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

[dvdjs]

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.

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.

Nice edit.

Ghosty is talking about standard expectations and extraordinary performance. But Romans 3:23 does not say that all for short of extraordinary performance or that all far short of standard expectations. It says that all fall short of the glory of God. Well of course all do, but that says nothing about what Ghosty was talking about…

And thus we still seek the prayers of those who are recognized as extraordinary, even though they fall short of the glory of God. We also benefit in a direct way from the meritorious work of these Saints. Has you own spiritual life not been advanced by the writings of the Fathers? These writings are gifts that keep on giving, through their preservation and distribution by the church.

Really the concepts at work here are not so odd; you really have to work hard to find issues here.

 

[Cecilianus]

Wasn’t it Dostoyevsky that tells the story of the woman who gives an onion as a work of mercy and finds salvation by that fact, only to then occur damnation by her selfishness in clinging to that onion as being hers?

If she had at the moment when she was being pulled out of Hell by an onion on a string, given up that last bit of selfishness for one moment, she would have been saved. That is an Eastern example of someone being saved by a bare minimum - it does indeed make sense from an Eastern perspective.

The “bare minimum” one has to do to be saved is simply to accept the salvation that God offers us. There are many degrees of sanctity from the crotchety old woman in Dostoyevsky to the greatest saints - most of us are inbetween. Salvation is not simply a one-time event as Protestants believe, but something we have to struggle with and labor at - but all who have labored, if they have not incurred “mortal and death-bearing sin” , shall receive their portion, no matter how long they have labored or how far along the road to sanctity they got. It’s clearly taught by Christ’s parable; there’s no East or West about it.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

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.

If you don’t believe that Saints have gone “above and beyond” the typical activities and Love of the faithful then I don’t think you understand what a Saint is. I don’t know how else to put it.

Also, if you don’t believe that we invoke the Saints to intercede for us, or that we don’t do works and prayers on behalf of the dead, then you quite simply aren’t practicing the Eastern tradition. In every Divine Liturgy we ask God that He forgive us and grant us Grace by the intercession of the Saints (read the Trisagion section for just one example), and at every memorial we intercede for the deceased that they may be accepted by God (and we also include their names and intentions in the Divine Liturgy itself).

So, in the East, we believe that the Grace of God and forgiveness of sins comes by way of the intercession of the Saints (not solely by their intercession, obviously, but their intercession “contributes”), and we believe that our prayers and works on Earth are efficacious for benefit of the souls who have passed on before us. I’m honestly a bit surprised that you’re not aware of all this, being Eastern Orthodox.

In the Middle Ages, Latin theologians decided to put this reality in terms of a “heavenly treasury”, and explain these interactions in terms of bank accounts. I don’t like that approach and explaination, but it’s simply meant to describe the same fundamental reality: the Saints have, and continue to, contribute to our Sanctification through their prayers, and we contribute to the Sanctification of those who have passed on before us through our prayers and good works (including saying the Divine Liturgy on their behalf).

Peace and God bless!

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

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.

Did not know if the JWs are teaching that…I’ll have to look that up. Thanks for the Heads Up.

I DID know about White and the SDA position on “Soul Sleep,” by the way. One of the reasons I don’t care for the SDA Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

If you don’t believe that Saints have gone “above and beyond” the typical activities and Love of the faithful then I don’t think you understand what a Saint is. I don’t know how else to put it.

Also, if you don’t believe that we invoke the Saints to intercede for us, or that we don’t do works and prayers on behalf of the dead, then you quite simply aren’t practicing the Eastern tradition. In every Divine Liturgy we ask God that He forgive us and grant us Grace by the intercession of the Saints (read the Trisagion section for just one example), and at every memorial we intercede for the deceased that they may be accepted by God (and we also include their names and intentions in the Divine Liturgy itself).

So, in the East, we believe that the Grace of God and forgiveness of sins comes by way of the intercession of the Saints (not solely by their intercession, obviously, but their intercession “contributes”), and we believe that our prayers and works on Earth are efficacious for benefit of the souls who have passed on before us. I’m honestly a bit surprised that you’re not aware of all this, being Eastern Orthodox.

In the Middle Ages, Latin theologians decided to put this reality in terms of a “heavenly treasury”, and explain these interactions in terms of bank accounts. I don’t like that approach and explaination, but it’s simply meant to describe the same fundamental reality: the Saints have, and continue to, contribute to our Sanctification through their prayers, and we contribute to the Sanctification of those who have passed on before us through our prayers and good works (including saying the Divine Liturgy on their behalf).

Peace and God bless!

You know that Nine-Two knows about praying for people and the great acts of saints.

There is indeed a point to the “all fall short of the glory of God” and the idea that we are all “unprofitable servants”. The idea of the Treasury of merit tells us that it is the extra works of the saints that go into the treasury. That rather assumes that there are extra. Would you say that there are those who fully “accomplish” theosis in this life? So they have extra? Are we ever bound to give God less than we do? Would any saint tell you he could have given less, or that he gave more than was required?

And the idea that there is some kind of general coffer of the extra that the Church can draw from and apply where it likes? That is nothing like the idea that prayers for others can be effectual. Our prayers are not effectual because somehow we have worked hard enough in them to earn merit that can be given to others.

The idea of oiconomia is not the same as the idea of indulgence, which was the original claim. There is as far as I know no claim that this is the Church somehow accessing and directing the prayers and “merits” of other Christians to make up for one’s own lack, nor the rather strange requirements to perform a variety of unrelated tasks to earn your indulgence.

 

[Cecilianus]

You know that Nine-Two knows about praying for people and the great acts of saints.

There is indeed a point to the “all fall short of the glory of God” and the idea that we are all “unprofitable servants”. The idea of the Treasury of merit tells us that it is the extra works of the saints that go into the treasury. That rather assumes that there are extra. Would you say that there are those who fully “accomplish” theosis in this life? So they have extra? Are we ever bound to give God less than we do? Would any saint tell you he could have given less, or that he gave more than was required?

No; and Roman Catholics do not believe this either. One may have achieved salvation doing less, but we always fall short of what we are bound to give God.

 

[Nine_Two]

If you don’t believe that Saints have gone “above and beyond” the typical activities and Love of the faithful then I don’t think you understand what a Saint is. I don’t know how else to put it.

You’re changing your statement. You originally said the saints go above and beyond what is required of them (the “call of duty” as you put it), something which is impossible. Of course they go above and beyond the typical person, but these are two very different concepts. I’m quite aware what a saint is.
The problem is your definition of a saint seems dependant on them performing extra “works”, while I believe a Saint is one who has followed the will of God. They don’t have “works” to give out because they have gained Sainthood by performing the “work” of God, and they continue to do so in the afterlife.

Also, if you don’t believe that we invoke the Saints to intercede for us, or that we don’t do works and prayers on behalf of the dead, then you quite simply aren’t practicing the Eastern tradition. In every Divine Liturgy we ask God that He forgive us and grant us Grace by the intercession of the Saints (read the Trisagion section for just one example), and at every memorial we intercede for the deceased that they may be accepted by God (and we also include their names and intentions in the Divine Liturgy itself).

That isn’t part of what I took issue with.

So, in the East, we believe that the Grace of God and forgiveness of sins comes by way of the intercession of the Saints (not solely by their intercession, obviously, but their intercession “contributes”), and we believe that our prayers and works on Earth are efficacious for benefit of the souls who have passed on before us. I’m honestly a bit surprised that you’re not aware of all this, being Eastern Orthodox.

This is a non-sequitor. That the Saints do interceed for us does not mean they do so by the power of the works they committed while still alive. Whether you believe that or not is fine, but it is not an Eastern Belief. The East does not have that emphasis on works.

In the Middle Ages, Latin theologians decided to put this reality in terms of a “heavenly treasury”, and explain these interactions in terms of bank accounts. I don’t like that approach and explaination, but it’s simply meant to describe the same fundamental reality: the Saints have, and continue to, contribute to our Sanctification through their prayers, and we contribute to the Sanctification of those who have passed on before us through our prayers and good works (including saying the Divine Liturgy on their behalf).

Yes they did, but those Latin theologians had no real impact on the East and what they decided is not a factor on Eastern theology.

Peace and God bless!

I must admit I’ve rewritten most of my post. I found your tone downright haughty and insulting and take issue with you signing off in this way. I find it especially sad that you are usually able to establish a decent basis for your arguments without resorting to rhetorical fallacities.
In the future, if you wish to talk down to me as you have hear, don’t sign off your post in such a way. It is quite insulting and is clearly not meant.

 

[Nine_Two]

No; and Roman Catholics do not believe this either. One may have achieved salvation doing less, but we always fall short of what we are bound to give God.

Then you should avoid stating that they have surpassed the requirements. They haven’t, they fell short.

 

[Cecilianus]

Then you should avoid stating that they have surpassed the requirements. They haven’t, they fell short.

The point is that it is possible for one who did less to be saved.

 

[Nine_Two]

The point is that it is possible for one who did less to be saved.

I didn’t know God had a quota.

 

[Cecilianus]

I didn’t know God had a quota.

More like we do. We choose either salvation or damnation.

 

[Spirit_Word]

I have heard that the idea of a “purgatory” originated with St Augustine, when he couldn’t justify the words"be ye perfect as your Heavenly Fatheer is perfect" with the the thought that no human could ever be “perfect”, therefore there must be a place humans go to after death to be “purified”, or “purged” from sin. This is not a doctrine of the Church, it is a tradition. Traditions change. My take on the subject is this: If Jesus died once and for all, that our sins be forgiven and we repent of our sinful lifestyle and believe in Him, we are saved, Period. He died on the cross FOR US, took sin upon Himself, and any “punishment due to sin” was also a part of this awesome and glorious act of His love for us. Read Romans in the New Testament.
I personally do not believe there is a purgatory, or Jesus Christ would have mentioned it. If He did, it wasn’t recorded.
May the peace and love of Jesus and His Holy Spirit always lerad and guide you on your path to Him.

 

[Ghosty]

Nine_Two: If you want me to respond to you, please be specific about what I’ve said that you want clarified, or what you’ve taken issue with. As it was all I could do is make assumptions about what you were taking issue with, since you simply said that you took issue with the whole post.

First off, I’ve never said that the “good works” of the Saints are applied to us (except in the sense of their prayers and intercessions in Heaven), and I certainly didn’t say so in the post you responded to, so how could I possibly know that that’s what you were taking issue with? You’re taking issue with a position that I’ve not upheld.

Now I have explained the Latin approach of “treasury of merits”, but I’ve never endorsed it as an explaination in this thread or any other. I even said that I think it’s unnecessary and that I don’t like it. It’s not fundamental to the doctrine of Indulgences, just like fire isn’t fundamental to the doctrine of Purgatory; it’s merely an attempt at explaining a mystery.

As for sounding condescending, I apologize. Remember, though, that you said the East disagreed with a) the intercession of the Saints, and b) that Saints perform good and Holy works above and beyond the typical expectations of the Faithful. I say you said you disagreed with this because that’s all I talked about in the post you responded to, and you didn’t specify or clarify your position when I asked you to.

Now it seems that you only really take issue with b), and since I never said that we benefit from the merits of the Saints I’ll just leave that aside. I honestly don’t know what your objection to defining a Saint as someone who goes “above and beyond the call of duty” is, since the very basis of singling out certain persons is that their works are exemplary and atypical, and therefore suitable for emulation and inspiration. To clarify again, I don’t believe that there is “bare minimum” of good works assigned by God, and I never said there was. Notice that I said “the Church expects”, and not “God expects”; God “expects” of us what He gives us to do with the Grace and Gifts He provides, and that is different for every person, and the Church isn’t necessarily privy to these things.

Again, I apologize for sounding condescending, and I want you to know that it’s not my intention to be so. I sign off the way I do with every post because it is truly what I intend; if you don’t want me to wish you peace and God’s blessings on you, then I won’t do so publically.

 

[Ghosty]

The point is that it is possible for one who did less to be saved.

Yes, this is precisely the point. Saints stand out because they have done more than the typical Faithful, and serve as exemplary models for Holiness. It has nothing to do with quotas or piling up an “extra amount of works”. The funny thing is that this objection demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching on the Saints.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Monica4316]

Oh, please. The teaching has changed in the last century, but ask the older Roman Catholics and they can remember the charts in their Confraternity Bibles about how many minutes of scripture readings would get you so many years out of purgatory. Everything was calculated and graphed, and certain deeds rendered certain amounts of “time” in purgatory indulged. Of course why go through all of that calculating when there are days of full pardon, like Divine Mercy Sunday, which seems to supersede Pascha in importance. I can’t go to church even on Easter and get a plenary indulgence. What a great deal!

"*A. To the faithful who read the books of Sacred Scripture for at least a quarter of an hour, with the great reverence due to the divine word and after the manner of spiritual reading:

an indulgence of three years is granted.

B. To the faithful who piously read at least some verses of the Gospel and in addition, while kissing the Gospel Book, devoutly recite one of the following invocations: “May our sins be blotted out by virtue of the words of the Gospel,” “May the reading of the Gosepl be our savlation and protection,” “May Christ teach us the words of the Holy Gospel”:

an indulgence of 500 days is granted;
a plenary indulgence is granted, under the usual conditions, to those who daily for a whole month act in the same way indicated above;
a plenary indulgence is granted at the hour of death to those who have often during life performed this pious exercise, as long as, having confessed and received Communion, or at least having sorrow for their sins, they invoke the most holy name of Jesus on their lips, if possible, or at least in their hearts, and accept death from the hand of God as the price of sin.*"

And here’s the modified teaching, more palpable to modern sensibilities:

“In the past partial indulgences were “counted” in days (e.g. 300 days) or years (e.g. 5 years). Catholics often mistakenly thought that this meant “time off of purgatory.” Since there is no time in purgatory, as we understand it, it meant instead the remission of temporal punishment analogous to a certain amount of penitence as practiced in the early Church. This was a very generous standard, since the penitence required for sacramental absolution in the early centuries was arduous, indeed. However, with Pope Paul VI’s 1968 revision of the Enchiridion Indulgentiarum (Collection or Handbook of Indulgences), this confusing way of counting partial indulgences was suppressed, and the evaluation of a partial indulgence left to God.”

Source: beingbob.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/indulgence-for-reading-the-bible/

This is foreign to Holy Orthodoxy, not Roman Catholicism.

that is such a complete misunderstanding…

the ‘times’ indicated refers to early Church penances, not to years/months/etc in Purgatory…

if for Indulgence A you get a “50 days”, that means if you lived in the early Church, and did this indulgence, your penance would be 50 days shorter. No one ever believed this has any bearing on “time” in Purgatory, since we dont know how it works.

You said that the “other teaching” as the older understanding, and then you talked about the “new” modified teaching… there is no “new” teaching, - the Church ALWAYS taught that the times refer to early Church penances. No one pre-VII thought they meant time off Purgatory.

You’re misunderstanding

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, this is precisely the point. Saints stand out because they have done more than the typical Faithful, and serve as exemplary models for Holiness. It has nothing to do with quotas or piling up an “extra amount of works”. The funny thing is that this objection demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching on the Saints.

Peace and God bless!

It’s an issue with scholasticism rather, descriptions get so convoluted that there can’t help but be misunderstandings.

 

[Bluegoat]

Yes, this is precisely the point. Saints stand out because they have done more than the typical Faithful, and serve as exemplary models for Holiness. It has nothing to do with quotas or piling up an “extra amount of works”. The funny thing is that this objection demonstrates a misunderstanding of the Latin teaching on the Saints.

Peace and God bless!

I honestly don’t see how it is a misunderstanding when the CC uses it as an explanation itself.

It seems to me that you are taking a very reasonable and widely accepted idea, and trying to make it fit this weird Latin structure.

Of course people can have effectual prayer for others. Not because there prayers are somehow like a currency that God can apply elsewhere, but because in his love for his creation he chooses to grant them. And yes the prayers of saints may be more effectual - because they are further along the path of union to Christ and so have hearts and wills more in accordance to God’s.

And yes things like the examples and writing of great Christians can benefit us all. That is indeed done through temporal effects - actual temporal effects like reading the book the saint wrote. But even that is not somehow blotting out sin or the temporal effects of it.

And to my mind that is the rub - the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment for sins seems to be abstracted in a way that the Orthodox are not willing to allow.

Anyway - it doesn’t seem like what you are describing is the Orthodox teaching, since the Orthodox don’t believe it. You are describing the Eastern Catholic teaching.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two: If you want me to respond to you, please be specific about what I’ve said that you want clarified, or what you’ve taken issue with. As it was all I could do is make assumptions about what you were taking issue with, since you simply said that you took issue with the whole post.

My original post said that what you said didn’t make any sense from an Eastern perspective. That doesn’t mean that I’m in disagreement with every single last thing in the post. If I say “The aardvark yawns the chicken as the sun rises at dawn”, you’ll say that doesn’t make any sense. Does that mean I can accuse you of denying the sun rises at dawn?

First off, I’ve never said that the “good works” of the Saints are applied to us (except in the sense of their prayers and intercessions in Heaven), and I certainly didn’t say so in the post you responded to, so how could I possibly know that that’s what you were taking issue with? You’re taking issue with a position that I’ve not upheld.

You made the statement that the saints interceed for us immediatly after saying they are saints by virtue of going beyond what was required. In the context of a treasury of merits, it all sounds like that. I’m sorry if I interprete it incorrectly, but that’s what it seems to indicate.

Now I have explained the Latin approach of “treasury of merits”, but I’ve never endorsed it as an explaination in this thread or any other. I even said that I think it’s unnecessary and that I don’t like it. It’s not fundamental to the doctrine of Indulgences, just like fire isn’t fundamental to the doctrine of Purgatory; it’s merely an attempt at explaining a mystery.

You have however said it is the exact same belief that exists in the East, and then go into explanations that certainly don’t follow the thinking of the East. Like most results of scholasticism, it is convoluted.

As for sounding condescending, I apologize. Remember, though, that you said the East disagreed with a) the intercession of the Saints, and b) that Saints perform good and Holy works above and beyond the typical expectations of the Faithful. I say you said you disagreed with this because that’s all I talked about in the post you responded to, and you didn’t specify or clarify your position when I asked you to.

I said your post didn’t make sense, from an Eastern perspecitve, and that therefore claiming agreement was incorrect. I didn’t claim any specific parts were wrong or couldn’t be reconciled.

Now it seems that you only really take issue with b), and since I never said that we benefit from the merits of the Saints I’ll just leave that aside. I honestly don’t know what your objection to defining a Saint as someone who goes “above and beyond the call of duty” is, since the very basis of singling out certain persons is that their works are exemplary and atypical, and therefore suitable for emulation and inspiration. To clarify again, I don’t believe that there is “bare minimum” of good works assigned by God, and I never said there was. Notice that I said “the Church expects”, and not “God expects”; God “expects” of us what He gives us to do with the Grace and Gifts He provides, and that is different for every person, and the Church isn’t necessarily privy to these things.

I have issue becaus going above and beyond means there is something to go beyond. Certainly they didn’t go beyond Christs commands, as I said, read what they wrote about themselves if you want dirt on them. With the exception of the Theotokos none were spotless. Additionally numerous saints are such for a single act committed during otherwise all-to-human lives, as evidence I give the demonstration of many Martyrs. Many others pulled themselves up from the depths of depravity. St. Ignatius of Loyola for example was scum of the earth before he saw the light and quite accidently began the counter-reformation. He continued to see himselfas scum. Eastern saints tend to be much the same. They didn’t go “above and beyond” in their own minds, the reason they are saints is because they did their best to meet the commands of Christ.

Again, I apologize for sounding condescending, and I want you to know that it’s not my intention to be so. I sign off the way I do with every post because it is truly what I intend; if you don’t want me to wish you peace and God’s blessings on you, then I won’t do so publically.

I have no issue with such a sign off, I take issue with it when it is coupled with an insulting post. I understand fully how easily it is to accidently insult someone over the internet, but questioning ones understanding of their own tradition, when you yourself advertise belonging to another (even if you say you’re practicing in another) can’t be anything but insulting.

I do wish you well, as I said I was a bit surprised by the tone of your post and am somewhat relieved to hear it was unintentional, and I accept your apology.

 

[Rocket_Man]

that is such a complete misunderstanding…

the ‘times’ indicated refers to early Church penances, not to years/months/etc in Purgatory…

if for Indulgence A you get a “50 days”, that means if you lived in the early Church, and did this indulgence, your penance would be 50 days shorter. No one ever believed this has any bearing on “time” in Purgatory, since we dont know how it works.

You said that the “other teaching” as the older understanding, and then you talked about the “new” modified teaching… there is no “new” teaching, - the Church ALWAYS taught that the times refer to early Church penances. No one pre-VII thought they meant time off Purgatory.

You’re misunderstanding

an indulgence of 500 days is granted;
“**a plenary indulgence is granted at the hour of death **to those who have often during life performed this pious exercise, as long as, having confessed and received Communion, or at least having sorrow for their sins, they invoke the most holy name of Jesus on their lips, if possible, or at least in their hearts, and accept death from the hand of God as the price of sin.”

A 500 day plenary indulgence is granted at the hour of death? Why the need if meant to be penance in this life only?

 

[josephdaniel29]

that is such a complete misunderstanding…

the ‘times’ indicated refers to early Church penances, not to years/months/etc in Purgatory…

if for Indulgence A you get a “50 days”, that means if you lived in the early Church, and did this indulgence, your penance would be 50 days shorter. No one ever believed this has any bearing on “time” in Purgatory, since we dont know how it works.

You said that the “other teaching” as the older understanding, and then you talked about the “new” modified teaching… there is no “new” teaching, - the Church ALWAYS taught that the times refer to early Church penances. No one pre-VII thought they meant time off Purgatory.

You’re misunderstanding

So in the early Church, when most people were illiterate, individuals were granted shorter penences for reading Scripture at at time when almost no one had copies of Scripture in their homes to read?