Forgiveness of sins before Jesus

[thephilosopher6]

God clearly forgives sins in the Old Testament. Including outside of the temple sacrifice. Of course, really only those holding to penal substitution (Calvinist) would argue that the primary purpose of animal sacrifice was for the forgiveness of sins. I mean, there were some. But to my knowledge they were mostly for unintentional sins and offered rarely. Most Christians generally hold the same view of the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice as Jews do (with the exception that Christians see animal sacrifice, primarily the Passover sacrifice, as a foreshadow to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ). Now, it is also true that Jesus himself forgave sins before his death (Luke 7:28). So, if sins could be forgiven before Christ, then what was the purpose of Jesus’s sacrifice as the ultimate way to bring about forgiveness and reconcile man to God?

 

[LoyalViews]

I’ll admit the sole intention of this post is to subscribe to this conversation.

However, I must add that many theologians have pondered about the ‘absolute’ meaning of “forgiveness of sins” in the Old Testament. Some think that those prophets that came before the Son of God were admitted into some sort of limbo, or half-heaven state.

 

[Monica4316]

I’ll admit the sole intention of this post is to subscribe to this conversation.

However, I must add that many theologians have pondered about the ‘absolute’ meaning of “forgiveness of sins” in the Old Testament. Some think that those prophets that came before the Son of God were admitted into some sort of limbo, or half-heaven state.

I’d say more than some… That is the standard position of the Church. The just souls were in Limbo before Our Lord descended there. They could not go to Heaven yet

 

[thephilosopher6]

I’d say more than some… That is the standard position of the Church. The just souls were in Limbo before Our Lord descended there. They could not go to Heaven yet

Of course, we can take that view of Limbo. But what about the eastern view? From my understanding the Byzantines (Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) still believe the “intermediate state” is Sheol and that we won’t reach our final destination (heaven and hell) until the resurrection. They admit of different states in Sheol that could be described as heavenly, purgatory, or hellish but that it’s all the same “place” (Sheol) in the presence of God. They would admit that the Bosom of Abraham is the heavenly state in Sheol. They admit of no real change in the “intermediate state” from the time of Adam to the death of Christ till now. The western view of the intermediate state is rejected by our eastern brethren.

 

[Vico]

Of course, we can take that view of Limbo. But what about the eastern view? From my understanding the Byzantines (Byzantine Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) still believe the “intermediate state” is Sheol and that we won’t reach our final destination (heaven and hell) until the resurrection. They admit of different states in Sheol that could be described as heavenly, purgatory, or hellish but that it’s all the same “place” (Sheol) in the presence of God. They would admit that the Bosom of Abraham is the heavenly state in Sheol. They admit of no real change in the “intermediate state” from the time of Adam to the death of Christ till now. The western view of the intermediate state is rejected by our eastern brethren.

Eastern Catholics assent to the same doctrines as Latin Catholics. One is the particular judgement (Sent. fidei proxima) :

• The profession of faith of Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologus (1274)
• Bull “Benedictus Deus” of Pope Benedict XII, (1336)
• Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439): Souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace and needing purification, are cleansed in Purgatory.
• Professions of faith of Pope Gregory XIII (1572-85)
• Professions of faith of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58)

The de fide dogma is: The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven

 

[thephilosopher6]

Eastern Catholics assent to the same doctrines as Latin Catholics. One is the particular judgement (Sent. fidei proxima) :

• The profession of faith of Byzantine Emperor Michael Palaeologus (1274)
• Bull “Benedictus Deus” of Pope Benedict XII, (1336)
• Union Decree of Eugene IV (1439): Souls leaving their bodies in a state of grace and needing purification, are cleansed in Purgatory.
• Professions of faith of Pope Gregory XIII (1572-85)
• Professions of faith of Pope Benedict XIV (1740-58)

The de fide dogma is: The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven

They do hold the same view as Latin Catholics, but their conception of the intermediate state is different. This is not a difference in dogma, but rather tradition. Byzantine Catholic’s have the same view of the intermediate state as Eastern Orthodox.

Here’s a quote from an Eastern Catholic site

(east2west.org/faq/doctrine/)

This certainly is true. The Eastern Catholic Churches are not only “allowed” but are actively encouraged to cultivate their own distinctive theological expressions.
Eastern Catholics, while fully Catholic and in communion with the Pope, differ in more ways than just liturgy. We also possess a unique spiritual tradition, as well as a unique theological approach. While we agree with the Latin Church on fundamental matters of doctrine, we approach doctrine in a very different way – from the Eastern perspective. While the Western Church has traditionally formulated doctrine in terms of scholastic Latin theology, we rely almost exclusively on the theology of the Eastern Church Fathers. This difference, rather than rupturing the unity of the Church, further expresses the true UNIVERSIALITY of Christ’s Church.

As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.
In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and sufferred. Some theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.
In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.
The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.
But again, we do not use the word “Purgatory” for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word “Purgatory” still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren’t comfortable with.
It is noteworthy that the Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.
Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”
In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described it as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.
Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.

 

[Vico]

They do hold the same view as Latin Catholics, but their conception of the intermediate state is different. This is not a difference in dogma, but rather tradition. Byzantine Catholic’s have the same view of the intermediate state as Eastern Orthodox.

Here’s a quote from an Eastern Catholic site

(east2west.org/faq/doctrine/)

In the Treaty of Brest the Ukrainian Catholics entrusted to teaching of purgatory to the Latin Church:
5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-97/32-document-library/documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

 

[thephilosopher6]

In the Treaty of Brest the Ukrainian Catholics entrusted to teaching of purgatory to the Latin Church:
5.—We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church.

byzcath.org/index.php/resources-mainmenu-63/document-library-mainmenu-97/32-document-library/documents-from-rome/302-apostolic-letter-for-the-fourth-centenary-of-the-union-of-brest

That says nothing about the Latin Church… Eastern Catholics do accept “purgatory” just not the Latin conception of it, nor do they accept the Latin conception of the intermediate state as a whole. As the author of that quote above said:

In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

From these two points, the east and the west have developed two different views of “purgatory” while fully agreeing that such a state exist.

 

[Vico]

That says nothing about the Latin Church… Eastern Catholics do accept “purgatory” just not the Latin conception of it, nor do they accept the Latin conception of the intermediate state as a whole. As the author of that quote above said:

From these two points, the east and the west have developed two different views of “purgatory” while fully agreeing that such a state exist.

The fact that you put purgatory in quotes seems to mean that the word is not used in the east, which is what I assumed in my post. Purgatory is in reference to the Latin word for the dogmatic teaching about which there will be no debate. The teaching using the word purgatory is entrusted to Rome because Holy Church means full union with Rome. Before the items is stated: “We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.”

 

[thephilosopher6]

The fact that you put purgatory in quotes seems to mean that the word is not used in the east, which is what I assumed in my post. Purgatory is in reference to the Latin word for the dogmatic teaching about which there will be no debate. The teaching using the word purgatory is entrusted to Rome because Holy Church means full union with Rome. Before the items is stated: “We require prior guarantees of these articles from the Romans before we enter into union with the Roman Church.”

Eastern Catholics in no way deny what the Latins term “purgatory.” Rather, they have their own theological conception of what purgatory is. They accept the dogmatic teaching of purgatory. They just have different views regarding what actually occurs in the state.

 

[Vico]

Eastern Catholics in no way deny what the Latins term “purgatory.” Rather, they have their own theological conception of what purgatory is. They accept the dogmatic teaching of purgatory. They just have different views regarding what actually occurs in the state.

Prayers for the dead have been Jewish practice since before the time of Christ. The Jews of Maccabees and Orthodox Jews today say the Mourner’s Kaddish. Christians continued this practice along with the consequent idea of purgation after death.

For the Eastern Orthodox the particular judgment is a temporary disposition with the eternal disposition of the soul to be determined at the Great Judgment. So the Catholic teaching is different because the particular judgment disposition is not temporary but eternal.

The Catholic teaching on the eternal particular judgment was given at the Council of Florence Session 6 (6 July 1439):

Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Prayers for the dead have been Jewish practice since before the time of Christ. The Jews of Maccabees and Orthodox Jews today say the Mourner’s Kaddish. Christians continued this practice along with the consequent idea of purgation after death.

For the Eastern Orthodox the particular judgment is a temporary disposition with the eternal disposition of the soul to be determined at the Great Judgment. So the Catholic teaching is different because the particular judgment disposition is not temporary but eternal.

The Catholic teaching on the eternal particular judgment was given at the Council of Florence Session 6 (6 July 1439):

Also, if truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.

Also, the souls of those who have incurred no stain of sin whatsoever after baptism, as well as souls who after incurring the stain of sin have been cleansed whether in their bodies or outside their bodies, as was stated above, are straightaway received into heaven and clearly behold the triune God as he is, yet one person more perfectly than another according to the difference of their merits. But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.

The Latin teaching is different. Eastern Catholics (Byzantines) believe the same thing as Eastern Orthodox. Instead of trying to push for Latinisation, the Eastern Catholics have kept all their traditions. Sadly, your lack of knowledge of Eastern Catholicism only demonstrates the ignorance prevalent throughout the western Church.

 

[Vico]

The Latin teaching is different. Eastern Catholics (Byzantines) believe the same thing as Eastern Orthodox. Instead of trying to push for Latinisation, the Eastern Catholics have kept all their traditions. Sadly, your lack of knowledge of Eastern Catholicism only demonstrates the ignorance prevalent throughout the western Church.

I am a Byzantine Catholic. We do not believe exactly like the Orthodox according to my classes that I have taken from my Pastor and other teachers that he has do our classes.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I am a Byzantine Catholic. We do not believe exactly like the Orthodox according to my classes that I have taken from my Pastor and other teachers that he has do our classes.

Yet other Byzantine Catholic’s say otherwise.

 

[Vico]

Yet other Byzantine Catholic’s say otherwise.

They are free to speak for themselves. The Catholic Church states that eastern Catholics must assent to the teaching authority of the Magisterium (ordinary and universal – Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops).

Eastern canon law states (CCEO):

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

 

[thephilosopher6]

They are free to speak for themselves. The Catholic Church states that eastern Catholics must assent to the teaching authority of the Magisterium (ordinary and universal – Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops).

Eastern canon law states (CCEO):

Canon 598 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All Christian faithful are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Canon 1436 – § 1. Whoever denies a truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or who calls into doubt, or who totally repudiates the Christian faith, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished as a heretic or an apostate with a major excommunication; a cleric moreover can be punished with other penalties, not excluding deposition.

§ 2. In addition to these cases, whoever obstinately rejects a teaching that the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops, exercising the authentic Magisterium, have set forth to be held definitively, or who affirms what they have condemned as erroneous, and does not retract after having been legitimately warned, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

Yes, and they do in everyday, Accepting the Orthodox view of purgatory in no way goes against the Magisterium I also found EWTN quoting the same thing as I found on the Eastern Catholic Website.

(ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=507072&language=en)

1. Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches?

As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.

In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered. Some theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.

In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.

But again, we do not use the word “Purgatory” for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word “Purgatory” still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren’t comfortable with.

It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.

Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.” This refers to the process of deification, in which the remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.

Interestingly, Mother Angelica has repeatedly expressed a very positive understanding of “Purgatory” being a joyful state, rather than a place of suffering. In some ways her description lines up well with the Eastern understanding of the Final Theosis.

Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.

For further information, specially the eastern christian view of original sin and the Inmaculate Conception I recomend:

You seem ignorant of Eastern Catholicism

 

[Vico]

Yes, and they do in everyday, Accepting the Orthodox view of purgatory in no way goes against the Magisterium I also found EWTN quoting the same thing as I found on the Eastern Catholic Website.

(ewtn.com/v/experts/showmessage_print.asp?number=507072&language=en)

You seem ignorant of Eastern Catholicism

As stated by OCA: “the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory as a “third” or “alternate” state to heaven and hell”.

The Council of Trent included a Decree on Justification with an anathema:

If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema.

All Catholics are bound to assent to this.

 

[thephilosopher6]

As stated by OCA: “the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory as a “third” or “alternate” state to heaven and hell”.

The Council of Trent included a Decree on Justification with an anathema:

If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema.

All Catholics are bound to assent to this.

What the Orthodox mean by “purgatory” is the Latin concept.

Instead of exhausting every resource for your Latinisations, you could simply accept the fact that Eastern Catholic’s have different views of purgatory than the Latin’s, though they do not deny it. You are obviously ignorant of Eastern Catholicism and eastern theology as a whole.

 

[Vico]

What the Orthodox mean by “purgatory” is the Latin concept.

Instead of exhausting every resource for your Latinisations, you could simply accept the fact that Eastern Catholic’s have different views of purgatory than the Latin’s, though they do not deny it. You are obviously ignorant of Eastern Catholicism and eastern theology as a whole.

I am Byzantine Catholic and have studied both Latin and Eastern Orthodox Theology, so it is not ignorance. You wrote that Eastern Catholics (Byzantines) believe the same thing as Eastern Orthodox, but assent is belief.

You wrote this, and it is what I responded to:

The Latin teaching is different. Eastern Catholics (Byzantines) believe the same thing as Eastern Orthodox. Instead of trying to push for Latinisation, the Eastern Catholics have kept all their traditions. Sadly, your lack of knowledge of Eastern Catholicism only demonstrates the ignorance prevalent throughout the western Church.

 

[thephilosopher6]

I am Byzantine Catholic and have studied both Latin and Eastern Orthodox Theology, so it is not ignorance. You wrote that Eastern Catholics (Byzantines) believe the same thing as Eastern Orthodox, but assent is belief.

You wrote this, and it is what I responded to:

Obviously not, as you clearly understand little eastern theology.