Purgatory......

[Andrew_Phillip]

Catholics do not believe God’s forgiveness is conditional on anything but repentance. He can’t forgive if you don’t admit you’re sorry.

Alright, if we get into Heaven because we are forgiven, but not purified or made perfect, does that mean we still sin in Heaven? This sounds like VERY Protestant theology.

***The EOC does not adhere to Protestant or Catholic theology on the afterlife or Purgatory.

Having said that, it is also clear that certain elements of Catholic and Protestant teaching on this issue are accepted by the EO as valid. Not their entire understanding - only elements.

We teach that not even the Saints in Heaven are present in the full and perfect presence of God, until after the Final Judgement - and so, those close to God in Heaven must still strive towards full Theosis or Deification.***

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

Well, the CC does not accept the opinions of the EOC regarding purgatory.

Josie, that much is obvious.

This controversy has persisted for hundreds of years. But I remind you that inarguably, the United, Apostolic New testament Church on earth, did not teach Purgatory as the RCC understands it today for the first 1000 years of it’s existence. There are argument about what happened in the subsequent 500 years.

Why are you deliberately creating an either/or situation when both forgiveness and purification are necessary to get into Heaven, i.e., no sin can enter into Heaven?

***Any “purification” of the soul is the result of forgiveness. Sincere confession, repentance and unceasing efforts to change attitudes and behaviours must precede Divine Mercy, Grace and Forgiveness. ***

I’m curious but do the Orthodox teach penance after one is absolved from sin through confession?

Yes.

Well, then respond to this scenario if you will, let’s say two people were to die tomorrow, one of whom killed someone and the other, simply beat someone up pretty badly in a fight, will both go to Heaven if neither repented or will both go to Hell?

Sincere confession, repentance, penance and efforts to change are required from both souls to receive Divine Forgiveness. Without that Forgiveness, neither soul can go the Heaven.

Did I not specify that we are supposed to make ourselves holy during our time on earth because as the Catholic Church teaches we are justified by faith and works or faith working in love, and those whose faith is dead, i.e., cannot be saved? Moreover, how flawed/imperfect or impure can a soul be in order to be forgiven by God? Because if the Orthodox don’t have an answer to this question, then you can imagine the errors that can come of people abusing this notion of God’s forgiveness and mercy without penance, i.e., purgation (paying to the last penny in prison as scripture says)?

We do have an answer to that question - and it is that given the sincere and necessary pre-requisites to forgiveness, God can forgive ANY sin - with the possible exception of blasphemy against His Person in the Holy Spirit.

I do not care if you think it’s wrong, and quite frankly your Orthodox/reformed interpretation of the afterlife is just that an interpretation (there is no uniform teaching with regard to the afterlife within the Orthodox community).

There is a consistent position in the EOC, and it has not changed since the beginning of the Apostolic Church on earth 2000 years ago. It is not the EOC that has innovated or reformed it’s teaching here - but it is the RCC and subsequent Protestant reformations.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

This part of my post was malformed so let me rephrase, "Moreover, how flawed/imperfect or impure can a soul be without surpassing a limit of some sort? I say this because there are Protestants who think that because they are covered in the righteousness of Christ that no matter what their sins they will enter Heaven, i.e., what is the incentive to be holy here on Earth if God forgives as easily as that, i.e., without consequences/payment for the sins we committed?

The EOC does not teach this. We teach constant striving and efforts towards Theosis.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

It’s not defined as a “place” in Catholic theology. It’s a purifying state.

***Well, we EO say that if Heaven is a distinct place, and Hell is a distinct place - and Purgatory is an intermediate “state” as the RCC teaches, it must be a distinct and seperate third place.

Where is it, if it is NOT as you believe, Heaven or Hell?***

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

It’s not actually defined as a “fire” in Catholic theology, either.

Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus said: “But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones 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.”

Mark of Ephesus considered this an argument against purgatory, but a Catholic would not. He was opposed to the term “fire” and the idea that cleansing occurs “in some place,” but neither of these is actually defined by the Council of Florence (or any other Catholic council) as part of Catholic teaching on purgatory.

It was not only Mark of Ephesus - but the entire EOC. Take a Look at the words of Metropolitain of Kiev, Ptere Moghila - at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672?? I think.

This statement disagrees as much with St. Mark of Ephesus as with the Catholic Church.

OK then, purified by a created, temporal fire would be more precise. We, and Mark of Ephesus believe that Divine Mercy and Forgiveness purifies.

The Catholic Church does not actually teach that there is. People may speak of it that way, and they are free to do so, but it’s not part of the official doctrine.

This is certainly not what either the EOC or the Protestant Churches believe. Beliefs, teachings, practices, doctrines and yes - “dogmas” all define what the RCC adheres to re Purgatory. This was the legitimate approach of the pre-schism Church, and is still the approach of the EOC.

 

[aspirant]

Well, we EO say that if Heaven is a distinct place, and Hell is a distinct place - and Purgatory is an intermediate “state” as the RCC teaches, it must be a distinct and seperate third place.
You can say it, but your saying it won’t make Catholics believe it.

 

[aspirant]

Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus said: “But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones 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.”

Mark of Ephesus considered this an argument against purgatory, but a Catholic would not. He was opposed to the term “fire” and the idea that cleansing occurs “in some place,” but neither

of these is actually defined by the Council of Florence (or any other Catholic council) as part of Catholic teaching on purgatory.
It was not only Mark of Ephesus - but the entire EOC.

If that’s true, then there is no real disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox on this matter, because the only things to which he objected (“fire,” “some place”) are not part of official Catholic doctrine. Catholic doctrine regarding purgatory substantially agrees with what Mark of Ephesus said in the above quote.

a created, temporal fire

Is not part of the Catholic Church’s definition of purgatory.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The EOC does not teach this. We teach constant striving and efforts towards Theosis.

Respectfully Andrew, we are at the mercy of interpretations.

 

[dvdjs]

The only conclusion we EO can reach, is that if Catholics in Purgatory are already forgiven, and are destined for Heaven once they are “purified” - then our God must be different to yours - because when our God forgives, His Mercy & Grace & Forgiveness are perfect and sufficient for entry into his presence and into Heaven. For some this happens at Particular Judgement, and for others at Final Judgement. We do not delineate between venial and mortal sins in the same way - sin is sin - repentance is repentance - and forgiveness is forgiveness. It’s not conditional on purification or merit.

The problem, AP, in that in your zeal to stake out differences, you sometimes bend if not break Eastern ideas. There is nothing in the above, for example that hints of theosis. Or that repentance, like theosis, is a lifelong undertaking. We are called to continual growth in goodness, ie purification, promoted by prayer, sacraments, ascetic repentance, and as we, like the adulterous woman, are forgiven and tols to sin no more.

Thus we are no longer sinners covered by God’s destined forgiveness, as we are finally judged, but are transfigured participants in divinity. Don’t lash out when others point out that what you are writing sometimes sounds Protestant. It does. But when it does, you are deviating from Eastern thought.

 

[Daedelus76]

Many protestants in practice pray for the dead, at least privately, regardless of what the theology says. Especially Anglicans/Lutherans. In the modern Episcopalian and Anglican liturgies, it’s much more explicit in the liturgy. I think the average broad church Anglican/Episcopalian doesn’t have the sharp and clear beliefs about Hell and Purgatory that Roman Catholics do, there is more acceptance of ambiguity or mystery.

I also think the charaterization of Protestant theology as being “you are covered in Christ’s blood so it’s OK to sin” is very erroneous and misleading. Study the theology some time, it’s a specific respone to what Reformers saw as a lack of clarity and possible legalism. Basicly, the Anglican/Wesleyan view is more focused on God’s love and grace leading to gratitude and repentence, with works being a product of the change in the person brought about only through the grace of God (but works are not required for justification). Many theologians increasingly agree there is little substantial difference between Roman Catholic and Lutheran/Arminian/Wesleyan views.

Lest anybody think alien righteousness is a wierd concept altogether, look up St. Paul’s word’s in Galatians 2:20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.”

 

[aspirant]

Many protestants in practice pray for the dead, at least privately, regardless of what the theology says. Especially Anglicans/Lutherans.

C.S. Lewis among them. But he also believed in purification of souls after death, and was even willing to call it purgatory, which is more than many Anglicans will do.

I think the average broad church Anglican/Episcopalian doesn’t have the sharp and clear beliefs about Hell and Purgatory that Roman Catholics do, there is more acceptance of ambiguity or mystery.

The 39 Articles explicitly forbid the “Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory” and “Invocation of the Saints,” but I don’t remember if they forbid praying for the dead. It’s been a long while since I believed the 39 Articles. And many Anglicans, in my experience, never really read or believe them. Which may be why they’re willing to accept ambiguity.

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

The problem, AP, in that in your zeal to stake out differences, you sometimes bend if not break Eastern ideas. There is nothing in the above, for example that hints of theosis. Or that repentance, like theosis, is a lifelong undertaking. We are called to continual growth in goodness, ie purification, promoted by prayer, sacraments, ascetic repentance, and as we, like the adulterous woman, are forgiven and tols to sin no more.

Thus we are no longer sinners covered by God’s destined forgiveness, as we are finally judged, but are transfigured participants in divinity. Don’t lash out when others point out that what you are writing sometimes sounds Protestant. It does. But when it does, you are deviating from Eastern thought.

***We Orthodox find Roman Catholic assertions that our beliefs held in fidelity with the pre-schism unified Church are somehow “Protestant” to be preposterous.

Protestantism grew out of an objection to Roman Catholic interpretations and practices regarding Purgatory which we EO never accepted, and never practiced.

Nothing I have have said deviates from EO thought or teaching - I have pointed out where Roman Catholics deviate from the teaching of the pre-schism Church through innovation and misinterpretation of Greek scripture, which it misunderstood.

We EO often sympathise with Protestant objections to elements of the Roman Catholic teaching here - which respond fallibly to the Roman Catholic error. However, fundamentally, we see the Protestant overall teaching as an error (theirs), piled upon another error (yours).

Neither teaching fully reflects that of the Unified New Testament and Apostolic Church on earth for at least it’s first thousand years - and arguably for a further 500 thereafter. I am NOT at pains to “stake out” differences - these are reality and historical fact.

Roman Catholics find this entirely problematic, because whilst they understandably find it easy to point at the results of splits from their teaching on purgatory by Protestants 500 years ago and cry “hersesy” - they cannot do this with we EO.

Understanding that such an accusation against the EO would be absurd - given the Roman Schism with the rest of our Church - they argue no fundamental difference between us. This is false - and entirely the RCC responsibility to explain to the rest of the pre-schism Church.

It is not the EO who have “bent or broken” Eastern thought and teaching on “Purgatory”, but you. It is also not the EO theology and teaching which created the Protestant Reformation and further error - you did.***

 

[adstrinity]

We Orthodox find Roman Catholic assertions that our beliefs held in fidelity with the pre-schism unified Church are somehow “Protestant” to be preposterous.

Protestantism grew out of an objection to Roman Catholic interpretations and practices regarding Purgatory which we EO never accepted, and never practiced.

Nothing I have have said deviates from EO thought or teaching - I have pointed out where Roman Catholics deviate from the teaching of the pre-schism Church through innovation and misinterpretation of Greek scripture, which it misunderstood.

We EO often sympathise with Protestant objections to elements of the Roman Catholic teaching here - which respond fallibly to the Roman Catholic error. However, fundamentally, we see the Protestant overall teaching as an error (theirs), piled upon another error (yours).

Neither teaching fully reflects that of the Unified New Testament and Apostolic Church on earth for at least it’s first thousand years - and arguably for a further 500 thereafter. I am NOT at pains to “stake out” differences - these are reality and historical fact.

Roman Catholics find this entirely problematic, because whilst they understandably find it easy to point at the results of splits from their teaching on purgatory by Protestants 500 years ago and cry “hersesy” - they cannot do this with we EO.

Understanding that such an accusation against the EO would be absurd - given the Roman Schism with the rest of our Church - they argue no fundamental difference between us. This is false - and entirely the RCC responsibility to explain to the rest of the pre-schism Church.

It is not the EO who have “bent or broken” Eastern thought and teaching on “Purgatory”, but you. It is also not the EO theology and teaching which created the Protestant Reformation and further error - you did.

 

[dvdjs]

We Orthodox find Roman Catholic assertions that our beliefs held in fidelity with the pre-schism unified Church are somehow “Protestant” to be preposterous.
…
Nothing I have have said deviates from EO thought or teaching - I have pointed out where Roman Catholics deviate from the teaching of the pre-schism Church through innovation and misinterpretation of Greek scripture, which it misunderstood…

OK you’ve pretty much jumped the shark, here, but …

The problem with you earlier posts is that you (singular) do not present the teachings of the Orthodox church accurately. Your (singular) posts have elements that smack of Protestant heresy. RCs, who may be unaware of how your (singular) posts deviate from authentic EO teaching, mistakenly attribute the errors also to the EOC. They are not attacking you (plural). They are just misled by you (singular). In this case, it is your (singular) language that suggests that we remain as the same sinner cloaked in God’s forgiveness, rather that understanding theosis as a process involving our metanoia, our change, and our purification, that was misleading. Please take a little more care to be accurate when speaking about what “we” (EOs) believe.

And once more: have you checked the references on the allegedly forged Chrysostom quote?

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**We have plenty of Sharks here down under, but luckily I have never had to “jump” one yet in the literal sense… whatever that means.

Theosis is also understood differently by our Churches - the “Essence” of God and the “Eternal Energy” of God being the point at issue between us on this. God does not call us to “purity or perfection” - an impossible task for Humans, He calls us to sincere “efforts to obedience, and sincere repentance” when we fail.

I have never said, and the EO Church does not teach that Theosis or Deification does not imply fervent and sincere efforts to constantly resist sin. It does. We teach that the Most Holy Vigin was a brilliant example of this effort - because unlike Catholics, we remain in fidelity with the ancient Church teaching that she was not “The Immaculate Conception”.

We teach that she successfully resisted sinning, not always successfully, still needed a “Saviour” and “Forgiveness”, and paid the wages of original sin in her Earthly Death or “Dormition”. She was assumed body and soul into Heaven regardless of any “stain or taint” of sin because of the Perfect Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness of God.

The Chrysostom quotes you mention were actually referred to by SMM, and not me. I will let her respond to issues between you on that.

But I will say that the debate between our Churches at the Psuedo Council of Ferrera/ Florence are very illuminating for Catholics and Orthodox alike regarding Purgatory.

I have posted some excerpts in this thread - along with EO apologetics on it. Take another look if you don’t believe me - or view my support of those EO positions with sarcasm.

Try not to shoot the messenger please. Try to address the actual message.

If you are really interested in EO differences with the Lutherans, Calvinists and Wesleyans on Purgatory - I will try to post some extracts from answers at EO Councils held specifically to address these further errors in the C17th C18th and C19th.

These may help you to understand the core differences because necessarily the EO addressed the Protestant errors in the context of the Roman Catholic errors from which they arose as a reaction during the Reformation.

**

 

[aspirant]

God does not call us to “purity or perfection”

“[the LORD of hosts] is like a refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD. Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years…”

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

“Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.”

“And it is my prayer that your love may abound more and more, with knowledge and all discernment, so that you may approve what is excellent, and so be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.”

“[The] testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.”

“All these, though commended through their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better for us, that apart from us they should not be made perfect.”

“You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel.”

“Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own.”

“See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are… Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.”

“You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

[Andrew_Phillip]

**Yeah…

Picking out a series of isolated Biblical quotes - out of context and outside of contextual analysis seems very much like a recent Protestant technique of discussion to me. This is particularly popular with Evangelical Protestants. You can prove the moon is made of cheese by doing that!

Made pure and perfect by God’s Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is the overall legitimate context and teaching here.

Made perfect “in His sight” - not by our own merit in our own sight.

Yes there are things we must do to obtain it - but it’s not by innate merit, or Purgatory.

Christ came for that purpose - our merit was lacking, so he provided his own - fully Man and fully God to purchase that Divine Forgiveness.

No created being is “pure and Perfect” in the same sense that God (Father Son & Holy Spirit) is pure and perfect.**

 

[dvdjs]

We have plenty of Sharks here down under, but luckily I have never had to “jump” one yet in the literal sense… whatever that means.

Google it.

Theosis is also understood differently by our Churches - the “Essence” of God and the “Eternal Energy” of God being the point at issue between us on this. God does not call us to “purity or perfection” - an impossible task for Humans, He calls us to sincere “efforts to obedience, and sincere repentance” when we fail.
I have never said, and the EO Church does not teach that Theosis or Deification does not imply fervent and sincere efforts to constantly resist sin. It does.

Of course it does. This is the point that you do not seem to get: You, personally didn’t explain theosis. Others read your comments on forgiveness and heaven and got the wrong impression of the EOC teaching, which sounded heretical. It would help if you posted with a little more care and a lot more caution whe speaking for as “we” for the EOC.

We teach that the Most Holy Vigin was a brilliant example of this effort - because unlike Catholics, we remain in fidelity with the ancient Church teaching that she was not “The Immaculate Conception” We teach that she successfully resisted sinning, not always successfully, still needed a “Saviour” and “Forgiveness”, and paid the wages of original sin in her Earthly Death or “Dormition”. She was assumed body and soul into Heaven regardless of any “stain or taint” of sin because of the Perfect Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness of God.

Oh my. You will, obviously be very hard pressed to find the ancient Church teaching that she was not “The Immaculate Conception”. I assume that you mean to say something very different. Moreover, while you will find one church father who claims that she did sin, the overwhelming consensus, fortified in the lex orandi, is that she did not. You are speaking inaccurately about EOC teaching. The rest of this passage is a mish-mash of juxtaposed EOC and CC teachings. It’s hard to decipher, but you seem determined to repeat the same error on forgiveness of sin.

The Chrysostom quotes you mention were actually referred to by SMM, and not me. I will let her respond to issues between you on that.

You, however, weighed in with your own opinion that SMM had incontrovertibly justified her position. Did you make that conclusion before even looking at her evidence? Have you gone tribal - accepting whatever any EO says, even when it is patently unsupported?
This is quintessential shark jumping.

But I will say that the debate between our Churches at the Psuedo Council of Ferrera/ Florence are very illuminating for Catholics and Orthodox alike regarding Purgatory.
I have posted some excerpts in this thread - along with EO apologetics on it. Take another look if you don’t believe me - or view my support of those EO positions with sarcasm. Try not to shoot the messenger please. Try to address the actual message.

Actually I am delighted that you finally made an effort to quote people who can carefully and accurately discuss EO postions. I would love for you to do some similar work on your innovative idea of “no theosis in Hades” and the mutability of God’s judgement. (Hint: Start with St. John Damascene on the latter).

As to the passages themselves, there isn’t much to say. What you quoted from Mark of Ephesus is much ado about nothing. I had quoted the doctrinal statement of Florence - it said *nothing *about a place, and nothing about fire. So with whom is St. Mark continuing the argument? Not us. (And if such theologumena are of such concern, then good, go back (as I asked before) and show the scriptural support for the 3 days of earth travel, the 37 days of ATHs, and such.)

The article from St.John’s in DC is great until the very end, when they start, in effect, to define RC doctrine and show themselves as not being well-educated in it. Of course no one really expects that EO have expertise in Catholic theology, so, while I cannot take their closing comment as significant, neither do I fault them for it.

 

[josie_L]

This controversy has persisted for hundreds of years. But I remind you that inarguably, the United, Apostolic New testament Church on earth, did not teach Purgatory as the RCC understands it today for the first 1000 years of it’s existence. There are argument about what happened in the subsequent 500 years.

Well, since you’re obviously in error about what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory, this statement is null and void.

Any “purification” of the soul is the result of forgiveness. Sincere confession, repentance and unceasing efforts to change attitudes and behaviours must precede Divine Mercy, Grace and Forgiveness.

Earlier you said purification was not necessary to enter Heaven, now you say purification is an extension/result of God’s forgiveness? How is this different then believing that God’s forgiveness (which obviously comes first) and as such purification are needed to get into Heaven? Furthermore, how can a soul repent and then strive to change attitudes and behaviours once that person is dead (remember the scenario I referred to)?

Yes.

If the Orthodox practice penance after confession, why is it then that you cannot believe that God even though He forgives us exacts penance/purgation for sins committed? You yourself said that with forgiveness comes purification. I can’t remember where exactly in scripture this is to be found (will find it for you later) but do you recall the parable of the man who was thrown in prison to pay the last penny that he owed to the master, this to me signifies the state of purgation!!

We do have an answer to that question - and it is that given the sincere and necessary pre-requisites to forgiveness, God can forgive ANY sin - with the possible exception of blasphemy against His Person in the Holy Spirit.

No, that’s not what I meant (although I believe this too). Yesterday you said to me that by believing in purgatory people wouldn’t strive to be holy, however, I think it’s more likely that people who believe God will forgive us our sins without penance/purgation in the afterlife might not strive as much to be holy (more like a “why bother?” attitude). You do agree that our souls need to be infused completely with God’s grace to redirect our will to His?

There is a consistent position in the EOC, and it has not changed since the beginning of the Apostolic Church on earth 2000 years ago. It is not the EOC that has innovated or reformed it’s teaching here - but it is the RCC and subsequent Protestant reformations.

Neither has the RCC, furthermore, might I remind you that some of your Orthodox brethren do not conform to your way of understanding the afterlife i.e., aren’t the Orthodox supposed to be on the same page with respect to this?

 

[josie_L]

**Yeah…

Picking out a series of isolated Biblical quotes - out of context and outside of contextual analysis seems very much like a recent Protestant technique of discussion to me. This is particularly popular with Evangelical Protestants. You can prove the moon is made of cheese by doing that!

Made pure and perfect by God’s Grace, Mercy and Forgiveness is the overall legitimate context and teaching here.

Made perfect “in His sight” - not by our own merit in our own sight.

Yes there are things we must do to obtain it - but it’s not by innate merit, or Purgatory.

Christ came for that purpose - our merit was lacking, so he provided his own - fully Man and fully God to purchase that Divine Forgiveness.

No created being is “pure and Perfect” in the same sense that God (Father Son & Holy Spirit) is pure and perfect.**

Andrew Phillip, could you please stop using red as your font colour, it’s making my :hypno: (that would be eyes) hurt?

God bless.