The Hope of Eternal Life Lutheran / Catholic dialogue On Purgatory

[benedictus2]

I think one can make that speculation, yet without in any way intending to be polemical, scritpure (including the deuterocanon, doesn’t state it thus. To state categorically one way or another may in some ways be limiting to what God can or can’t do.

It is not a case of limiting what God can and can’t do. How we understand and apprehend God is based on our reason. All exegesis, all interpretations use reason. That is the only way we grasp reality or try to make sense of reality.

Based on reason, the only conclusion possible is that, this is an intermediate/state/place no matter how short. It is neither earth, nor heaven.

Does one have to accept the idea of Purgatory, in the Catholic docmatic sense, in order to not deny purgation?

If one appeals to reason in matters of other doctrines, then yes, because it is common sense. As I said above, whether it be a place/state/stage and we label this as purgatory, it is the only thing that makes sense.

So long as we (human being with the our human reason), are the ones discussing this, then we have to base our discussion on what is reasonable.
If there is any concept that is probably the harder to comprehend than purgatory, it would be the Trinity and the hypostatic union and the incarnation. And yet, we have pronounced that dogmatically.

I would contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is far more explicit than you portray here, but be that as it may, the difference on Purgatory is that there are differing, yet apparently not Church dividing, views even between east and west.

I think it is because it is easy enough to find the congruity between the eastern and western understanding. Perhaps we need to ascertain whether we can find the same with the Lutheran understanding.

As far as I know, it is more a case of the East not wanting to define anything rather than a case of outright denial of purgatory.

I will try to read more of the text (I had a quick look and it is indeed as voluminous as I thought) so I can better appraise it.

Gosh, I think you as a Catholic might be better equipped to define that. But the issue of satisfaction to remit temproal punishment for sins, I believe, is the reference here, the differences being discussed first in the Confutation, then following in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.

bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php

Then I must admit to a profound ignorance. This is the first time I have come across the term. I have never heard this in reference to remission of temporal punishment.

Paragraphs 187 - 190 in the document do a better job than I could.

Okay, I will check that out.

Melanchthon maybe better (again):

Sorry to have to say this but I found that quote from Melachton still quite vague. Perhaps it is the way it is written and the way uses concepts.

I think too, it is the difference in concept of what heaven is and salvation is that posses the problem with regards coming to an agreement on purgatory.

If as per Melachton it just a case of putting off the body of sin then sin therefore has no real ontological affect on the soul but more just an effect on the body.

I think the above paragraphs explain that it is less juridical.

In some sense yes but it seems to suggest a kind of dualism - the body of sin is put away and the pristine soul comes to life. I don’t think this is quite in line with a correct understanding of the nature of sin.

You will have to excuse me for saying this but I find the description somewhat caricaturish of the process of our dying and rising in Christ.

Again, the document explains better than I could, beginning at page 55.

Okay, I will try to read that section.

I started to write a reply to your earlier post then I realized that I should really read the rest of the text before I do that.

I will try to get back to you on that in a week’s time.

Peace and Joy of Christ!

Cory

 

[JonNC]

Good stuff, here, Cory.

=benedictus2;7748221]It is not a case of limiting what God can and can’t do. How we understand and apprehend God is based on our reason. All exegesis, all interpretations use reason. That is the only way we grasp reality or try to make sense of reality.

Based on reason, the only conclusion possible is that, this is an intermediate/state/place no matter how short. It is neither earth, nor heaven.
If one appeals to reason in matters of other doctrines, then yes, because it is common sense. As I said above, whether it be a place/state/stage and we label this as purgatory, it is the only thing that makes sense.

So long as we (human being with the our human reason), are the ones discussing this, then we have to base our discussion on what is reasonable.

I think you’ve hit the appeal, quite frankly, of Purgatory as a construct. It fits with our human way of reasoning. If there is purgation, it must take place somewhere. So, the issue then is, since scripture isn’t clear about it (on that I think we agree), should there be a freedom to describe the event of purgation in various ways that are not Church-dividing (or simply choose to not describe it at all), and that further doesn’t take on the appearance of relativism?

If there is any concept that is probably the harder to comprehend than purgatory, it would be the Trinity and the hypostatic union and the incarnation. And yet, we have pronounced that dogmatically.​

As far as I know, it is more a case of the East not wanting to define anything rather than a case of outright denial of purgatory

Ok. Is there a similar dogmatic pronouncement that east and west accept on Purgatory (leaving Lutherans out of it for a minute)?

I think it is because it is easy enough to find the congruity between the eastern and western understanding. Perhaps we need to ascertain whether we can find the same with the Lutheran understanding.

That seems to have been the intent of the dialogue.

I will try to read more of the text (I had a quick look and it is indeed as voluminous as I thought) so I can better appraise it.

A monster, isn’t it?

I started to write a reply to your earlier post then I realized that I should really read the rest of the text before I do that.

I will try to get back to you on that in a week’s time.

Even if you made no more reply, I am quite appreciative of your effort and (name removed by moderator)ut, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned before. At you leisure, as time allows. And thanks.

Jon