Purgatory view

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fr Ambrose:
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.
Click to expand...
The Beatific Vision isn’t God, it is our participation in the life of God. The Beatific Vision, considered as an act, is a created grace, for it has a beginning in time.

We can rightly say that anything that has a beginning in time is created by God. For example, a man is created by God in time, and he is brought to the beatific vision in time. But the “the gift which is conferred on a creature in these acts is uncreated”, i.e. God gives the man the gift of the Holy Spirit, who is uncreated, and without the gift of the Holy Spirit, a man can never see the Beatific Vision.
Nothing in the realm of creation is God. He alone is the one and unique Uncreated, without beginning and without end.
Click to expand...
Catholics agree with this. :gopray2:
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
Click to expand...
Catholics believe that they too participate in the life of the Uncreated God.:bowdown2:
CCC 1003 United with Christ by Baptism, believers already truly participate in the heavenly life of the risen Christ, but this life remains "hidden with Christ in God. "The Father has already “raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” Nourished with his body in the Eucharist, we already belong to the Body of Christ. When we rise on the last day we “also will appear with him in glory.”
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.
Click to expand...
Thanks 👍 I will take a look at the link that you gave.
 
Fr Ambrose:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no code. The quotes around the word “divinized” in the CCC is there because the author doesn’t want to give the wrong impression that the Catholic Church is a New Age church, and that by becoming “divinized” we actually become God. “Divinized” means exactly the same thing that the Orthodox mean when they speak of “theosis”.

The quotes around “partakers in the divine nature” are there because the Catechism is quoting 1 Peter.

I often remove all the footnotes when I quote the Catechism, because I don’t know how to make the footnotes appear as subscripts when I post. Sorry if I caused some confusion. :o
 
Bless me Father.

I believe those phrases are in inverted quotes for two possible reasons - first, to remove the possibility of mistaking these graces to be natural attributes of man, instead of what they are - preternatural gifts from God; second, merely to indicate that they are formal theological terms.

In his question regarding the Filioque and procession, I don’t think Matt16 was trying to get an answer on “how.” Rather, I think he was merely trying to point out the differences on the Western understanding of Filioque as it relates to procession and the Eastern understanding. In fact, there is a ready answer for this:

The East interprets procession according to the Greek “ekporeusai.” The West interprets procession according to the Latin “procedit” or the Greek “proienai.” Thus, whereas the East understands the procession as confessed in the Creed to refer to the ORIGIN of the Spirit, the West understands that the statement in the Creed ONLY connotes consubstantiality. In the particular context of the Western understanding (according to the meaning of “procedit” or “proienai”) of the creedal statement, the Filioque is completely orthodox AND Orthodox because the Spirit is certainly consubstantial with BOTH the Father AND THE SON (hence, “Filioque”). However, in the context of the Eastern understanding (according to the meaning of “ekporeusai”), the Holy Spirit cannot proceed, or ORIGINATE, from the Father AND the Son, but merely from the Father THROUGH the Son (“per filium”). Both Catholic and Orthodox are orthodox within the particular boundaries of their Traditions.

God bless,
Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
In his question regarding the Filioque and procession, I don’t think Matt16 was trying to get an answer on “how.” Rather, I think he was merely trying to point out the differences on the Western understanding of Filioque as it relates to procession and the Eastern understanding.
Click to expand...
Not really. I was only making a point that I have had lengthy internet debates with members of the Orthodox Church that virtually scream that the Catholics are wrong in their understanding about the procession of the Holy Spirit. But how can a person that is Orthodox accuse Catholics of being wrong about their understanding of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, if that person admits that they don’t know what the Orthodox theologians mean when they speak about the procession of the Holy Spirit? It is an irrational way to argue. That is my only point.

I have found out the hard way that many Orthodox are anti-Catholic bigots, and that they argue out of ignorance just for the sake of being disagreeable with people that they dislike. And there are plenty of Catholics that do the exact same thing. 😦
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Not really. I was only making a point that I have had lengthy internet debates with members of the Orthodox Church that virtually scream that the Catholics are wrong in their understanding about the procession of the Holy Spirit. But how can a person that is Orthodox accuse Catholics of being wrong about their understanding of the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, if that person admits that they don’t know what the Orthodox theologians mean when they speak about the procession of the Holy Spirit? It is an irrational way to argue. That is my only point.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox know only within the limits of Scripture and Tradition. Both of these affirm that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. This is what we know with crystal clear clarity.

As for Person being irrational when they say that we cannot know what is meant by the procession of the Spirit - you are writing evil of your own great Church Fathers and theologians who have written that we cannot know. See some of what Saint John of Damaascus and Saint Gregory Nazianzen have explained about this in an earler post on this page. Are we wiser and holier than them, that we can now call them “irrational”??!

Catholics, based on neither Scripture nor Tradition, have added a new doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND the Son. This is not the apostolic faith. This is something new and heretical, spun out of the pride of the human mind.

New ideas formulated about the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son are disingenuous at best, a mistaken effort to create a compromise formual for ecumenical dialogue. Some Orthodox theologians are willing to look at this formula in order to dialogue better with the separated brethren, Catholic and Protestant. But it is very flimsy and so unanchored in the Tradition that I would bet my bottom dollar that the Catholic Church will not change its Creed to read “and in the Holy Spirit… who proceeds from the Father through the Son.”
 
Bless me, Father.

I would agree with you that the West will not change the wording of our Creed to “through the Son” because the Spirit is not consubstantial with the Father “through the Son.” Our Tradition on what “procession” means based on the Latin “procedit” or the Greek “proienai” is just as Scriptural and patristic as your understanding of “procession” based on the Greek “ekporeusai.” In the Latin Tradition it is wholly orthodox to use the Filioque; in the Greek Tradition, it would be heretical. One can say this because each have a different understanding of the English word “proceeds.”

In the long run, Father, the English Church, and the thus the English VERSION of the Creed, is descended NOT from the Greek Tradition, but from the Latin Tradition. Thus, “proceeds” must be understood according NOT to the Greek “ekporeusai” but according to the Latin “procedit.” It would not be valid for us, and in fact be heterodox, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father THROUGH the Son, because according to our Tradition, that would mean we are saying that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father THROUGH the Son - which is unnacceptable. According to the Latin Tradition of the word “proceeds,” we must retain the Filioque.

Of course, according to your own, Greek, Tradition, you should remove the Filioque, as in fact many Eastern Catholics do. However, if you insist that there must be a change in the ENGLISH VERSION of the Creed, then the onus is on the Eastern Orthodox to change THEIR English Version of the Creed to reflect the Greek Tradition (i.e., say “through the Son” instead of “and the Son”) for the sake of the diaspora in the English speaking countries. We do not need to change what is normative and orthodox in the Latin Tradition. In the Western Church (Catholic) and ecclesial communities (Protestant), no change is necessary.

I am sure, Father, you will agree that reunion will not come about by one party imposing their Traditions on the other. The two Traditions, though different, are very complementary. The key to union is by understanding each other.

God bless,
Greg

P.S. Father, do you understand what I am trying to say about the difference between the Eastern and Western understanding of the English word “proceeds?” If not, perhaps we can discuss this beginning another thread.
 
40.png
GAssisi:
do you understand what I am trying to say about the difference between the Eastern and Western understanding of the English word “proceeds?” If not, perhaps we can discuss this beginning another thread.
Click to expand...
I am not a Greek scholar but the Greek theologians who have examined this recent Roman Catholic justification for adding filioque to the Creed(as if it were somehow necessitated by some inadequacy in the Latin language or Latin theology) are of the opinion that it is heretical.

I think that Romanides goes into this in detail. A lot of his writings have been placed on the Net.

I am interested if you are saying that the Churches may add (and presumably subtract) words and phrases from the Nicene Creed? If the Church of Rome is at liberty to do this, could the Georgians change it to be more in line with the genius of the Georgian language? Or the Copts to accomodate their oriental theology? Where would it end? What was meant to be a common and unalterable Creed which served as a strong symbol of the unity of all the Churches of Christendom has been altered by the Popes and has become a sad symbol of disunity.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Thank you for this. This is what I desired to know - the official teaching.
  1. there is a purgatory
  2. souls there are helped by the prayers of the living
It had become quite confusing because people keep saying that the Orthodox have a belief in purgatory (even though we say that we do not!) But then people go on to offer such a multitude of differing opinions about purgatory that it is impossible to discern what the Orthodox are supposed to believe in.

Now that you have clarified matters and reduced it to the official teaching, I can say from the Orthodox side
  1. there is no purgatory
  2. souls after death are helped by the prayers of the living
See
[](http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Q-and-A_OLD/)
Click to expand...

If that is so, it’s not easy to see how there will ever be reunion between Rome & Constantinople 🙂​

One of them will have to “climb down” - & I don’t see either doing so ##
 
40.png
Melchior:
How does “time” work in Purgatory? Since the after life seems to be out side of time. Just curious.

Mel
Click to expand...
I remember reading a book on purgatory and a man had the option of going there for three days or staying here for one more year and dying of cancer. He chose the three days in purgatory. After what seemed like an eternity his guardian angel came to him. He said you told me I would only be here three days. The angel replied you have been here but an hour. It was a good book and of course with the imprimatur, and was described as a very real place.
There is no time with God!
 
I enjoy reading those posts writen by those of a greater intellect that I. May I give you what an old Monsenior out in California said to me about Purgatory? I will paraphrase because it happened some 48 years ago.

Monsenior said: " Leets saay you are working as a sweeper at the large warehouse on the edge of town. While working left apile of oily rags in the corner. A fire was started and about $1000 of the wooden building was damaged. Since you only make $100 a week, you can’t pay for it! But a Friend ( like Jesus) came to your rescue, He paid for your “sin” of starting a fire.

The owner Forgave you but he wanted “every penny paid”. He was paid by your Friend (Jesus). Now, you and your Friend are just men. God IS JUST! To be a JUST man you have to pay your friend! You were forgiven! But still you must pay the $11000 to your friend.

Your Friend was like Jesus, he and the Owner Forgave you. But still you had to pay a price until the last penny was paid.

Bill in Texas
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
There is no code. The quotes around the word “divinized” in the CCC is there because the author doesn’t want to give the wrong impression that the Catholic Church is a New Age church, and that by becoming “divinized” we actually become God. “Divinized” means exactly the same thing that the Orthodox mean when they speak of “theosis”.

The quotes around “partakers in the divine nature” are there because the Catechism is quoting 1 Peter.
Click to expand...
Oops … The Catechism is quoting 2Peter, not 1Peter. Here is the quote with the footnotes:**Catechism of the Catholic Church

460 ** The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:[78] “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.”[79] “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”[80] “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”[81]

78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.
 
40.png
Mike:
I just wanted to know the view of purgatory you believe in…
Click to expand...
I chose other because I am not sure of the exact details of Purgatory. It could be painful or it could be instantaneous.

The only problem with the instantaneous one is I don’t know how indulgences would fit into it.
 
40.png
Toni:
I remember reading a book on purgatory and a man had the option of going there for three days or staying here for one more year and dying of cancer. He chose the three days in purgatory. After what seemed like an eternity his guardian angel came to him. He said you told me I would only be here three days. The angel replied you have been here but an hour. It was a good book and of course with the imprimatur, and was described as a very real place.
There is no time with God!
Click to expand...
My brother was talking about a book he read called Purgatory. It said a thousand years can seem like 1 second and 1 second can feel like a thousand years.
 
Purgatory is a tough dogma to know and to defend. Even Mother Angelica says so.

I take a practical view towards it. If I go there, and the prevailing dogma is that I probably will, it will be the next best thing that happened to me besides Baptism. I see very little in the dogma to worry about. I like the views that it is a condition not a time or place.

Lord, have mercy on me a sinner.
 
in matthew12:32, jesus impliesthat some sins can be cleared from our account here and some in the afterlife:“anyone who speaks against the holy spirit will not be forgiven,eitherin this age or in the age to come”. purgatory makes the most sense of this verse. without purgatory, the last portion of jesus statement seems frivolous. lord make me an instrument of your peace.:blessyou:
 
Please read “After Life” by Michael Brown and “The Unpublished manuscript of Purgatory”. Both are outstanding and available at www.spiritdaily.com and probably other places as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top