Examining Orthodox Theology

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Kimel,

However, contemporary Orthodoxy emphatically rejects the traditional Latin notion of the temporal punishment of sin and the satisfaction model of purgatory. No only do we see no need to invoke the demands of justice when thinking about the purgatorial state, but we believe that such invocation compromises the unmerited mercy and compassion of God.

Forgive me if I am belaboring the point, but your statement here expresses the matter in a slightly different light, and which I hope you will bear with me as I address it.

First of all, the idea of temporal punishment is squarely scriptural, according to Hebrews - if we were not his Sons, we would not be chastised, and chastisement is the means by which Scripture tells us that we share in the holiness of God. Have I misunderstood the Scripture?

Secondly, as explained in the previous post, the Justice of God demands that what is made up for is the HOLINESS that God REQUIRES of us. It is ALL about the deification of the sinner. That is what is being “satisfied.” In that light, is there anything that EO theology finds objectionable?

Thirdly, in light of my previous post (that the satisfaction obtained in Purgatory is from the infinite merits of Christ’s own blood), how do you justify the statement that Purgatory somehow compromises the unmerited mercy and compassion of God - especially since according to Catholic doctrine, the unmerited mercy and compassion of God are the ONLY things operative
in Purgatory?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

But I do not want to be contentious. I am a non-Catholic guest on this board. I have tried to present the Orthodox view(s) of the intermediate state as well as I can. As stated above, I see hope for reconciliation between Orthodox and Catholic on purgatory if purification is understood as healing, deliverance, liberation. Within this context it makes sense to think of the sufferings that accompany the sanctifying therapy of purgatory as a form of punishment (see Tolkien’s wonderful short story “Leaf by Niggle”). But this has nothing to do with retribution and the balancing of the scales of justice–at least not according to the Orthodox Church. For Orthodoxy, purgatory is simply theosis in its early stages.

No worries, Father; I don’t think you’re being contentious in the slightest. In fact, I find your contributions thoughtful, thorough, and very helpful.

I’m as hopeful as you are that Catholic and Orthodox Christianity can be compatible on the matter of sanctification after death, precisely because the way you describe it happens to be what I was essentially taught my whole life in the Latin Church. Even the punishment/suffering of purgatory is therapeutic, a part of the process by which Almighty God completes our total liberation from sin so that we may enter into His presence and share in His nature with total joy and abandon.

Dearest Father Kimel,

Permit me to inject something into the conversation as an Oriental. As you might know, the doctrine of Divine Justice is part of the Oriental Patrimony, not just the Latin. So I hope I can shed some light on the matter from an Oriental perspective that might not come across that well from a Latin perspective.

I must strongly disagree with your statement that “Christ’s mercy triumphs over justice” for the very reason that Christ is the source of both mercy and justice. It is only secular society that makes a false dichotomy between the virtues of mercy and justice, as if they were opposed to each other. This, I believe, is an unfortunate side-effect of Protestant society wherein the term “Justice” is equated with retribution and vengeance (“Sinners in the hands of an angry God” lore). But “Justice” in the divine order is not about retribution or vengeance - satisfaction and penance, yes, but not retribution and vengeance.

JUSTICE taken as such refers to nothing more nor less than this - a quality which renders what is due. The question is, what is it that is due? Here we need to delve into the notion of ORIGINAL JUSTICE. According to Catholic thought, Original Justice consists of the possession of the Sanctifying Grace with which God created our first parents (this is not a modern Catholic interpretation by the way, but has ALWAYS been the Catholic teaching).

So when Catholic scholars speak of God’s Justice being met, from St. Anselm down to today, they are not referring to some sort of sheer legal requirement, but of the essence of deification - acquiring (or rather, re-acquiring) the holiness that God intends FOR US. This is what was lost, and this is what is due - the Sanctifying Grace. God’s justice is not about retribution or vengeance, but the means by which we BECOME HOLY. This is exactly what Scripture tells us, is it not - if we were not His Sons, we would not be chastised. Father, you need to study the essence of the difference between what the Catholic Church taught at Trent regarding Divine Justice over and against what the Reformers taught. EO often criticize the Catholic Church for its legalism regarding its doctrine of Divine Justice, but the EO criticism is utterly misplaced for it is constantly mistaking the Protestant doctrine of pure legal satisfaction for the true Catholic doctrine of deification/sanctification.

I don’t think you are being contentious at all, but I do believe you (as do many EO) misunderstand what “DIvine Justice” is.

As far as brother Gary’s statement (“Purgatory, is the rectifier of injustice in which the sinner must provide restitution for injustices he/she had committed [and not made restitution for in life] through suffering at the hand of God prior to entrance to Heaven or whichever room that is in the mansion.”, which you criticized, I actually agree with your criticism. Perhaps it was a slip of his pen, but what he stated is not Catholic doctrine.

A sinner cannot provide restitution in Purgatory for any injustices he/she committed. The restitution that occurs in Purgatory is as much due to the MERCY of GOD (because we can do nothing on our own at that point to provide restitution, and any restitution to be had is truly from God’s Grace), as to His JUSTICE (God Himself is making up for what we lost in our lifetime through the infinite Merits that Christ obtained on the cross). And remember that this notion of Justice (“making up for what is due”) - both its ends and means - is ALWAYS and EVER geared towards the sanctification of the sinner according to Catholic doctrine.

It is true that the legalese of the Latin Catholic theological system can often be mistaken for the sheer forensic justification that was taught by the Protestants (as is evident even from brother Gary’s statement). It might take years to see the confluence of Eastern and Western thought on these matters. I hope I have helped to shed some light on the matter.

Humbly,
Marduk

Oh, Marduk, thank you so much for sharing this explanation. I hope you believe me when I say it is no exaggeration that I, who relate far more to Eastern theology and spirituality than Latin theology and spirituality, and whom the latter sometimes makes uncomfortable, often come to understand and appreciate the true essence of Latin Christianity’s teachings and vocabulary precisely through your responses, reflections, and explanations.

How about that - it’s ultimately an Oriental Christian who most helps me understand and appreciate Latin Christianity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I must strongly disagree with your statement that “Christ’s mercy triumphs over justice” for the very reason that Christ is the source of both mercy and justice. It is only secular society that makes a false dichotomy between the virtues

Right

A sinner cannot provide restitution in Purgatory for any injustices he/she committed.

Provide being the key word, correct you cannot provide anything at this point, This is judgement, the Particular Judgement. Merit and Demerit is over. Bad choice of a word on my part.

The restitution that occurs in Purgatory is as much due to the MERCY of GOD (because we can do nothing on our own at that point to provide restitution, and any restitution to be had is truly from God’s Grace).

But it is restitution for lack of a better word thus purification. Merit being key here, I’ll show you…

"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. “From an earlier link I posted on the Particular Judgement”

As to His JUSTICE (God Himself is making up for what we lost in our lifetime through the infinite Merits that Christ obtained on the cross). And remember that this notion of Justice (“making up for what is due”) - both its ends and means - is ALWAYS and EVER geared towards the sanctification of the sinner according to Catholic doctrine.

Right for this is exactly what we are talking about Justice thus Judgement or the Particular Judgement. Saudreau answers: “Love is not an effect of headwork, not a pushing forward of will to give to it greater force. It is the result of accepting generously all sacrifices, in accepting with a loving heart all trials.”

(“making up for what is due”) indicates provide mardukm. The point we are not doing this through merit-demerit.

Peace

 

[Cavaradossi]

Dearest Father Kimel,

Permit me to inject something into the conversation as an Oriental. As you might know, the doctrine of Divine Justice is part of the Oriental Patrimony, not just the Latin. So I hope I can shed some light on the matter from an Oriental perspective that might not come across that well from a Latin perspective.

I must strongly disagree with your statement that “Christ’s mercy triumphs over justice” for the very reason that Christ is the source of both mercy and justice. It is only secular society that makes a false dichotomy between the virtues of mercy and justice, as if they were opposed to each other. This, I believe, is an unfortunate side-effect of Protestant society wherein the term “Justice” is equated with retribution and vengeance (“Sinners in the hands of an angry God” lore). But “Justice” in the divine order is not about retribution or vengeance - satisfaction and penance, yes, but not retribution and vengeance.

JUSTICE taken as such refers to nothing more nor less than this - a quality which renders what is due. The question is, what is it that is due? Here we need to delve into the notion of ORIGINAL JUSTICE. According to Catholic thought, Original Justice consists of the possession of the Sanctifying Grace with which God created our first parents (this is not a modern Catholic interpretation by the way, but has ALWAYS been the Catholic teaching).

So when Catholic scholars speak of God’s Justice being met, from St. Anselm down to today, they are not referring to some sort of sheer legal requirement, but of the essence of deification - acquiring (or rather, re-acquiring) the holiness that God intends FOR US. This is what was lost, and this is what is due - the Sanctifying Grace. God’s justice is not about retribution or vengeance, but the means by which we BECOME HOLY. This is exactly what Scripture tells us, is it not - if we were not His Sons, we would not be chastised. Father, you need to study the essence of the difference between what the Catholic Church taught at Trent regarding Divine Justice over and against what the Reformers taught. EO often criticize the Catholic Church for its legalism regarding its doctrine of Divine Justice, but the EO criticism is utterly misplaced for it is constantly mistaking the Protestant doctrine of pure legal satisfaction for the true Catholic doctrine of deification/sanctification.

I don’t think you are being contentious at all, but I do believe you (as do many EO) misunderstand what “DIvine Justice” is.

As far as brother Gary’s statement (“Purgatory, is the rectifier of injustice in which the sinner must provide restitution for injustices he/she had committed [and not made restitution for in life] through suffering at the hand of God prior to entrance to Heaven or whichever room that is in the mansion.”, which you criticized, I actually agree with your criticism. Perhaps it was a slip of his pen, but what he stated is not Catholic doctrine.

A sinner cannot provide restitution in Purgatory for any injustices he/she committed. The restitution that occurs in Purgatory is as much due to the MERCY of GOD (because we can do nothing on our own at that point to provide restitution, and any restitution to be had is truly from God’s Grace), as to His JUSTICE (God Himself is making up for what we lost in our lifetime through the infinite Merits that Christ obtained on the cross). And remember that this notion of Justice (“making up for what is due”) - both its ends and means - is ALWAYS and EVER geared towards the sanctification of the sinner according to Catholic doctrine.

It is true that the legalese of the Latin Catholic theological system can often be mistaken for the sheer forensic justification that was taught by the Protestants (as is evident even from brother Gary’s statement). It might take years to see the confluence of Eastern and Western thought on these matters. I hope I have helped to shed some light on the matter.

Humbly,
Marduk

How can we believe you, when you provide no sources for your claims? Not once have I seen you quote the Alexandrian Fathers on the subject of the justice of God, nor have I ever seen you demonstrate the consonance between the Anselmian theory of Satisfaction and the Alexandrian Fathers with sourced claims. Considering the erudition displayed here by Fr. Kimel, this kind of response filled with unsubstantiated claims and fiery flourishes of red and bolded text is hardly adequate or appropriate.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where is the idea that souls through judgement that enter eternal damnation [hell] may be saved. Or is this pious thinking?

I think its great to pray for all souls, however what indicates the above?

 

[fnr]

As far as brother Gary’s statement (“Purgatory, is the rectifier of injustice in which the sinner must provide restitution for injustices he/she had committed [and not made restitution for in life] through suffering at the hand of God prior to entrance to Heaven or whichever room that is in the mansion.”, which you criticized, I actually agree with your criticism. Perhaps it was a slip of his pen, but what he stated is not Catholic doctrine.

A sinner cannot provide restitution in Purgatory for any injustices he/she committed. The restitution that occurs in Purgatory is as much due to the MERCY of GOD (because we can do nothing on our own at that point to provide restitution, and any restitution to be had is truly from God’s Grace), as to His JUSTICE (God Himself is making up for what we lost in our lifetime through the infinite Merits that Christ obtained on the cross). And remember that this notion of Justice (“making up for what is due”) - both its ends and means - is ALWAYS and EVER geared towards the sanctification of the sinner according to Catholic doctrine.

It is true that the legalese of the Latin Catholic theological system can often be mistaken for the sheer forensic justification that was taught by the Protestants (as is evident even from brother Gary’s statement). It might take years to see the confluence of Eastern and Western thought on these matters. I hope I have helped to shed some light on the matter.

Marduk, I agree with you here. I don’t think a disembodied soul can suffer unless God gives it a body to suffer in (that seems to require an additional resurrection that would be strictly for the purpose of inflicting pain, which isn’t to me consistent with divine love). The soul doesn’t have the faculties of sensation needed to suffer. So if there’s a purgation, it’s just God wiping the slate clean.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Fr. Kimel

Christ mercy triumphs over justice I would have see explained in content/context. Perhaps I missed the link. I don’t see a major dilemma, just a point to be discussed.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=5&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcatholicharboroffaithandmorals.com%2FMercy%2520and%2520Justice.html&ei=hM8rUKWEEabb6wGXhoC4Bg&usg=AFQjCNErXS46ZRU5sIatd1vRgNWT5oE5Rw&sig2=x51s3Tozqmjxt19O2SHYkw

Course a deeper thought came be read through St Thomas

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&sqi=2&ved=0CE8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fsumma%2F1021.htm&ei=hM8rUKWEEabb6wGXhoC4Bg&usg=AFQjCNH3qE7XoHVg4c7m0oKyn3ngIeAf4w&sig2=qXdpu4_2e7tVgOgTccrbPA

“Or Know, My daughter, that between Me and you there is a bottomless abyss, an abyss which separates the Creator from the creature. But this abyss is filled with My mercy”
–St Faustina, Divine Mercy in my Soul

and

" …I saw my Guardian Angel, who ordered me to follow him. In a moment I was in a misty place full of fire in which there was a great crowd of suffering souls. They were praying fervently, but to no avail, for themselves; only we can come to their aid. The flames, which were burning them, did not touch me at all. My Guardian Angel did not leave me for an instant. I asked these souls what their greatest suffering was. They answered me in one voice that their greatest torment was longing for God. I saw Our Lady visiting the souls in Purgatory. The souls call Her “The Star of the Sea”. She brings them refreshment. I wanted to talk with them some more, but my Guardian Angel beckoned me to leave.

We went out of that prison of suffering. *

‘My mercy does not want this, but justice demands it. Since that time, I am in closer communion with the suffering souls.’” (Diary, 20)

Mercy presuppose’s justice*

 

[FrKimel]

Dearest Father Kimel,

Permit me to inject something into the conversation as an Oriental. As you might know, the doctrine of Divine Justice is part of the Oriental Patrimony, not just the Latin. So I hope I can shed some light on the matter from an Oriental perspective that might not come across that well from a Latin perspective.

I must strongly disagree with your statement that “Christ’s mercy triumphs over justice” for the very reason that Christ is the source of both mercy and justice. It is only secular society that makes a false dichotomy between the virtues of mercy and justice, as if they were opposed to each other. This, I believe, is an unfortunate side-effect of Protestant society wherein the term “Justice” is equated with retribution and vengeance (“Sinners in the hands of an angry God” lore). But “Justice” in the divine order is not about retribution or vengeance - satisfaction and penance, yes, but not retribution and vengeance.

JUSTICE taken as such refers to nothing more nor less than this - a quality which renders what is due. The question is, what is it that is due? Here we need to delve into the notion of ORIGINAL JUSTICE. According to Catholic thought, Original Justice consists of the possession of the Sanctifying Grace with which God created our first parents (this is not a modern Catholic interpretation by the way, but has ALWAYS been the Catholic teaching).

So when Catholic scholars speak of God’s Justice being met, from St. Anselm down to today, they are not referring to some sort of sheer legal requirement, but of the essence of deification - acquiring (or rather, re-acquiring) the holiness that God intends FOR US. This is what was lost, and this is what is due - the Sanctifying Grace. God’s justice is not about retribution or vengeance, but the means by which we BECOME HOLY. This is exactly what Scripture tells us, is it not - if we were not His Sons, we would not be chastised. Father, you need to study the essence of the difference between what the Catholic Church taught at Trent regarding Divine Justice over and against what the Reformers taught. EO often criticize the Catholic Church for its legalism regarding its doctrine of Divine Justice, but the EO criticism is utterly misplaced for it is constantly mistaking the Protestant doctrine of pure legal satisfaction for the true Catholic doctrine of deification/sanctification.

Marduk, your comments are always thoughtful and instructive. Thank you. 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. So what precisely is the temporal punishment of sin? What is the debt that this punishment satisfies? Why are forgiven, reconciled sinners punished by God after they die?

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s pretend we are now living in 1955. Vatican II hasn’t happened yet. The Catholic Catechism hasn’t been published yet. Ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and other Christian Churches hasn’t happened yet. I come to you and ask you the two questions posed above. What will you tell me?

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? My guess is that you will turn to St Thomas Aquinas. I also quoted Philip Quinn’s exegesis of St Thomas. 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.”

Does this sound anything like sanctification and theosis as understood by Eastern Orthodoxy? 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. Here is the analogy:

I steal a car. I am arrested. The car is restored to the owner. I confess to my crime and am authentically repentant. I even offer to make restitution to the owner of the car for the inconvenience I caused him. But still I am sentenced to serve five years in the state penitentiary in order to fulfill the requirements of justice. The judge could have simply commuted the sentence to time already served, but he chose otherwise. Why? Because I deserve to be punished. Because it is my desire to become and be a good citizen, I embrace the punishment and serve my time. Hopefully I’ll be a better person when I finally get released.

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.

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?

Thought experiment concluded.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Marduk, I agree with you here. I don’t think a disembodied soul can suffer unless God gives it a body to suffer in (that seems to require an additional resurrection that would be strictly for the purpose of inflicting pain, which isn’t to me consistent with divine love). The soul doesn’t have the faculties of sensation needed to suffer. So if there’s a purgation, it’s just God wiping the slate clean.

It would seem St Faustina would disagree with you.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The easiest way IMHO to view this, though too limited next to the Lord, is to think of your own relationship with your children as a father. There is no better model to see this in reality.

 

[FrKimel]

The easiest way IMHO to view this, though too limited next to the Lord, is to think of your own relationship with your children as a father. There is no better model to see this in reality.

I agree, and our Lord himself provides the parable. When the prodigal son returns, what does the father do? He runs down the road to welcome home him son, clothes him in new garments, and orders a feast to be prepared.

The only person in the parable concerned with justice is the elder son.

 

[fnr]

It would seem St Faustina would disagree with you.

Would you please explain what you mean?

 

[GaryTaylor]

I agree, and our Lord himself provides the parable. When the prodigal son returns, what does the father do? He runs down the road to welcome home him son, clothes him in new garments, and orders a feast to be prepared.

The only person in the parable concerned with justice is the elder son.

True, however the prodigal son already suffered by his own free will. He created his own sentence and prison.

The elder son is blinded by justice alone. He see’s the me, myself and I aspect, the father see’s past all this.

Forgiveness being the key idea here. However, forgiveness is absolute with purification. This is a give.

I guess the question would be this, what is the difference in purification and Heaven, what shall souls encounter, surely not the reward of the Communion of Saints at this particular point. So we must admit something is lacking. Then too this lacking truly must cause remorse, yet also the soul would know the joy, for however long this process would take in Gods wisdom, there will be that light at the end! So what IMHO opinion is occuring here is “humility” corrrectly defined. This is what the prodigal son came to know and the father already understood. The other missed this caught in his web of emotions.

Humility can coexist with self-worth, esteem, and personal value. Thinking that you’re more wonderful than you really are is pride, and thinking that you’re more wretched than you really are is false humility, which is another form of pride because it’s still self-focused. True humility thus remorse I believe would be far more likely IMHO of course. Thus a co-existence of Joy and Remorse/Humility. I’m sure the Prodigal Son walked in the front in this realm of emotion. The father knew what the brother could not comprehend, which is true love.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Would you please explain what you mean?

“I don’t think a disembodied soul can suffer unless God gives it a body to suffer”

Your statement moves past the realm of emotional to physical suffering.

We need to view all this in a metaphysical sense. In other words you statement suggests Souls would feel nothing on an emotional level. From all accounts this simply is not true.

 

[fnr]

“I don’t think a disembodied soul can suffer unless God gives it a body to suffer”

Your statement moves past the realm of emotional to physical suffering.

We need to view all this in a metaphysical sense. In other words you statement suggests Souls would feel nothing on an emotional level. From all accounts this simply is not true.

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!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

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

Skipping the pains of purgatory?

 

[fnr]

Skipping the pains of purgatory?

Here’s my earlier post with more detail:
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9651870#post9651870

Honestly, St.Thomas Aquinas said that the sensory faculties of the soul work via the sensory organs. He said that the “rational soul” was that which was not mediated by the body. However, we know from survivors of strokes and traumatic head injuries that people can experience amnesia (temporary or permanent), personality change, and emotional swings when part of their brain is injured.

Cognitive neuroscience has strongly suggested that our personalities and thoughts are borne by the physical stuff of our brains. If Aquinas says that the soul depends on the eyes to see, if he knew about tramatic head injury survivors, wouldn’t he also conclude that the soul depends on the brain to retain memory and cognition?

Please see my earlier post. The resurrected body is the future for which we hope! That changes the whole game. Heaven is just a stopover on the way to living with God in his holy city, come down from heaven to the new Earth.

Without sensation, memory, or cognition, how can a soul suffer? No one knows the spirit world, but what’s the point of a resurrected body if heaven is just as good? That suggests to me that even heaven isn’t as good as living with God in his holy city, in our resurrected bodies, after the end of time. If souls living with God in heaven isn’t just the best thing ever, then the soul must not be able to experience God in the same way we’ll be able in our resurrected bodies. If so, our souls won’t be able to suffer in the same way we do today (or will in our resurrected bodies).

If the soul is the “form” of the body, it is without substance, and consists of only spiritual qualities. Between this life and our resurrected bodies, we have only our souls. In other words, I don’t want to end up in heaven! I want to live with God in his holy city in my resurrected physical body here on earth.

I’m trying to cut through the division about Purgatory by trying to say what we know about the soul. I hate that we’re divided from our Orthodox brothers and sisters. If 1 Corinthians 11:17-18 is any guide, we’re all doing wrong by not being together. This is compulsion to unity, plain and simple:
"I hear that there when you meet as a church, there are divisions among you, and to a degree I believe it; there have to be factions among you in order that (also) those who are approved among you may become known."
So proud are we all of how right we all are…

 

[FrKimel]

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!

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.

 

[jlhargus]

Marduk, I agree with you here. I don’t think a disembodied soul can suffer unless God gives it a body to suffer in (that seems to require an additional resurrection that would be strictly for the purpose of inflicting pain, which isn’t to me consistent with divine love). The soul doesn’t have the faculties of sensation needed to suffer. So if there’s a purgation, it’s just God wiping the slate clean.

Wouldn’t that mean Satan and evil spirits don’t suffer in the Lake of fire? Then why pray for the dead at all?

 

[fnr]

Wouldn’t that mean Satan and evil spirits don’t suffer in the Lake
of fire?

I can’t speak to Satan or evil spirits. I think that they are excluded from God’s presence, eternally. They turned away from God forever, and can never turn back.

Then why pray for the dead at all?

Acts 2:27: “Therefore my heart has been glad and my tongue has exulted; my flesh, too, will dwell in hope, because you will not abandon my soul to the netherworld, nor will you suffer your holy one to see corruption.”

Pray for the dead in Purgatory. Just because they can’t feel pain in the way we can doesn’t mean that there’s something deeply disturbing about being separated from God. I’d like to think of my soul in heaven with God, even if the resurrected bodily alternative is even better!