren’t that many left …

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

Wonderfully poignant reply, as always!

But it’'s not clear to me that your invocation of original justice and sanctifying grace actually clarifies the problem of the temporal punishment of sin. We are, after all, speaking now of souls who have died in a state of grace and thus in a state of communion with the Holy Trinity. They do not need to acquire sanctifying grace, as this grace already inhabits and informs their souls.

Actually, Father, according to Catholic doctrine, the soul in Purgatory is still in theosis. A soul in sanctifying Grace does not mean the journey of sanctification/perfection has been completed. Sanctifying Grace at this point permits the soul to experience further the Graces that it requires (opens up the soul, so to speak, to even more, necessary Graces).

So what precisely is the temporal punishment of sin? What is the debt that this punishment satisfies?

These are great questions, and they will take some explanation, so please bear with me, The debt it satisfies is the debt of holiness that God requires of us. It is not a debt to make up for something missing in God or taken away from God, but for something that is missing IN US or taken away FROM US. In lieu of my previous response, the temporal punishment (according to the principle from Hebrews) is so the soul may share further in the holiness of God.

Now, the language used by the Latins (and even by Orientals) is nothing more than the language of Scripture. I had this discussion with Cavaradossi in the past, and we were both able to agree that the language of Justice via images of vengeance and retribution are nothing more than anthropomorphisms. Case in point is that despite the retributive language used by St. Anselm (i.e., making up for what was lost to God or taken away from him due to our sinfulness, etc.), St. Anselm explicitly asserts that no honor is actually and objectively lost or taken away from God. It is simple enough to understand that such imagery of Justice via retribution or vengeance are simple literary tools not to be taken literally (no pun intended), whether used by the writers of Scripture, nor the Latin Fathers – can you accept that statement, Father?

Why are forgiven, reconciled sinners punished by God after they die?

This is perhaps the most important aspect of the Orthodox objection to Purgatory. It is indeed something I struggled with before I came into the Catholic communion. As Orthodox, we can understand temporal punishment in this lifetime - it’s part of the concept of synergy, a hallmark of sanctification according to the Orthodox understanding. But what use is temporal punishment in the next life, especially in a state where synergy can no longer occur? Without this participative synergy, it certainly does seem that the suffering is purely retributive, for no other reason than to satisfy God’s OWN vengeance. Before I go on, please let me know if I have expressed the Orthodox concern accurately (this was certainly my conception when I was not yet in communion with Rome). Once you have responded, then we can delve into considering if this Orthodox concern is really a valid objection. We must ask - is it possible that even without synergy, God can and does perfect the soul in the afterlife? Can sanctification via suffering occur in the afterlife? Even according to Mark of Ephesus, the psychological suffering of the soul in the afterlife does indeed redound to its perfection, does it not? Isn’t this the same thing that the concept of Purgatory teaches (granted, there is the non-issue of a physical fire)?

Earlier in this thread (#256) I quoted Fr Martin Jugie on purgatory. Do you agree or disagree with what he wrote? If you disagree, on the basis of what authority?

I agree with what Fr. Martin Jugie wrote. But his statement is ambiguous: “Immediately on its entering Purgatory, the soul is perfectly holy, perfectly turned towards God. It has no means of bettering itself nor of progressing in virtue” What does this mean? On the surface, it seems like he is saying that before a soul enters Purgatory, the soul is already perfectly holy and turned towards God. Hence, the only purpose of Purgatory is sheer retribution. That is what I suspect you think he is saying. If so, I wholeheartedly disagree with your interpretation of Fr. Jugie. Every dogmatic document on Purgatory of which I am aware asserts that a soul in Purgatory still requires purification, and is thus not perfected in love and holiness. In other words, the soul in Purgatory is in a state of theosis. What Fr. Jugie is saying is that Purgatory itself is the means by which the soul becomes “perfectly holy, perfectly turned towards God.” This is accomplished through the chastisement that the soul experiences (as, indeed, Hebrews asserts that through chastisement, we share in the holiness of God). When Fr. Jugie states “the soul has no means of bettering itself or progressing in virtue,” he is not saying “because of this, the soul is not being bettered and progressing in virtue, but is only sitting in punishment.” Not at all. All he is saying is that the soul itself does not have the means to do this (synergy no longer applies in the afterlife, remember), but that it is all by virtue of God’s Mercy and Justice that the soul actually does become better and progresses in virtue in the purgatorial state.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

He writes: “Sin deserves punishment because it is a transgression of the order of divine justice, and so some sort of compensation must be paid if the equality of justice is to be restored. If the sinner pays any part of this compensation, he suffers, willingly or unwillingly, something contrary to what he would wish, because he has been too indulgent to his own will in transgressing God’s laws (I-II 87, 6). Punishment for sin suffered unwillingly is purely penal.”

Father, I suspect what you think Quinn is saying is that souls in Purgatory are suffering unwillingly and thus, the punishment is purely penal. But that is not what he stated. Here he is simply contrasting the soul that does suffer unwillingly (resulting in a penal state of affairs) to the soul that does suffer willingly (which is no longer purely penal, but medicinal). Quinn explained that rather explicitly. If you are presenting Quinn as representative of “traditional Latin Catholicism,” then I cannot see your objection, for he clearly states that the suffering in Purgatory, because the soul undergoes it willingly, is indeed paliative for it redounds to the betterment of his soul.

Does this sound anything like sanctification and theosis as understood by Eastern Orthodoxy?

I admit I am not altogether sure. I understand your objections fully, but I believe the Latin Catholic sources have been misinterpreted. It appears you interpret the Latin Catholic sources to be admitting a purely penal purpose for the purgatorial state. But what I see the “traditional” Latin Catholic sources saying is that this chastisement is always medicinal, not purely penal, precisely because the soul in Purgatory is in a certain state of Grace that accepts that punishment for its own betterment. And you are right – the juridical nature of the language does tend to get in the way of seeing a confluence on Eastern and Western thought on the matter.

I admit that the juridical nature of the language may be misleading me, but please note one critical point that Quinn makes: “According to Aquinas, it would not be unjust for God to free man from sin without any satisfaction being made.” God could, if he so choose, simply dispense with satisfaction altogether. How could this possible, if we are talking about the healing and repair of the soul, which of course is not dispensable? This suggests to me that St Thomas is in fact speaking of a punishment that is retributive and penal in nature. It only becomes beneficial and salutary if the afflicted voluntarily embraces it as God’s will.

And that’s precisely the point that these “traditional” Latin theologians have always made. Latin Catholic theology has always assumed that the soul in Purgatory dies in a state of Grace. It WANTS to be right with God. Thus, its chastisement is NEVER purely penal, but in fact ALWAYS ameliorative, palliative, and medicinal.

Does this analogy misrepresent the pre-Vatican II understanding of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin? Quinn may have gotten St Thomas wrong, but his interpretation appears to be supported by Bryan Cross’s exegesis of Aquinas also. Why not just take the juridical language at face value? A debt is a debt. You can either compel the debtor to pay it or you can forego the payment.

Scripture constantly uses the same juridical language. It is no doubt an admitted anthropomorphism, something the inspired writers used to help us get a better grasp of our unfathomable God. That is why the doctrine of the Justice of God is a mainstay in the Oriental Tradition (as well as the Latin). We can never speak of His Mercy apart from His Justice because that is the way God chose to reveal Himself to us through the inspired writers of Scripture. We can never separate the Justice of God from His Mercy, and the two are never opposed. They always work together for the betterment/the theosis of the human soul.

I suspect that Aquinas is more complicated, interesting, and nuanced than presented above, but at least one can see why many pre-Vatican II Catholics, including theologians, have understood the temporal punishment of sin in penal terms. This penal construal seems to be dominant, for example, in the Baltimore Catechism. Perhaps a medicinal/therapeutic understanding is hidden behind the juridical language, but if it is, may we not be excused for not seeing it?

Indeed, and fully understood Father. My only rejoinder would be that when the term “the Justice of God” is used, I think it would be wrong to automatically assume that it refers to a purely penal state of affairs. When the term “debt to God’s Justice” is used, I think it would be wrong to automatically assume it refers to “paying back something that was taken away from God.” In fact, nothing can be taken from God, and the debt is actually always a reference to the debt of Holiness for OUR SAKE. We should constantly think of the Justice of God in terms of its medicinal effect on the soul of the sinner.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well thought out response mardukm

When you say every Doctrine on Purgatory asserts that a soul in Purgatory still requires purification. I haven’t read any early church fathers on this which do not echo the same thought process. Sure they vary in degree, but the same basic principle is a common thread. And without a doubt they contemplated the same very questions which you see on this thread.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CE4QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.staycatholic.com%2Fecf_purgatory.htm&ei=HdMsUJmjDaraywGB6YCICA&usg=AFQjCNGAO7rTCwf0JWiFbUHrpqGTQTfoTw&sig2=6FRf599Qp2F3VNjL9Ag5Jw

Purgatory which in the latin translates into; purgatorium, literally: place of cleansing, purge. I don’t know that 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 is explicit to purification, yet it would seem Origen believed so.

I agree also with the interconnection of Mercy/Justice, I also believe this a very large issue in correctly understanding from a Christian perspective and otherwise… God. Certainly there’s a balance here, yet the justice is swift, immediate and non-negotiable.

St. Teresa of Avila - “If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so many enemies.” What a personality this one has.

We must also view this purification process in a realistic sense. If we are to conclude that these Souls have not reached Theosis (“deification,” “divinization”) is thus the process of a worshiper becoming free of hamartía (“missing the mark”), being united with God, beginning in this life and later consummated in bodily resurrection. Thus the realistic view must consist of what possibly could occur in this process.

Fire was also contemplated no differently then you see here today. Give this a quick read to see the different thinking of the Early Church Fathers.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CFkQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2Fa105.htm&ei=b-MsUIubC8bDygGbqICoBA&usg=AFQjCNF6H5flo8XsJx2O2jxWFw3KcGcjtA&sig2=tRQTJGhfcUz-SvtBwbKU5A

Free-Will is another area that is grey.

 

[FrKimel]

Marduk, as always another thoughtful post. But I notice you have presented your interpretation without appeal to the writings of any theologian. Your argument would be stronger if you could support it explicitly by appeal to one or more pre-1955 theologians. Otherwise we are just left with your opinion.

I am presently visiting my mother in Virginia Beach and do not have access to my library, but let me ask you to do something for us. I have cited two pieces, the book by Jugie and an old essay by Egan. Please find and read them and get back to us. I’d like to hear your evaluation of their arguments. I think you may find that the evidence for interpretating the temporal punishment of sin in retributive and penal terms is stronger than you think.

If I read you correctly, you are saying that temporal punishment is not penal because, when voluntarily embraced, it becomes ameliorative; and of course, all souls in purgatory, because they seek only to live for God, voluntarily embrace their punishment. But I don’t think that is what Quinn is saying. I think he is saying that the temporal punishment is penal, but because it is voluntarily embraced by the lost souls it becomes ameliorative and sanctifying. But I may be wrong here.

I note that you did not touch on Quinn’s claim that if he so choses God may dispense with the temporal debt altogether. Is satisfaction was purely corrective, reparative, and medicinal, directed to the healing of wounds of the soul and deliverance from evil dispositions, then it would not be something that could ever be bypassed. Moreoever, the Catholic Church teaches that others may offer satisfaction on the behalf of others and thus bear one another’s temporal debt burdens (Roman Catechism). Again, I suggest that supports the retributive interpretation. Finally, why is it that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism remits the temporal punishment of sin altogether but the sacrament of Penance does not?

I think I have exhausted whatever I might have to contribute to this discussion. But let me conclude with some passages from Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange (Life Everlasting):

It is not sufficient to cease sinning, not even to repent. The order of justice, if violated, must be re-established by voluntary acceptance of a compensating punishment. The created will which has arisen against the divine order is bound, even after repentance, to undergo punishment. Because it has turned away from God, it is deprived of His possession for a time. Because it has preferred to Him a created good, it has to undergo a punishment called pain of sense. …

The chief reason for the existence of purgatory is the one we have now expounded, namely, the necessity of satisfaction for sins, mortal or venial, already forgiven. Purgatory is a place of satispassion, which applies what was lacking on earth in the line of satisfaction.

But there are two other theological reasons for the necessity of purgatory. First, the just soul, separating from the body, often has venial sins. Secondly, sins already remitted have consequences which are called the remains of sin. Since nothing soiled can enter heaven, the soul must be purified before it can see God face to face. …

We are here in the heart of our subject. Sin merits suffering. The divine order, like the social order, must be re-established by a penal compensation. If the soul accepts this penalty, it re-enters the order which it has violated.

This thought, adumbrated by Plato, is developed by St. Thomas. Voluntary acceptance of the pains of purgatory obtains for the poor souls the remission of their debt to divine justice. But, whereas on earth the satisfaction is meritorious, the satispassion in purgatory is no longer meritorious.

Purgatorial satispassion is not only accepted by the will, but it is offered, with ardent charity, as an act of adoration. Here we have one of the most beautiful views of purgatory. The soul clearly recognizes the imprescriptible rights of God, author of nature and grace. It now sees the infinite value of redemption, of the sacrifice of the cross, of Mass, of the sacraments, which on earth it treated with negligence. It also sees much more profoundly, without possible distraction, the value of eternal life, of the possession of God. What joy in purgatory when Mass is celebrated on anniversary days!

These souls love their suffering. On earth they were not generous enough to impose on themselves a condign punishment. Now that punishment becomes an expiatory sacrifice. And the more this suffering penetrates the depth of their will, the more lovingly they accept it. Egoism, selfishness, the rust of sin, is burned away, and charity reigns without rival in the depths, rooted there forever.

Orthodoxy can, and does, affirm the third purpose of purgatory, viz., the cleansing and healing of the soul; but I’m fairly confident that it rejects what Garrigou-Lagrange describes as the “chief reason” of purgatory, namely, the divine imposition of compensation/satisfaction (albeit voluntarily accepted). As St Mark of Ephesus insisted, once God forgives, there is no more punishment. For us, the purpose of “purgatory” is purely therapeutic. Even if the therapy and cleansing entails suffering as a consequence, it is only analogously described as punishment. As a remedy and cure for cancer, chemo-therapy may cause severe suffering, e.g., but we typically do not describe it as a punishment. This is true even if the afflicted person is responsible for his cancer (e.g., through heavy smoking). Its purpose is not to inflict pain. It’s purpose is to destroy the cancer.

Speaking just as a preacher, I truly believe that this Latin focus on purgatorial satisfaction and compensation undermines the proclamation of the gospel in its fullness. I believe that many Catholic theologians have come to see this, too, which explains why the juridical language is subordinated and the remedial/sanctifying element of purgatory is now so strongly emphasized.

But let me throw out one thing more that I have been thinking about, which may connect to the Latin notion of temporal punishment. Perhaps purgatory means that I must come to fully understand, and even experience, the suffering I have caused to others by my evil acts. And perhaps purgatory means that I must, in ways we do not know, participate in the healing and restoration of those I have injured. Only God, of course, can truly restore and more than compensate for the losses and injuries–divine justice is restorative, not retributive–but perhaps I need to participate in this work for my salvation and growth in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. But let’s not call this “temporal punishment.” We need to find language that better expresses our divinization in the Kingdom.

 

[fnr]

We must ask - is it possible that even without synergy, God can and does perfect the soul in the afterlife? Can sanctification via suffering occur in the afterlife? Even according to Mark of Ephesus, the psychological suffering of the soul in the afterlife does indeed redound to its perfection, does it not? Isn’t this the same thing that the concept of Purgatory teaches (granted, there is the non-issue of a physical fire)?

This is a key question: does a soul have psychology? A mind to conceptualize suffering? If so, at what level? Aquinas definitely concluded that the soul’s ability to sense (and hence all externally-based phenomenology) is tied into the physical organs. We know that the human nervous system is where cognition, memory, and emotion occur, at least insofar as we can learn from modern neuroscience. A soul is a spiritual thing, not physical or psychological.

In my original reply on the nature of the soul as it pertains to its capacity to suffer, I quoted the verse of Christ saying “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 23). Apparently, a soul is not a mind, but it is still capable of love. So perhaps not all love is mediated by emotion or cognition. Love as an action the soul can take, now that’s interesting. Love is a good thing, perhaps if there’s a purgatory, it is just a reorientation of human love to divine love.

Hence, the only purpose of Purgatory is sheer retribution.
…]
When Fr. Jugie states “the soul has no means of bettering itself or progressing in virtue,”

And this is an interesting line because I’m seriously unclear that a soul can have virtue in the same way that a human can. A human is a union of body and soul, so a soul alone is not fully human. We anthropomorphize the soul if we say that it will have any experience resembling the full range of human capacity.

Given that the only things scripture seems to tell us that a soul can do are living, dying, and loving, I’d suggest that purgatory is perhaps how God moves a soul from death to life, through perfecting its capacity to (or reorienting its object of) love. If theosis is what we call it, then it’s just God making a soul able to love more purely. Does that involve suffering? I don’t know. But it doesn’t sound like punishment, unless perhaps, the soul doesn’t want to love more purely (e.g., is too self-loving).

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

fnr, I think it is fair to say that the entire Latin tradition, including the Thomistic tradition, is against you on this. Remember, until very recently most Catholic theologians have believed that the purgatorial fire is in fact a real, physical fire, and it is this physical fire that generates the pain of sense for the poor souls in purgatory. See the discussion by the 20th century Thomist Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

At the same time, a lot of old, traditional Latin sources on purgatory - especially from saints and mystics - speak of the suffering of purgatory as something that far exceeds any suffering we can conceive of on earth.

So there is definite tension between what Latin saints and theologians used to say about the suffering in purgatory, and what they apparently said it consists of…

(I’m not denying that burning is excruciatingly painful, but it’s hardly the most painful thing one can imagine)

Fr. Kimel,

I’m not a theologian, but a scientist. And I can’t perceive a soul with my eyes, because my eyes perceive photons bouncing off physical surfaces. I can’t measure a soul with any instrument know to humankind, from the Large Hadron Collider to the Hubbel Space Telescope. Physically, a fire is a chemical reaction of oxidation. A soul is a spiritual thing. I don’t think a physical fire, as we experience it here, can touch a soul.

I think Father Kimel makes good points, fnr. Our Magisterium makes it pretty clear that purgatory does involve some type of suffering.

Maybe it’s not a physical suffering like fire, though. “Literal” and “physical” are not the same thing, despite our culture’s materialist instincts.

Geez, I’m glad Fr KImbal is here, you guys notice how well the EO behaves while he’s here? …lol.

Well, Father Kimel sets a great example for all of us, Catholic or Orthodox or anything else. He definitely always conducts himself with class. He superbly balances specificity and fidelity to the Orthodox faith he holds with sensitivity, compassion, and charity. He doesn’t pull any punches, nor hesitate to say where he believes we are in error, but I have never seen him yet even approach anything remotely resembling uncharitable behavior.

From the moment I first encountered his posts, he garnered nothing but respect and admiration from me, and his thoroughness and clarity continue to do so.

I’m glad you’re here with us, Father Kimel, and it’s been a joy learning from you!

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

Marduk, as always another thoughtful post. But I notice you have presented your interpretation without appeal to the writings of any theologian. Your argument would be stronger if you could support it explicitly by appeal to one or more pre-1955 theologians. Otherwise we are just left with your opinion.

I admit I am at a loss. As several times stated in the past, my journey to the Catholic Church consisted almost entirely of reading dogmatic documents, not reading Latin theologians. What I saw from dogmatic documents was sufficient for my acceptance of the Catholic Faith. I think you must admit that if one were to simply take the dogmatic statements on Purgatory by the Catholic Church (i.e., that there is a third state after death, that there are cleansing pains in such a state for the sake of the soul’s purification, and that the suffrages of the Church and especially the Sacrifice of the Mass aid in the cleansing journey of such souls in this third state), there can be no objections from the Orthodox. I feel that the musings of Latin theologians inject an ultimately unnecessary flavoring or even bias into one’s journey of Faith (whether for or against), especially for one not originally Catholic, much less Latin Catholic. I sincerely do not understand why anyone who wants to understand Catholic doctrine (especially one wanting to come to the Catholic Faith from outside) must subject oneself to points of view that are not dogmatic, but are ultimately only theologoumena (no knock on my Latin brethren ).

But I do understand that the purpose of our conversation is to investigate concepts that are (or have been) very popular in the largest segment of the Catholic Church. So I will attempt to do more reading on Latin theologians. For now, permit me to respond to what you have offered.

I have cited two pieces, the book by Jugie and an old essay by Egan. Please find and read them and get back to us. I’d like to hear your evaluation of their arguments. I think you may find that the evidence for interpretating the temporal punishment of sin in retributive and penal terms is stronger than you think.

I need to understand something first, Father. What exactly is the Eastern Orthodox objection to the doctrine of satisfaction for sin? To be sure, the concept of satisfaction does not necessarily equate to retribution and penalty according to my understanding as an Oriental.

If I read you correctly, you are saying that temporal punishment is not penal because, when voluntarily embraced, it becomes ameliorative; and of course, all souls in purgatory, because they seek only to live for God, voluntarily embrace their punishment. But I don’t think that is what Quinn is saying. I think he is saying that the temporal punishment is penal, but because it is voluntarily embraced by the lost souls it becomes ameliorative and sanctifying. But I may be wrong here.

Quinn seems to be breaking down Aquinas’ thought on the matter. He first affirms that sin deserves punishment, but then definitely separates the idea of punishment that is purely penal (the first paragraph from your quote of Quinn in post #256) from the punishment that is satisfactory/palliative because it is volutarily endured (the second paragraph).

I note that you did not touch on Quinn’s claim that if he so choses God may dispense with the temporal debt altogether.

I did not touch upon it because the solution presented itself - namely, though God COULD HAVE, God RATHER CHOSE to use chastisement as the means to increase the holiness of the soul.

If satisfaction was purely corrective, reparative, and medicinal, directed to the healing of wounds of the soul and deliverance from evil dispositions, then it would not be something that could ever be bypassed.

I think that was Aquinas’ point - that is why God in his Wisdom chose to use chastisement as the means to increase holiness.

Moreoever, the Catholic Church teaches that others may offer satisfaction on the behalf of others and thus bear one another’s temporal debt burdens (Roman Catechism). Again, I suggest that supports the retributive interpretation.

Not necessarily. The source of being able to offer up satisfaction for others is based on the infinite Treasury of merits that Christ our God gained on the Cross. It is rather similar to the concept of synergy as Latin Catholics would understand it. Does the Orthodox concept of synergy (cooperating with the Grace of God, for myself and for others) dictate the notion of retribution? If not, why should the Catholic expression of this same Mystery automatically equate to notions of retribution? Please think about that. Is it, again, the concept of satisfaction? To repeat, I must ask for an explanation of the Eastern Orthodox objection to the doctrine of satisfaction, because as an Oriental who is used to that same theological language, satisfaction does not automatically bring up images of retribution/vengeance/penalty.

Finally, why is it that the Sacrament of Holy Baptism remits the temporal punishment of sin altogether but the sacrament of Penance does not?

I think the answer to that is rather easy. Baptism is the Sacrament of the New Creation. A person is completely made new in that Sacrament, set on the same spiritual level that Adam and Eve were when they were first created, on the same level of spiritual innocence and original Holiness and Justice. The Sacrament of Penance, on the other hand, does not make one a new creation, but rather RE-news. The Sacrament of Penance presupposes prior knowledge of sin and its consequences, whereas the Sacrament of Baptism does not. Where there is no knowledge of sin, there is no penalty, as the Scriptures state (which is why the Law condemns, because it brings knowledge of sin).

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

I think I have exhausted whatever I might have to contribute to this discussion.

Never let it be Father!

Orthodoxy can, and does, affirm the third purpose of purgatory, viz., the cleansing and healing of the soul; but I’m fairly confident that it rejects what Garrigou-Lagrange describes as the “chief reason” of purgatory, namely, the divine imposition of compensation/satisfaction (albeit voluntarily accepted).

Again, can you please explain for me the EO objection to the doctrine of satisfaction?

As St Mark of Ephesus insisted, once God forgives, there is no more punishment.

Hebrews states that if we are not chastised by God, we are not his sons - and this comes even after forgiveness of sins. We also have the clear testimony of Scripture that punishment remains even after God forgives (the examples of Moses, Aaron, David). It would appear that St. Mark of Ephesus is contradicting Scripture. Or perhaps there is a greater context for his statement that we have not yet discussed?

Interestingly, the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia) in its article on Purgatory makes no distinction between “temporal punishment,” on the one hand, and the “fruits of repentance” that are enjoined by Christ on the sinner, on the other. Perhaps it is true as you suggest later, “let’s not call this ‘temporal punishment.’ We need to find language that better expresses our divinization in the Kingdom.”

For us, the purpose of “purgatory” is purely therapeutic. Even if the therapy and cleansing entails suffering as a consequence, it is only analogously described as punishment. As a remedy and cure for cancer, chemo-therapy may cause severe suffering, e.g., but we typically do not describe it as a punishment. This is true even if the afflicted person is responsible for his cancer (e.g., through heavy smoking). Its purpose is not to inflict pain. It’s purpose is to destroy the cancer.

If the doctrine of satisfaction consists of nothing more than satisfying the debt of holiness that God demands of each human creature, then I do not see the difference between the therapeutic purpose of “Purgatory” and its purpose of satisfaction, since that satisfaction is simply for the aquisition of that same holiness that the therapeutic purpose of “Purgatory” intends to achieve Forgive my dullness for not seeing the difference.

Speaking just as a preacher, I truly believe that this Latin focus on purgatorial satisfaction and compensation undermines the proclamation of the gospel in its fullness.

When you stated this, it reminded of a statement from the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia which was branded on my mind when I first read it:
“But, as might be expected from the isolation of the doctrine and the loss of other portions of Catholic teaching, the truth thus preserved was sometimes insensibly obscured or distorted. It will be enough to note here the presence of two mistaken tendencies. The first is [the notion that] the Atonement is specially connected with the thought of the wrath of God. It is true of course that sin incurs the anger of the Just Judge, and that this is averted when the debt due to Divine Justice is paid by satisfaction. But it must not be thought that God is only moved to mercy and reconciled to us as a result of this satisfaction. This false conception of the Reconciliation is expressly rejected by St. Augustine (In Joannem, Tract. cx, section 6). God’s merciful love is the cause, not the result of that satisfaction.**”
I believe the mistake of non-Catholic critics of the doctrine of satisfaction is that it is conceived of in opposition to the Mercy of God - it is claimed that satisfaction upends the Mercy of God because satisfaction is equated with His Justice, as distinct from His Mercy (again, the mistake here is in trying to oppose God’s Mercy with His Justice). The Catholic doctrine asserts that the source of the efficacy of satisfaction is, far from being opposed to God’s Mercy, actually God’s Mercy itself. This can only be the case if the satisfaction enjoined by God’s Justice has for its end, not mere retribution or penal punishment, but the actual good of the soul which undergoes God’s justice. As often asserted, God’s Justice in Catholic doctrine must always be conceived of in terms of its advantage for the soul, its perfection, its sharing in the holiness of God (as the book of Hebrews in no uncertain terms teaches us).

But let’s not call this “temporal punishment.” We need to find language that better expresses our divinization in the Kingdom.

Agreed. That’s ideal, but it would be better to work towards understanding of terms instead of letting those terms get in the way of unity (see my signature line below )

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

But let me throw out one thing more that I have been thinking about, which may connect to the Latin notion of temporal punishment. Perhaps purgatory means that I must come to fully understand, and even experience, the suffering I have caused to others by my evil acts. And perhaps purgatory means that I must, in ways we do not know, participate in the healing and restoration of those I have injured. Only God, of course, can truly restore and more than compensate for the losses and injuries–divine justice is restorative, not retributive--but perhaps I need to participate in this work for my salvation and growth in the divine life of the Holy Trinity. But let’s not call this “temporal punishment.” We need to find language that better expresses our divinization in the Kingdom.

Perhaps I am being simplistic in my response, but I was thinking that the word “punishment” has more than one synonym (other than retributive) to clarify what is meant by this word, for example, in any thesaurus you will find these words to describe “punishment” or “punish”:

“abuse, attend to, batter, beat, beat up, blacklist, castigate, chasten, chastise, correct, crack down on, cuff, debar, defrock, discipline, dismiss, do in, execute, exile, expel, fine, flog, give a going over, give the works, harm, hurt, immure, incarcerate, injure, knock about, lash, lecture, maltreat, misuse, oppress, paddle, rap knuckles, reprove, rough up, scourge, sentence, slap wrist, spank, switch, teach a lesson, throw the book at, train, whip”

Looking at these synonyms for “punishment” no one can rightly say that, for example, God is “abusing” those in purgatory, or “oppressing” them . . .etc., so it is very important to understand what in this context is meant by “punishment” (I believe even the Bible uses words similar to or conveying “punishment” to describe purgatory), i.e., what if “punishment” is God CORRECTING those in purgatory, would that not make more sense? Would it not convey, for example, God’s justice being restorative? I think perhaps you can see how synonyms for “punishment” vary and how this may play a part in misunderstandings.

God bless!

Josie

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

I found this from the (old) Catholic Encyclopedia article “the Doctrine of the Atonement.”

More recently Albrecht Ritschl, who has paid special attention to this subject, has formulated a new theory on somewhat similar lines. His conception of the Atonement is moral and spiritual, rather than juridical and his system is distinguished by the fact that he lays stress on the relation of Christ to the whole Christian community. We cannot stay to examine these new systems in detail. But it may be observed that the truth which they contain is already found in the Catholic theology of the Atonement. That great doctrine has been faintly set forth in figures taken from man’s laws and customs. It is represented as the payment of a price, or a ransom, or as the offering of satisfaction for a debt. But we can never rest in these material figures as though they were literal and adequate. As both Abelard and Bernard remind us, the Atonement is the work of love. It is essentially a sacrifice, the one supreme sacrifice of which the rest were but types and figures. And, as St. Augustine teaches us, the outward rite of Sacrifice is the sacrament, or sacred sign, of the invisible sacrifice of the heart. It was by this inward sacrifice of obedience unto death, by this perfect love with which He laid down his life for His friends, that Christ paid the debt to justice, and taught us by His example, and drew all things to Himself; it was by this that He wrought our Atonement and Reconciliation with God, “making peace through the blood of His Cross”.

How do you assess this explanation of the Catholic doctrine of Atonement/satisfaction from the old Catholic Encyclopedia?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

I agree also with the interconnection of Mercy/Justice, I also believe this a very large issue in correctly understanding from a Christian perspective and otherwise… God. Certainly there’s a balance here, yet the justice is swift, immediate and non-negotiable.

St. Teresa of Avila - “If this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so many enemies.” What a personality this one has.

I remember another story/saying about St. Teresa of Avila which sort of put things (for me) into perspective. It happened during a trip she had taken in a carriage, and the carriage somehow getting stuck in the mud (it was raining, she got soaked). St. Teresa said something along the lines of “if suffering is a way to show how much you love us, then you must love me a lot.” I never fail to laugh when I hear this, it is so true!!!

 

[FrKimel]

I admit I am at a loss. As several times stated in the past, my journey to the Catholic Church consisted almost entirely of reading dogmatic documents, not reading Latin theologians. What I saw from dogmatic documents was sufficient for my acceptance of the Catholic Faith. I think you must admit that if one were to simply take the dogmatic statements on Purgatory by the Catholic Church (i.e., that there is a third state after death, that there are cleansing pains in such a state for the sake of the soul’s purification, and that the suffrages of the Church and especially the Sacrifice of the Mass aid in the cleansing journey of such souls in this third state), there can be no objections from the Orthodox. I feel that the musings of Latin theologians inject an ultimately unnecessary flavoring or even bias into one’s journey of Faith (whether for or against), especially for one not originally Catholic, much less Latin Catholic. I sincerely do not understand why anyone who wants to understand Catholic doctrine (especially one wanting to come to the Catholic Faith from outside) must subject oneself to points of view that are not dogmatic, but are ultimately only theologoumena (no knock on my Latin brethren ).

This raises an interesting issue, To what extent can 2nd millennium Latin dogmatic formulations be abstracted from the scholastic theology which gave them birth. I don’t know the answer, but it is an interesting question. The dogmatic formulations governing purgatory, as you have observed, really fairly limited; but clearly the ordinary teaching of the Latin Church on purgatory is consderably more extensive.

I need to understand something first, Father. What exactly is the Eastern Orthodox objection to the doctrine of satisfaction for sin? To be sure, the concept of satisfaction does not necessarily equate to retribution and penalty according to my understanding as an Oriental.

This is probably an impossible question for me to answer. First, you would have to carefully define “satisfaction” and provide its proper theological, catechetical, and pastoral context. Second, to do the Orthodox critique of satisfaction justice, we would probably have to discuss the role of merit in Catholicism’s understanding of justification–and that is beyond my competence. When I was a Catholic, I was accused by more than one traditional Catholic of distorting magisterial Catholic teaching on justification because of my high regard for the Lutheran/Catholic Agreement on Justification, which of course does not enjoy magisterial status. Many contemporary Catholic theologians and pastors have sought to move beyond the language of merit and satisfaction when speaking of these matters; but the fact remains that this language is enshrined in dogma, which is always available to be used as a club to silence those who prefer the Apostle Paul to the Council of Trent.

Speaking just as an ordinary preacher and pastor, I will say that I find traditional Catholicism’s juridical construal of justification and penance to be well beyond my sympathies. I could put my criticism in much stronger terms, but I honestly do not want to contentious or polemical. If you’d like to discuss this privately, Marduk, I’d be happy to do so.

 

[Marybeloved]

Actually if you look at my prior post you’ll see my reasoning. I tried to use Thomism!

St. Thomas Aquinas himself said that the “sensitive” part of the soul, that is, the part of it that experiences vision, hearing, touch, etc. is dependent on the physical sense organs. So, a soul can’t feeli pain. Extending his logic, we know know that memory, cognition, and emotion reside in the brain. So the soul has no conception of pain without a body.

After we die, the next time we’re conscious of anything is in our resurrected bodies!

But this reasoning is not thomistic at all- Otherwise, do you believe that the demons of hell have physical bodies? Do you believe that they therefore do not suffer in hell, eternally separated from God as they are?

The flaw in the reasoning is the conflation of “suffering” with “physical pain”- Bodies suffer in a physical manner (which just means the lack of physical goods like comfort, health etc) because they are physical. The spirit suffers in a spiritual manner because it’s a spirit.

Example- Have you never done something truly terrible that you deeply regretted, or hurt someone innocent or someone you deeply loved or had the obligation to? What kind of suffering would you say you went through in this knowledge of what you had done and also of knowledge that you had no way of reversing it? Was it purely physical pain?

Also, I think that what you’re suggesting has some consequences you may not agree with if you considered it in its full implications. If the loss of a good thing and the knowledge of this loss cannot cause suffering to the soul apart from its body, then similarly, the possession of the good, and the knowledge of this possession can give no happiness to that soul until its reunion with its body.

I just don’t think this agrees with our theology at all. Happiness and the lack thereof (which is suffering) are properties and capacities of the soul, much much more than they are of the body. Only each aspect suffers according its manner, according to the kinds of goods it lacks but desperately craves.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Second, to do the Orthodox critique of satisfaction justice, we would probably have to discuss the role of merit in Catholicism’s understanding of justification–and that is beyond my competence.

I don’t see a difference but in terminology from either standpoint.

silence those who prefer the Apostle Paul to the Council of Trent…

How is one not in-line with the other?

I will say that I find traditional Catholicism’s juridical construal of justification and penance to be well beyond my sympathies.

What aspect of justificaton and what aspect of penance?

 

[Marybeloved]

This is a key question: does a soul have psychology? A mind to conceptualize suffering? If so, at what level? Aquinas definitely concluded that the soul’s ability to sense (and hence all externally-based phenomenology) is tied into the physical organs. We know that the human nervous system is where cognition, memory, and emotion occur, at least insofar as we can learn from modern neuroscience. A soul is a spiritual thing, not physical or psychological.

Yes, and spiritual beings are intellectual beings. God, for example. Don’t you believe he can know without a body or a brain with which to process anything? Don’t you believe that the angels know much better than we, without our physical bodies or brains? The intellect is a quality or faculty of the Soul. It just means the capacity, ability to “know”.

The confusion again, is conflating this intellect, knowing with “sensing”- But sensing is knowledge of physical things by physical things! Your eye ‘senses’ whatever visible objects it sees, which we call seeing, your ear senses the sounds, hearing etc etc. It’s a manner of “knowing” that is totally limited to the material realm, or the realm of physical things. That cannot mean that only physical manners of knowing are true, or that only physical realities are capable of being known, can it?

Read the mystical language of the Saints. You will see there evidence of great difficulty in explaining or conveying what they know mystically, spiritually, or by contemplation in the common language which is all sensual. They can only speak in symbols, metaphors, analogies, and still complain of the impossibility of conveying their experience to others. That’s because, what they know, “see” in the Spirit is NOT sensual, not physical- Not the faculty knowing (the intellect of the Soul), nor the manner of knowing (contemplation), and sometimes, not even the thing known (some truth about God, or the humanity of Our Lord, or Our Lady and the saints and human souls and even angels and demons) hence the limitations of language. The knowing of mysticism is however more perfect, more certain- Sometimes so that it is impossible to doubt during the contemplation, but however more “real” than anything we know in our usual knowledge and the manner in which they know the truths of the faith is more real, than we who learn the doctrine in our usual manner.

In my original reply on the nature of the soul as it pertains to its capacity to suffer, I quoted the verse of Christ saying “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” (Matthew 23). Apparently, a soul is not a mind, but it is still capable of love. So perhaps not all love is mediated by emotion or cognition. Love as an action the soul can take, now that’s interesting. Love is a good thing, perhaps if there’s a purgatory, it is just a reorientation of human love to divine love.

Love is done in the will- What your will orients to in its freedom (affected by concupiscence) is what it loves, whatever your emotions about it. You cannot “feel” love- not in the Christian sense, that is a purely sensual experience that can help or hinder the Soul in its true love. We are often asked not to simply love according to what is easy (read here, what agrees with our sensual positive orientation or good feelings) but what is truly deserving of love, whatever our feelings regarding it.
Human love, in the true, spiritual sense, is a matter of the freedom of the will.

Charity or divine love (or sanctifying grace in latin theology), is something else, since it’s God’s own personal love and loving- properly belonging only to the three Divine persons. Latin theology teaches that this mutual love of the Blessed Trinity is given only as a pure gift (sanctifying grace) to the Soul, to enable it to love God with his own love, in his own manner, as this is the only way that a Divine being could be loved- with a love equal to him, which must be himself. In that manner, he gives us a relationship of an equality, of a Father and his Son. This is the adoption we speak of, into being sons of God, sharing in the love (relationship) of Father and Son, and so we share in his Divine nature. Sure, this life of Charity in the soul depends on the Human Love of the will, which is symbiotically nurtured by it. Because God gives himself to a Soul that wants this relationship, he does not impose it by divine decree.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The interpretation suggests the soul cannot feel without a body or more accurate a brain. Which also implies that purification has absolutely no response on a emotional level.

The arguement is contingent on what we do know through science by invoking an emotion through questions or pictures etc.

The Bible throughout indicates the exact opposite. Which is yet to proven wrong by science. Though they do try.

Or Consciousness becomes the term used, thus a monitored response of the brain. This is making progress at this point. Thus once the body/brain function cease to exist then in fact your are dead. However your Soul in not contingent on your body from a philosophical/theological perspective. Which is also Biblical when the Lord states; “The flesh counts for nothing” Or the fact He knew you before you were in your mothers womb, etc etc.

However, this is called the Church Suffering in Doctrine.

I can’t see where this would coincide with the EO either. Purification would simply be a Car going through a Car-Wash. For this implies no-consciousness.