Purgatory view

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fr Ambrose:
So now there *IS *a purifying fire …
Sure there is a “cleansing fire”. In paragraph I quoted, the Catechism gives this footnote for the “cleansing fire" : Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.

But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.
1Cor. 3:15

In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Pet 1:6-7.
As you can see, the scriptures attest to the cleansing fire that burns the dross out of the gold.
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
From: A pocket prayer book for Orthodox Christians

**Trisagion Memorial Prayer for the departed **

(These prayers are customarily read for 40 days after the falling asleep of the servant of God.)
Much more than that. They are read at every Requiem service irrespective of whether the departed has been dead for the first 40 day period or for 40 years.
… Pardon, we beseech Thee, every transgression which may have been committed, whether by word or deed or thought. For there is no man who lives and does not commit a sin. Thou only art without sin, Thy righteousness is everlasting, and Thy word is the Truth. …
What is your point, Myrrh? I read these prayer at least once a day in my cell, and publically at the cemeteries and in church at every Requiem service. Do you see them as somehow teaching purgatory? They don’t.

One thing which they do teach is that sin may be forgiven after death. This was a big no-no for Catholics in the past but I see that the new catechism allows that sin may be forgiven after death. This change is certainly under the influence of the Orthodox… I rejoice! The differences between us are lessening as Rome slowly returns to more Orthodox teachings
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
Sure there is a “cleansing fire”. .
Well, people here have been saying that the magisterial teaching does NOT include purgatorial fire.

They have been saying that there are only two facts taught by the Catholic Church:
  1. Purgatory exists
  2. Souls there are helped by the prayers of the living
So where does that leave purgatorial fire? Would it be fair to say that the whole doctrine is in a period of flux and that the movement today is away from the earlier teaching of purgatorial fire?

“The truth will make you odd.”
Flannery O’Connor

 
… *although some Eastern Orthodox flatly deny any belief in purgatory, classic Eastern Orthodox faith about cleansing after death is - from a Catholic perspective - a “distinction without a difference.” *

When union between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches was attempted at the Council of Florence, the subject of purgatory was a hot topic. In the end, all but one of the Eastern Orthodox representatives (Eastern Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus) agreed to the Council’s formulas. What is significant is that Mark of Ephesus’ belief in cleansing (the meaning of “purgation”) after death, and most if not all of his speculations on what form it could take, are acceptable to Catholicism. From a Catholic perspective, Mark’s “dissent” was entirely semantic. Compare these two formulas:
But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones [what Catholics call “venial sins”] over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which - even though they have repented over them - they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins but not by means of some purgatorial fire or a definite punishment in some place.

The souls of those who depart this life with true repentance and in the love of God, before they have rendered satisfaction for their trespasses and negligences by worthy fruits of repentance, are cleansed after death by cleansing pains.
There are only two apparent differences between these two statements. The first is that Mark of Ephesus was opposed to the term “fire” and the idea that cleansing occurs “in some place,” neither of which is defined by the Council of Florence (or any other Ecumenical Council) as part of Catholic teaching on purgatory. The second is that the Council mentions “pain” or “suffering.” But Mark of Ephesus also believed that cleansing after death involves pain or suffering. He actually called his own theories “more torment than any fire…terror…that is much more tormenting and punishing than anything else.” In other words, both the Council and Mark of Ephesus agreed that there is a cleansing after death, the conditions of which may be understood as suffering. None of the Eastern Orthodox representatives, then, substantially disagreed with the Council. Perhaps Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are closer to each other than some think?

Cleansed After Death
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
When union between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches was attempted at the Council of Florence, the subject of purgatory was a hot topic. In the end, all but one of the Eastern Orthodox representatives (Eastern Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus) agreed to the Council’s formulas.
Let’s remember the full story. This Council dragged on for years. To ensure that the Orthodox representatives agreed to Catholic doctrines, the Pope arranged for them to live virtually in imprisonment and in a state of starvation. 😦 The poor Orthodox representatives who gave in and signed the Council’s documents were rejected by their flock when they returned home. Bessarion the bishop of Nicea had to flee from Constantinople to escape being lynched; he returned to Italy and was made a cardinal. Isidore Metropolitan of Moscow was convicted by a Church Court when he returned to Moscow and imprisoned in a monastery. He made his escape and returned to Italy.

For the Orthodox view of this Reunion Council at Florence see

“The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory”
Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence
orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx
 
Fr Ambrose:
Well, people here have been saying that the magisterial teaching does NOT include purgatorial fire.

They have been saying that there are only two facts taught by the Catholic Church:
  1. Purgatory exists
  2. Souls there are helped by the prayers of the living
That is too brief a summary of what the Catholic Church teaches. She also teaches that there is suffering involved in the final purification. But that is nothing new. Carrying the cross and becoming perfect in Christ always entails suffering:
… we are children of God, and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
Romans 8:16-17

we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us.
Romans 5:3-5
A person can go straight to heaven and never have to be purified after death. For an adult to reach a level of holiness so great that he or she would enter directly into heaven is going to require not just carrying the cross, but carrying the cross with a perfect love of God. And that requires the suffering of self-discipline – the mortification of the flesh, a disciplined prayer life, and a willingness to suffer the crosses that God sends us to bring the virtue of humility.

The scriptures speak of the refining fire that purifies the gold as a metaphor of the suffering that purifies our love of God. To achieve Christian perfection there is no need to suffer literal flames of fire, just as carrying our cross does not mean that we literally carry around heavy wooden beams.
Fr Ambrose:
So where does that leave purgatorial fire? Would it be fair to say that the whole doctrine is in a period of flux and that the movement today is away from the earlier teaching of purgatorial fire?
No, that wouldn’t be fair. The Catholic Church’s Magisterial teaching still what it has always been. The "cleansing fire” of Purgatory is a metaphor of God’s wrath:

How long, O LORD? Wilt thou hide thyself for ever?
How long will thy wrath burn like fire?
Psalm 89:6

Look and see
if there is any sorrow like my sorrow
which was brought upon me,
which the LORD inflicted
on the day of his fierce anger.
"From on high he sent fire;
into my bones he made it descend …
Lamentations 1:12-13

"For behold, the LORD will come in fire,
and his chariots like the stormwind,
to render his anger in fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire. For by fire will the LORD execute judgment …
Isaiah 66:15-16
 
For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves,
and chastises every son whom he receives.
Heb. 6:12
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
No, that wouldn’t be fair. The Catholic Church’s Magisterial teaching still what it has always been. The "cleansing fire” of Purgatory is a metaphor of God’s wrath
Oh, I think that is worse. The wrathful God who hates us with a perfect hatred since all that is God is perfect. You definitely need liberating from this concept of God… I recommend a perusal of The River of Fire. It’ll rock your socks 😃 God will never look the same afterwards 👍

philthompson.net/pages/l…iveroffire.html
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
No, that wouldn’t be fair. The Catholic Church’s Magisterial teaching still what it has always been. The "cleansing fire” of Purgatory is a metaphor of God’s wrath:
I may offend you here and I am apologise in advance, but I don’t believe you.

Show me where the magisterial teaching is that ''the “cleansing fire” of Purgatory is a metaphor of God’s wrath."

I *don’t *doubt that you believe this.

I* do* doubt that this is offical teaching from the Roman Magisterium…

But if you can provide references, then I’ll eat humble pie… 🙂 but not references from the Middle Ages. Up to date magisterial pronouncements are what we need.
 
40.png
Tirian:
I wondered that, too. Still, if there is suffering in purgatory, it seems to me that there must be some sense of duration. We’ve all had the experience of a sharp twinge of pain that was intense, but of such short duration that we hadn’t time really to suffer. On the other hand, pain of lesser intensity but of protracted duration can amount to real suffering.

But we’re plumbing the depths of mystery here. It’s OK to speculate, but in the end we live with what we know: it’s for our good, it involves some degree of suffering, and it’s a gift of a merciful God.
Well said
 
Fr Ambrose:
Dear Francisca,

If we left out the reference to purgatory, then you have expressed something very very close to the belief of the Orthodox Church.

If you like, take a look at an article “The River of Fire”
philthompson.net/pages/library/riveroffire.html

You’ll find it a bit polemical in its attitude towards the West, but concentrate on the teaching of God as fire.

I am amazed and I think it is wonderful to find Catholic people moving, in a kind of instinctive way, closer to the Orthodox churches of the East… and I suppose closer to their own Byzantine Catholic brothers and sisters.
Hi Fr Ambrose, thanks a lot for the link. I did not know that such is the teaching of the Orthodox Church. I have just quicky browsed it, quite interesting.

God bless.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Show me where the magisterial teaching is that ''the “cleansing fire” of Purgatory is a metaphor of God’s wrath."
I can do better than that. The infallible teachings of the Magisterium are not writings inspired by the Holy Spirit, only the scriptures have that status. The infallible teachings of the Magisterium only guard what is in the deposit of faith, and they can never contradict it.
**Catechism of the Catholic Church

135 ** “The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God”

86 …[the] Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it.
All I need to do is show you that the scriptures speak of the wrath of God towards the impenitent.

But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Romans 2:5

… if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Romans 13:4-5

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
Romans 1:18

…for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury.
Romans 2:8

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
Eph. 5:6

And the LORD said to Moses, "I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may burn hot against them and I may consume them …
Exodus 32:9-10

… at Horeb you provoked the LORD to wrath, and the LORD was so angry with you that he was ready to destroy you.
Deut. 9:8

O LORD, rebuke me not in thy anger,
nor chasten me in thy wrath.
Psalm 6:1
 
Fr. Ambrose

There is a Protestant spirit in your writings that comes through loud and clear. Are you a convert to the Greek Orthodox faith? I find that your arguments are very similar to those that I typically get from the ex-Protestants that have embraced Orthodoxy.
 
NOTE: I have changed my username from atenciom to ImpriMartin. Still the same guy though. 😃
Fr Ambrose:
Dear Martin,

It is you who are really in error. You seem to be placing the human mind above the faith of the Church. This is symptomatic of what has led the West astray from the true faith. You reply too much on what Anselm of Canterbury called (God forgive him) “infallible reason.”
Fr Ambrose,
I sound too much like Anselm? That is an ad hominem argument so that you won’t have deal with my point. Whether Anselm was correct or off the mark is irrelevant. You still have to deal with my points. You are failing to use responsibly your capacity of reason which God gave you on matters which aren’t mysteries.
Fr Ambrose:
To answer your charges that I have an obligation to seek the truth. I have sought it and I have found it. The truth is a person. The truth is Jesus Christ. The truth is found in His Church, which is the Pillar and Ground of Truth. The certainty of truth is found only within His Church, and His Church does not teach purgatory.

This is enough for me. I cannot imagine imperilling my salvation by taking on board doctrine rejected by the Church. I accept the teaching of our Fathers and the teaching of the Apostles. For me, that kind of draws a line under it. I am not “seeking an excuse” not to believe in purgatory. It is enough that the Church does not believe it.
Now, I don’t know what you are thinking when you think of the word “purgatory” and with all these posts, it seems obvious that you don’t know the catholic conception of purgatory. You seem to accept the views of catholics who post their “view of purgatory” (which is the name of this thread) which match your view. I, myself, have a “view”. We are allowed to have views since the RCC hasn’t defined that much about it. They have defined what Mat16 is trying to convey to you. Some people posted their analogies (extreme makeover, et al) and those analogies may actually be in line with RCC teaching. Some may explain too much and some may be inadequate. But in the end, they remain analogies. I don’t wish you to accept some spurious thought or analogy of purgatory that is running around in your head.

The point is: whatever definition that has been rooted out by the apostles and the early church fathers, whether it be by straight revelation or whether we must infer it through logic from the revelation that we do have, you as a christian are obliged to accept it.

As you have said:
Fr Ambrose:
I accept the teaching of our Fathers and the teaching of the Apostles.
Well then, Mat 16 is showing that to you. If they make a valid point, you are commiting sin by saying “That is logical but I still reject it.” If a thought process on a non-mystery is logical, and it is based on God’s truths, you can be assured that it is from God.

Lastly, you say you accept the truth which is a person and ultimately His church. I can respect that fact that you should accept only what comes from his church. We catholics claim the same creed.

What we have here is a battle of authorites. Our authority says X and yours says Y. So in order determine who is right, we discuss X and Y. So far, it turns out that X encompasses Y but Y does not encompass X. When we try to show you how X includes Y and adds a bit more through god-given logic, you choose not to exercise that logic by hiding behind the “it’s a mystery” bush which really amounts to, I-choose-not-to-accept-because-my-church-teaches-Y.

But yet, why did you choose to discuss all this? The point of it was to find out the truth, compare that truth to teachings of both our authorities, pick the one that matches. But everytime we steer you closer to certain scriptures, you drone away with “my church teaches Y”.

Martin
 
Bless me Father Ambrose.

What is your rationale for comparing Limbo and Purgatory? I don’t think the Catholic sources you have cited ever claim patristic support for Limbo, but there is much patristic support (claimed and actual) for Purgatory. So if Limbo goes the way of the Dodo bird, it does not affect the faith of the Church. Our unity will not be achieved by letting go of patristic Truths. Our unity will be achieved when we try to understand where we are coming from, and accept the similarities, while leaving the differences in the realm of theologoumena.

Father, you cannot deny a state of existence after death wherein cleansing or perfection occurs, even if it be for an INSTANT according to our standards of time. Neither can you deny that our prayers and the Holy Sacrifice are efficacious for these souls in this state of existence. It seems your only objection is the NAME “Purgatory,” and we all know St. Paul’s exhortations against causing disunity by arguing over words.

To all Catholics. It is obvious that our Orthodox brethren consider the WORD “purgatory” a stumbling block. We can exhort them all we like that it is inimical to the Christian and biblical spirit to cause disunity based on mere terminology, but that is an ineffective rationale against many centuries of ingrained misunderstanding and mistrust. Perhaps if we simply say “state of purification” or “state of cleansing,” at least one stumbling block will be removed in this discussion.

God bless all.
Greg
 
40.png
GAssisi:
Father, you cannot deny **a state of existence after death ** wherein cleansing or perfection occurs, even if it be for an INSTANT according to our standards of time. Neither can you deny that our prayers and the Holy Sacrifice are efficacious for these souls in this state of existence. It seems your only objection is the NAME “Purgatory,” and we all know St. Paul’s exhortations against causing disunity by arguing over words.

… Perhaps if we simply say “state of purification” or “state of cleansing,” at least one stumbling block will be removed in this discussion.
Do Catholics have to believe purgatory is a “place”, or can they consider purgatory “a state of existence after death”?

This is what Catholic Answers has to say:
… the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1030–1). …

Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine:
INDENT 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. Other ideas, such that purgatory is a particular “place” in the afterlife or that it takes time to accomplish, are speculations rather than doctrines.[/indent]
 
Matt16_18 said:
Fr. Ambrose

There is a Protestant spirit in your writings that comes through loud and clear.

I actually think you must be mistaken there.

I have never read a Protestant book in my life.

I have been inside Protestant churches only a few times - sometimes I need to borrow one for a funeral or wedding in a part of the country where we have no Orthodox church. The Anglicans are very kind about this.

If I tell you that I worship Mary the Mother of God would you still think that I have a Protestant spirit? 🙂
 
40.png
Imprimartin:
it seems obvious that you don’t know the catholic conception of purgatory.
From the large number of posts on this list from Catholics I would think that they themselves have no clear concepts. Some have a pre-Vatican concept. Others have more amorphous post-Vatican II concepts.

It is, to my mind, a good thing that the doctrine has been liberated from its pre-Vatican II concrete concepts and is now in a state of flux. The indications which I have gathered from this thread on the Forum are that the emerging teaching will be more consonant with Orthodox belief.
The point is: whatever definition that has been rooted out by the apostles and the early church fathers, whether it be by straight revelation or whether we must infer it through logic from the revelation that we do have, you as a christian are obliged to accept it.
The probelm with the demand that I must accept doctrines which are created by inferences based on logic (which is, after all, only your logic) is that I will then be presented with the same demand to accept all the other tenets which Roman Catholicism propounds. Any attempt to reject them would elicit the retort: “But you must agree. The inferences are based on logic. As a Christian you are obliged to accept them.”
What we have here is a battle of authorites.
Not really. We have a disjunct between the faith of the Apostles as transmitted in the Orthodox East and that of contemporary Roman Catholicism. It is a battle between Orthodox tradition and Roman authority.
When we try to show you how X includes Y and adds a bit more through god-given logic, you choose not to exercise that logic by hiding behind the “it’s a mystery” bush which really amounts to, I-choose-not-to-accept-because-my-church-teaches-Y.
I am not hiding behind anything. I am proclaiming my adherence to the beliefs of the Church founded by Christ and which is the pillar and ground of truth.
But everytime we steer you closer to certain scriptures, you drone away with “my church teaches Y”.
Do you expect me to have some sort of private belief which is contrary to that of my Church? What a thought!
 
Fr Ambrose:
It is, to my mind, a good thing that the doctrine has been liberated from its pre-Vatican II concrete concepts and is now in a state of flux.
I don’t know why you persist in saying this. Catholic doctrine about purgatory is not in a “state of flux”, and Catholic doctrine does not evolve from one thing into its opposite.

You have been highly critical of Catholic doctrine of purgatory, while at the same time, you have been highly evasive in answering questions about what the Orthodox have to offer as an alternative to Catholic doctrine. But in spite of your evasiveness, Catholics can glean some understanding of what the Orthodox beliefs are by analyzing the Orthodox prayers for the dead. The Orthodox prayers for the dead are supplications to God from the Church Militant asking for pardon for the sins of the person that has died, “Pardon, we beseech Thee, every transgression which may have been committed, whether by word or deed or thought. For there is no man who lives and does not commit a sin.”

As a rule, one can say that people pray what they believe. Thus, we can see that the Orthodox seem to be praying for the dead to receive God’s mercy for sins committed in this life, and not for sins committed after death. Perhaps that is an unwarranted assumption by Catholics, and that the Orthodox really believe that the dead can continue to commit sin after death.

The Orthodox prayers for the dead raise many questions. Do the Orthodox think that their prayers for the dead are pointless spiritual exercises, or do they believe that their prayers for the dead are actually efficacious? IOW, do the prayers of the Orthodox actually help, in some mysterious way, to purify the souls of the dead of the effects of their sin? Do the Orthodox prayers for the dead reflect a belief that the dead are in state of eternal need of prayers of supplication for God’s mercy? If so, what happens when the final judgement takes place? Who will be around on earth to offer prayers of supplication for God’s mercy for the dead? Is there some belief among the Orthodox that these prayers are for a temporary need, and that the prayers for the dead help bring about the eternal bliss of one for whom the prayers are offered? Are these prayers of supplication for the pardon of sin really disconnected from the whole of scriptures?
 
40.png
Matt16_18:
I don’t know why you persist in saying this. Catholic doctrine about purgatory is not in a “state of flux”, and Catholic doctrine does not evolve from one thing into its opposite.
It does. 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 have been highly evasive in answering questions about what the Orthodox have to offer as an alternative to Catholic doctrine.
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.”

Late in 1980 the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was obliged to intervene in a dispute which had arisen in the States about the after death state and the particular judgement . It was between a monk and a deacon but it began to involve all the converts in America and disturb the peace of the Church.

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… "
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top