A person might be forgiven for a sin, say, an act of drunkeness, but does that forgiveness remove that person’s inclination toward this sin, the inclination to drink? Penance is a therapy to cure such disordered attachments to things of the world and to advance theosis - our cooperation with the grace of forgiveness. From the CCC:To me the doctrine of Temporal Punishment which has its origins as far back as Tertullian seems to teach that we are forgiven as far as not being sent to hell, but to enter heaven, we have to do works of penance to work off the temporal punishment for our sins. I we do not do enough penance, we suffer in the fires of purgatory before we can enter heaven. That view, we Orthodox certainly would reject because we believe that Christ paid the full price or our sins on the Cross.
1472 … sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84 (1861, 1031)
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the “new man.”85 (2447)
I have a problem with the word punishment, because it implies that we must earn forgiveness of sins. The second section that you quoted also implies the same thing. If penance is to help a person overcome the inclination towards a particular sin, it is not a form of punishment, but a form of spiritual therapy. There is a major difference between spiritual growth and punishment.A person might be forgiven for a sin, say, an act of drunkeness, but does that forgiveness remove that person’s inclination toward this sin, the inclination to drink? Penance is a therapy to cure such disordered attachments to things of the world and to advance theosis - our cooperation with the grace of forgiveness. From the CCC:
I will take your word for it, but the older Roman Catholic works express these things in legalistic language that is foreign to Eastern Orthodox. I recognize that we may express the same belief in different language. In Orthodox theology, we believe in works as a way to cooperate with God’s grace for our deificaion, but not to earn forgiveness of sins, which we believe is a free gift of God’s grace. The concept of a treasury of merit and indulgences as they were understood in the Middle Ages is completely foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.Father,
You must understand that Latin Catholic material from a certain era, such as the old Catholic Encyclopedia, does tend to use very judicial language to describe these mysteries. But when studying traditional Latin theology, one must take off Byzantine lens and put on Latin lens. I believe what you quote from the Catholic encyclopedia is orthodox, but it is expressed in a very particular manner that many modern Latins would tend to shy away from because it is easily misunderstood. The modern Catechism presents a more balanced expression. I stand by everything I wrote in my previous post - which you said came across as very Orthodox. Why does God “demand satisfaction”? Out of spite for us as sinners? No…but ultimately to assist us in our sanctification, our deification. There is a sense in the Latin Tradition that God asks for penance as a matter of justice - that He asks for our cooperation with His grace, even though Christ has paid the full penalty for our sins…but we are not earning His forgiveness by carrying out penances. Reread my previous post - I spoke more in terms of “fruit”, but it also applies to penance. We are said to “merit”, to “satisfy” God only in as much as we are cooperating with the grace that He has given us, His own divine life working with our souls, which enables us to satisfy Him, to please Him. Our penances would be empty and useless if they did not flow from the grace of the cross. The “penance” of pagans avails them nothing. If I am in a state of sin, if I have separated myself from God through woeful wickedness, until I go to confession and receive the gift of absolution, all the penance in the world, all my efforts would be meaningless, for it is only by Christ’s grace that we can ever be pleasing to God. I think that is what non-Catholics miss when they read these statements. Our penance is only meaningful, only satisfactory, because it draws upon Christ’s sacrifice. We are His mystical body - our penance, as St. Paul writes, becomes a participation in His sacrifice.
In regards to the treasury of merits, you must understand that this too flows from our understanding that the Church, whether on earth, in purgatory, or in heaven, is the body of Christ. Our good works, our fruit, which the Church in this context describes as “merits”, benefits not only ourselves but our brothers and sisters, for all merits, all fruit, all goodness flows from Christ through His body - it is all one. I think of it this way. Christ working within St. So and So produced great fruit, such an abundance in fact, that the Church, which is Christ’s body, can share some of that fruit with me. The very legal language of some traditional Catholic material is a stumbling block for an Eastern Christian, but I believe that these concepts can be understood in a very mystical sense and recent popes, such as Blessed John Paul, and even historical non-scholastic Doctors such as St. Teresa, have expressed these truths in ways that are more appealing to Eastern sensibilities.
Father,I will take your word for it, but the older Roman Catholic works express these things in legalistic language that is foreign to Eastern Orthodox. I recognize that we may express the same belief in different language. In Orthodox theology, we believe in works as a way to cooperate with God’s grace for our deificaion, but not to earn forgiveness of sins, which we believe is a free gift of God’s grace. The concept of a treasury of merit and indulgences as they were understood in the Middle Ages is completely foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy.
I think that this discussion points to a different approach to salvation in the East. In the East, we see the Incarnation and the deificaion of the human nature of Christ as the chief cause of our salvaion, rather than the Anselmic view of the Cross as the central moment in which Christ offers Himself as satisfaction for the sins of humanity to satisfy God’s demand for justice. In our theology Chris offered Himself as a sacrifice by assuming and conquering death by His life giving death and glorious Resurrection, not to satisfy God the Father’s demand for satisfaction for our sins.
Fr. John W. Morris
It might be fair to say that Byzantines emphasize the sacrificial more at certain times (e.g. Great Lent), but even so as to accentuate anew the joy of the Resurrection and triumph of Salvation.While it certainly can be said that some Latins have over emphasized the sacrificial or atonement aspect of the mystery of of our salvation, I sometimes wonder if Byzantines tend to minimize it far more than Scripture warrants.
I’m not so sure there is much difference altogether is this area. I think your right about above. To me the above is how I see the cross-resurrection daily as I am positive many Christians do. It gives a complete understating of the victory over suffering which is temporary in our lives. In my mind this is how Christians persevered for 2000 years. We all come to know suffering in this world, everlasting life is how the suffering is properly dealt with and gives it perspective.It might be fair to say that Byzantines emphasize the sacrificial more at certain times (e.g. Great Lent), but even so as to accentuate anew the joy of the Resurrection and triumph of Salvation.
I’m not so sure there is much difference altogether is this area. I think your right about above. To me the above is how I see the cross-resurrection daily as I am positive many Christians do. It gives a complete understating of the victory over suffering which is temporary in our lives. In my mind this is how Christians persevered for 2000 years. We all come to know suffering in this world, everlasting life is how the suffering is properly dealt with and gives it perspective.It might be fair to say that Byzantines emphasize the sacrificial more at certain times (e.g. Great Lent), but even so as to accentuate anew the joy of the Resurrection and triumph of Salvation.
When I was punished as a child, it was abundantly clear to me that punishment was for my benefit and growth, and that its application as a matter of justice did not make it any less an act of love for my benefit and growth. I understand that in modern times many think differently, but that is a modernistic perspective, and I am not sure that that is working out so well.I have a problem with the word punishment, because it implies that we must earn forgiveness of sins. The second section that you quoted also implies the same thing. If penance is to help a person overcome the inclination towards a particular sin, it is not a form of punishment, but a form of spiritual therapy. There is a major difference between spiritual growth and punishment.
“The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.” newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Your simple summary is dead wrong. The passage quoted clearly state that there is full absolution of the guilt of sin by God. It also states that true repentance is inseparable from penance. It may be that in modern times it must be further explained that this punishment is for our good, but one would think that that is obvious.
You further seem to conflate satisfaction of justice, with the act of salvation. I am not sure how these ideas could possibly be confused. But this gets to the point, I think:
So you believe that God requires satisfaction. Fine. The question that remains is this: what are elements of “sincere repentance”? The passage that you quoted links sincere repentance to acts of penance. This idea is not the least bit alien to Orthodoxy.… when we repent and receive the Sacrament of Confession that our sins are completely forgiven, all guilt is removed, there is no punishment and God requires no more satisfaction than our sincere repentance.
I think that here we may disagree. Not with the first sentence - as the CE and CCC make it clear that discussions of temporal punishment pertain to sins that have been forgiven. But while, of course, we cannot earn salvation, I would not say that that works “are the result of ‘being saved’ " I would say that our works, penitential and ascetical, are a synergistic cooperation with grace that we undertake to quench our disordered passions and to advance our participation in divine life. This is why the Church ask us to fast, to give alms, etc.: not just to show ?the result of ‘being saved’”, but to advance our climb.Works are not a way to earn forgiveness of our sins, but a result of God’s transforming grace and the evidence of a saving faith as St. James wrote, “Faith without works is dead.” James 2:20 Thus we cannot be saved without works, but not because works are a way to earn salvation or forgiveness of our sins, but are the result of being saved.
Made me think also, its intimately connected to the final judgment. Its not suggested we are responsible for each other, its required.Hi dvdjs: I agree with you as well as the other catholic posters on this subject I would only add that good works, penitential and ascetical are promptings from God and our cooperation is our response to God’s prompting and His grace, otherwise it would be meaningless if God did not call us first to it.
Hi Gary Taylor: You are correct it made me also do some heavy thinking. The good works we do sets an example of what others can also do, but we do not take any credit for it but b thankful to God for prompting us. I do not mean just as penance but in everyday living as just Pope Francis says we must live the Gospel not just talk it, and I whole heartily agree with that statement as it was said to me too many years ago to remember the year.Made me think also, its intimately connected to the final judgment. Its not suggested we are responsible for each other, its required.
The Bible clearly teaches that there would be a final judgment, and that it would be a judgment of works (Psalm 62:12; Matthew 16:27; 25:31-46; John 5:29: Romans 2:5-10; 1 Corinthians 3:13, 4:5). God promises reward to his children for faithful living (Matthew 5:12; 6:1; 10:41; 2 Timothy 4:7-8).
justforcatholics.org/a200.htm
Further when we think of the community of the Baptized, this becomes clear through our own lives and people we indeed know who just have a imperfect view of grace, our good works intercede for these souls, in both the physical world and the spiritual. The feeling of, could I have done more, was what I did do right. All this comes into play I think.
I do not see how language such as temporal punishment, satisfaction and finally the fires of purgatory cannot be interpreted as meaning that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was not enough for us to receive the forgiveness of our sins, but that to be fully forgiven, we must do works of penance to earn forgiveness and that if we do not do enough works to earn forgiveness in this life, we have to sufferer in purgatory before we enter Heaven. Eastern Orthodox believe in the necessity of good works for salvation, but not as a way to earn forgiveness of sin, but as a manifestation of a living faith, way to cooperate with the grace of God, a way to avoid further sin and a manifestation of the change that God’s grace works in our lives. According to our doctrine, Christ paid the full price for our sins and thereby the only requirement for complete forgiveness is sincere repentance. There is no requirement that we ourselves do works of satisfaction in the form of penance, or idea that if we have not done enough works of satisfaction that we have to suffer in the fires of purgatory. Instead, God’s grace makes up for whatever is lacking. We do believe in spiritual growth towards deification, that continues through our entire lives and continues in heaven. According to Orthodox theology our salvation only begins with forgiveness of sins. It does not end there, but continues to our deification. Therefore, God not only declared us righteous, God also makes us righteous. Through works we cooperate with God for our deification. However, the RC doctrine certainly sounds that you are teaching that works are necessary to earn forgiveness of sins and salvation. The is contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” Ephesians 2:8-9.When I was punished as a child, it was abundantly clear to me that punishment was for my benefit and growth, and that its application as a matter of justice did not make it any less an act of love for my benefit and growth. I understand that in modern times many think differently, but that is a modernistic perspective, and I am not sure that that is working out so well.
In our acts of penance, we are not working for forgiveness, per se but to purify ourselves and detach ourselves from our disordered inclination to sin; to eliminate every effect of our sin. My quotes are, from the CCC, the catechism of the Catholic Church. This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says in discussion the remission of temporal punishment for “sin that has been forgiven”; it also speaks of " temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God". The CE does speak in terms of justice, but does also that the idea of temporal punishment is about sins that have been forgiven.
Your simple summary is dead wrong. The passage quoted clearly state that there is full absolution of the guilt of sin by God. It also states that true repentance is inseparable from penance. It may be that in modern times it must be further explained that this punishment is for our good, but one would think that that is obvious.
You further seem to conflate satisfaction of justice, with the act of salvation. I am not sure how these ideas could possibly be confused. But this gets to the point, I think:
So you believe that God requires satisfaction. Fine. The question that remains is this: what are elements of “sincere repentance”? The passage that you quoted links sincere repentance to acts of penance. This idea is not the least bit alien to Orthodoxy.
I think that here we may disagree. Not with the first sentence - as the CE and CCC make it clear that discussions of temporal punishment pertain to sins that have been forgiven. But while, of course, we cannot earn salvation, I would not say that that works “are the result of ‘being saved’ " I would say that our works, penitential and ascetical, are a synergistic cooperation with grace that we undertake to quench our disordered passions and to advance our participation in divine life. This is why the Church ask us to fast, to give alms, etc.: not just to show ?the result of ‘being saved’”, but to advance our climb.
I am not sure where you get this stuff, but it simply is not Catholic doctrine, which affirms the sufficiency of the sacrifice on the cross, and also affirms full forgiveness of the guilt of sin apart from any works.I do not see how language such as temporal punishment, satisfaction and finally the fires of purgatory cannot be interpreted as meaning that Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was not enough for us to receive the forgiveness of our sins, but that to be fully forgiven, we must do works of penance to earn forgiveness …
The CC, even in the material that you quoted. clearly rejects this idea. I don’t how you miss that. “Earn salvation”? really?The RC doctrine certainly sounds that you are teaching that works are necessary to earn forgiveness of sins and salvation.
REV 20:12:sounds that you are teaching that works are necessary. The is contrary to the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.
I have always felt that with a little redefinition that the Catholic and Orthodox doctrine on this subject could be reconciled. I cannot disagree with anything that you have written above. It is the older Roman Catholic language of the Fires of Purgatory, Temporal Punishment and Works of Satisfaction that bothers me. Such language is too legalistic for my Byzantine thinking, and implies that we must earn forgiveness of our sins by works of righteousness and that if we have not atoned for our sins by works of penance, we must suffer for our sins in purgatory before we can enter into Heaven. I believe that the works of righteousness that we do have nothing to do with the forgiveness of our sins, which is complete and that all guilt is removed when we repent and receive the Sacrament of Confession and partake of the Eucharist. Repentance, Confession and Holy Communion is a second Baptism. After Baptism the Priest sprinkles water on the newly Baptized Christian and says, “Thou art justified. Thou art sanctified. Thou art washed: in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Fathers tell us that repentance, Confession and the reception of Holy Communion restores us to the state we were in after our Baptism.I am not sure where you get this stuff, but it simply is not Catholic doctrine, which affirms the sufficiency of the sacrifice on the cross, and also affirms full forgiveness of the guilt of sin apart from any works.
You believe, notwithstanding the forgiveness of sin and the saving power of the cross, in the necessity of good works to avoid further sin - which is the very CC doctrine that you are quibbling with.
You state that Christ paid the full price for our sins, but that this is not enough - more is required, specifically sincere repentance - yet you do not say how that is gauged, or why you reject the CC view that acts of penance are an integral part of that sincere repentance.
Your idea that “our salvation only begins with forgiveness of sins. It does not end there, but continues to our deification”. This is the Catholic view, in which the guilt of sin is fully forgiven, but the process of purification and eliminating attachment to sin is ongoing, even after death. We cooperate with grace and undertake spiritual challenge to advance our participation in divine life.
The CC, even in the material that you quoted. clearly rejects this idea. I don’t how you miss that. “Earn salvation”? really?
I want to add, that at each celebration of the Divine Liturgy we have:It might be fair to say that Byzantines emphasize the sacrificial more at certain times (e.g. Great Lent), but even so as to accentuate anew the joy of the Resurrection and triumph of Salvation.