Good grief. Have you even gone to vigil on the feast of the Dormition? The mind of the church is unmistakable. Can you find any substantial Orthodox writers who allow for denying that the Theotokos has been translated body and soul to heaven?It certainly does not.
I may be wrong, but I would read too much into what B16 wrote. It sounds to me that he is talking about the choice made in our earthly life.My guess–and I welcome correction from one of the knowledgeable priests on this forum–is that the Catholic Church’s teaching that the will of the human being is fixed at the moment of death–hence the irreversibility of the particular judgment–enjoys something akin to irreformable status, even though the Church has not defined the matter by an extraordinary magisterial act. It certainly is authoritative teaching. As Pope Benedict wrote in Spe salvi, “With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge.”
I am never comfortable thinking about how God should act. But the idea that has been given even here is that damned punish themselves.… the damned have chosen against their good, which means an eternity of unbearable suffering. Are we to believe that despite the intensity of their suffering, they are incapable of reconsidering their ultimate decision for God. Why would that be so? Why would God permit that to be so?
Yes this is about time, which is a tricky concept. We see the future as unknowable, but to those who know it, it is effectively present and past. It is also about universal salvation; given your questions, it appears that you must, to affirm the mercy, love, and omnipotence of God, require universal salvation. I don’t think the CC or the EOC goes that far.Does God abandon those who abandon him? Is he incapable of making his voice heard to those who have made themselves deaf, like the dwarfs in The Last Battle who cannot hear Aslan’s roar? Does God’s love and mercy have a time limit?
I agree with this point, which applies both to Orthodox and Catholics, hence my wondering about your points on the teaching of the CC on finality of the Judgement that we do not call Final.How can we pray for the salvation of all the departed if we believe that their wills are irreversibly fixed? Yet the Orthodox formally prays for the salvation of all the departed.
This is an idea that, I think, we must hope for, but dare not assume.There are saints–St Gregory Nyssen and St Isaac of Syria immediately come to mind–who believed that even Satan would eventually repent. How is it possible even to entertain this possibility? After all, angels are spiritual, non-temporal beings. Yet these saints hoped and prayed for the salvation of the fallen angels.
Good grief indeed. Is it necessary for you to act in such an unpleasant manner, like your unwarranted questioning of my piety or your similar implication that I am somehow not faithful to the teachings of my Church as far as the Dormition is concerned? Frankly, neither of those things is for you, who are neither Orthodox nor my confessor, to judge.Good grief. Have you even gone to vigil on the feast of the Dormition? The mind of the church is unmistakable. Can you find any substantial Orthodox writers who allow for denying that the Theotokos has been translated body and soul to heaven?
If you read Joseph Ratzinger’s book Eschatology, you will see that he uses the same language in it as he does in Spe salvi.I may be wrong, but I would read too much into what B16 wrote. It sounds to me that he is talking about the choice made in our earthly life.
New?Is there a new teaching that no Saints are in Heaven today or are we now unsure of this? Eastern Saints confirm this do they not? St Basil comes to mind and there are others?
Hello Fr. I am really sorry about your son. It was really unthoughtful for anyone to declare that he was in damnation to eternal flame. They were obviously incorrect but I cannot imagine someone to say such thing in time of one grief and loss.Let me add that this topic is not of mere academic interest to me. If you want to know how an Orthodox priest who believes, as I do, that repentance is possible after death and who confidently hopes for the salvation of all might preach on heaven and hell, I suggest that you read this funeral homily. I believe that God led me into the Orthodox Church so that I could preach precisely this homily and ultimately save my Christian faith and hopefully my soul.
I reference this homily for those who wish to reflect further, but I cannot discuss the specifics. The death of my son. which has shattered me and devastated my family, is too fresh. There was a time when churchmen, both Catholic and Orthodox, would have declared my son damned to eternal flames. Today folks talk about mitigating factors, which I find completely unsatisfactory. The real question is the extent of God’s love and the nature of human freedom.
Thanks for the clarification, Fr.You are quite right. The Catholic Church does not officially teach that any specific soul is in hell; but see this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles: “The Population of Hell.”
I think if you re-read what I wrote, you will see that I was speaking hypothetically. I specifically spoke of “private revelation.” There is a difference between praying for all, because we are ignorant who is saved and who is not, and praying for all, regardless of their salvific state. As an Orthodox I would pray for ____, even if I knew that he was damned, and I would do so in confidence that my prayers would benefit him.
I’m afraid you are incorrect on this point. According to Catholic teaching, those who are in a purgatorial state are, by definition, saved or justified–their wills are definitively and irreversibly oriented toward God–and indeed they know that they are justified and are now incapable of falling away from God–hence their joy. They just need some further cleansing.
I think Father that mortal sin does not signify automatic condemnation but only that you do not have the Holy Spirit any longer in you. The possibility of Grace to return is always present. I often felt the Western Church was too much on this damnation once you commit a mortal sin. I grew up Western in the first half of my life and I actually had a lot of misgivings to this type of judgement. My Eastern connection (I found out that I was Greek Orthodox in my 20’s so I went to discover this Eastern Church I hardly knew) taught me otherwise and had given to me the proper perspective and balance that I needed. The Eastern Church tends to be more lenient if one can say towards the judgement on sin and offers more a Merciful look from God towards those who commit it. May be this balance from the East is necessary for us.If you read Joseph Ratzinger’s book Eschatology, you will see that he uses the same language in it as he does in Spe salvi.
Examples:
“True enough, the decisive outcome of each person’s life is settled in death” (p. 190).
“The definitive truth of an individual is fixed in the moment of death” (p. 207).
“One’s fundamental life-decision is finally decided and fixed in death” (p. 219)
The Latin tradition does not allow, as far as I can determine, the possibility of post-mortem repentance. If one dies in a state of mortal sin, that state necessarily characterizes one’s life for eternity–i.e., damnation.
They really are not. Their views of the mysteries are, to my mind, wholly inadequate, although they may be superior from the point-of-view of someone with superior spiritual insight to myself.Sorry, I took your words at face value. The two types of examples that you give hardly constitute “each and everything”. In particular, the charge is just wrong in the context of this thread.
And what are you suggesting here? That the EOs are not dogmatic on the Real Presence? On Theotokos, Mother of God, All holy, Immaculate Ever-virgin? Really?
I’m pretty sure that the immutability of the will upon death is very close to dogma (fides ecclesiastica or sententia fidei proxima) in the Latin church, and it is the only thing that makes philosophic or theological sense according to the ancient Hebrew sense of the person, which was explained philosophically by Aristotle, and expounded by Thomas (a soul alone is not a “whole person”, it is the form of the body; only the body in union with the soul in union with the spirit is properly speaking a complete person; to the Hebrews, the notion of a disembodied soul would have been preposterous: thus the Resurrection). Taking that as your basis, it makes sense (I don’t think I can actually write a syllogistic proof for it that will make any sense to any man who has not already studied Aristotelian and Thomistic anthropology, and, is thus already convinced of the truth of its conclusion), and is the only possible conclusion, that when the soul (or soul and spirit, the form) are separated from the body (instance which makes the form concrete) at death, the will enters in to a state of final fixity.The concept of Hell as startling it can be tells us one must be in this state before they die if they are to enter into it for all eternity. But why does one cannot change their disposotion after they have died. Certainly a person can change before they die since the Holy Mother said no one makes reparation for them meaning if we will only get on our knees we can do something for these souls before they die. An excellent and holy priest I knew gave me the answer when after I attended to him for confession related to me that when we die our wills which are part of our immortal sins are automatically fixed. This process will close the books and if one is in a state of hell when there will is now fixed cannot change their condition.
This is absolutely correct. The man in purgatory is just as “saved” (justified) as even the greatest saint, but he is not as sanctified (holy).I’m afraid you are incorrect on this point. According to Catholic teaching, those who are in a purgatorial state are, by definition, saved or justified–their wills are definitively and irreversibly oriented toward God–and indeed they know that they are justified and are now incapable of falling away from God–hence their joy. They just need some further cleansing.
Thank you for your words. It’s quite defined your statement. I am just guessing this but you must have studied Aquinas. He is remarkable about writing so much on God. About Angels I remember once Archbishop Fulton Sheen stating an Angel cannot choose to change his mind which he believed to be theologically correct. My observation while meditating why the Angels were immediately punished by God had an answer from the Diary of St. Maria Faustina when she actually asked the same question to Jesus! His answer was simply the Angels were given a profound knowledge of God that surpasses all the saints ever lived. It seems in that knowlege given to them perhaps was a warning not to sin. Since an Angel is made different than man God decided for them to possess all sanctity right off the bat. There was one noticable difference between the Angels and man. Actually two for I include that Angels do not understand the concept of suffering by experiencing it so they can only know about it intellectually. Angels cannot have the possibilty to repent. This is their main difference. So their initial choice is vitally important. If they choose not for God this choice automatically closes the door and confirms what this saintly Bishop stated when he said Angels cannot change their mind.I’m pretty sure that the immutability of the will upon death is very close to dogma (fides ecclesiastica or sententia fidei proxima) in the Latin church, and it is the only thing that makes philosophic or theological sense according to the ancient Hebrew sense of the person, which was explained philosophically by Aristotle, and expounded by Thomas (a soul alone is not a “whole person”, it is the form of the body; only the body in union with the soul in union with the spirit is properly speaking a complete person; to the Hebrews, the notion of a disembodied soul would have been preposterous: thus the Resurrection). Taking that as your basis, it makes sense (I don’t think I can actually write a syllogistic proof for it that will make any sense to any man who has not already studied Aristotelian and Thomistic anthropology, and, is thus already convinced of the truth of its conclusion), and is the only possible conclusion, that when the soul (or soul and spirit, the form) are separated from the body (instance which makes the form concrete) at death, the will enters in to a state of final fixity.
Now, at the Resurrection, when the soul (or soul and spirit) and body are rejoined, the will would no longer be immutable, but it seems to me that the judgment takes place before the Resurrection, with the Bible seeming to speak of two Resurrections, one to condemnation (thus not giving the condemned time to change their will, which, in any case, doubtfully could be done overnight; it’s a life-long process, and this is where Orthodox have a valuable insight with the concept of theosis and how it is attained, even if the philosophical underpinnings [uncreated energies] make no sense) and one to everlasting life.
If men were “given a chance” after the Resurrection, it would be possible. The immutability of the will of an angel is an entirely different subject, and I am not an expert in angelology. I would consult the Celestial Hierarchy and Divine Names of St Dionysius, and the relevant parts (which draw on Dionysius) in the Summa Theologiae.
But, as long as the soul (the form of the body) is separated from the body (the instance of the soul that makes it concrete), the will, and all other faculties which derive from the soul (e.g. mind) or body, or the conjunction of both (e.g. mind, according to some interpretations), are immutable. Only at the Resurrection - the remaking of the complete person, the body in the image of the soul in the image of God - would they become unfixed again.