A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
Peace be with you.
The Ancient United Church did NOT teach the doctrine of Purgatory.
The Ancient United Church did NOT teach the doctrine of Purgatory.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you.
F
fermat
Guest
- quietly hums the theme to Jeopardy*
F
fermat
Guest
The problem here is that it implies that after we die we still have an opportunity to work in the next life. If I have a disincentive to do it now, it would be because I can do it later!
Once you die, that’s it, game over. You will either go to straight to heaven, straight to hell or to heaven via purgatory. From the context of your post, I think you have a misconception about the teaching on purgatory. Please correct me if I have a misconception about your misconception
.
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
Well, the EOC does believe that upon death, and Particular Judgement - souls either go to heaven or to hell… or one of the many abodes of heaven and hell, before the Final Judgement.
We reject the concept of an intermediate seperate place like RC Purgatory.
We reject the concept of an intermediate seperate place like RC Purgatory.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Do you reject the concept that one must be purified, or perfect, to enter heaven?
You say, ‘one of the many abodes of heaven and hell…’ Isn’t that really saying the same thing, without using the term ‘purgatory’?
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
No… it’s not the same thing as Purgatory.
You may wish to have a look at the discussion thread about disagreements with the EOC teachings initiated by SingleMomMonica on this subject. There are some definitive, explanatory sources cited there which may assist you in understanding why what we teach is very differenct to the RCC.
A soul does not have to be perfect or purified to enter into Heaven - we teach that a soul must be FORGIVEN to enter into the full presence of God in Heaven.
We do not teach purging or purification of the soul by a temporary fire after death.
We teach that souls may benefit from God’s Mercy in Judgement after death - and acts of the earthly Church such as prayer, good works and the Bloodless Sacrifice may assist towards FORGIVENESS by God after Particular, or before or at Final Judgement.
You may wish to have a look at the discussion thread about disagreements with the EOC teachings initiated by SingleMomMonica on this subject. There are some definitive, explanatory sources cited there which may assist you in understanding why what we teach is very differenct to the RCC.
A soul does not have to be perfect or purified to enter into Heaven - we teach that a soul must be FORGIVEN to enter into the full presence of God in Heaven.
We do not teach purging or purification of the soul by a temporary fire after death.
We teach that souls may benefit from God’s Mercy in Judgement after death - and acts of the earthly Church such as prayer, good works and the Bloodless Sacrifice may assist towards FORGIVENESS by God after Particular, or before or at Final Judgement.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Not picking, but I’ve never heard of the ‘many’ abodes of heaven or hell. Can you elaborate for me some?
Hmmmm, it see seems to be ‘semantics’. A purified, or perfect, soul is a forgiven soul.
Please explain your view of, how a man’s work can burn that he suffers a loss, but the man is saved as though through fire.
Again, it seems like semantics to me. Seems to be a purging/perfecting/purifying after a mortal death, or another process before heaven.
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
I have tried to address some of these issues you raise - but encourage you to look at the discussion on Purgatory in another thread - where you will find excellent links posted by me to discussion and justifactions of the differences between our Churches.
The nature of forgiveness, and it’s role in salvation of the soul is NOT a semantic question, but one of fundamental substance and importance. The only thing that happens, or may change after a mortal death is the nature of Gods Judgement.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
First, thanks for you time explaining your view to me. I didn’t find the thread you mentioned, do you have a link?
I have some of the writings from the pre-schism times of the Church that seem to support the idea of purgatory, even though they do not use the term specifically. Can you provide some of the writings to support your view?
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
Thanks for these quotes - but you are right, they do not mention Purgatory, and were never translated by the ancient unified Church into todays teaching of the RCC on Purgatory.
We Eastern Orthodox are aware of the opinions of many pre-schism writers (Origen, Gregory Dialogous, Gregory of Nyssa and others), mainly from the Western Church - but these were not ever adopted by the decisions of the 5 Bishoprics of the unified Church by consensus - even though they had a lot of support in Rome.
The much later translation of these views by the post schism RCC into the teaching of Purgatory as we understand it today, came much later - and was greeted by the 4 other Bishoprics (and other EOC Bishoprics) with surprise and even shock, some referring to the Roman innovation as “fanciful”. These were expressed repeatedly by the EOC to the RCC since about 500 years ago - to no avail.
I am providing a link to the thread I mentioned, pages 14 and 15 are particularly informative and instructive, with good explanatory links too.
Happy reading
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408673&page=14
We Eastern Orthodox are aware of the opinions of many pre-schism writers (Origen, Gregory Dialogous, Gregory of Nyssa and others), mainly from the Western Church - but these were not ever adopted by the decisions of the 5 Bishoprics of the unified Church by consensus - even though they had a lot of support in Rome.
The much later translation of these views by the post schism RCC into the teaching of Purgatory as we understand it today, came much later - and was greeted by the 4 other Bishoprics (and other EOC Bishoprics) with surprise and even shock, some referring to the Roman innovation as “fanciful”. These were expressed repeatedly by the EOC to the RCC since about 500 years ago - to no avail.
I am providing a link to the thread I mentioned, pages 14 and 15 are particularly informative and instructive, with good explanatory links too.
Happy reading
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408673&page=14
T
Third_Day
Guest
How does the EO interpret 1 Cor. 3:10-15 “. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire"
If this isn’t a teaching on a purification of the soul then what is it?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I don’t think the missing specific term ‘purgatory’ helps validate an argument one way or the other. What I mean is, ‘transubstantiation’ cannot be found as used prior to, around, 1100AD, yet we both believe it (at least I believe we do, forgive me for my presuming on your part, I’m not really sure.)
The time of translations, or acceptance of doctrines, also does not help validate an argument, one way or the other. At least from some explanations I’ve heard about ‘teachings’ becoming endangered requiring a formal ‘translation’.
Thanks, I had already found it, but was reading through from the beginning and just hadn’t taken the time to let you know yet. Sorry.I am providing a link to the thread I mentioned, pages 14 and 15 are particularly informative and instructive, with good explanatory links too.
Happy reading
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408673&page=14
I’ve never dug deeply into that which ‘separates’ us and considered us all Catholics. A question has come to mind though, just from the little bit we’ve discussed and what I’ve been reading so far. Are there, in your opinion, any differences between us that has an impact on one’s salvation?
F
fermat
Guest
Please pardon my ignorance on this point, but you keep referring to the Roman church. As I understand it, the beliefs on purgatory extend to all the rites of the Catholic church, not just the Roman rite. I always have a hard time keeping the various rites of the church straight.
Anyone can feel free to set me rite on this point. (Sorry.)
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
This extract from the source linked above answers your question fully…
Basically, the majority of the once unified Church showed how the Roman Church had seriously erred and misinterpreted the scripture you quote.
Here is what they said:
***In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory.
But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”
To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked…
In explanation of the Apostle’s words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner’s existence while suffering punishment.
Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. “It is very right to suppose,” wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners.
Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle’s words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities."
The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle’s words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire.
To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part.
By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. “Your doctrine,” they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins.
After which he says, 'Every man’s work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: ‘For the day,’ he says, ‘shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.’ Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners.
‘This fire,’ says he, ‘shall try every man’s work of what sort it is,’ enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins.
But these words also, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,’ (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour."***
Basically, the majority of the once unified Church showed how the Roman Church had seriously erred and misinterpreted the scripture you quote.
Here is what they said:
***In the following sitting the Latins presented a defence of their doctrine on purgatory.
But their especial defence was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (I Cor. iii. 11, 15): “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”
To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. [5] They remarked…
In explanation of the Apostle’s words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner’s existence while suffering punishment.
Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. “It is very right to suppose,” wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners.
Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle’s words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities."
The expressions sothenai, sozesthai, and soteria, used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (diamenein, einai.) The very idea of the Apostle’s words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire.
To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15,) they make the following remarks: The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part.
By gold, silver, stones, he means virtues; by hay, wood, stubble, that which is contrary to virtue, i. e., bad works. “Your doctrine,” they continued to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he (the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and bad said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins.
After which he says, 'Every man’s work shall be made manifest,’ and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: ‘For the day,’ he says, ‘shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire.’ Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him. (Dan. vii. 10; Ps. 1. 3; xcvii. 3; 2 S. Pet. iii. 12, 15.) All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners.
‘This fire,’ says he, ‘shall try every man’s work of what sort it is,’ enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doers; it becomes evident that the Apostle Paul does not speak of purgatorial fire, which, even in your opinion, extends not over all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins.
But these words also, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,’ (zemiothesetai, i.e., shall lose,) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour."***
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
I’ve never dug deeply into that which ‘separates’ us and considered us all Catholics. A question has come to mind though, just from the little bit we’ve discussed and what I’ve been reading so far. Are there, in your opinion, any differences between us that has an impact on one’s salvation?
***Well, I do think that the doctrine of Purgatory has such an impact on salvation - because it goes directly to the issue of the nature of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness - both central to salvation of souls. Must the soul be perfected to be saved (RCC), or is Gods forgiveness perfect and final and Omnipotent in the face of any sin (EOC)?
I also think differences in the Eucharist (body and blood - EOC) vs. (body only - RCC) could well impact upon salvation as we know the sacrament of communion is fundamental to salvation also. We both believe in transubstantiation - but we partake of both body and blood - you guys don’t.
There might be other areas of impact on salvation too.***
***Well, I do think that the doctrine of Purgatory has such an impact on salvation - because it goes directly to the issue of the nature of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness - both central to salvation of souls. Must the soul be perfected to be saved (RCC), or is Gods forgiveness perfect and final and Omnipotent in the face of any sin (EOC)?
I also think differences in the Eucharist (body and blood - EOC) vs. (body only - RCC) could well impact upon salvation as we know the sacrament of communion is fundamental to salvation also. We both believe in transubstantiation - but we partake of both body and blood - you guys don’t.
There might be other areas of impact on salvation too.***
A
Andrew_Phillip
Guest
***No… not all Rites of the Catholic Church teach the Roman Purgatory Dogma.
SingleMomMonica is an expert on these and can provide specifics - she is very smart and knowledgeable.
But to cut a long story short - many Eastern, Byzantine and Oriental Catholics reject the Roman Church view of Purgatory - and more or less, agree with us in maintaining pre-schism Church teaching on this question of faith.***
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
I agree with what you’ve said here, but you may not know that of late many, not all though, RCCs offer both the Blood in addition to the Body.
Although the Unleavened bread is used for the Body, Catholics stopped using Leavened bread in 1053 at the mandate of the Pope of that time…I forget his name right now and can’t look right now, on my way to Church.
I think there are differing opinions as to whether or not that has any affect. Basically Orthodox stick to the original use and know that it is correct, but whether not those using other methods…who know? Why not just stick to what has been revealed so there will be certainty.
I also think differences in the Eucharist (body and blood - EOC) vs. (body only - RCC) could well impact upon salvation as we know the sacrament of communion is fundamental to salvation also. We both believe in transubstantiation - but we partake of both body and blood - you guys don’t.
There might be other areas of impact on salvation too.***
Although the Unleavened bread is used for the Body, Catholics stopped using Leavened bread in 1053 at the mandate of the Pope of that time…I forget his name right now and can’t look right now, on my way to Church.
I think there are differing opinions as to whether or not that has any affect. Basically Orthodox stick to the original use and know that it is correct, but whether not those using other methods…who know? Why not just stick to what has been revealed so there will be certainty.
***Well, I do think that the doctrine of Purgatory has such an impact on salvation - because it goes directly to the issue of the nature of Divine Mercy and Forgiveness - both central to salvation of souls. Must the soul be perfected to be saved (RCC), or is Gods forgiveness perfect and final and Omnipotent in the face of any sin (EOC)?
I also think differences in the Eucharist (body and blood - EOC) vs. (body only - RCC) could well impact upon salvation as we know the sacrament of communion is fundamental to salvation also. We both believe in transubstantiation - but we partake of both body and blood - you guys don’t.
There might be other areas of impact on salvation too.***
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
In view of your response in reference to purgatory, I have to ask what you would do if you lived in an area where there were no Orthodox Churches? Would you attend a Catholic Church instead?
The differences in the Eucharist are optional for RCC. Depending on the Mass at my particular Church, we receive both. When there is a shortage of Eucharistic ministers, we only receive the body. (Our priest is recovering from back surgery and has trouble standing without a cane for even short periods of time.)
Still reading through the other thread and thanks again for your explanations. We’re liable to take Truth Seeker’s thread to a new high for them.
- Status