Hades, Purgatory

[Leo_The_Great]

I did post this in the Orthodox Catholic union draft thread, by I thought it was interesting.

---

My awesome and God fearing Orthodox friends, listen to this.

In his Encyclical “Spe Salvi” Pope Benedict XVI says some really interesting things about purgatory and afterlife, specifically, the intermediate state of the dead.

44…“In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.”

1. "This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss (A la St. Mark of Ephesus, -Leo).
   There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God (Does it get more Orthodox than that people? -Leo).

The early Church took up these concepts, and in the ***Western Church ***they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38]."

NOw, I have researched the Orthodox view on Heaven, Hell, purification, prayer for the Dead, The Teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus, etc.

Does this not hit the nail on the head? Seriously, this is great.

Please tell me what you think My Orthodox Buddies.

 

[trophybearer]

I did post this in the Orthodox Catholic union draft thread, by I thought it was interesting.

---

My awesome and God fearing Orthodox friends, listen to this.

In his Encyclical “Spe Salvi” Pope Benedict XVI says some really interesting things about purgatory and afterlife, specifically, the intermediate state of the dead.

44…“In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.”

1. "This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss (A la St. Mark of Ephesus, -Leo).
   There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God (Does it get more Orthodox than that people? -Leo).

The early Church took up these concepts, and in the ***Western Church ***they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38]."

NOw, I have researched the Orthodox view on Heaven, Hell, purification, prayer for the Dead, The Teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus, etc.

Does this not hit the nail on the head? Seriously, this is great.

Please tell me what you think My Orthodox Buddies.

It seems like a departure from former Latin concepts regarding the afterlife, and a good one. What’s to say the next Pope won’t feel completely differently? Given the Pope’s ability to infallibly define new dogmas at will in your Church he’s essentially the last word. There’s no way after 1000 years of heterodoxy that Rome can just slide back into its original place among the Patriarchs. I don’t see Rome being able to swallow the big old lump of humility it would take to reclaim its place in the Church. I pray that I am wrong, but I try to live in reality.

 

[jlhargus]

It seems like a departure from former Latin concepts regarding the afterlife, and a good one. What’s to say the next Pope won’t feel completely differently? Given the Pope’s ability to infallibly define new dogmas at will in your Church he’s essentially the last word. There’s no way after 1000 years of heterodoxy that Rome can just slide back into its original place among the Patriarchs. I don’t see Rome being able to swallow the big old lump of humility it would take to reclaim its place in the Church. I pray that I am wrong, but I try to live in reality.

JL: How does it seem like a departure? I dont see that at all. By the way no infallibly defined doctrine can be changed, besides Pope Benedict is NOT defining anything infallibly.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

trophybearer, do you even know what has been dogmatically defined as de fide by the Councils of lyons and Florence?

1.The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory (Or undergo purification). (De fide)

1. The living Faithful can come to the assistance of the Souls in Purgatory (or undergoing purification if you like) by their intercessions. (De fide.)

THAT IS ALL. THe rest is theologoumena and what is considered theological speculation

THe Roman Catholic Church does NOT define Purgatory as a place.
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT define purgatory as material fire.
The Roman Catholic Church does NOT define that Purgatory purifies a persons sin, but that the persons are fitted and prepared for union with their creator by undergoing just punishments.

Also the Pope does not define doctrines willy nilly, but only when he feels that the sensus fidei is an accurate expression of the dogma in question, that is why the pope has only defined two dogmas: The IC and the Assumption, passing over the issue of the death of the Theotokos in silence.

You believe in the immaculate conception as defined, but outside of the Catholic paradigm:
You believe She was not born with Adams Guilt (As you will admit, none are), She personally did not sin (An almost universal Orthodox consensus), and she was at all times all holy, even from her mothers womb (THis is evident in her being called Panagia). If you are Orthodox, you believe that.
And the virtually universal Catholic consensus is she DID die and was subject to the physical effects of the original sin as such.

And the Assumption is a non-issue,

SO how are those two incidents of the pope issuing a definition on his own authority outside the Pale of Orthodoxy?

Or is it just the fact he DID it at all?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Also, remember that there is (unfortunately) quite alot of NON BINDING theological speculation in the ROman Church…Cut that out and YOu have a workable paradigm for reunion

 

[trophybearer]

I resent being told what I believe. That kind of condescending attitude won’t get the Latins anywhere. This idea that we’re just too blind, stubborn or ignorant to know that we obviously believe exactly as you do and just can’t see it is offensive and no one is falling for it. The Orthodox Church is not going to accept this novel notion that the Pope of Rome can infalliably define dogma of his own will. He would always be subject to an ecumenical council and his approval is not even necessary as is evident in the earliest councils of the Church. He can be Orthodox and accept his place among the other Patriarchs, maybe even hold a special place of honor(that is up to the Church to decide) but nothing more. Look at the position that the Ecumenical Patriarch holds. God willing, the Pope of Rome could find himself in that place- nothing more can be acceptable.

 

[Monica4316]

I think that description sounds exactly like Purgatory, not a departure at all

it can be a good way to ‘bridge’ Eastern and Western understanding! “Purgatory” is just a name we use to call the place of purification many ECFs talked about. We dont know if it’s a place, etc, - there are opinions about that, but the dogma itself simply describes it as a place of purification.

In the Eastern understanding, some souls that suffer after death, can still find forgiveness and go to Heaven. Others can not. What distinguishes them? Perhaps the former are in a type of purgatory state.

 

[Wesley7]

I see in the Orthodox Church there are services and prayers for the dead ‘faithful departed’ which constitutes (mystical prayer) in the Church.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I apologize for offending you.

If it makes a difference, I have read the Orthodox church by Bishop Kallistos Ware, as well as his other Book, the Orthodox way, I have read Eastern Orthodox Theology which is by multiple authors, I have read The Bride of the Lamb by Sergius Bulgakov, I have Read the Jesus Prayer by St. Ignatius Brianchanninov, I have read The Mountain of SIlence by Kyriacos, I have Read the Way of a Pilgrim as well as The Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff.

I own all these, not to mention the hundreds of articles I have read online and the 600 page binder I compiled when I first became Catholic devoted exclusively to the Churches of the East With the Sayings of St. John Karpathos and An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.

…And 10 different complete Divine Liturgies. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari, The Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil, The Liturgy of St. Mark, The Liturgy of St. James, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Byzantine Liturgy of St. Basil, The Presanctified Liturgy composed by Pope St. Gregory the great, The Liturgy of the Syro-Malankara Church, The Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church and of course the Tridentine Mass.

SO fear not, I do not boast in numbers, I just want you to know I know the Orthodox faith fairly well.

Oh, monica, it’s not a purgatory state, it’s the state of their heart that is capable of purification.
The condition of the heart is the condition for release from the just punishments we receive.

 

[trophybearer]

Leo_The_Great;:

I apologize for offending you.

If it makes a difference, I have read the Orthodox church by Bishop Kallistos Ware, as well as his other Book, the Orthodox way, I have read Eastern Orthodox Theology which is by multiple authors, I have read The Bride of the Lamb by Sergius Bulgakov, I have Read the Jesus Prayer by St. Ignatius Brianchanninov, I have read The Mountain of SIlence by Kyriacos, I have Read the Way of a Pilgrim as well as The Primacy of Peter by John Meyendorff.

I own all these, not to mention the hundreds of articles I have read online and the 600 page binder I compiled when I first became Catholic devoted exclusively to the Churches of the East With the Sayings of St. John Karpathos and An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus and the Sayings of the Desert Fathers.

…And 10 different complete Divine Liturgies. The Liturgy of Addai and Mari, The Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil, The Liturgy of St. Mark, The Liturgy of St. James, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, The Byzantine Liturgy of St. Basil, The Presanctified Liturgy composed by Pope St. Gregory the great, The Liturgy of the Syro-Malankara Church, The Liturgy of the Syro-Malabar Church and of course the Tridentine Mass.

SO fear not, I do not boast in numbers, I just want you to know I know the Orthodox faith fairly well.

Oh, monica, it’s not a purgatory state, it’s the state of their heart that is capable of purification.
The condition of the heart is the condition for release from the just punishments we receive.

It sounds like you’ve studied it more than enough, but you have yet to live it.

 

[Mickey]

My awesome and God fearing Orthodox friends, listen to this.

In his Encyclical “Spe Salvi” Pope Benedict XVI says some really interesting things about purgatory and afterlife, specifically, the intermediate state of the dead.

44…“In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.”

1. "This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss (A la St. Mark of Ephesus, -Leo).
   There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God (Does it get more Orthodox than that people? -Leo).

The early Church took up these concepts, and in the ***Western Church ***they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38]."

NOw, I have researched the Orthodox view on Heaven, Hell, purification, prayer for the Dead, The Teaching of St. Mark of Ephesus, etc.

Does this not hit the nail on the head? Seriously, this is great.

Please tell me what you think My Orthodox Buddies.

It all seems like speculation to me. Again, no need to define a doctrine–post schism.
In fact, Benedict XVI seems to be at odds with what JP2 SAYS:

**Today’s Gospel offers the parable of the “rich man” and poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16: 19-31). The rich man lives in opulence and luxury oblivious of the beggar lying at his door. But after they die their fate is reversed, **Lazarus is carried away to heaven, whilst the rich man falls into the netherworld of torments.
Pope John Paul II

 

[Leo_The_Great]

There is room enough in the doctrinal definitions on purgatory to look at it any number of was.

As I said, as long as you believe that those burdened by forgivable sin do undergo a purification after death, and as long as you believe that prayer is efficacious for the dead, you can rephrase it into several internally consistent types of Belief.

I go with the Orthodox belief on this one, because I prefer it and I can as a Catholic.

But SOme may describe purgatory as a place (which I find objectionable) or an encounter with Christ, or some other type of strengthing for union with God.

Thus the two popes different opinions do not clash, because they are not meant to be definitive for the church.

Also, there are no contradictory statements between the two. We are speaking of Blessings and Torments with no word about mode, state or duration.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

I am trying trophybearer, my theosis is on God’s slow setting…or maybe mine?

 

[jlhargus]

It all seems like speculation to me. Again, no need to define a doctrine–post schism.
In fact, Benedict XVI seems to be at odds with what JP2 SAYS:

Today’s Gospel offers the parable of the “rich man” and poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16: 19**-31). The rich man lives in opulence and luxury oblivious of the beggar lying at his door. But after they die their fate is reversed, **Lazarus is carried away to heaven, whilst the rich man falls into the netherworld of torments.
Pope John Paul II

JL: I notice you did not post a source for JP2 remarks, which is alway evidence to me of a misquote, so I looked up JP’s remarks. I see NO difference in JP2 and Benedict XVI. The difference IS with your source ONLY. Can you give us the source for your post please.

1. This Sunday the Gospel presents the Parable of the “Rich Man” and the poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16: 19-31). The rich man lived in opulence and luxury, ignoring the beggar on his doorstep. But after his death, the situation was reversed: Lazarus was welcomed into Paradise, whereas the rich man ended up in torment.

The teaching found in the Parable is clear: all individuals must show not selfishness but solidarity in the use they make of their possessions. search.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/angelus/2004/documents/hf_jp-ii_ang_20040926_en.html

 

[Gregory_I]

SO, do you think the view presented by the Pope is consonant with Eastern Orthodox views on the intermediate state of the dead?

It seems like He’s speaking the same language here…

 

[Mickey]

1. This Sunday the Gospel presents the Parable of the “Rich Man” and the poor Lazarus (cf. Lk 16: 19-31). The rich man lived in opulence and luxury, ignoring the beggar on his doorstep. But after his death, the situation was reversed: Lazarus was welcomed into Paradise, whereas the rich man ended up in torment.

It seems my source may have worded it a bit differently.
asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=1557

Either that, or JP2 worded it one way (orally) when in New York—and it was written another way by the vatican.

But let us use your quote. You are saying that this is proof for purgatory? Do you believe that a soul is tormented in purgatory?!?

 

[dcointin]

I would disagree that the intermediate state after death is in any sense a punishment, but otherwise would agree with that Benedict XVI said.

 

[jlhargus]

It seems my source may have worded it a bit differently.
asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=1557

Either that, or JP2 worded it one way (orally) when in New York—and it was written another way by the vatican.

But let us use your quote. You are saying that this is proof for purgatory? Do you believe that a soul is tormented in purgatory?!?

JL: Your source could have also ASSUMED paradise always means heaven, as many people do. I did not say this is proof for purgatory, those are your words, I corrected a misquote. I do not believe souls in purgatory are tormented, although they do suffer, not because someone is tormenting them. When we are chastised in this life is God tormenting, or disciplining us to correct and purify us from an inclination to sin, showing his love for us as his children? That we might be with him. You may view suffering as a curse and torment but that is not the gospel. We are either purified in this world or the next and suffering, not torment, is part of that purification. I’m supprised that an EO would regard suffering as a torment. eek.

[Rms8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; **if so be that we suffer with him, THAT WE MAY BE also GLORIFIED together.]

[Heb12:5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, **despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: 6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? 8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. 9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? 10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. 11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.]

If you pray for the dead, that is an indication you believe those you pray for can be helped by your prayers, else why pray for them? You may not call it purgatory, yet it is recognition of a state, other than those who are not beholding the face of God. Those beholding the face of God need no prayers. Those in hell, prayers cannot help. So there must be a state were prayers can be of help for those passed on, otherwise it is useless and silly to pray for them.

Gregory of Nyssa

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]). catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

 

[Mickey]

Your source could have also ASSUMED paradise always means heaven

We may never know.

I did not say this is proof for purgatory, those are your words,

My apologies.

I’m supprised that an EO would regard suffering as a torment. eek.

So then… your definition of suffering means a slight uncomfortable condition while being purified? You lost me here. eek!

[Rms8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; **if so be that we suffer with him, THAT WE MAY BE also GLORIFIED together

.]
We suffer in this earthly life. We are subject to sin and death. We pick up our Cross and follow Him. But there is nothing about suffering (or torment) in some kind of purgatory.

[Heb12:5 …]

I see no purgatory here.

If you pray for the dead, that is an indication you believe those you pray for can be helped by your prayers, else why pray for them?

We pray for the dead and let those prayers be heard by God. There is no time or space for God. Our prayers for the dead do not imply any type of purgatorial state.

… he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire" (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

I do not think St Gregory preached purgatory. What is his context here? I am guessing that he is talking about the final judgement—not some type of middle state.

I have debated purgatory thousands of times here–I do not have the time nor interest to do it again. Suffice it to say–I can never be convinced of this post schism Latin doctrine.

This is my last post on the subject.

Prayers,
Mickey

 

[Fuerza]

Also, remember that there is (unfortunately) quite alot of NON BINDING theological speculation in the ROman Church…Cut that out and YOu have a workable paradigm for reunion

I made this same argument a while back on the old Eastern Christianity forum. I even gave specific examples as to how the EO and Latin views of the afterlife were completely compatible when stripped of culture-specific language and terminology, and when only defined doctrines of the Latin Church were referenced as opposed to theological speculation. Unfortunately no one cared.