Purgatory view

[GAssisi]

Bless me, Father.

I must disagree with your statement that the belief that sins are forgiven in the life hereafter is a new belief in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that venial sins can be forgiven in the hereafter (i.e., in that state of existence after death “wherein” purification occurs). There is also, in Latin theology, a definition of “sin” which may not exist in Eastern theology. Following Augustine, “sin” is ALSO sometimes defined as the PUNISHMENT for sin. In this context, we are of course speaking about the TEMPORAL punishment for sin, as Christ has indeed completely paid the ETERNAL punishment for sin.

I must ask you: Can sins that the Catholic Church might call “MORTAL sins” be forgiven in the life hereafter, according to Orthodox theology. If you say “yes,” then this is probably the only point in this discussion on “Purgatory” which I feel the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are actually divided on. If you say “yes,” I daresay that the Catholic Church’s conception of mortal sin being unforgiveable after death is Scriptural, while the Orthodox conception is not.

God bless you,
Greg

P.S. Matt16, I do not think that Father Ambrose is being evasive. It is simply that Eastern theology wants to leave things mysterious. We need to appreciate and respect that if we want to seek full unity with our Orthodox brethren. Do not forget that there are many Eastern Catholics who may answer in the very same manner as Father Ambrose.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Two generations ago it was Catholic teaching that death is a fixing point and sins cannot be forgiven after death. Today the teaching has evolved and the Catechism speaks of sins being forgiven after death. That is not a small evolution and it brings you more into line with orthodox belief.

You are wrong about that. Two generations ago, Catholics were using the Baltimore Catechism, and the Baltimore Catechism teaches that the guilt of venial sins can be remitted by the sufferings of purgatory. Catholic doctrine has not “evolved” at all on this matter, the Church still teaches exactly the same thing. The Catholic Church does not teach that the guilt of mortal sins can be remitted by the sufferings of purgatory. She has never taught this, and she never will.

You simply have not grasped the Orthodox mindset. There is no evasion when the Orthodox state: we do not know. That is a fact. We are being honest and we are in agreement with what Saint Paul taught about the afterlife, that we can only see “through a glass darkly.”

Are you being evasive? You have accused the Catholics of not believing in uncreated grace. I showed you that Catholics do indeed believe in uncreated grace, and what they believe about uncreated grace. I asked you twice what the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace and how their beliefs differ from the Catholics. You have not answered that question. I also asked several questions that flow from the prayer that the Orthodox say for the dead in my post # 178, and you have only responded to my questions by saying that Orthodox are not being evasive when they say “we don’t know”.

As for Paul speaking about ““through a glass darkly”, that was a refernce to the beatific vision, not Catholic doctrine. Paul insists that Catholics hold fast to Catholic doctrine, not that Catholic doctrine is obscure.

I have had enough discussions with Orthodox to grasp their mindset. The Orthodox have no problem telling the Catholics that their beliefs are wrong, but when pressed for the Orthodox alternative, they retreat to saying “we don’t know, it’s a mystery”. If the Orthodox don’t know what they believe, then they cannot claim that what the Catholics believe is wrong. Logically, they can only say that they don’t know if the Catholics are right or wrong. Oh, I have had many debates with the Orthodox! And the debates always follow this pattern:
Q. What do the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace?
A. We don’t know what the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace, we only know what the Catholics believe is wrong.

Q. What do the Orthodox believe when they say the Holy Spirit “proceeds”?
A. We don’t know what the word “proceed” means, we only know that the Catholics are wrong when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.

Q. How do the Orthodox know when an Ecumenical Council is valid?
A. We don’t know how to answer that question, we just know that the way that the Catholics determine the validity of Ecumenical Councils is wrong. Don’t ask us to give answers to these questions, we don’t care about answers, we are all apophatic mystics! You Romans will never understand the Orthodox mindset with your insistance upon using reason in understanding the faith. Just accept that our anwers are correct because we say so!

End of rant.

 

[Imprimartin]

-snip-

And the debates always follow this pattern:
Q. What do the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace?

A. We don’t know what the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace, we only know what the Catholics believe is wrong.

Q. What do the Orthodox believe when they say the Holy Spirit “proceeds”?
A. We don’t know what the word “proceed” means, we only know that the Catholics are wrong when they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son as from a single principle through a single spiration.

Q. How do the Orthodox know when an Ecumenical Council is valid?
A. We don’t know how to answer that question, we just know that the way that the Catholics determine the validity of Ecumenical Councils is wrong. Don’t ask us to give answers to these questions, we don’t care about answers, we are all apophatic mystics! You Romans will never understand the Orthodox mindset with your insistance upon using reason in understanding the faith. Just accept that our anwers are correct because we say so!

End of rant.

He’s right, you know.

Fr Ambrose, you’ve got a lot of “esplaining” to do. You insult the character of God everytime you portray his church to “unbelievers” as a “you’re wrong but I don’t know what the right answer is” on non-mysteries. You are making Him look like a He has no capcacity for reason instead of showing how much he is beyond our reason in the bonafide mystery department.

Martin

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matt16,

I must agree with you that the Orthodox often do not have any reasons for disagreeing with Catholics, but I think one of your points was off the mark - regarding the Filioque. The Orthodox have quite a great treasure of literature from which to obtain what may be regarded an “official” belief of the Orthodox Church, though there is no ACTUAL offical pronouncement on the matter. In point of fact, there has not even been an OFFICAL response from any of the Orthodox Churches, collectively or singly, to the Catholic Church’s OFFICAL clarification on the Filioque. There have been positive responses, and there have been positive responses with some criticisms; I have not read of any negative responses. It would certainly help the cause of reunion if the Orthodox could manage to take the time to formulate an official response, either as a body or as individual Churches.

But this is off the topic. Sorry.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

The final resolution of the Statement issued by the Synod of Bishops answers your accuation about “evasion.” If you wish to accuse them of evasion, then so be it. But I recommend that you try and grasp it as an expression of Orthodox reticence about dogmatizing about the nature of the afterlife…

"Taking all of the foregoing [the debate about the afterlife and the particular judgement] into consideration, the Synod of Bishops RESOLVE: In the deliberations on life after death one must in general keep in mind that it has not pleased the Lord to reveal to us very much aside from the fact that the degree of a soul’s blessedness depends on how much a man’s life on the earth has been truly Christian, and the degree of a man’s posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness. To add conjectures to the little that the Lord has been pleased to reveal to us is not beneficial to our salvation… "

OK, let’s go back to the Orthodox beliefs about the final purification of the sinner. From the above quote, Catholics can glean yet another fact about what the Orthodox believe, i.e. ”the degree of a man’s posthumous suffering depends upon the degree of sinfulness”.

Now let us compare the Orthodox beliefs that we have gleaned from what Fr. Ambrose has posted with the quote that I gave from Catholic Answers in post # 175.

Catholic Answers:… there are only three essential components of the doctrine [of purgatory]:
(1) that a purification after death exists,
(2) that it involves some kind of pain, and
(3) that the purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God.
… ideas, such that purgatory is a particular “place” in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations
Can we reconcile what we have gleaned from Fr. Ambrose’s posts about what the Orthodox believe with the above? Yes we can. The Orthodox believe that a purification occurs after death, and that “the degree of suffering that a sinner undergoes depends on the degree of his sinfulness”. The Orthodox also offer prayers of supplication to God that beseech God’s pardon for deceased sinners. Unless the Orthodox want to claim that their prayers for the dead are not efficacious, they also believe that the purification of a sinner is ”assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God.” The question of if purgatory is a “place” is moot, since that is only speculation, and not Catholic dogma.

Is there really a huge gulf between Orthodox beliefs about the purification of the sinner after death, and the Catholic doctrines about purgatory? Not that I can see.

 

[GAssisi]

Great post, Matt16

Greg

 

[Matt16_18]

Gassisi

I understand that there really isn’t any difference between Catholic dogma about the procession of the Holy Spirit and what the Eastern Fathers taught. I was just ranting a bit, because of my experience in several internet debates with members of the Orthodox Church on the fillioque. After several hundred posts exchanged in a forums such as this one, I have had the Orthodox debaters finally admit that they don’t know how the Orthodox Church defines the word “procession”. The debates weren’t fruitful because the only thing that the Orthodox were saying is that the Catholic Church is wrong because we heard Father X tell us that Catholics are wrong. All the Orthodox were bringing to the debate was a bunch of uniformed prejudices against the Catholic Church.

One thing that I have learned to expect from debating the Orthodox is that they will invariably try to take a position that they are all apophatic mystics. Oh, the poor benighted Catholics can never understand the Mysteries of God because they lack the superior mindset of the Orthodox. It is almost like trying to argue with Mormons.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matt16,

I was in a debate on an Orthodox forum and the Holy Spirit was working overtime to finally get them to admit the Filioque is orthodox and Orthodox. Of course, one poster spoiled the moment by his triumphalistic attitude when he said, “Oh, so the Catholic Church has finally come to her senses and we can agree on this issue!” So believe me when I say that I share your frustration.

God bless,
Greg

 

[Matt16_18]

GAssisi:

Dear Matt16,

I was in a debate on an Orthodox forum and the Holy Spirit was working overtime to finally get them to admit the Filioque is orthodox and Orthodox. Of course, one poster spoiled the moment by his triumphalistic attitude when he said, “Oh, so the Catholic Church has finally come to her senses and we can agree on this issue!” So believe me when I say that I share your frustration.

God bless,
Greg

Father Ambrose is delighted to see that the Catholic Church’s doctrine of purgatory is “evolving” and beginning to come “into line with orthodox belief.” Sheesh! The only thing that is happening is that Fr. Ambrose is beginning to understand the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

GAssisi:

I must ask you: Can sins that the Catholic Church might call “MORTAL sins” be forgiven in the life hereafter, according to Orthodox theology. If you say “yes,” then this is probably the only point in this discussion on “Purgatory” which I feel the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are actually divided on. If you say “yes,” I daresay that the Catholic Church’s conception of mortal sin being unforgiveable after death is Scriptural, while the Orthodox conception is not.

The Orthodox do not have concept of mortal sin in the way that Catholics use it - that the Holy Spirit has totally withdrawn from a soul and that it is spiritually dead and of necessity it will go to hell if it dies in this state of mortal sin.

The Orthodox teach that the grace of the Holy Spirit received in Baptism never entirely leaves the soul, not even of the greatest sinner. So while you will find the term “mortal sin” in some Orthodox books it would be a mistake to assume that it means what a Catholic means by it. It means a very serious sin but it does not mean a sin which has caused all grace to depart from the soul.

So we cannot really find common ground about mortal sin since our defintions are not the same.

Matt16, I do not think that Father Ambrose is being evasive. It is simply that Eastern theology wants to leave things mysterious. We need to appreciate and respect that if we want to seek full unity with our Orthodox brethren. Do not forget that there are many Eastern Catholics who may answer in the very same manner as Father Ambrose.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

You are wrong about that. Two generations ago, Catholics were using the Baltimore Catechism, and the Baltimore Catechism teaches that the guilt of venial sins can be remitted by the sufferings of purgatory. Catholic doctrine has not “evolved” at all on this matter, the Church still teaches exactly the same thing. The Catholic Church does not teach that the guilt of mortal sins can be remitted by the sufferings of purgatory. She has never taught this, and she never will.

I do not comprehend this. I was talking about forgiveness of sin. You are talking about the remittance of* guilt*. Are they the same things in your view?

Are you being evasive? You have accused the Catholics of not believing in uncreated grace. I showed you that Catholics do indeed believe in uncreated grace, and what they believe about uncreated grace.

The Orthodox divide things in that which is uncreated - in other words, God, and into that which is created, in other words, the angels, the cosmos, humanity, all that is *not *God. Catholics seem to divide things differently, into natural and supernatural.

Uncreated Grace IS God. I thought that Catholics placed grace into the realm of the supernatural, in other words, into the realm of the created.

But if you are telling me that uncreated Grace is God Himself, then we seem to have a point of doctrinal agreement.

I asked you twice what the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace and how their beliefs differ from the Catholics. You have not answered that question.

See above for a tiny answer

I also asked several questions that flow from the prayer that the Orthodox say for the dead in my post # 178, and you have only responded to my questions by saying that Orthodox are not being evasive when they say “we don’t know”.

See my other posts in this thread, in particular the statement by the Synod of Bishops in message No 179.

As for Paul speaking about ““through a glass darkly”, that was a refernce to the beatific vision,

The Orthodox don’t have much to do with the “beatific vision” per se. We prefer to speak not about vision of but participation in the divinity, “becoming by grace that which God is by nature” as Saint Peter teaches. And that’s papal doctrine no less - from the lips of the first Pope

 

[Matt16_18]

**CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN

1854 ** Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture,[129] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.

[footnote 129] Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but **there is sin which is not mortal.**1John 5:16-17 RSV​

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Q. What do the Orthodox believe about uncreated grace?

Uncreated Grace is God. It is His energy by which He divinises the baptized. It is not something “supernatural.” If it were merely supernatural and not divine it would not have the capability of divinising that which is not divine. It is God.

Q. What do the Orthodox believe when they say the Holy Spirit “proceeds”?

‘The mode of generation and the mode of procession are incomprehensible,’ says St. John Damascene ‘We have learned that there is a difference between generation and procession, but the nature of the difference we in no wise understand.’

Note well: this is the teaching of a pre-schism Church Father - one of your own, a Catholic!

And St. Gregory Nazianzen (gasp, another great Catholic Father ) had already been forced to reject the attempts made to define the mode of the divine procession.

‘You ask,’ he says, ‘what is the procession of the Holy Spirit? Do you tell me first what is the unbegottenness of the Father, and I will then explain to you the physiology of the generation of the Son, and the procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be stricken with madness for prying into the mystery of God.’

‘You hear that there is generation? Do not waste your time in seeking after the how. You hear that the Spirit proceeds from the Father? Do not busy yourself about the how.’

So this is the teaching of the undivided Catholic Church. Beware of the madness!

Q. How do the Orthodox know when an Ecumenical Council is valid?

An Ecumenical Council is valid when it is accepted by the pleroma, the fulness, of the Catholic Church. This takes time. Nevertheless, history demonstrates that it works in practice. We accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils and we reject the “robber” Councils which taught contrary doctrines. The Holy Spirit protects the doctrines of salvation within the Church.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

After several hundred posts exchanged in a forums such as this one, I have had the Orthodox debaters finally admit that they don’t know how the Orthodox Church defines the word “procession”. …All the Orthodox were bringing to the debate was a bunch of uniformed prejudices against the Catholic Church.

By saying that they do not know how to define “procession” the Orthodox on your debates were not being ignorant nor exhibiting anti-Catholic prejudices.

On the contrary, they are standing fairly and squarely in the great stream of Catholic teaching. It is the teaching of the greatest and most profound theologians of the Church.

Please refer to post No.192 and the teachings of the Church.
These are YOUR Church Fathers as well as ours. And yet people here are throwing accusations at them of “invincible ignorance”!! The mind boggles that the Fathers should be so insulted!!

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but **there is sin which is not mortal.**1John 5:16-17 RSV

I am sure you know Saint John did not use the word “mortal.” He used the phrase “leading to death” or “unto death”- which is not the same thing. A sin which is leading us to death is not the same as being already dead. Big difference.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Uncreated Grace is God. It is His energy by which He divinises the baptized. It is not something “supernatural.” If it were merely supernatural and not divine it would not have the capability of divinising that which is not divine. It is God.

The Uncreated Grace is God Himself in so far as He, in His love, from all eternity has pre-determined the gifts of grace, in so far as He has communicated Himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s Humanity (gratia unionis), in so far as He indwells in the souls of the justified, and in so far as He gives Himself to the blessed for possession and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. The Hypostatic-Union, The Indwelling and the Beatific Vision, considered as acts, are indeed created graces, for they had a beginning in time. But the gift which is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

The Orthodox believe that Uncreated Grace is God, and they believe Uncreated Grace is His “energy” (whaterver that is) by which He divinizes the baptized.

Please explain to Catholics what you mean by “energy”. Do the Orthodox believe that God is seperable into parts, and that he gives the part of God that is his “energy” to the Baptized so that they may become divinized?

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

I am sure you know Saint John did not use the word “mortal.” He used the phrase “leading to death” or “unto death”- which is not the same thing. A sin which is leading us to death is not the same as being already dead. Big difference.

The New American Bible translates “mortal sin” as “deadly sin”.
If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.
1John 5:16-17 NAB

The death that “deadly sin” or “mortal sin” brings about is the second death (see Rev. 2:1 and Rev. 20:14). The death that deadly sin brings about is NOT the physical death of the body. This is obvious when this scripture is read in context. So there we have it, St. John the Apostle teaches that some sin leads to the second death, and some sin does not lead to the second death.

The Catholic Church’s distinction between mortal and venial sins is fully attested to by St. John the Apostle.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

I do not comprehend this. I was talking about forgiveness of sin. You are talking about the remittance of* guilt*. Are they the same things in your view?

If a person died with only unconfessed and unrepented venial sin on his soul, he would not be damned. He would be guilty of venial sin, but he could not enter heaven with the stain of unforgiven venial sin on his soul. Since he is not destined for eternal damnation, he must be forgiven of his venial sin by God before he enters heaven. The Catholic Church distinguishes between the guilt that is removed by confession of sin, and the temporal punishment due forgiven sin. Purgatory cleanses the sinner of both the guilt of unconfessed venial sin, and the temporal punishments of forgiven mortal sins and forgiven venial sins.

The Orthodox divide things in that which is uncreated - in other words, God, and into that which is created, in other words, the angels, the cosmos, humanity, all that is *not *God.

Catholics would accept this division as being correct.

Catholics seem to divide things differently, into natural and supernatural.

You have missed a third division that Catholics make – preternatural.

PRETERNATURAL GIFTS. Favors granted by God above and beyond the powers or capacities of the nature that receives them but not beyond those of all created nature. Such gifts perfect nature but do not carry it beyond the limits of created nature. They include three great privileges to which human beings have no title -infused knowledge, absence of concupiscence, and bodily immortality. Adam and Eve possessed these gifts before the Fall.

therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl
Pocket Catholic Dictionary

Adam and Eve possessed natural gifts (e.g. free will), preternatural gifts (e.g. bodily immortality), and supernatural gifts (e.g. sanctifying grace) before the Fall. The saints will once again possess the preternatural gift of bodily immortality at the Resurrection of the Dead.

Uncreated Grace IS God. I thought that Catholics placed grace into the realm of the supernatural, in other words, into the realm of the created. But if you are telling me that uncreated Grace is God Himself, then we seem to have a point of doctrinal agreement.

Catholics, of course, speak of both uncreated grace and created grace. As far as uncreated grace goes, I would think we are in agreement, but Catholics believe that God is simple and not divisible into parts. If God’s “energy” is a “part” of God that can be given by God, then we would have a doctrinal disagreement.

The Orthodox don’t have much to do with the “beatific vision” per se.

The Catholics speak of the beatific vision because Paul speaks of the beatific vision.

For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.
I Cor. 13:12

We prefer to speak not about vision of but participation in the divinity, “becoming by grace that which God is by nature” as Saint Peter teaches. And that’s papal doctrine no less - from the lips of the first Pope

Catholics too, have no trouble with speaking in this way.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

398 ** … Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

**1265 ** Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

The Uncreated Grace is God Himself in so far as He, in His love, from all eternity has pre-determined the gifts of grace, in so far as He has communicated Himself in the Incarnation of Christ’s Humanity (gratia unionis), in so far as He indwells in the souls of the justified, and in so far as He gives Himself to the blessed for possession and enjoyment of the Beatific Vision. The Hypostatic-Union, The Indwelling and the Beatific Vision, considered as acts, are indeed created graces, for they had a beginning in time. But the gift which is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated.

Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

We do have a difference here of some importance. The Orthodox would say that if the “Beatific Vision” is a created thing, then it cannot be God. Nothing in the realm of creation is God. He alone is the one and unique Uncreated, without beginning and without end. As you know, the Orthodox conception of the life in heaven is not the “Beatific Vision” in itself but participation in God Himself, He who is Uncreated.

Please explain to Catholics what you mean by “energy”. Do the Orthodox believe that God is seperable into parts, and that he gives the part of God that is his “energy” to the Baptized so that they may become divinized?

The distinction between God in His Essence and God in His Energies is a rich vein of Orthodox theology. I am only a worm of a monk and I am hesitant to try and explain it. Indeed, how can one explain it on a Forum such as this where we jump from subject to subject. Have a look at this web article

The Distinction Between
Essence and Energies
and its Importance for Theology

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/yannaras.html

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

**398 **… Constituted in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully “divinized” by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to “be like God”, but “without God, before God, and not in accordance with God”.

**1265 **Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

I note that “divinised” and “partaker of the divine nature” are both placed in inverted commas. This indicates that they have some particular meaning or that they are “code” for a special meaning which is not given in from the text.

Would you please explain the meaning of these terms.