Orthodox teaching on Purgatory, or, lack thereof...

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You’d have to ask a Baptist

True.

 

[Ceil-1]

I struggle with the concept of “sleep”, in the afterlife.

 

[Ghosty]

If undulgences are simply a release from penance in return for other pious acts, how can they be applied for those in purgatory? Are those in purgatory there because they had unfulfilled penance imposed on them by a priest? How can the church grant indulgences purgatory by hundreds, even thousands of years, unless the penance were that length, and if so, how is that possible?

Purgatory, in Latin theology, is the corrective reform of the soul after death. It is in some ways analagous to penance, but it’s not an exact comparison. Someone might be in Purgatory for unfinished penances, but also for tendencies and behaviors that, while not severely sinful in and of themselves, are part of the tendency and disposition to sin. Just as fasting might be the earthly cure for longing too much for the pleasures of food, Purgatory is the process of working out that longing after death.

Indulgences, then, are practices that equal penances, but aren’t necessarily directly tied to penances given by a priest in Confession. They can be offered up for the dead the same way that we offer donations to the Church, or bread to the congregation, on behalf of the dead.

As for indulgences for “hundreds or thousands of years”, that’s never been done to my knowledge, nor could it be according to the logic of indulgences. Here is what the Baltimore Catechism (very much a “pre-Vatican II” work) has to say about Indulgences, relevant to our discussion:

Q. 863. What does an Indulgence of forty days mean?
A. An Indulgence of forty days means that for the prayer or work to which an Indulgence of forty days is attached, God remits as much of our temporal punishment as He remitted for forty days’ canonical penance. We do not know just how much temporal punishment God remitted for forty days’ public penance, but whatever it was, He remits the same now when we gain an Indulgence of forty days. The same rule applies to Indulgences of a year or any length of time.

Q. 864. Why did the Church moderate its severe penances?
A. The Church moderated its severe penances, because when Christians – terrified by persecution – grew weaker in their faith, there was danger of some abandoning their religion rather than submit to the penances imposed. The Church, therefore, wishing to save as many as possible, made the sinner’s penance as light as possible.

…

Q. 868. How and when may we apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory?
A. We may apply Indulgences for the benefit of the souls in Purgatory by way of intercession; whenever this application is mentioned and permitted by the Church in granting the Indulgence; that is, when the Church declares that the Indulgence granted is applicable to the souls of the living or the souls in Purgatory; so that we may gain it for the benefit of either.

So it was always taught that “40 days Indulgence” was the equivalent of 40 days of a canonical penance, and indulgences were instituted as a form of oikonomia.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bluegoat]

So it was always taught that “40 days Indulgence” was the equivalent of 40 days of a canonical penance, and indulgences were instituted as a form of oikonomia.

Peace and God bless!

But where does the indulgence come from? Where does the Catholic Church get the extra good works to give out to those who fulfill the requirements?

I suspect the answer is another difference between an indulgence and oikonomia.

 

[Ghosty]

But where does the indulgence come from? Where does the Catholic Church get the extra good works to give out to those who fulfill the requirements?

I suspect the answer is another difference between an indulgence and oikonomia.

Where do the “extra good works” come from when penances are remitted? It’s a fundamentally erroneous question, IMO. Good works are part of the indulgence; you can’t receive an indulgence without doing something.

There has been some attempt to explain it from a Scholastic approach, but they just amount to “Christ’s Grace is infinite, and the Saints are always interceding for us”. Such an explaination is completely unnecessary, and comes simply from the theological approach of trying to explain every little detail, nook, and cranny of theology.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ceil-1]

In the western Church, we are supposedly able to do penance on behalf of someone in Purgatory. For instance, Uncle Fred, who had a bit of a checkered past, but, nonetheless, died with the Sacraments, let’s say. Or maybe he didn’t die with the final Sacraments, but, we pray and do penance for him all the more because of it.

Reportedly, penance on behalf of others comes about from our share in the priesthood of Christ.

I get the impression that there is no official teaching about this in Orthodoxy?

It is important, because, there are people who have an apostolate doing this for people.

 

[Bluegoat]

Where do the “extra good works” come from when penances are remitted? It’s a fundamentally erroneous question, IMO. Good works are part of the indulgence; you can’t receive an indulgence without doing something.

There has been some attempt to explain it from a Scholastic approach, but they just amount to “Christ’s Grace is infinite, and the Saints are always interceding for us”. Such an explaination is completely unnecessary, and comes simply from the theological approach of trying to explain every little detail, nook, and cranny of theology.

Peace and God bless!

So you don’t endorse the teaching on the Treasury of Merit?

 

[pablope]

If one is “Saved,” then why does One need to go into “Soul Sleep” and Wait until the Last Judgement?

Soul sleep, I had found out, is a teaching of the SDA, and taught by their prophetess…EG White. I am not sure, if it as agreed to also by the JWs.

 

[Ghosty]

So you don’t endorse the teaching on the Treasury of Merit?

I don’t think it’s necessary. All it does is attempt to explain in refined detail, using the Scholastic method and banking terminology, how indulgences work. It’s not a “doctrine” in and of itself, but rather the explaination of a doctrine following the Scholastic model. In short, it’s an explainatory tool and nothing more.

All the “Treasury of Merit” actually teaches is that Christ’s merit is infinite, and can be applied by the Church as needed. No Apostolic Church or tradition disgrees with this. It can be explained in many different ways, including “we trust in the mercy of Christ and the authority to bind and loose He gave to the Church”, and that’s the approach I prefer.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bluegoat]

I don’t think it’s necessary. All it does is attempt to explain in refined detail, using the Scholastic method and banking terminology, how indulgences work. It’s not a “doctrine” in and of itself, but rather the explaination of a doctrine following the Scholastic model. In short, it’s an explainatory tool and nothing more.

All the “Treasury of Merit” actually teaches is that Christ’s merit is infinite, and can be applied by the Church as needed. No Apostolic Church or tradition disgrees with this. It can be explained in many different ways, including “we trust in the mercy of Christ and the authority to bind and loose He gave to the Church”, and that’s the approach I prefer.

Peace and God bless!

My understanding though is that it isn’t Christ’s merit at all that is applied to individuals - that is the point. If Christ’s merit were applied to temporal punishment for sins, we wouldn’t have any. The merit in the Treasury is the unused merit earned by saints, because their merits were so great compared to their sins they did not need to use up their own merit to escape from their own temporal punishment.

 

[Hesychios]

My understanding though is that it isn’t Christ’s merit at all that is applied to individuals - that is the point. If Christ’s merit were applied to temporal punishment for sins, we wouldn’t have any. The merit in the Treasury is the unused merit earned by saints, because their merits were so great compared to their sins they did not need to use up their own merit to escape from their own temporal punishment.

I agree with your analysis.

Additionally, it seems that this system was very unfair to the first generation or two of Christians, who had no predecessors to leave the treasury extra merit. They had to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

 

[Ghosty]

My understanding though is that it isn’t Christ’s merit at all that is applied to individuals - that is the point. If Christ’s merit were applied to temporal punishment for sins, we wouldn’t have any. The merit in the Treasury is the unused merit earned by saints, because their merits were so great compared to their sins they did not need to use up their own merit to escape from their own temporal punishment.

Then you simply misunderstand the “treasury of merit”. It is explained here, which I’ll quote:

The treasury of the Church

Christ, as St. John declares in his First Epistle (2:2), “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” Since the satisfaction of Christ is infinite, it constitutes an inexhaustible fund which is more than sufficient to cover the indebtedness contracted by sin. Besides, there are the satisfactory works of the Blessed Virgin Mary undiminished by any penalty due to sin, and the virtues, penances, and sufferings of the saints vastly exceeding any temporal punishment which these servants of God might have incurred. These are added to the treasury of the Church as a secondary deposit, not independent of, but rather acquired through, the merits of Christ.

The merit of the Saints is part of it, but all of it is ultimately from and through Christ. Further, from the aforementioned Baltimore Catechism:

Q. 853. How does the Church by means of Indulgences remit the temporal punishment due to sin?
A. The Church, by means of Indulgences, remits the temporal punishment due to sin by applying to us the merits of Jesus Christ, and the superabundant satisfactions of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the saints; which merits and satisfactions are its spiritual treasury.

It has always been about the merits of Christ, first and foremost.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Bluegoat]

Then you simply misunderstand the “treasury of merit”. It is explained here, which I’ll quote:

The merit of the Saints is part of it, but all of it is ultimately from and through Christ. Further, from the aforementioned Baltimore Catechism:

It has always been about the merits of Christ, first and foremost.

Peace and God bless!

And as I said, the Eastern Church would, I think, have a problem with that. As far as I know they reject works of supererogation as much as Protestants do.

 

[josephdaniel29]

And as I said, the Eastern Church would, I think, have a problem with that. As far as I know they reject works of supererogation as much as Protestants do.

Wow, I’m confused.

 

[Ghosty]

And as I said, the Eastern Church would, I think, have a problem with that. As far as I know they reject works of supererogation as much as Protestants do.

Supererogation is a term that applies to a lot of different things, and I don’t know how you’re using it here. The Eastern tradition absolutely holds that the Saints intervene for us, and that our works can be done on behalf of the dead, however. The Eastern tradition also absolutely holds that we can go above and beyond the “call of duty” in our pursuit of Holiness, and that such activity is “meritorious”, i.e. it increases our participation in Divinity.

What definition of supererogation are you referring to?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

Supererogation is a term that applies to a lot of different things, and I don’t know how you’re using it here. The Eastern tradition absolutely holds that the Saints intervene for us, and that our works can be done on behalf of the dead, however. The Eastern tradition also absolutely holds that we can go above and beyond the “call of duty” in our pursuit of Holiness, and that such activity is “meritorious”, i.e. it increases our participation in Divinity.

What definition of supererogation are you referring to?

Peace and God bless!

In the words of a certain bellboy in a certain British sitcom… Que?

 

[Ghosty]

In the words of a certain bellboy in a certain British sitcom… Que?

I can’t answer unless I know what you’re asking about.

 

[Hesychios]

…The Eastern tradition also absolutely holds that we can go above and beyond the “call of duty” in our pursuit of Holiness, and that such activity is “meritorious”, i.e. it increases our participation in Divinity.

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. It seems like you did not finish your thought.

Are you implying that the ‘eastern tradition’ recognizes some ‘bare minimum’ one can do to ‘squeak by’ in God’s eyes, and that the bonus extras can be traded off, or donated?

 

[Ghosty]

I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. It seems like you did not finish your thought.

Are you implying that the ‘eastern tradition’ recognizes some ‘bare minimum’ one can do to ‘squeak by’ in God’s eyes, and that the bonus extras can be traded off, or donated?

You know as well as I do that things aren’t approached in that way. There is, however, a standard expectation, and going beyond that expectation. If there wasn’t then we wouldn’t speak of the great actions of the Saints. The Church expects everyone to testify of Christ, but taking this to unknown lands and violent pagans is going “above and beyond”, and that is why those that have done this are specially recognized as Saints.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Nine_Two]

I can’t answer unless I know what you’re asking about.

I’m saying that what you’ve said doesn’t make any sense from an Eastern perspective, and therefore the claim that the East is onside doesn’t make any sense.

There is, however, a standard expectation, and going beyond that expectation. If there wasn’t then we wouldn’t speak of the great actions of the Saints. The Church expects everyone to testify of Christ, but taking this to unknown lands and violent pagans is going “above and beyond”, and that is why those that have done this are specially recognized as Saints.

Romans 3:23 seems to contradict what you just said. All fall short. There is no “above and beyond”. If you ever want to find a negative account of the greatest of saints just read their autobiographies.