OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: JLatimer on July 20, 2010, 04:46:29 PM

Title: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 20, 2010, 04:46:29 PM
Quote
In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory: "From the time of the Apostles," he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint,—namely, the souls of saints,—immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bliss. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much to their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment. [2]
The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins. [3]
When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified—that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe—by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward. [4]

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/stmark_purg.aspx

A beginning?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 20, 2010, 04:59:33 PM
The reason I included "Sin and Forgiveness" in the title is because I think a lot hinges on this little matter of "atonement" that the Cardinal brings up. This is not immediately addressed in the preliminary Orthodox response quoted above, but it's important. What is mentioned above is the Orthodox understanding of there being one fire, as opposed to two in Catholic understanding (that may or may not be a distortion of Catholic teaching, though in any case we would have to determine why and how the Orthodox got such an impression of Latin doctrine).

I also think an interesting aspect of this discussion from the cafeteria thread is how exactly do we relate sin, forgiveness, repentance, and the  soul's experience after death to the redemptive work of Christ? As Christians we agree that's the central issue, so let us try to understand eachother on that point.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ialmisry on July 20, 2010, 06:21:05 PM
Quote
From the time of the Apostles," he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint,—namely, the souls of saints
This sounds a lot like what the Church of the Vatican has claimed from the time of Pius IX about the Theotokos, who said it was "a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God."

Given the Latin setup, it is conceivable that a poor but not grevious sinner, will suffer more in the fire, than a great rich sinner who leaves sums for masses to release him sooner.

When I saw this thread announced in the other thread, I thought of my sons going to confession after we saw the movie "Ghost Rider." When they came down from confession I told them, "now, if they gave you the penitent stare, nothing would happen."  I get the feeling (actually, more than that) that the Vatican dogma holds that something would happen.

From the Catechism of St. Peter Movila, who put it (too much) into Latin terms:
Quote
Q. 112. Which is the fifth mystery?

R. The fifth mystery is sacred penance, which is sorrow of heart for sins with the confession of the same before a priest and the unchangeable resolution to better one's life, along with the intention of performing the satisfaction designated by the priest. This mystery takes effect, when absolution is given by the priest according to the rite of the Church; the second it is pronounced, one's sins are remitted, as goes the saying: "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."[272]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. 113. What should be noted about this mystery?

R. First, it should be noticed that the penitent should be a Christian of the orthodox-catholic faith, for penance without faith is not true penance and not pleasing to God. Secondly, it should be noted that the one who hears the confession ought to be an Orthodox confessor, because the heretic and the apostate lack the power to absolve. Thirdly, it is required that the penitent have contrition of heart, or sorrow for the sins by which he offended God or neighbor, about which contrition the Prophet speaks thus: "A contrite and humble heart God does not despise."[273] This contrition should be followed by an oral confession of individual sins. For the confessor cannot absolute unless he knows what ought to be absolved and which penance to prescribe. Such a confession is expressed in Sacred Scripture, when it states: "And many of them that believed, came confessing and declaring their deeds."[274] Similarly, in another place: "Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for another, that you may be saved."[275] Likewise, those who were baptized by John were confessing their sins, as Scripture testifies: "And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the River Jordan, confessing their sins."[276] This confession should have such qualities as humility, modesty, truth and sincerity, self-accusation and sorrow in the act of confessing. The third part of penance should be the satisfaction, assigned by the confessor, such as prayers, almsgivings, fasts, pilgrimages to holy places, prostrations and similar such things, which the confessor should designate in accord with good judgment. Nevertheless, the person who has made his confession should ponder the words spoken in the Psalm: "Turn away from evil and do good."[277] The Savior himself also mentions the same: "Go, and now sin no more,[278] lest some worse thing happen to you."[279] Although it is impossible for man to completely avoid sin, still all orthodox are bound in conscience to make some improvement in life from one confession to the next.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Q. 114. What are the advantages of this mystery?

R. The first advantage is this: just as we lose through sin the innocence gained in baptism, so do we return thereunto in penance; and just as we lose grace through sin, so through penance do we regain it; and just as we enter the devil's captivity through sin, so are we freed from it through penance; and just as chaos and fear overcome our conscience through sin, so through penance peace and our filial trust return.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 20, 2010, 08:01:41 PM
We don't do penance in the way you understand it. What we do is epitimia, which is medicine for our souls.
Well allow me to turn the tables on you and play the same game as you're playing. Why would you need penance as medicine for your souls if Christ died to save us from our sins. Are you saying that Christ is not enough for our souls to be healed and that something else (penance) must be added?
The medicine we receive is not apart from Christ but is part and parcel of the reality of that healing that flows from the Cross.
The same can be said of purgatory.

You're welcome to think that. But believing something doesn't make it true (or logical).

You already admitted that sinners must undergo "punishment" for their sins, even after they forgiven and washed "whiter than snow" in the Sacrament of Repentance.

How is that punishment not Wrath or a curse? Do you or do you not believe that Christ took away the curse that was upon us, including the "temporal" aspects of that curse? To what avail did Christ come in the flesh, if he can only forgive our 'spiritual' debts?

I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 20, 2010, 11:20:17 PM
I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Exactly. I think it is also important to note that when we Catholics speak of the fire of purgatory, we see it (especially in recent years) as a cleansing fire not a hellish, torturous one. Sure there have been Saints who have received private revelations and were said to have had visions of purgatory and it's torturous nature. Yet, we know that private revelations are not doctrine and, as such, we are not required to believe them. We may if we choose, but do not have to. Thankfully, the Catholic Church in her wisdom has not made any doctrinal pronouncements on the nature of purgatory. All the Church requires is that we believe purgatory exists. The Church does not tell us what it will be like. To me, the Orthodox view expressed in the opening post of this thread seems to be compatible with purgatory. "A place of darkness and sorrow" sounds like a different way of describing the same reality, which is that of an intermediate state before reaching Heaven.

I think perhaps it is quite possible that many Orthodox Christians are just uncomfortable using the word "purgatory" to describe such a state because of the fact that it sounds Roman, and many Orthodox seem to get skittish when it comes to using Latin theological terms.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 21, 2010, 12:29:50 AM

I think a critical difference in the two theologies rests in the impositor of the 'judgment' by which the pain and suffering of those souls destine for eternal rest.

In the RC case, it appears that God renders a judgment and assigns a pennance, thus imposing His chastisement or 'temporal punishment' which was not part of Christ's atonement.

In the OC case, the conscience of the individual, with accusation from the demons and defense from the angels and saints, passes the judgment and renders its own 'conditions' under which it can finally accept Christ's forgiveness and thus enter into rest.

These are significant differences, though both are merciful in the sense that those who are negligent or even impious may enter into the Kingdom Eternal.


I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Exactly. I think it is also important to note that when we Catholics speak of the fire of purgatory, we see it (especially in recent years) as a cleansing fire not a hellish, torturous one. Sure there have been Saints who have received private revelations and were said to have had visions of purgatory and it's torturous nature. Yet, we know that private revelations are not doctrine and, as such, we are not required to believe them. We may if we choose, but do not have to. Thankfully, the Catholic Church in her wisdom has not made any doctrinal pronouncements on the nature of purgatory. All the Church requires is that we believe purgatory exists. The Church does not tell us what it will be like. To me, the Orthodox view expressed in the opening post of this thread seems to be compatible with purgatory. "A place of darkness and sorrow" sounds like a different way of describing the same reality, which is that of an intermediate state before reaching Heaven.

I think perhaps it is quite possible that many Orthodox Christians are just uncomfortable using the word "purgatory" to describe such a state because of the fact that it sounds Roman, and many Orthodox seem to get skittish when it comes to using Latin theological terms.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 12:57:36 AM
I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Exactly.... "A place of darkness and sorrow" sounds like a different way of describing the same reality, which is that of an intermediate state before reaching Heaven.
A major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that the former teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined right at death, whereas the latter teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined at the Final Judgement, which has not happened yet. Thus, in Catholicism, a person might die, and go right into purgatory (the fiery purification from sins) and then into heaven. In Orthodoxy, a person might die and go right into an unpleasant  state/foretaste of eternal damnation, but another person might die and go right into a pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation.

In Orthodoxy, the person in the unpleasant state/forestaste of eternal damnation, might somehow change trajectories, and enter into the pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation -- but this change is thought to occur solely via the prayers of the Church, and not through any process of a fiery purification.

Purgatory is not needed, indeed is superfluous, in Orthodoxy, because (1) one's eternal fate is not determined until the Final Judgement; and, until that time, (2) the prayers of the Church may induce a change in a person's trajectory.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Papist on July 21, 2010, 10:02:38 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 10:40:17 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Papist on July 21, 2010, 10:43:00 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 10:54:23 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 21, 2010, 11:03:32 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
So basically, the Orthodox believe that souls receive punishment due to their sins, but that the punishment does not purify the soul at all and that only the prayers of the Church release them from that state? What if a particular soul has no one to pray for them (i.e. a Protestant)? Does that mean they may be in that state forever?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Papist on July 21, 2010, 11:09:24 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
Do you agree with the council on this point?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Papist on July 21, 2010, 11:10:06 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
So basically, the Orthodox believe that souls receive punishment due to their sins, but that the punishment does not purify the soul at all and that only the prayers of the Church release them from that state? What if a particular soul has no one to pray for them (i.e. a Protestant)? Does that mean they may be in that state forever?
It's interesting to note on this point that the passage points out that souls in this state are aware of their future release.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 11:41:07 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
So basically, the Orthodox believe that souls receive punishment due to their sins, but that the punishment does not purify the soul at all and that only the prayers of the Church release them from that state? What if a particular soul has no one to pray for them (i.e. a Protestant)? Does that mean they may be in that state forever?
It's interesting to note on this point that the passage points out that souls in this state are aware of their future release.
Perhaps they know that they will be prayed for, by the Church.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 11:42:34 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
So basically, the Orthodox believe that souls receive punishment due to their sins, but that the punishment does not purify the soul at all and that only the prayers of the Church release them from that state? What if a particular soul has no one to pray for them (i.e. a Protestant)? Does that mean they may be in that state forever?
I believe that one is able to pray for all of the souls in unpleasant after-life states.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 21, 2010, 11:43:25 AM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."
Do you agree with the council on this point?
Yes, I believe sin has consequences.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 21, 2010, 12:30:14 PM

Dear Papist,

Again, the Synod's statement does not say that God imposes the punishment.  Again, it would seem odd that if God were to impose a necessary punishment that the prayers of the Church would somehow alleviate what is necessary.  I think you may recall our discussion on this topic from another thread.

The Orthodox position is that the 'punishment' spoken of here is the torment of the conscience, which is the natural consequence of loving God and so regretting one's sins.  The two go together and are inseparable.  In fact, I think OCs and RCs can agree that this idea is not entirely unreasonable from reading the Psalms and the Holy Fathers.

This understanding leads us to the conclusion that the efficacy of the prayers of the Church heal the conscience of the tormented rather than amending God's sentence.  For us, the encounter with God's judgment occurs at the Final Judgment, which seals for all time the fate of mankind.  Until that Judgment, it would seem that there would be opportunity to repent.  I don't know for sure that any will, but I do not think God would slam the door on any who would.



From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 21, 2010, 05:20:39 PM
I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Exactly.... "A place of darkness and sorrow" sounds like a different way of describing the same reality, which is that of an intermediate state before reaching Heaven.
A major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that the former teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined right at death, whereas the latter teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined at the Final Judgement, which has not happened yet. Thus, in Catholicism, a person might die, and go right into purgatory (the fiery purification from sins) and then into heaven. In Orthodoxy, a person might die and go right into an unpleasant  state/foretaste of eternal damnation, but another person might die and go right into a pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation.

In Orthodoxy, the person in the unpleasant state/forestaste of eternal damnation, might somehow change trajectories, and enter into the pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation -- but this change is thought to occur solely via the prayers of the Church, and not through any process of a fiery purification.

Purgatory is not needed, indeed is superfluous, in Orthodoxy, because (1) one's eternal fate is not determined until the Final Judgement; and, until that time, (2) the prayers of the Church may induce a change in a person's trajectory.



Well put.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 21, 2010, 06:09:36 PM
I punish my children when they do something wrong. Even when they have already apologized and I have already forgiven them. God is our Father and we are His children. His punishment is not one of wrath or a curse, but is instead a "medicine" (as you say) administered by a loving Father to His children to help them grow in their closeness with Him.
Exactly.... "A place of darkness and sorrow" sounds like a different way of describing the same reality, which is that of an intermediate state before reaching Heaven.
A major difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is that the former teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined right at death, whereas the latter teaches that one's definite eternal destiny is determined at the Final Judgement, which has not happened yet. Thus, in Catholicism, a person might die, and go right into purgatory (the fiery purification from sins) and then into heaven. In Orthodoxy, a person might die and go right into an unpleasant  state/foretaste of eternal damnation, but another person might die and go right into a pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation.

In Orthodoxy, the person in the unpleasant state/forestaste of eternal damnation, might somehow change trajectories, and enter into the pleasant state/foretaste of eternal salvation -- but this change is thought to occur solely via the prayers of the Church, and not through any process of a fiery purification.

Purgatory is not needed, indeed is superfluous, in Orthodoxy, because (1) one's eternal fate is not determined until the Final Judgement; and, until that time, (2) the prayers of the Church may induce a change in a person's trajectory.



Well put.

I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 21, 2010, 06:30:04 PM

Dear Mary,

I have also heard from some Roman Catholic clergy who believe that Black Masses have been celebrated at the Vatican.  That does not mean I have to believe what they say as representing the RCC.

If we are going to have a reasonable discussion on any matter, then please use sources you can cite with confidence.  'Anonymous tipsters' might work for TMZ, but not here.



I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 21, 2010, 06:33:18 PM

Dear Mary,

I have also heard from some Roman Catholic clergy who believe that Black Masses have been celebrated at the Vatican.  That does not mean I have to believe what they say as representing the RCC.

If we are going to have a reasonable discussion on any matter, then please use sources you can cite with confidence.  'Anonymous tipsters' might work for TMZ, but not here.



I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.

Mary, your question was already answered above. Also, why don't we use terms such as hades and Gehenna instead of hell so only as to avoid confusion.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 21, 2010, 07:48:25 PM
From the Eastern Orthodox Synod of Jerusalem:

"the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each hath wrought" (an enjoyment or condemnation that will be complete only after the resurrection of the dead); but the souls of some "depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from there, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness, through the prayers of the Priests, and the good works which the relatives of each do for their Departed; especially the unbloody Sacrifice benefiting the most; which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. Of course, it is understood that we do not know the time of their release. We know and believe that there is deliverance for such from their direful condition, and that before the common resurrection and judgment, but when we know not."

There's nothing there about purification: the "future release" is due to the prayers and good works of the living, not due to a purifying fire.
What is the point of their suffering?
".... [They] there endure the punishment due to the sins they have committed."

Yes. That is exactly what Catholics believe. I still don't see how the Orthodox position differs from the Catholic view of purgatory.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 21, 2010, 07:50:58 PM

Dear Mary,

I have also heard from some Roman Catholic clergy who believe that Black Masses have been celebrated at the Vatican.  That does not mean I have to believe what they say as representing the RCC.

If we are going to have a reasonable discussion on any matter, then please use sources you can cite with confidence.  'Anonymous tipsters' might work for TMZ, but not here.



I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.

Mary, your question was already answered above. Also, why don't we use terms such as hades and Gehenna instead of hell so only as to avoid confusion.

Could you elaborate on what's confusing about the term hell, please? I've always thought it was a pretty straightforward term.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 21, 2010, 08:40:20 PM

Dear Mary,

I have also heard from some Roman Catholic clergy who believe that Black Masses have been celebrated at the Vatican.  That does not mean I have to believe what they say as representing the RCC.

If we are going to have a reasonable discussion on any matter, then please use sources you can cite with confidence.  'Anonymous tipsters' might work for TMZ, but not here.



I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.

Mary, your question was already answered above. Also, why don't we use terms such as hades and Gehenna instead of hell so only as to avoid confusion.

Could you elaborate on what's confusing about the term hell, please? I've always thought it was a pretty straightforward term.

Hel is the name of a pagan Germanic underworld deity, and as such, is a perfectly good translation of the Greek word hades (Hebrew sheol), which basically just means 'grave'; i.e., it indicates the general 'abode of the dead'. Hades is gloomy for sure, but it doesn't really carry any connotations of punishment, at least not originally. Gehenna, or gehinnom, on the other hand, was originally the name of the burning trash heap outside Jerusalem, and in Biblical and Patristic usage is synonymous with the 'lake of fire', a place or state of eternal punishment for the damned.

At some point, in English at least, "hell" stopped being hades and became synonymous with gehenna. This can create some confusion; for example, when we speak of Christ's "harrowing of hell", more properly this is the "harrowing of hades", the dark place where everybody who had previously died was before the Crucifixion. Christ did not descend into "hell", conceived of as the place of eternal punishment for the eternally damned: In Orthodox teaching, no one is yet in "hell" in that sense (gehenna), since the Orthodox do not believe souls will receive their final "assignment" to gehenna, or Heaven, until the Last Judgment.

Does that help? I'm probably mangling it, but I think that's on the right track.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 21, 2010, 10:01:45 PM
Hel is the name of a pagan Germanic underworld deity, and as such, is a perfectly good translation of the Greek word hades (Hebrew sheol), which basically just means 'grave'; i.e., it indicates the general 'abode of the dead'. Hades is gloomy for sure, but it doesn't really carry any connotations of punishment, at least not originally. Gehenna, or gehinnom, on the other hand, was originally the name of the burning trash heap outside Jerusalem, and in Biblical and Patristic usage is synonymous with the 'lake of fire', a place or state of eternal punishment for the damned.

At some point, in English at least, "hell" stopped being hades and became synonymous with gehenna. This can create some confusion; for example, when we speak of Christ's "harrowing of hell", more properly this is the "harrowing of hades", the dark place where everybody who had previously died was before the Crucifixion. Christ did not descend into "hell", conceived of as the place of eternal punishment for the eternally damned: In Orthodox teaching, no one is yet in "hell" in that sense (gehenna), since the Orthodox do not believe souls will receive their final "assignment" to gehenna, or Heaven, until the Last Judgment.

Does that help? I'm probably mangling it, but I think that's on the right track.
Yes, that does help...thank you. Whenever I hear the word "hell" I automatically assume people are using it in the Gehenna/Lake of Fire context rather than just sheol. Although when discussing theology it probably is best to use the most precise wording possible.

Yes. That is exactly what Catholics believe. I still don't see how the Orthodox position differs from the Catholic view of purgatory.
Well, from the discussion so far it seems that there are some differences in what we believe and what they believe. I'm not convinced that gloomy darkness versus cleansing fire is really that different theologically since these are both likely metaphors to describe a spiritual state that we cannot yet understand. However, the fact that the Orthodox believe someone can be on their way to the lake of fire and then being prayed into the other direction seems quite different than the Catholic belief. Of course, the main reason why it doesn't make sense to us is because we believe in two judgments, the particular judgment and the general (final) judgment. So, as Catholics, we believe someone's fate is sealed as soon as they die.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 21, 2010, 11:50:16 PM

Dear Mary,

I have also heard from some Roman Catholic clergy who believe that Black Masses have been celebrated at the Vatican.  That does not mean I have to believe what they say as representing the RCC.

If we are going to have a reasonable discussion on any matter, then please use sources you can cite with confidence.  'Anonymous tipsters' might work for TMZ, but not here.



I have been told by some Orthodox clergy that Orthodoxy teaches a particular judgment just as the Catholic Church does....Otherwise how could Orthodoxy teach that it is possible to pray someone out of hell?

M.

Mary, your question was already answered above. Also, why don't we use terms such as hades and Gehenna instead of hell so only as to avoid confusion.

I am going to fold on this one because...just because...though I think there's more than one approach to be found in Orthodoxy but until I can source what I want to say, I'd best be quiet.    But thanks for the good explanation.  I've heard both over time...both particular and general and general only, so again I'll wait.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 22, 2010, 12:36:14 AM
Hel is the name of a pagan Germanic underworld deity, and as such, is a perfectly good translation of the Greek word hades (Hebrew sheol), which basically just means 'grave'; i.e., it indicates the general 'abode of the dead'. Hades is gloomy for sure, but it doesn't really carry any connotations of punishment, at least not originally. Gehenna, or gehinnom, on the other hand, was originally the name of the burning trash heap outside Jerusalem, and in Biblical and Patristic usage is synonymous with the 'lake of fire', a place or state of eternal punishment for the damned.

At some point, in English at least, "hell" stopped being hades and became synonymous with gehenna. This can create some confusion; for example, when we speak of Christ's "harrowing of hell", more properly this is the "harrowing of hades", the dark place where everybody who had previously died was before the Crucifixion. Christ did not descend into "hell", conceived of as the place of eternal punishment for the eternally damned: In Orthodox teaching, no one is yet in "hell" in that sense (gehenna), since the Orthodox do not believe souls will receive their final "assignment" to gehenna, or Heaven, until the Last Judgment.

Does that help? I'm probably mangling it, but I think that's on the right track.
Yes, that does help...thank you. Whenever I hear the word "hell" I automatically assume people are using it in the Gehenna/Lake of Fire context rather than just sheol. Although when discussing theology it probably is best to use the most precise wording possible.

Yes. That is exactly what Catholics believe. I still don't see how the Orthodox position differs from the Catholic view of purgatory.
Of course, the main reason why it doesn't make sense to us is because we believe in two judgments, the particular judgment and the general (final) judgment.
I believe I have read some Orthodox speak of two judgements as well, but the two judgements are not of equal value. Only the Final Judgement is definitive.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Shanghaiski on July 22, 2010, 02:17:51 PM
Have we addressed materialcreated fire vs. immaterial/uncreated fire?

Also, the notion that one can expect to stay so long in purgatory or suffering?

I really don't see a notion of purification in Orthodox teaching on the intermediate state and particular judgment. I always thought that purgatory, like the immaculate conception, was tied to Roman Catholic teaching on original sin/original guilt. Of course, Roman Catholic teaching has the tricky habit of changing over time.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: JLatimer on July 22, 2010, 02:49:00 PM
Have we addressed materialcreated fire vs. immaterial/uncreated fire?

No we haven't...yet.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 23, 2010, 06:28:49 PM
I'm not convinced that gloomy darkness versus cleansing fire is really that different theologically since these are both likely metaphors to describe a spiritual state that we cannot yet understand.

I'm not either. It seems more of an issue with wording and imagery than it does with belief.

Quote
However, the fact that the Orthodox believe someone can be on their way to the lake of fire and then being prayed into the other direction seems quite different than the Catholic belief.

Yes. I had never heard this before. I'd like to read some of the sources (probably Desert Fathers) who state this.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 23, 2010, 07:12:53 PM
I'm not convinced that gloomy darkness versus cleansing fire is really that different theologically since these are both likely metaphors to describe a spiritual state that we cannot yet understand.

I'm not either. It seems more of an issue with wording and imagery than it does with belief.

Quote
However, the fact that the Orthodox believe someone can be on their way to the lake of fire and then being prayed into the other direction seems quite different than the Catholic belief.

Yes. I had never heard this before. I'd like to read some of the sources (probably Desert Fathers) who state this.

Here is a thread on the Byzantine Forum that has some excellent material in it:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/Praying%20people%20out%20of%20hell

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 23, 2010, 11:44:07 PM
From Metropolitan Hilarion:

Is it possible at all that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death?

On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime.


http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/bishop-hilarion-alfeyev-on-the-descent-of-christ-into-hades/
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 09:46:14 AM

Here is a thread on the Byzantine Forum that has some excellent material in it:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/Praying%20people%20out%20of%20hell

Mary


Second that!   :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on July 24, 2010, 09:47:06 AM
What I find interesting is that I never heard of purgatory until I was 30 yrs old (cradle Roman Catholic)  And that was from my then future-wife who was taking RCIA.  Of course I grew up in the deep Protestant south.

From a Protestant perspective it does seem weird to use the terms punishment even after we have been (allegedly) forgiven.  It kind of seems to ruin the therapeutic value of confession if you know you're not really forgiven, that you're still going to be punished.

Seems far more reasonable to me that as we start to enter into the presence of the Divine that we realize how far from Him we are and his love is like a burning fire and purify and cleanses us.  I understand this from the standpoint of meeting someone who is truly holy and knowing that I am far from them and still a great, great sinner yet, long to be like them.

Also I see talk of soul and body but what of the spirit?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 24, 2010, 10:14:48 AM
I'm not convinced that gloomy darkness versus cleansing fire is really that different theologically since these are both likely metaphors to describe a spiritual state that we cannot yet understand.

I'm not either. It seems more of an issue with wording and imagery than it does with belief.

Quote
However, the fact that the Orthodox believe someone can be on their way to the lake of fire and then being prayed into the other direction seems quite different than the Catholic belief.

Yes. I had never heard this before. I'd like to read some of the sources (probably Desert Fathers) who state this.

Here is a thread on the Byzantine Forum that has some excellent material in it:

http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/Praying%20people%20out%20of%20hell

Mary

Thank you, Mary. I agree. There is a lot of great stuff on that thread.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 24, 2010, 10:20:15 AM
From Metropolitan Hilarion:

Is it possible at all that the fate of a person can be changed after his death? Is death that border beyond which some unchangeable static existence comes? Does the development of the human person not stop after death?

On the one hand, it is impossible for one to actively repent in hell; it is impossible to rectify the evil deeds one committed by appropriate good works. However, it may be possible for one to repent through a ‘change of heart’, a review of one’s values. One of the testimonies to this is the rich man of the Gospel we have already mentioned. He realized the gravity of his situation as soon as found himself in hell. Indeed, if in his lifetime he was focused on earthly pursuits and forgot God, once in hell he realized that his only hope for salvation was God[76] . Besides, according to the teaching of the Orthodox Church, the fate of a person after death can be changed through the prayer of the Church. Thus, existence after death has its own dynamics. On the basis of what has been said above, we may say that after death the development of the human person does not cease, for existence after death is not a transfer from a dynamic into a static being, but rather continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime.


http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/bishop-hilarion-alfeyev-on-the-descent-of-christ-into-hades/

I have tremendous respect for Metropolitan Hilarion. However, this idea seems so contrary to everything I've ever believed. As long as we have friends who pray for us after we die, we can live however we want and still make it to heaven? I don't see any biblical evidence for this claim. I also don't see anything universally accepted in the Church to support this. I know some have presented some examples, but I still need to digest them.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 24, 2010, 10:26:40 AM
This explanation by Fr. Kimel rings very true to me.

Quote
While on first glance it may appear that with the notion of "praying souls out of Hell," we are confronted with a significant difference between the Eastern and Latin Churches, I suggest that the difference is much smaller in reality.

First we need to make a clarification: when we speak of "Hell" in this context, we are not speaking of gehenna, i.e., the "place" or state of final condemnation subsequent to the Final Judgment. We are speaking, rather, of the intermediate state.

Theoretically, the Latin Church considers the particular judgment (the judgment experienced by the individual soul immediately after death) and the final judgment (the judgment experienced by all at the final resurrection) to be virtually identical. The judgment of the first will never be reversed by the latter. Why? Because the final orientation of the individual, either toward God or away from God, is definitively set at the moment of death. At that moment the individual will discover whether he loves God (however imperfectly) or hates God. Those who love God imperfectly must first undergo a process of purification before entering into the fullness of eternal joy and beatitude; but the final destiny of the souls in purgatory is certain. Theoretically, therefore, it would seem that the Latin Christian must reject the claim that we can pray people "out of Hell."

However, given that no one, this side of death, can know whether any individual human being has, in actuality, eternally rejected God (we do not know this even for Judas Iscariot or Adolf Hitler), the Latin Christian may and indeed must pray for the salvation of all the departed, without exception. So even though Latin and Eastern believers disagree on the "fluidity" of the intermediate state, they do commend and practice prayer for all the departed and together may hope for the ultimate salvation of all humanity.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2 (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 10:39:51 AM
This explanation by Fr. Kimel rings very true to me.

Quote
While on first glance it may appear that with the notion of "praying souls out of Hell," we are confronted with a significant difference between the Eastern and Latin Churches, I suggest that the difference is much smaller in reality.

First we need to make a clarification: when we speak of "Hell" in this context, we are not speaking of gehenna, i.e., the "place" or state of final condemnation subsequent to the Final Judgment. We are speaking, rather, of the intermediate state.

Theoretically, the Latin Church considers the particular judgment (the judgment experienced by the individual soul immediately after death) and the final judgment (the judgment experienced by all at the final resurrection) to be virtually identical. The judgment of the first will never be reversed by the latter. Why? Because the final orientation of the individual, either toward God or away from God, is definitively set at the moment of death. At that moment the individual will discover whether he loves God (however imperfectly) or hates God. Those who love God imperfectly must first undergo a process of purification before entering into the fullness of eternal joy and beatitude; but the final destiny of the souls in purgatory is certain. Theoretically, therefore, it would seem that the Latin Christian must reject the claim that we can pray people "out of Hell."

However, given that no one, this side of death, can know whether any individual human being has, in actuality, eternally rejected God (we do not know this even for Judas Iscariot or Adolf Hitler), the Latin Christian may and indeed must pray for the salvation of all the departed, without exception. So even though Latin and Eastern believers disagree on the "fluidity" of the intermediate state, they do commend and practice prayer for all the departed and together may hope for the ultimate salvation of all humanity.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2 (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2)

Yes, it's not a bad explanation and almost parallel with the Orthodox.  It tends towards universal salvation.  He is saying that Catholics are permitted to hope that there is nobody in Hell just as the Catechism permits Catholics to hope that there are no unbaptized babies in Hell.   The trouble is that in both cases the hope is only a hope and unbaptized babies may well be in Hell.  The teaching of Limbo at least kept babies out of Hell but the teaching since Pope John Paul and the new Catechism has brought back the possibility that they may be there after all.   Can the prayers of the Catholic faithful rescue unbaptized babies from Hell or prevent them going to Hell??
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 24, 2010, 10:58:11 AM
Seems far more reasonable to me that as we start to enter into the presence of the Divine that we realize how far from Him we are and his love is like a burning fire and purify and cleanses us.  I understand this from the standpoint of meeting someone who is truly holy and knowing that I am far from them and still a great, great sinner yet, long to be like them.
Have you read any of Pope Benedict's Encyclical Spe Salvi by any chance? He suggests that this may be exactly the nature of Purgatory in paragraph 47:

Quote from: 'Spe Salvi'
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html)


Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 24, 2010, 10:59:35 AM
Yes, it's not a bad explanation and almost parallel with the Orthodox.  It tends towards universal salvation.  He is saying that Catholics are permitted to hope that there is nobody in Hell just as the Catechism permits Catholics to hope that there are no unbaptized babies in Hell.   The trouble is that in both cases the hope is only a hope and unbaptized babies may well be in Hell.  The teaching of Limbo at least kept babies out of Hell but the teaching since Pope John Paul and the new Catechism has brought back the possibility that they may be there after all.   Can the prayers of the Catholic faithful rescue unbaptized babies from Hell or prevent them going to Hell??

I would say it is more than just human hope. To me it is the virtue of Hope. But to answer your question, we don't know what will happen to those children. We pray for them in as far as there is a possibility that they can be saved from hell. But our prayers would avail nothing if they were destined to hell by God's will.

But because there is no definitive teaching, I personally believe God our Father would never let a baby enter into hell. He's our Father. He loves babies.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 12:12:00 PM

Quote from: 'Spe Salvi'
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html)

Am I reading this correctly?  Is Pope Benedict speaking of the possibility of transformation and forgiveness of sins after death?  If so, glory to God, that the Pope is speaking in a way which brings great joy to the Orthodox and which restores to the Church of Rome its older and more authentic teaching of forgiveness of sin after death and even of rescue from the fires of Hell..  Glory to God that the Church of Rome is returning to an authentic understanding of what took place with Judas Maccabeus and the idolatrous soldiers in 2 Maccabees 12.

2 Macc 12: 39-46
King James Version
http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Kjv2Mac.html
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 12:36:33 PM
This explanation by Fr. Kimel rings very true to me.

Quote
While on first glance it may appear that with the notion of "praying souls out of Hell," we are confronted with a significant difference between the Eastern and Latin Churches, I suggest that the difference is much smaller in reality.

First we need to make a clarification: when we speak of "Hell" in this context, we are not speaking of gehenna, i.e., the "place" or state of final condemnation subsequent to the Final Judgment. We are speaking, rather, of the intermediate state.

Theoretically, the Latin Church considers the particular judgment (the judgment experienced by the individual soul immediately after death) and the final judgment (the judgment experienced by all at the final resurrection) to be virtually identical. The judgment of the first will never be reversed by the latter. Why? Because the final orientation of the individual, either toward God or away from God, is definitively set at the moment of death. At that moment the individual will discover whether he loves God (however imperfectly) or hates God. Those who love God imperfectly must first undergo a process of purification before entering into the fullness of eternal joy and beatitude; but the final destiny of the souls in purgatory is certain. Theoretically, therefore, it would seem that the Latin Christian must reject the claim that we can pray people "out of Hell."

However, given that no one, this side of death, can know whether any individual human being has, in actuality, eternally rejected God (we do not know this even for Judas Iscariot or Adolf Hitler), the Latin Christian may and indeed must pray for the salvation of all the departed, without exception. So even though Latin and Eastern believers disagree on the "fluidity" of the intermediate state, they do commend and practice prayer for all the departed and together may hope for the ultimate salvation of all humanity.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2 (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/339693/2)

Yes, it's not a bad explanation and almost parallel with the Orthodox.  It tends towards universal salvation.  He is saying that Catholics are permitted to hope that there is nobody in Hell just as the Catechism permits Catholics to hope that there are no unbaptized babies in Hell.   The trouble is that in both cases the hope is only a hope and unbaptized babies may well be in Hell.  The teaching of Limbo at least kept babies out of Hell but the teaching since Pope John Paul and the new Catechism has brought back the possibility that they may be there after all.   Can the prayers of the Catholic faithful rescue unbaptized babies from Hell or prevent them going to Hell??

This is inaccurate.  Limbo was a part of heaven.  Removing the idea of Limbo as something that could be believe...or should be a way of conceptualizing what should be believed about unbaptized infants does not put those infants in hell....but puts them in heaven.  We simply no longer qualify how they are there or in what state.

So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church teaching.

Limbo was never a de fide belief in any event.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 12:36:33 PM
Yes, it's not a bad explanation and almost parallel with the Orthodox.  It tends towards universal salvation.  He is saying that Catholics are permitted to hope that there is nobody in Hell just as the Catechism permits Catholics to hope that there are no unbaptized babies in Hell.   The trouble is that in both cases the hope is only a hope and unbaptized babies may well be in Hell.  The teaching of Limbo at least kept babies out of Hell but the teaching since Pope John Paul and the new Catechism has brought back the possibility that they may be there after all.   Can the prayers of the Catholic faithful rescue unbaptized babies from Hell or prevent them going to Hell??

I would say it is more than just human hope. To me it is the virtue of Hope. But to answer your question, we don't know what will happen to those children. We pray for them in as far as there is a possibility that they can be saved from hell. But our prayers would avail nothing if they were destined to hell by God's will.

But because there is no definitive teaching, I personally believe God our Father would never let a baby enter into hell. He's our Father. He loves babies.

The virtue of hope is nothing less than absolute confidence in Divine caritas...It is the justified right to expect Divine Good for all who are penitent and who follow the two great commandments.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 24, 2010, 04:32:53 PM
More accurately:

"So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church of Rome teaching."

Don't forget that this is an Orthodox Forum and Orthodox do consider themselves (with indisputible evidence, I might add) as The Church of which Rome was/is (depending on your perspective) a part.

Limbo has never been an issue for the entire Church, merely the Western component.  Has the Church of Rome formally condemned Limbo and its proponents?



So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church teaching.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 24, 2010, 05:04:09 PM
More accurately:
Limbo has never been an issue for the entire Church, merely the Western component.  Has the Church of Rome formally condemned Limbo and its proponents?

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. It's always just been a theological theory.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Schultz on July 24, 2010, 05:06:48 PM
Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 24, 2010, 05:18:18 PM
Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.
Unfortunately I think that is true. I have heard many stories of people who were catechized long ago and were told about Limbo as if it were doctrine. Sadly such nuns were in error.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on July 24, 2010, 05:34:32 PM

That's where it would be helpful to have a formal condemnation of Limbo from the Vatican so that such ambiguities no longer are permitted to fester.

Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.
Unfortunately I think that is true. I have heard many stories of people who were catechized long ago and were told about Limbo as if it were doctrine. Sadly such nuns were in error.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:13:05 PM
More accurately:

"So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church of Rome teaching."

Don't forget that this is an Orthodox Forum and Orthodox do consider themselves (with indisputible evidence, I might add) as The Church of which Rome was/is (depending on your perspective) a part.

Limbo has never been an issue for the entire Church, merely the Western component.  Has the Church of Rome formally condemned Limbo and its proponents?



So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church teaching.


Why would it need to be condemned?  It always was a pious belief that was meant to describe the place in heaven where the unbaptized would dwell since only the baptized would live in the light of the beatific vision.  It was a liminal place on the edges...so to speak.

It never was a de fide teaching in the first place.  But I already said that.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:13:06 PM
Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.

You cannot have a de facto Catholic doctrine.  It is either formal teaching or it falls into some other category with the most benign being a pious belief or mistake.

But you cannot hold the Church formally to a pious belief as doctrine any more than I can fairly do that to Orthodox teaching.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:13:06 PM

That's where it would be helpful to have a formal condemnation of Limbo from the Vatican so that such ambiguities no longer are permitted to fester.

Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.
Unfortunately I think that is true. I have heard many stories of people who were catechized long ago and were told about Limbo as if it were doctrine. Sadly such nuns were in error.

Does Orthodoxy condemn all pious beliefs?  Limbo may still be held as a pious belief for those who do not believe that the unbaptized will live in the light of the beatific vision.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Father H on July 24, 2010, 06:28:53 PM
What is the difference?

1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: militantsparrow on July 24, 2010, 06:30:31 PM
Quote
The virtue of hope is nothing less than absolute confidence in Divine caritas...It is the justified right to expect Divine Good for all who are penitent and who follow the two great commandments.

Amen.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 06:41:30 PM
What is the difference?

1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 


None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jakub on July 24, 2010, 07:14:23 PM
Technically, that's true.

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.  Ask anyone over the age of, say, 60.  They'll tell you that the nuns told them that unbaptized babies went to Limbo.  While it was technically theologeumenon, what a nun tells an eight year old is believed as doctrine.

I'm very close to that wise age and cannot remember being taught anything about Limbo by nuns...though my ear lobe on my right ear is a bit longer than the left...thanking Sister Margaret Mary

Only limbo I remember is sung by Chubby Checker...
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 07:55:59 PM

This is inaccurate.  Limbo was a part of heaven.

Was it? Is it?  I am surprised if you are unaware that the traditional understanding of Limbo (which as you would know means "edge" or "boundary" in Latin -Limbus) is that it is the edge of Hell.


Quote
  Removing the idea of Limbo as something that could be believe...or should be a way of conceptualizing what should be believed about unbaptized infants does not put those infants in hell....but puts them in heaven.

Incorrect.   It does not place them in heaven.   The teaching of the modern Catechism is that Catholics may hope that unbaptized babies go to heaven.  There is no guarantee of that and they might just as well go to Hell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, CCC 1261:

"As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them' [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states, CCC 1257:

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation...The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..."

Quote
So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church teaching.

 Did you knowingly make a false statement, contrary to the Catechism, or did you really not know?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 07:59:31 PM

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. It's always just been a theological theory.



Limbo was never a de fide belief in any event.

This is the oft used Catholic "let out" when theologians wish to discard what have been traditional beliefs for centuries among the Catholic faithful, held and taught by bishops and priests as matters of faith.

Fr. Brian W. Harrison conducted a survey of relevant historical Catholic magisterial statements and concluded:

"... that those who now talk about Limbo as only ever having been a mere 'hypothesis', rather than a doctrine, are giving a very misleading impression of the state of the question. They are implying by this that the pre-Vatican II Church traditionally held, or at least implicitly admitted, that an alternate 'hypothesis' for unbaptized infants was their attainment of eternal salvation — Heaven.

"Nothing could be further from the truth. Limbo for unbaptized infants was indeed a theological "hypothesis"; but the only approved alternate hypothesis was not Heaven, but very mild hellfire as well as exclusion from the beatific vision! In short, while Limbo as distinct from very mild hellfire was a 'hypothetical' destiny for unbaptized infants, their eternal exclusion from Heaven (with or without any 'pain of sense') — at least after the proclamation of the Gospel, and apart from the 'baptism of blood' of infants slaughtered out of hatred for Christ — this was traditional Catholic doctrine, not a mere hypothesis.

"No, it was never dogmatically defined. But the only question is whether the doctrine was infallible by virtue of the universal and ordinary magisterium, or merely "authentic".
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 08:10:47 PM

You cannot have a de facto Catholic doctrine.  It is either formal teaching or it falls into some other category with the most benign being a pious belief or mistake.

But you cannot hold the Church formally to a pious belief as doctrine any more than I can fairly do that to Orthodox teaching.


I think the problem here is that there is a misunderstanding of <dogma>.

Let us not start to work from some rigid Roman Catholic notion of dogma
which includes only those elements of the faith which have received a
magisterial definition and everything outside that is a mishmash of traditional
beliefs which can be suppressed or affirmed any time in the future.

Catholic insistence on magisterial definition has the effect of trashing Tradition.

We need to broaden our understanding of dogma in order to discover a more
authentic Orthodox understanding.

For example here is something simply expressed which I took from a Greek
Orthodox catechism
http://www.goholycross.org/studies/studies_doctrine.html#Dogma

**Please pay particular attention to the LAST  PARAGRAPH.**

-oOo-


Source & Basis of Dogma:

* Revelation- God's self revelation to His Creation

* Holy Tradition- that which is given over within the Church from the time
of Christ's apostles to the present day

* The Bible- the Old Testament & the New Testament

* The Liturgy- the gathering and work of the people

* The Councils- a gathering of bishops who representing the body of the
Church

* The Fathers- saints who were theologians and spiritual teachers who
defended and explained the doctrines of the Christian Faith

* The Saints- those who share the holiness of God

* The Canons- a rule or norm or measure of judging

* Church Art- comprised of the artistic expressions of man and the blessings
and inspirations of God

Formulation:

The Orthodox Church recognizes two distinct sorts of dogmas : those
perpetually preached and believed by the fullness of the Church as included
in various dogmatic and symbolic tests and the writings of the Fathers, and
those proclaimed and ratified by the seven ancient ecumenical councils and
those local councils which were ratified by them.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 09:14:55 PM

This is inaccurate.  Limbo was a part of heaven.

Was it? Is it?  I am surprised if you are unaware that the traditional understanding of Limbo (which as you would know means "edge" or "boundary" in Latin -Limbus) is that it is the edge of Hell.


Quote
  Removing the idea of Limbo as something that could be believe...or should be a way of conceptualizing what should be believed about unbaptized infants does not put those infants in hell....but puts them in heaven.

Incorrect.   It does not place them in heaven.   The teaching of the modern Catechism is that Catholics may hope that unbaptized babies go to heaven.  There is no guarantee of that and they might just as well go to Hell.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, CCC 1261:

"As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, 'Let the children come to me, do not hinder them' [Mark 10:14, cf. 1 Tim. 2:4], allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states, CCC 1257:

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation...The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude...God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism..."

Quote
So please don't continue to contribute to false statements about Church teaching.

 Did you knowingly make a false statement, contrary to the Catechism, or did you really not know?


Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.  The idea that it was hell was speculative, I don't know if you could have known that or not.

And the virtue of hope is taught as I have defined it in some thread recently as a justified expectation of God's mercy and love.  So to "hope" when spoken in those terms about the unborn infant or unbaptized infant indicates that we may rest assured in hope.  I don't know if you could have known that or not either.

At any rate your assertions that they could be either in heaven or hell shows little understanding of Catholic teaching.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 09:14:56 PM

Limbo has never been a Catholic doctrine. It's always just been a theological theory.



Limbo was never a de fide belief in any event.

This is the oft used Catholic "let out" when theologians wish to discard what have been traditional beliefs for centuries among the Catholic faithful, held and taught by bishops and priests as matters of faith.


Not so.  Limbo was NEVER a de fide teaching.  And if you could find formal documentation that says it was, I am sure we'd have seen it long before this discussion ever started.

So you are still moving around in the realm of  pious belief and looking for individuals to support your assertions that it is doctrine,  and to make up for the lack of formal teaching to prove your assertion to those who have no way of knowing any better no matter what confession they come from.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 09:14:56 PM

You cannot have a de facto Catholic doctrine.  It is either formal teaching or it falls into some other category with the most benign being a pious belief or mistake.

But you cannot hold the Church formally to a pious belief as doctrine any more than I can fairly do that to Orthodox teaching.


I think the problem here is that there is a misunderstanding of <dogma>.

Let us not start to work from some rigid Roman Catholic notion of dogma
which includes only those elements of the faith which have received a
magisterial definition and everything outside that is a mishmash of traditional
beliefs which can be suppressed or affirmed any time in the future.

Catholic insistence on magisterial definition has the effect of trashing Tradition.

We need to broaden our understanding of dogma in order to discover a more
authentic Orthodox understanding.

For example here is something simply expressed which I took from a Greek
Orthodox catechism
http://www.goholycross.org/studies/studies_doctrine.html#Dogma

**Please pay particular attention to the LAST  PARAGRAPH.**

-oOo-


Source & Basis of Dogma:

* Revelation- God's self revelation to His Creation

* Holy Tradition- that which is given over within the Church from the time
of Christ's apostles to the present day

* The Bible- the Old Testament & the New Testament

* The Liturgy- the gathering and work of the people

* The Councils- a gathering of bishops who representing the body of the
Church

* The Fathers- saints who were theologians and spiritual teachers who
defended and explained the doctrines of the Christian Faith

* The Saints- those who share the holiness of God

* The Canons- a rule or norm or measure of judging

* Church Art- comprised of the artistic expressions of man and the blessings
and inspirations of God

Formulation:

The Orthodox Church recognizes two distinct sorts of dogmas : those
perpetually preached and believed by the fullness of the Church as included
in various dogmatic and symbolic tests and the writings of the Fathers, and
those proclaimed and ratified by the seven ancient ecumenical councils and
those local councils which were ratified by them.



You go right ahead and find the Orthodox understanding, but please do not work so hard to impose it on the Catholic Church.... :angel:

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on July 24, 2010, 09:45:02 PM
Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.  The idea that it was hell was speculative, I don't know if you could have known that or not.

If your church was formally teaching the Limbo was the edge of Heaven, could you provide us with some examples?

Also, if your church was formally teaching that Limbo was the edge of Heaven, then how was there any room for speculation that it was the opposite? Is not to defy a formal teaching to fall into heresy?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 24, 2010, 10:08:11 PM
[
Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.  The idea that it was hell was speculative, I don't know if you could have known that or not.


If you go on a Forum such as Catholic Answers you will soon see the confusion between older Catholics who have been taught one thing about Limbo and Purgatory and younger Catholics who are being taught another and simply have no comprehension what the older Catholics are talking about and dismiss it as nonsense taught by ignorant priests and nuns and based on erroneous transmission of the faith in more gullible centuries. 

There is a lot of intellectual deception practiced in order to try and reconcile what was unchallengeable older teaching and what is now the hip modern teaching.  The traditional teaching of Limbo was demolished virtually overnight at the whim of Pope John Paul II -without any papal document, without consulting the Catholic Magisterium, without any Council of the Church.  The theological opinion of Pope John Paul, and now also Pope Benedict, was simply foisted on the Catholic faithful.   There is no seriousness in this and there is absolutely nothing to prevent the next Pope from returning to a promulgation of Limbo as authentic and traditional Catholic teaching.   

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings.  So we find that Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

I'd like to pull a post from a mutual friend who writes here.

-oOo-

Do yourself a favor and pick up any book in the 1950's teaching the Roman Catholic Faith...

This is The Faith
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Everyman's Theology
Baltimore Catechism
etc

and you will find the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950's and all of them taught Purgatory, Limbo, etc in the same exact way with very little in common with today's Roman Catholic Theology.

Modern Roman Catholics are all about reductionism. Separating 'depictions' from Doctrine, Traditions from traditions, etc etc. That is because within this kind of reconstruction you would be forced to deal with the contradictions such a move in Theology would create.

I'd recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years.

Now you and others may argue that this 'piece' of Classic Theology wasn't 'infallibly' spoken or was only tradition with a small "t".   For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce.  It's rationalizing how we 'change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church' without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church... and that is weak in my opinion.

For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a 'place and state' and that Limbo was a 'place and state' but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions.  I ask, what happened to 'truth'?   I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn't because this or that wasn't spoken infallibly or was actually never 'really' part of Tradition but only tradition with a small "t".   I simply can't believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into... the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Father H on July 24, 2010, 10:30:17 PM
What is the difference?
1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.Mary

Sorry, you are wrong.  According to the council of Trent, it is a debt that needs paid: 
Quote
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840).
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Shlomlokh on July 24, 2010, 10:32:44 PM
What is the difference?
1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.Mary

Sorry, you are wrong.  According to the council of Trent, it is a debt that needs paid: 
Quote
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840).
Yikes! :o That's scary!

In Christ,
Andrew
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 11:38:55 PM
What is the difference?
1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.Mary

Sorry, you are wrong.  According to the council of Trent, it is a debt that needs paid: 
Quote
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840).

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 24, 2010, 11:38:55 PM
[
Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.  The idea that it was hell was speculative, I don't know if you could have known that or not.


If you go on a Forum such as Catholic Answers you will soon see the confusion between older Catholics who have been taught one thing about Limbo and Purgatory and younger Catholics who are being taught another and simply have no comprehension what the older Catholics are talking about and dismiss it as nonsense taught by ignorant priests and nuns and based on erroneous transmission of the faith in more gullible centuries. 

There is a lot of intellectual deception practiced in order to try and reconcile what was unchallengeable older teaching and what is now the hip modern teaching.  The traditional teaching of Limbo was demolished virtually overnight at the whim of Pope John Paul II -without any papal document, without consulting the Catholic Magisterium, without any Council of the Church.  The theological opinion of Pope John Paul, and now also Pope Benedict, was simply foisted on the Catholic faithful.   There is no seriousness in this and there is absolutely nothing to prevent the next Pope from returning to a promulgation of Limbo as authentic and traditional Catholic teaching.   

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings.  So we find that Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

I'd like to pull a post from a mutual friend who writes here.

-oOo-

Do yourself a favor and pick up any book in the 1950's teaching the Roman Catholic Faith...

This is The Faith
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Everyman's Theology
Baltimore Catechism
etc

and you will find the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950's and all of them taught Purgatory, Limbo, etc in the same exact way with very little in common with today's Roman Catholic Theology.

Modern Roman Catholics are all about reductionism. Separating 'depictions' from Doctrine, Traditions from traditions, etc etc. That is because within this kind of reconstruction you would be forced to deal with the contradictions such a move in Theology would create.

I'd recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years.

Now you and others may argue that this 'piece' of Classic Theology wasn't 'infallibly' spoken or was only tradition with a small "t".   For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce.  It's rationalizing how we 'change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church' without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church... and that is weak in my opinion.

For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a 'place and state' and that Limbo was a 'place and state' but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions.  I ask, what happened to 'truth'?   I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn't because this or that wasn't spoken infallibly or was actually never 'really' part of Tradition but only tradition with a small "t".   I simply can't believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into... the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.



I am sorry that the Catholic Church begins and ends in the 1950's for you fellows.  I could have locked in there myself, and been quite happy humming from B 1-4 day by day.  I am of that age, you know.

But I decided to read the saints and doctors of the Church and the fathers and Church history ... and discover the teachings of those who never heard of the Baltimore Catechism.  It was a real eye-opener.   :angel:

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 25, 2010, 02:58:46 AM
[
Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.  The idea that it was hell was speculative, I don't know if you could have known that or not.


If you go on a Forum such as Catholic Answers you will soon see the confusion between older Catholics who have been taught one thing about Limbo and Purgatory and younger Catholics who are being taught another and simply have no comprehension what the older Catholics are talking about and dismiss it as nonsense taught by ignorant priests and nuns and based on erroneous transmission of the faith in more gullible centuries. 

There is a lot of intellectual deception practiced in order to try and reconcile what was unchallengeable older teaching and what is now the hip modern teaching.  The traditional teaching of Limbo was demolished virtually overnight at the whim of Pope John Paul II -without any papal document, without consulting the Catholic Magisterium, without any Council of the Church.  The theological opinion of Pope John Paul, and now also Pope Benedict, was simply foisted on the Catholic faithful.   There is no seriousness in this and there is absolutely nothing to prevent the next Pope from returning to a promulgation of Limbo as authentic and traditional Catholic teaching.   

The problem is that some of Catholicism's theology is in a state of flux and there are divergent teachings.  So we find that Catholics may use one argument one day and the next day use another if it is more appropriate.

I'd like to pull a post from a mutual friend who writes here.

-oOo-

Do yourself a favor and pick up any book in the 1950's teaching the Roman Catholic Faith...

This is The Faith
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Everyman's Theology
Baltimore Catechism
etc

and you will find the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church in the 1950's and all of them taught Purgatory, Limbo, etc in the same exact way with very little in common with today's Roman Catholic Theology.

Modern Roman Catholics are all about reductionism. Separating 'depictions' from Doctrine, Traditions from traditions, etc etc. That is because within this kind of reconstruction you would be forced to deal with the contradictions such a move in Theology would create.

I'd recommend that Catholics start rereading the Classics and realize that Post-Vatican II Theology is a departure from what has been taught and thought for one thousand years.

Now you and others may argue that this 'piece' of Classic Theology wasn't 'infallibly' spoken or was only tradition with a small "t".   For me that spin on the reductionism happening within the Roman Catholic Church since Vatican II is such a farce.  It's rationalizing how we 'change the theology of the Roman Catholic Church' without admitting that we are changing the theology of the Roman Catholic Church... and that is weak in my opinion.

For hundreds of years Roman Catholics were taught Purgatory was a 'place and state' and that Limbo was a 'place and state' but in our modern times such certainties have been sidelined to make room for other theological opinions.  I ask, what happened to 'truth'?   I look and I see Catholicism reconstructing itself and pretending that it really isn't because this or that wasn't spoken infallibly or was actually never 'really' part of Tradition but only tradition with a small "t".   I simply can't believe in the Roman Catholic Church because of such nonsense and have simply embraced the Church that Catholicism is attempting to remake itself into... the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.



I am sorry that the Catholic Church begins and ends in the 1950's for you fellows.  I could have locked in there myself, and been quite happy humming from B 1-4 day by day.  I am of that age, you know.

But I decided to read the saints and doctors of the Church and the fathers and Church history ... and discover the teachings of those who never heard of the Baltimore Catechism.  It was a real eye-opener.
   :angel:

M.

Precisely!  The rediscovery of the Fathers by the Roman Catholic Church post Vatican II, the realisation that there is a layer of great patristic wisdom prior to its overlayering by scholasticism and human reasoning.  The victory of the schoolmen over the patristic, the development which Bernard of Clairavux lamented so much (himself seen by the Orthodox as the last of the Western theologians to think with a patristic mindset.)

So why should we not rejoice with a return to the Fathers, as you have done for yourself in your personal faith journey.  But there is no denying that the long centuries when the Fathers had almost no place in Catholic theology (the complete absence of any reference to them in Pope Paul VI's 1965 Humanae Vitae is a case in point!) produced aberrations in the Roman Catholic Church.

This return ad fontes is a necessary process ( and probably a lengthy one) in order to prepare your Church for a union with the Orthodox.  Those with an interest in ecumenism should accompany your journey with prayer and good will.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 25, 2010, 08:32:21 AM
Seems far more reasonable to me that as we start to enter into the presence of the Divine that we realize how far from Him we are and his love is like a burning fire and purify and cleanses us.  I understand this from the standpoint of meeting someone who is truly holy and knowing that I am far from them and still a great, great sinner yet, long to be like them.
Have you read any of Pope Benedict's Encyclical Spe Salvi by any chance? He suggests that this may be exactly the nature of Purgatory in paragraph 47:

Quote from: 'Spe Salvi'
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html)



Seems like an expansion of the traditional idea of purgatory, rather than an acceptance of the Orthodox idea of the possibility change in trajectory due to the prayers of the Church.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on July 25, 2010, 08:44:03 AM
Here's one definition of "limbo", from the Baltimore Catechism (http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson08.html) (1941):

95. What do we mean when we say in the Apostles' Creed that Christ descended into hell?

When we say that Christ descended into hell we mean that, after He died, the soul of Christ descended into a place or state of rest, called limbo, where the souls of the just were waiting for Him.

Put to death indeed in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit, in which also he went and preached to those spirits that were in prison. (I Peter 3:18-19)

96. Why did Christ go to limbo?

Christ went to limbo to announce to the souls waiting there the joyful news that He had reopened heaven to mankind.

97. Where was Christ's body while His soul was In limbo?

While His soul was in limbo, Christ's body was in the holy sepulchre.

And, taking him down, he wrapped him in fine linen and laid him in a sepulchre that was hewed in stone, wherein never yet any man had been laid. (Luke 23:53)

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 25, 2010, 08:48:35 AM
Seems far more reasonable to me that as we start to enter into the presence of the Divine that we realize how far from Him we are and his love is like a burning fire and purify and cleanses us.  I understand this from the standpoint of meeting someone who is truly holy and knowing that I am far from them and still a great, great sinner yet, long to be like them.
Have you read any of Pope Benedict's Encyclical Spe Salvi by any chance? He suggests that this may be exactly the nature of Purgatory in paragraph 47:

Quote from: 'Spe Salvi'
47. Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. The encounter with him is the decisive act of judgement. Before his gaze all falsehood melts away. This encounter with him, as it burns us, transforms and frees us, allowing us to become truly ourselves. All that we build during our lives can prove to be mere straw, pure bluster, and it collapses. Yet in the pain of this encounter, when the impurity and sickness of our lives become evident to us, there lies salvation. His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. In this way the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us for ever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love. Indeed, it has already been burned away through Christ's Passion. At the moment of judgement we experience and we absorb the overwhelming power of his love over all the evil in the world and in ourselves. The pain of love becomes our salvation and our joy. It is clear that we cannot calculate the “duration” of this transforming burning in terms of the chronological measurements of this world. The transforming “moment” of this encounter eludes earthly time-reckoning—it is the heart's time, it is the time of “passage” to communion with God in the Body of Christ[39]. The judgement of God is hope, both because it is justice and because it is grace. If it were merely grace, making all earthly things cease to matter, God would still owe us an answer to the question about justice—the crucial question that we ask of history and of God. If it were merely justice, in the end it could bring only fear to us all. The incarnation of God in Christ has so closely linked the two together—judgement and grace—that justice is firmly established: we all work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Nevertheless grace allows us all to hope, and to go trustfully to meet the Judge whom we know as our “advocate”, or parakletos (cf. 1 Jn 2:1).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html)



Seems like an expansion of the traditional idea of purgatory, rather than an acceptance of the Orthodox idea of the possibility change in trajectory due to the prayers of the Church.

You may be right but I would like to think otherwise.

The Pope is speaking about the hope of salvation in the transforming meeting of the person with Christ after death.

For those who have died and are destined for Purgatory, there is no need of any hope of salvation.  Why?  Their salvation is already fully certain merely by the fact that they are going to purgatory.

So - to whom is it that this transforming encounter with Christ offers salvation?

Is the Pope quietly laying down indications of a return to the ancient teaching of the Church?  Creating node points from which future teaching may be derived?

(http://0.tqn.com/d/catholicism/1/0/6/-/-/-/Pope_Benedict_Easter_Vigil_2007.jpg)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 10:58:05 AM

Precisely!  The rediscovery of the Fathers by the Roman Catholic Church post Vatican II, the realisation that there is a layer of great patristic wisdom prior to its overlayering by scholasticism and human reasoning.  The victory of the schoolmen over the patristic, the development which Bernard of Clairavux lamented so much (himself seen by the Orthodox as the last of the Western theologians to think with a patristic mindset.)

So why should we not rejoice with a return to the Fathers, as you have done for yourself in your personal faith journey.  But there is no denying that the long centuries when the Fathers had almost no place in Catholic theology (the complete absence of any reference to them in Pope Paul VI's 1965 Humanae Vitae is a case in point!) produced aberrations in the Roman Catholic Church.

This return ad fontes is a necessary process ( and probably a lengthy one) in order to prepare your Church for a union with the Orthodox.  Those with an interest in ecumenism should accompany your journey with prayer and good will.

Wrong Father Ambrose. 

There was no return.  There is a continuous line of patristic teaching and ascetic practice all the way through in the west.

Simply because SOME lost sight of it does not mean that ALL lost sight of it so please do rejoice with me and for me that I had the kind of experiences and training to allow me to see what you are trying to obscure.  I would never have been able to stand up to critics like you had I not had those experiences, so yes indeed, do rejoice because I do!!   :)

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 25, 2010, 10:58:06 AM

You may be right but I would like to think otherwise.

The Pope is speaking about the hope of salvation in the transforming meeting of the person with Christ after death.

For those who have died and are destined for Purgatory, there is no need of any hope of salvation.  Why?  Their salvation is already fully certain merely by the fact that they are going to purgatory.

So - to whom is it that this transforming encounter with Christ offers salvation?

Is the Pope quietly laying down indications of a return to the ancient teaching of the Church?  Creating node points from which future teaching may be derived?

(http://0.tqn.com/d/catholicism/1/0/6/-/-/-/Pope_Benedict_Easter_Vigil_2007.jpg)

The pope is quietly offering the ancient teaching of the Catholic Church of which purgation is part.  Since when does Purgation preclude an encounter with Christ?

Not everyone has had an Irish Jansenist or French Jansenist upbringing, Father Ambrose.  I suppose it is too late for you but I do know some Orthodox whose horizons, with respect to knowing the teaching of the Catholic Church, is much broader and takes in far more of the actual historical realities. 

With continued attention the day will come when Catholics and Orthodox may be able to step through some of the current canards and really engage in a dialogue on faith and the history of the Church.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Father H on July 29, 2010, 10:43:20 PM
What is the difference?
1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.Mary

Sorry, you are wrong.  According to the council of Trent, it is a debt that needs paid: 
Quote
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840).

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary

It is very clear, a "debt" needs "paid."   Just admit you are wrong.  It is not that hard.  Just admit it. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 30, 2010, 01:49:21 AM
What is the difference?
1.  That monetary indulgences can release one from suffering; Orthodoxy does not hold this.
2.  That the "fires of purgatory" are some temporal fire; for Orthodox it is only the fire of the Energy of God.
3.  In RC terms temporal fires juridically "satisfy" (expiate, purgate) God's just judgment for sins;
in Orthodoxy, the eternal Energy of God purifies the soul due to the remaining state of sin in the soul.  Sin is already forgiven so there is no need for forgiveness, but for removal of sinful pathoi of the soul.   Again, there is a distinction between forgiveness and remission. 
4.  In other words, in Latin definition, "purgation" is defined as the act of purging one from the guilt of sin; in Orthodoxy, no such usage can be admitted as the guilt is already washed away, yet the spiritual cancer of the soul still needs remitted. 
None of this represents the formal teaching of the Catholic Church...past, present...and one hopes for the future as well.Mary

Sorry, you are wrong.  According to the council of Trent, it is a debt that needs paid: 
Quote
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840).

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary

It is very clear, a "debt" needs "paid."   Just admit you are wrong.  It is not that hard.  Just admit it. 


No thanks, Father.

I do know my faith better than you do. 

I even know more than one way to tell the same truth.

 :laugh:

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Papist on July 30, 2010, 02:20:57 AM
I am so glad that we are talking about Purgatory again.  ;)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 30, 2010, 05:05:44 PM
It's really quite simple. A boy breaks a neighbor's window with a baseball (the sin), the boy apologizes to the neighbor and is forgiven by the neighbor (repentance), and then the neighbor requests that the boy pays for a new window (expiation). The fact that the boy had to pay for the neighbor's window does not negate the fact that he was forgiven, he simply had to correct the damage that was done as a result of his mistake. We see a similar theme in the Gospels when Jesus thrice asked St. Peter if he loved Him after St. Peter and denied him three times.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 30, 2010, 05:14:09 PM
It's really quite simple. A boy breaks a neighbor's window with a baseball (the sin), the boy apologizes to the neighbor and is forgiven by the neighbor (repentance), and then the neighbor requests that the boy pays for a new window (expiation). The fact that the boy had to pay for the neighbor's window does not negate the fact that he was forgiven, he simply had to correct the damage that was done as a result of his mistake. We see a similar theme in the Gospels when Jesus thrice asked St. Peter if he loved Him after St. Peter and denied him three times.

I thought the teaching was that a sin against God is a sin against an infinite being and no human being can possibly compensate Him.  That is why Christ had to come and die because He, as an infinite being, can pay the damages to the Father on our behalf.  Humans just cannot do it.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Father H on July 30, 2010, 05:15:48 PM
It's really quite simple. A boy breaks a neighbor's window with a baseball (the sin), the boy apologizes to the neighbor and is forgiven by the neighbor (repentance), and then the neighbor requests that the boy pays for a new window (expiation). The fact that the boy had to pay for the neighbor's window does not negate the fact that he was forgiven, he simply had to correct the damage that was done as a result of his mistake. We see a similar theme in the Gospels when Jesus thrice asked St. Peter if he loved Him after St. Peter and denied him three times.

You are not paying attention.  Please go back to the thread discussion at hand, in which it was claimed that the listed teachings on purgatory were claimed by Mary not to be the teaching of the RCC, then was proven wrong (particularly #3).   What you are saying basically supports the claim against Mary that this is the teaching of the RCC.  
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: bogdan on July 30, 2010, 05:31:14 PM
It's really quite simple. A boy breaks a neighbor's window with a baseball (the sin), the boy apologizes to the neighbor and is forgiven by the neighbor (repentance), and then the neighbor requests that the boy pays for a new window (expiation). The fact that the boy had to pay for the neighbor's window does not negate the fact that he was forgiven, he simply had to correct the damage that was done as a result of his mistake. We see a similar theme in the Gospels when Jesus thrice asked St. Peter if he loved Him after St. Peter and denied him three times.

You have made a certain astonishing division, saying that every sin must be understood under two aspects:

1) the offense itself which is made to God, and
2) the punishment which follows it.

Of these two aspects (you teach), the offense to God, indeed can be remitted after repentance and turning away from evil, but the liability to punishment must exist in every case; so that, on the basis of this idea, it is essential that those released from sins should be, all the same, subject to punishment for them.

But we [Orthodox] allow ourselves to say that such a stating of the question contradicts clear and commonly known truths: if we do not see that a king, after he has granted an amnesty and pardon, subjects the guilty to yet more punishment, then all the more God, among Whose many characteristics love of mankind is an especially outstanding one, even though He does punish a man after a sin which he has committed, still, after He has forgiven him He naturally delivers him from punishment also.

And this is natural. For if the offense to God leads to punishment, then when the guilt is forgiven and reconciliation has occurred, the very consequence of the guilt—the punishment—of necessity comes to an end.

- St Mark of Ephesus, Second Homily Against Purgatorial Fire
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on July 30, 2010, 05:35:52 PM
You are not paying attention.  Please go back to the thread discussion at hand, in which it was claimed that the listed teachings on purgatory were claimed by Mary not to be the teaching of the RCC, then was proven wrong (particularly #3).   What you are saying basically supports the claim against Mary that this is the teaching of the RCC.  
Wrong! I am paying attention. Let's look at what Mary said, shall we?

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary
What she said here is entirely in line with the explanation and the analogy I used. The "consequences" in my baseball through the window analogy was the broken window. The fact that the window is broken is a consequence of that mistake. The mistake has been forgiven, the consequence still has to be made right, which is why the kid has to pay for a new window. That is what Purgatory is. Purgatory in no way negates the fact that ones sins have been forgiven. It simply is a way for someone to make right the consequences due to their sins in the next life.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 30, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
You are not paying attention.  Please go back to the thread discussion at hand, in which it was claimed that the listed teachings on purgatory were claimed by Mary not to be the teaching of the RCC, then was proven wrong (particularly #3).   What you are saying basically supports the claim against Mary that this is the teaching of the RCC.  
Wrong! I am paying attention. Let's look at what Mary said, shall we?

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary
What she said here is entirely in line with the explanation and the analogy I used. The "consequences" in my baseball through the window analogy was the broken window. The fact that the window is broken is a consequence of that mistake. The mistake has been forgiven, the consequence still has to be made right, which is why the kid has to pay for a new window. That is what Purgatory is. Purgatory in no way negates the fact that ones sins have been forgiven. It simply is a way for someone to make right the consequences due to their sins in the next life.

Let's not get sidetracked into looking at God's justice as a window breaking.

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Not a broken window and punishment in sight.

His teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and broken windows.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM
You are not paying attention.  Please go back to the thread discussion at hand, in which it was claimed that the listed teachings on purgatory were claimed by Mary not to be the teaching of the RCC, then was proven wrong (particularly #3).   What you are saying basically supports the claim against Mary that this is the teaching of the RCC.  
Wrong! I am paying attention. Let's look at what Mary said, shall we?

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary
What she said here is entirely in line with the explanation and the analogy I used. The "consequences" in my baseball through the window analogy was the broken window. The fact that the window is broken is a consequence of that mistake. The mistake has been forgiven, the consequence still has to be made right, which is why the kid has to pay for a new window. That is what Purgatory is. Purgatory in no way negates the fact that ones sins have been forgiven. It simply is a way for someone to make right the consequences due to their sins in the next life.

My Spiritual Father has a nice way of putting it.  He says that God gave us the universe to play with.  He makes us free so that we can explore it and examine every facet of it that we can imagine.  The only rule is that when we are finished playing, we must leave it as we found it.

In some periods of the Church's teaching life that need to return things as we found them have been called debts.    Most of the time it is not in our power to return creation to its original justice, or its original goodness, but we must try, we must make some kind of effort.  For example if I am driving and for some reason, whatever reason, I hit and kill the child, there are varying possible ways to assess my guilt and forgive the act from it being a total accident through to total guilt as in a drunk driving accident.  But my actions, whatever the guilt assessed, have changed the whole universe for one little life and all those who loved her and all those who might have been loved by her and loved her in the future.

In this case it is not in our power to set that aright.  But we must try to do something to make amends for that fateful moment in our lives.  Very often these things have nothing to do with guilt or innocence.  But have everything to do with the good order of creation, and it is in this light that we talk about atonement and making amends....to the best of our ability.

So no, the Orthodox, more often than not do not get Catholic teaching right at all on this score.  They posit an angry unforgiving God, in whose universe sins are not forgiven till the debt is paid....all that is hooey. 

There will be restoration.  We are commanded to participate in that restoration.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 30, 2010, 07:40:07 PM
You are not paying attention.  Please go back to the thread discussion at hand, in which it was claimed that the listed teachings on purgatory were claimed by Mary not to be the teaching of the RCC, then was proven wrong (particularly #3).   What you are saying basically supports the claim against Mary that this is the teaching of the RCC.  
Wrong! I am paying attention. Let's look at what Mary said, shall we?

There is no sin guilt once absolution has been given.  There are only the consequences and that is what is to be atoned for...not the guilt of the sin itself but all those intended and unintended consequences that remain after all is forgiven and absolved.

So you may insist but you are not quite accurate in your insistence.

Mary
What she said here is entirely in line with the explanation and the analogy I used. The "consequences" in my baseball through the window analogy was the broken window. The fact that the window is broken is a consequence of that mistake. The mistake has been forgiven, the consequence still has to be made right, which is why the kid has to pay for a new window. That is what Purgatory is. Purgatory in no way negates the fact that ones sins have been forgiven. It simply is a way for someone to make right the consequences due to their sins in the next life.

Let's not get sidetracked into looking at God's justice as a window breaking.

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Not a broken window and punishment in sight.

His teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and broken windows.



May I suggest Luke, Chapter 12 as an antidote to your seemingly one-sided approach to the Gospels.  Note particularly the last paragraph which has to do with the payment of debts for transgressions!!

I offer the King James version so as not to show undue bias of any kind.... :angel:

+++++++++++++


1In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. 2For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. 3Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

4And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. 5But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings, and not one of them is forgotten before God? 7But even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not therefore: ye are of more value than many sparrows.

8Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God: 9But he that denieth me before men shall be denied before the angels of God. 10And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. 11And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.

13And one of the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother, that he divide the inheritance with me. 14And he said unto him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you? 15And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. 16And he spake a parable unto them, saying, The ground of a certain rich man brought forth plentifully: 17And he thought within himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have no room where to bestow my fruits? 18And he said, This will I do: I will pull down my barns, and build greater; and there will I bestow all my fruits and my goods. 19And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry. 20But God said unto him, Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided? 21So is he that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.

22And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat; neither for the body, what ye shall put on. 23The life is more than meat, and the body is more than raiment. 24Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? 25And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit? 26If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest? 27Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 28If then God so clothe the grass, which is to day in the field, and to morrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? 29And seek not ye what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind. 30For all these things do the nations of the world seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things. 31But rather seek ye the kingdom of God; and all these things shall be added unto you. 32Fear not, little flock; for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom.

33Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. 34For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

35Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; 36And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately. 37Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. 38And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

39And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. 40Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

41Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? 42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 44Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

49I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled? 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished! 51Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: 52For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. 53The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

54And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. 55And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. 56Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?

57Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? 58When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. 59I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on July 30, 2010, 07:57:58 PM

58When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. 59I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

Who is the adversary with whom one must be reconciled in the way?  Is it the devil?  Is it one's conscience?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on July 30, 2010, 08:44:52 PM

58When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. 59I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

Who is the adversary with whom one must be reconciled in the way?  Is it the devil?  Is it one's conscience?

When we sin, do we not treat God and his laws in an adversarial manner?  Do we not appeal to one another to justify the transgression, turning hate to love, evil into goodness, wrong into right?  Do we not take the one accusing us to the magistrate of public or private opinion?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 01, 2010, 03:22:00 PM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 02, 2010, 01:15:58 AM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.

Well sir, If you are fully and wholly repentant and fully and wholly sanctified, my hat's off to ya!...and if you come to death still in that state then like all good Catholics who die fully sanctified, you will miss the pleasures of purification!!   God grant it be so for you.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 04, 2010, 11:54:15 AM
Well, then, this would make Jesus Christ our chief Adversary, since He is the fulfillment of the Law!   ;)

Seriously, God is not our adversary.  This is a position held by the Devil.  The Law is not our Adversary, because God pronounced the law to save mankind:

Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you.....
Keep his decrees and commands, which I am giving you today, so that it may go well with you and your children after you and that you may live long in the land the LORD your God gives you for all time. [De 4:1,40]


The commandments of the Lord do not condemn mankind unless man breaks the law, but it his disobedience that brings condemnation.

And, I would submit, that most sin is not committed in an adversarial manner to God.  I'm not sure the Jews who crucified Christ thought they were intentionally murdering God.  They hated Him as a man.  The problem of sin is the unintended consequences: Adam and Eve did not plan to be expelled from the Garden when they ate the apple, unless we want to read a whole lot into the story that was not there.  It would seem they were utterly surprised by the results.

The first magistrate we face is our own conscience.  Even when we complain to others it is to reinforce our own weak consciences, trying to assuage our gnawing doubts.

Ultimately, at the Last Judgment we face the Great Judge.





58When thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him; lest he hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and the officer cast thee into prison. 59I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite.

Who is the adversary with whom one must be reconciled in the way?  Is it the devil?  Is it one's conscience?

When we sin, do we not treat God and his laws in an adversarial manner?  Do we not appeal to one another to justify the transgression, turning hate to love, evil into goodness, wrong into right?  Do we not take the one accusing us to the magistrate of public or private opinion?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 04, 2010, 12:16:11 PM
Well, then, this would make Jesus Christ our chief Adversary, since He is the fulfillment of the Law!   ;)

Seriously, God is not our adversary.  This is a position held by the Devil.  The Law is not our Adversary, because God pronounced the law to save mankind:


LOL...Nice twist!!

Sin renders God and the Law as adversaries.

The devil need not even try to do what mankind does so well.  A slight prompting here and there a gentle nudge...and we happily turn what should be a relationship of love into an adversarial relationship.

Unless of course you think that sin is a sign of caritas....?

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 04, 2010, 01:23:51 PM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.

Well sir, If you are fully and wholly repentant and fully and wholly sanctified, my hat's off to ya!...and if you come to death still in that state then like all good Catholics who die fully sanctified, you will miss the pleasures of purification!!   God grant it be so for you.

M.

So in one part you refer to purgatory as a "purification" and another part as paying for our transgressions.  The former refers to the final steps of divinization/theosis and latter as paying for past sins.  They are really two distinct concepts... what are you saying that purgatory is?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 04, 2010, 01:31:45 PM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.

Well sir, If you are fully and wholly repentant and fully and wholly sanctified, my hat's off to ya!...and if you come to death still in that state then like all good Catholics who die fully sanctified, you will miss the pleasures of purification!!   God grant it be so for you.

M.

So in one part you refer to purgatory as a "purification" and another part as paying for our transgressions.  The former refers to the final steps of divinization/theosis and latter as paying for past sins.  They are really two distinct concepts... what are you saying that purgatory is?

The Catholic Church says that purgatory is a state or process of purification/restoration based upon our ability or lack of ability to use God's grace to have achieved dispassion and to have restored what we could of the consequences of our sins in our own lifetime.  If we are unable to do these things during our lifetime then, with grace and God's help, we will do so immediately thereafter. 

The Catholic Church does not suggest that this purification is some sort of full stop on the road to theosis, nor does she teach that theosis is a full stop experience.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 04, 2010, 02:13:47 PM
So in one part you refer to purgatory as a "purification" and another part as paying for our transgressions.  The former refers to the final steps of divinization/theosis and latter as paying for past sins.  They are really two distinct concepts... what are you saying that purgatory is?
I would say it's not one or the other, but both. Purgatory purifies the soul of any remaining venial sins as well as the temporal punishment due to sin. The fact that one is deprived of the beatific vision temporarily to undergo this purification could be considered a punishment since souls that are saved are no doubt eager to be fully in the presence of God.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 11:23:29 AM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.

Well sir, If you are fully and wholly repentant and fully and wholly sanctified, my hat's off to ya!...and if you come to death still in that state then like all good Catholics who die fully sanctified, you will miss the pleasures of purification!!   God grant it be so for you.

M.

So in one part you refer to purgatory as a "purification" and another part as paying for our transgressions.  The former refers to the final steps of divinization/theosis and latter as paying for past sins.  They are really two distinct concepts... what are you saying that purgatory is?

The Catholic Church says that purgatory is a state or process of purification/restoration based upon our ability or lack of ability to use God's grace to have achieved dispassion and to have restored what we could of the consequences of our sins in our own lifetime.

Source?  Infallible statement please.   You have made us acutely aware in several discussions that unless something has received an infallible definition it is merely a part of pious tradition and may be revamped or completely discarded in the future. 

Quote

The Catholic Church does not suggest that this purification is some sort of full stop on the road to theosis, nor does she teach that theosis is a full stop experience.

Source?  Infallible statement please.  For the same reasons as above.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 11:53:06 AM


Quote

The Catholic Church does not suggest that this purification is some sort of full stop on the road to theosis, nor does she teach that theosis is a full stop experience.

Source?  Infallible statement please.  For the same reasons as above.

Quote

CCC:  Life Goes On

VI. THE HOPE OF THE NEW HEAVEN AND THE NEW EARTH

1042 At the end of time, the Kingdom of God will come in its fullness. After the universal judgment, the righteous will reign for ever with Christ, glorified in body and soul. The universe itself will be renewed:

    The Church . . . will receive her perfection only in the glory of heaven, when will come the time of the renewal of all things. At that time, together with the human race, the universe itself, which is so closely related to man and which attains its destiny through him, will be perfectly re-established in Christ.631

1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth."632 It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."633

1044 In this new universe, the heavenly Jerusalem, God will have his dwelling among men.634 "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, for the former things have passed away."635

1045 For man, this consummation will be the final realization of the unity of the human race, which God willed from creation and of which the pilgrim Church has been "in the nature of sacrament."636 Those who are united with Christ will form the community of the redeemed, "the holy city" of God, "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb."637 She will not be wounded any longer by sin, stains, self-love, that destroy or wound the earthly community.638 The beatific vision, in which God opens himself in an inexhaustible way to the elect, will be the ever-flowing well-spring of happiness, peace, and mutual communion.

1046 For the cosmos, Revelation affirms the profound common destiny of the material world and man:

    For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God . . . in hope because the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay. . . . We know that the whole creation has been groaning in travail together until now; and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.639

1047 The visible universe, then, is itself destined to be transformed, "so that the world itself, restored to its original state, facing no further obstacles, should be at the service of the just," sharing their glorification in the risen Jesus Christ.640

1048 "We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men."641

1049 "Far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come. That is why, although we must be careful to distinguish earthly progress clearly from the increase of the kingdom of Christ, such progress is of vital concern to the kingdom of God, insofar as it can contribute to the better ordering of human society."642
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 12:11:36 PM
With regards to Luke 12...

Who has to pay? Isn't it the one who didn't settle with his accuser?

The whole of Luke 12 seems to be telling us to be aware and start living in Chris today and not wait until sometime down the road.  We need to die to the world today.  The one who ends up paying in the end sounds like it's the one that was never repentent.   I guess I don't really see how this has anything to do with being punished after after having asked for forgiveness.  I see this more about final judgement than a purification.

Well sir, If you are fully and wholly repentant and fully and wholly sanctified, my hat's off to ya!...and if you come to death still in that state then like all good Catholics who die fully sanctified, you will miss the pleasures of purification!!   God grant it be so for you.

M.

So in one part you refer to purgatory as a "purification" and another part as paying for our transgressions.  The former refers to the final steps of divinization/theosis and latter as paying for past sins.  They are really two distinct concepts... what are you saying that purgatory is?

The Catholic Church says that purgatory is a state or process of purification/restoration based upon our ability or lack of ability to use God's grace to have achieved dispassion and to have restored what we could of the consequences of our sins in our own lifetime.  If we are unable to do these things during our lifetime then, with grace and God's help, we will do so immediately thereafter. 

The Catholic Church does not suggest that this purification is some sort of full stop on the road to theosis, nor does she teach that theosis is a full stop experience.

M.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm#Rather

John Paul II Wednesday Catechesis on Purgation

Purgatory Is Necessary Purification

Before we enter into full communion with God, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated and every imperfection in our soul must be corrected

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 4 August 1999, following his catecheses on heaven and hell, the Holy Father reflected on Purgatory. He explained that physical integrity is necessary to enter into perfect communion with God therefore "the term purgatory does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence", where Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

1. As we have seen in the previous two catecheses, on the basis of the definitive option for or against God, the human being finds he faces one of these alternatives:  either to live with the Lord in eternal beatitude, or to remain far from his presence.

For those who find themselves in a condition of being open to God, but still imperfectly, the journey towards full beatitude requires a purification, which the faith of the Church illustrates in the doctrine of "Purgatory" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030-1032).

To share in divine life we must be totally purified

2. In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described. They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification.

According to Old Testament religious law, what is destined for God must be perfect. As a result, physical integrity is also specifically required for the realities which come into contact with God at the sacrificial level such as, for example, sacrificial animals (cf. Lv 22: 22) or at the institutional level, as in the case of priests or ministers of worship (cf. Lv 21: 17-23). Total dedication to the God of the Covenant, along the lines of the great teachings found in Deuteronomy (cf. 6: 5), and which must correspond to this physical integrity, is required of individuals and society as a whole (cf. 1 Kgs 8: 61). It is a matter of loving God with all one's being, with purity of heart and the witness of deeds (cf. ibid., 10: 12f.)

The need for integrity obviously becomes necessary after death, for entering into perfect and complete communion with God. Those who do not possess this integrity must undergo purification. This is suggested by a text of St Paul. The Apostle speaks of the value of each person's work which will be revealed on the day of judgement and says:  "If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3: 14-15).

3. At times, to reach a state of perfect integrity a person's intercession or mediation is needed. For example, Moses obtains pardon for the people with a prayer in which he recalls the saving work done by God in the past, and prays for God's fidelity to the oath made to his ancestors (cf. Ex 32: 30, 11-13). The figure of the Servant of the Lord, outlined in the Book of Isaiah, is also portrayed by his role of intercession and expiation for many; at the end of his suffering he "will see the light" and "will justify many", bearing their iniquities (cf. Is 52: 13-53, 12, especially vv. 53: 11).

Psalm 51 can be considered, according to the perspective of the Old Testament, as a synthesis of the process of reintegration:  the sinner confesses and recognizes his guilt (v. 3), asking insistently to be purified or "cleansed" (vv. 2, 9, 10, 17) so as to proclaim the divine praise (v. 15).

Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence

4. In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5: 7; 7: 25). But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and "victim of expiation" for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2).

Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgement for those who refuse the Father's love and forgiveness.

This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a "[bond] of perfect harmony" (Col 3: 14).

5. In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5: 48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father "at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints" (1 Thes 3: 12f.). Moreover, we are invited to "cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit" (2 Cor 7: 1; cf. 1 Jn 3: 3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis:  DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione:  DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio:  DS 1820).

It is necessary to explain that the state of purification is not a prolungation of the earthly condition, almost as if after death one were given another possibility to change one's destiny. The Church's teaching in this regard is unequivocal and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council which teaches:  "Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9: 27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth' (Mt 22: 13 and 25: 30)" (Lumen gentium, n. 48).

6. One last important aspect which the Church's tradition has always pointed out should be reproposed today:  the dimension of "communio". Those, in fact, who find themselves in the state of purification are united both with the blessed who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life, and with us on this earth on our way towards the Father's house (cf. CCC, n. 1032).

Just as in their earthly life believers are united in the one Mystical Body, so after death those who live in a state of purification experience the same ecclesial solidarity which works through prayer, prayers for suffrage and love for their other brothers and sisters in the faith. Purification is lived in the essential bond created between those who live in this world and those who enjoy eternal beatitude.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 04:02:38 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 05:15:10 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion. 

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 05:25:26 PM

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm#Rather

John Paul II Wednesday Catechesis on Purgation

Purgatory Is Necessary Purification


1.  The Orthodox receive their faith throught the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

The amazingly superficial way in which the traditional teaching of purgatory as a place and a state was changed by Pope John Paul in a couple of lunchtime homilies is a case in point.   In a few minutes while people were munching on their sandwiches the Pope did away with the traditional teaching.  The Catholic world applauds this. I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox

But wait a moment, it was merely an opinion of Pope John Paul.  There was no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.  There is no reason at all why the next Pope cannot alter the teaching again, revert it to what was traditionally believed or add in new elements.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 05:54:37 PM
1.  The Orthodox receive their faith throught the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

The amazingly superficial way in which the traditional teaching of purgatory as a place and a state was changed by Pope John Paul in a couple of lunchtime homilies is a case in point.   In a few minutes while people were munching on their sandwiches the Pope did away with the traditional teaching.  The Catholic world applauds this. I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox

But wait a moment, it was merely an opinion of Pope John Paul.  There was no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.  There is no reason at all why the next Pope cannot alter the teaching again, revert it to what was traditionally believed or add in new elements.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to Catholic teaching is stunning. The only thing about purgatory that is doctrinal and must be believed always is that it exists. The nature of purgatory has never been defined, so it is inaccurate to say that Pope John Paul II "changed" anything because that implies that there already was a doctrinal teaching in place concerning the nature of purgatory. The faithful are free to  either believe that purgatory is a hellish place that people go to to be brutally and violent purged or the faithful are free to believe that it is a peaceful and pleasant process that the soul goes through, or anything in between. Pope John Paul II was offering a theological opinion. We are in no way bound to believe his view on purgatory, nor are we bound to believe the older view that purgatory is horrible and similar to hell.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 06:05:17 PM
1.  The Orthodox receive their faith throught the transmission of the sacred Tradition which takes a variety of forms.   Bishops, priests and laity alike are all guardians of the Traditon and must be obedient to it.

2.  Catholics on the other hand are expected to be submissive to the Magisterium and to its official Magisterial teachings.  Whatever of their traditon has not been codified into a Magisterial teaching is really nothing more than what the Orthodox might call theologoumena.

I have learnt this major difference between our Churches in the way we approach the faith the hard way.   I instinctively fall into the error of thinking that Catholics are subject to Tradition and I have often written of their traditional beliefs as if they are a certain part of their faith.  In the absence of a magisterial teaching they are not.  They are only an interim belief/opinion on which you cannot place much reliance.

I think I have written about this here previously?  Teachings which have been taught and believed for centuries as part of Tradition within Catholicism may be annulled and superseded by subsequent teachings and definitions.

The amazingly superficial way in which the traditional teaching of purgatory as a place and a state was changed by Pope John Paul in a couple of lunchtime homilies is a case in point.   In a few minutes while people were munching on their sandwiches the Pope did away with the traditional teaching.  The Catholic world applauds this. I fear that this unserious approach to doctrine and tradition bodes ill for the dialogue with the Orthodox

But wait a moment, it was merely an opinion of Pope John Paul.  There was no official papal proclamation, no Council, no consultation with the Magisterium, no Magisterial pronouncement.  There is no reason at all why the next Pope cannot alter the teaching again, revert it to what was traditionally believed or add in new elements.

Your lack of understanding when it comes to Catholic teaching is stunning. The only thing about purgatory that is doctrinal and must be believed always is that it exists. The nature of purgatory has never been defined, so it is inaccurate to say that Pope John Paul II "changed" anything because that implies that there already was a doctrinal teaching in place concerning the nature of purgatory.

Thank you.  You have confirmed exactly what I was saying.  In the absence of a magisterial definition no teaching in Roman Catholicism has any certainty.  It does not matter if it has been part of Roman Catholic tradition and teaching for hundreds of years.  If it has not had a magisterial definition it can be changed and discarded.

This is in sharp contrast to the Orthodox who believe that their faith is embodied in their Tradition and who have resorted to "magisterial" prouncements (i.e., conciliar statements) only when the faith has come under serious attack by enemies and needs a firm explanation and emphasis.

For example, we have no "magisterial" pronouncement on the Real Presence in the Eucharist but our Tradition would make it impossible to deny.  We have no "magisterial" pronouncement on the assumption of the Mother of God but the Tradition makes it quite impossible to deny.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 06:26:21 PM

Your lack of understanding when it comes to Catholic teaching is stunning. The only thing about purgatory that is doctrinal and must be believed always is that it exists.

Reading Wyatt's post (and Mary's also) I see that they are not in accord with papal teaching -ironic considering that it is always the Orthodox being told they do not understand Purgatory correctly.   What is being portrayed is a version of Purgatory Lite, a happy clappy Purgatory.

The papal teaching differs.

The Petrine teaching of Pope Paul VI, 1967:

"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

So, the Pope says, expiation, fire, torments, purifying punishments.  These are the facts of what is taking place in Purgatory but Mary and Wyatt would rather overlook these facts.

I stand amazed that you know so little about your official Church teaching on Purgatory and you want to reduce it all to the statement:  Purgatory exists.!

It is possible to provide the words of Popes and theologians from centuries past which demonstrate that the Catholic Church teaches that souls are purified by the torment of purgatorial fire.     All that you are offering is a modern 20th century revamping of the doctrine.

Have you read the Catholic explanation of purgatory offered to the Orthodox at the Council of Florence?  The Council spent three months on the question of purgatorial FIRE and I believe that its teaching is viewed as infallible.

"From the time of the Apostles, the Church of Rome has taught.... The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according, to their sins.." Florence.


"The same fire torments the damned in hell and the just in Purgatory. The least pain in Purgatory exceeds the greatest in this life." - St. Thomas Aquinas.

" "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."  Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967

Wyatt, if you do not know the teaching of your Church, I urge you to do some study.  There is an enormous lot of material on it.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 08:02:03 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion. 

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed devout Catholic widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous near torture and hardship suffering terribly to support themselves and save for college in a filthy sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise? 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 08:08:42 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does not ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 08:18:55 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion. 

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise? 

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 08:51:43 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 09:17:26 PM
There is nothing in the following catechesis that either demands or negates the possibility of a purifying "fire" but just as God's energies may be likened to the rays of the sun, so too may the graces of purgation be likened to a purifying fire....a fire that refines and removes all impurities.

It is simply false to say that the teaching on purgation today is not that of the teaching yesterday.  

That kind of assertion is made generally in ignorance or malice but it is certainly NOT made in the fullness of truth and understanding of the patristic heritage in the Catholic west.

Mary


http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm#Rather

John Paul II Wednesday Catechesis on Purgation

Purgatory Is Necessary Purification

Before we enter into full communion with God, every trace of sin within us must be eliminated and every imperfection in our soul must be corrected

At the General Audience of Wednesday, 4 August 1999, following his catecheses on heaven and hell, the Holy Father reflected on Purgatory. He explained that physical integrity is necessary to enter into perfect communion with God therefore "the term purgatory does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence", where Christ "removes ... the remnants of imperfection".

1. As we have seen in the previous two catecheses, on the basis of the definitive option for or against God, the human being finds he faces one of these alternatives:  either to live with the Lord in eternal beatitude, or to remain far from his presence.

For those who find themselves in a condition of being open to God, but still imperfectly, the journey towards full beatitude requires a purification, which the faith of the Church illustrates in the doctrine of "Purgatory" (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1030-1032).

To share in divine life we must be totally purified

2. In Sacred Scripture, we can grasp certain elements that help us to understand the meaning of this doctrine, even if it is not formally described. They express the belief that we cannot approach God without undergoing some kind of purification.

According to Old Testament religious law, what is destined for God must be perfect. As a result, physical integrity is also specifically required for the realities which come into contact with God at the sacrificial level such as, for example, sacrificial animals (cf. Lv 22: 22) or at the institutional level, as in the case of priests or ministers of worship (cf. Lv 21: 17-23). Total dedication to the God of the Covenant, along the lines of the great teachings found in Deuteronomy (cf. 6: 5), and which must correspond to this physical integrity, is required of individuals and society as a whole (cf. 1 Kgs 8: 61). It is a matter of loving God with all one's being, with purity of heart and the witness of deeds (cf. ibid., 10: 12f.)

The need for integrity obviously becomes necessary after death, for entering into perfect and complete communion with God. Those who do not possess this integrity must undergo purification. This is suggested by a text of St Paul. The Apostle speaks of the value of each person's work which will be revealed on the day of judgement and says:  "If the work which any man has built on the foundation [which is Christ] survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3: 14-15).

3. At times, to reach a state of perfect integrity a person's intercession or mediation is needed. For example, Moses obtains pardon for the people with a prayer in which he recalls the saving work done by God in the past, and prays for God's fidelity to the oath made to his ancestors (cf. Ex 32: 30, 11-13). The figure of the Servant of the Lord, outlined in the Book of Isaiah, is also portrayed by his role of intercession and expiation for many; at the end of his suffering he "will see the light" and "will justify many", bearing their iniquities (cf. Is 52: 13-53, 12, especially vv. 53: 11).

Psalm 51 can be considered, according to the perspective of the Old Testament, as a synthesis of the process of reintegration:  the sinner confesses and recognizes his guilt (v. 3), asking insistently to be purified or "cleansed" (vv. 2, 9, 10, 17) so as to proclaim the divine praise (v. 15).

Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence

4. In the New Testament Christ is presented as the intercessor who assumes the functions of high priest on the day of expiation (cf. Heb 5: 7; 7: 25). But in him the priesthood is presented in a new and definitive form. He enters the heavenly shrine once and for all, to intercede with God on our behalf (cf. Heb 9: 23-26, especially, v. 24). He is both priest and "victim of expiation" for the sins of the whole world (cf. 1 Jn 2: 2).

Jesus, as the great intercessor who atones for us, will fully reveal himself at the end of our life when he will express himself with the offer of mercy, but also with the inevitable judgement for those who refuse the Father's love and forgiveness.

This offer of mercy does not exclude the duty to present ourselves to God, pure and whole, rich in that love which Paul calls a "[bond] of perfect harmony" (Col 3: 14).

5. In following the Gospel exhortation to be perfect like the heavenly Father (cf. Mt 5: 48) during our earthly life, we are called to grow in love, to be sound and flawless before God the Father "at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints" (1 Thes 3: 12f.). Moreover, we are invited to "cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit" (2 Cor 7: 1; cf. 1 Jn 3: 3), because the encounter with God requires absolute purity.

Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis:  DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione:  DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio:  DS 1820).

It is necessary to explain that the state of purification is not a prolungation of the earthly condition, almost as if after death one were given another possibility to change one's destiny. The Church's teaching in this regard is unequivocal and was reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council which teaches:  "Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed (cf. Heb 9: 27), we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where "men will weep and gnash their teeth' (Mt 22: 13 and 25: 30)" (Lumen gentium, n. 48).

6. One last important aspect which the Church's tradition has always pointed out should be reproposed today:  the dimension of "communio". Those, in fact, who find themselves in the state of purification are united both with the blessed who already enjoy the fullness of eternal life, and with us on this earth on our way towards the Father's house (cf. CCC, n. 1032).

Just as in their earthly life believers are united in the one Mystical Body, so after death those who live in a state of purification experience the same ecclesial solidarity which works through prayer, prayers for suffrage and love for their other brothers and sisters in the faith. Purification is lived in the essential bond created between those who live in this world and those who enjoy eternal beatitude.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 10:13:17 PM
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education. 
And here you have hit on a very good point. Purgatory quite simply makes sense. When I was still a Protestant I remember reading a tract (ugh...Chick Tracts *sigh*) that really rubbed me the wrong way even as a Protestant. I just didn't think it was quite right. In it there was a couple who did countless good works throughout their life including giving money to charity and helping the poor in various ways. They were also very active in their church. Yet, at the end of the tract they go to hell because they did not specifically "accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior" through prayer. There was another character in the tract who was a horrible man who did countless terrible things throughout his life and made many people suffer. However, right before he dies he "accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior" and is immediately taken into heaven. This always rubbed me the wrong way because such a thing is completely unfair. The countless good things that the first couple did meant absolutely nothing and they still went to hell. Likewise, the countless horrible things the man did throughout his life did not matter either. The simple fact that he said a quick minute long prayer at the end of his life completely wiped his slate clean and he went directly to heaven. I had trouble accepting such a teaching then and I absolutely reject that teaching now. It hurts me intellectually to think of it. That is not justice, that is completely unfair. Unfortunately, I am saddened to see that really the Orthodox hold a view that isn't that far away from this. Apparently you can sin like crazy as long as you are right with God before you die and you get an automatic green light to immediately enter eternal bliss. There is no expiation, there is no justice. It is for this reason that I shall always believe in purgatory because the existence of purgatory just makes sense. Anything else is unfair. Of course God is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a God of justice. Purgatory itself is an act of mercy because without it, all would go to hell because nothing unclean enters heaven. Purgatory does not negate what Christ did on Calvary. Indeed, Purgatory exists because of Calvary. It is the means of purification before experiencing the Beatific Vision. As I posted earlier, in Spe Salvi Pope Benedict suggests that the fire of purgatory is Christ himself and He cleanses us and makes us holy as we embark on the journey to heaven.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Melodist on August 05, 2010, 10:17:38 PM
But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them

If anyone was truly able to just "undo" the sinful things they have done, Christ would not have had to die on a cross because we would be able to heal ourselves.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 10:18:59 PM
But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them

If anyone was truly able to just "undo" the sinful things they have done, Christ would not have had to die on a cross because we would be able to heal ourselves.
You're getting forgiveness mixed up with expiation.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 10:20:32 PM
But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them

If anyone was truly able to just "undo" the sinful things they have done, Christ would not have had to die on a cross because we would be able to heal ourselves.

We participate in Christ's salvific actions.  That is a universal Catholic teaching.  Orthodox believe that as well, so I have been told.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 10:22:26 PM
But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them

If anyone was truly able to just "undo" the sinful things they have done, Christ would not have had to die on a cross because we would be able to heal ourselves.
You're getting forgiveness mixed up with expiation.

It is more than that Wyatt.  Expiation itself is participation in the saving acts of Jesus Christ.  We participate with him in the actions of the Cross and Resurrection.  We participate with him in redemption and restoration.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 10:23:16 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 10:27:31 PM
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education. 
And here you have hit on a very good point. Purgatory quite simply makes sense. When I was still a Protestant I remember reading a tract (ugh...Chick Tracts *sigh*) that really rubbed me the wrong way even as a Protestant. I just didn't think it was quite right. In it there was a couple who did countless good works throughout their life including giving money to charity and helping the poor in various ways. They were also very active in their church. Yet, at the end of the tract they go to hell because they did not specifically "accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior" through prayer. There was another character in the tract who was a horrible man who did countless terrible things throughout his life and made many people suffer. However, right before he dies he "accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior" and is immediately taken into heaven. This always rubbed me the wrong way because such a thing is completely unfair. The countless good things that the first couple did meant absolutely nothing and they still went to hell. Likewise, the countless horrible things the man did throughout his life did not matter either. The simple fact that he said a quick minute long prayer at the end of his life completely wiped his slate clean and he went directly to heaven. I had trouble accepting such a teaching then and I absolutely reject that teaching now. It hurts me intellectually to think of it. That is not justice, that is completely unfair. Unfortunately, I am saddened to see that really the Orthodox hold a view that isn't that far away from this. Apparently you can sin like crazy as long as you are right with God before you die and you get an automatic green light to immediately enter eternal bliss. There is no expiation, there is no justice. It is for this reason that I shall always believe in purgatory because the existence of purgatory just makes sense. Anything else is unfair. Of course God is a God of love and mercy, but He is also a God of justice. Purgatory itself is an act of mercy because without it, all would go to hell because nothing unclean enters heaven. Purgatory does not negate what Christ did on Calvary. Indeed, Purgatory exists because of Calvary. It is the means of purification before experiencing the Beatific Vision. As I posted earlier, in Spe Salvi Pope Benedict suggests that the fire of purgatory is Christ himself and He cleanses us and makes us holy as we embark on the journey to heaven.
Yes, of course you are absolutely correct.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 10:35:09 PM
Stanley,

We shall have to agree to differ.

1.  Roman Catholics have developed a theology whereby God requires two types pf punishment for sin, the eternal/infinite and the temporal.

According to them the temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.

2.  The Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishmnmet.

Therefore for the Orthodox there is no sense in Purgatory.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 10:40:26 PM
1.  Roman Catholics have developed a theology whereby God requires two types pf punishment for sin, the eternal/infinite and the temporal.
Alright, I'm with you so far.

According to them the temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.
Wrong. Purgatorial expiation would not be possible without the Sacrifice of Calvary. If Christ had not died and rose again, we would still be hanging out in Sheol after we died. The fact that the soul undergoes purgatory on its way to heaven is solely because of Christ's sacrifice.

2.  The Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishmnmet.

Therefore for the Orthodox there is no sense in Purgatory.
And so you follow a simplistic, semi-Protestant view of salvation. Alrighty...to each his own I suppose.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 10:46:53 PM
1.  Roman Catholics have developed a theology whereby God requires two types pf punishment for sin, the eternal/infinite and the temporal.
Alright, I'm with you so far.

According to them the temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.
Wrong. Purgatorial expiation would not be possible without the Sacrifice of Calvary. If Christ had not died and rose again, we would still be hanging out in Sheol after we died. The fact that the soul undergoes purgatory on its way to heaven is solely because of Christ's sacrifice.

2.  The Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishmnmet.

Therefore for the Orthodox there is no sense in Purgatory.
And so you follow a simplistic, semi-Protestant view of salvation. Alrighty...to each his own I suppose.

Call it what you like, but our theology precedes Protestantism by a millennium and more.

I am surprised that a Greek Catholic (Mary) is supporting Purgatory.  The only Greek Catholics I know are Ukrainian bishops, priests and faithful.  They adamantly deny Purgatory and the concepts which underlie it. It is clear to me that many Catholics agree with the Othodox and not with the Pope.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 05, 2010, 10:50:31 PM
1.  Roman Catholics have developed a theology whereby God requires two types pf punishment for sin, the eternal/infinite and the temporal.
Alright, I'm with you so far.

According to them the temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.



Wrong. Purgatorial expiation would not be possible without the Sacrifice of Calvary. If Christ had not died and rose again, we would still be hanging out in Sheol after we died. The fact that the soul undergoes purgatory on its way to heaven is solely because of Christ's sacrifice.

What is wrong?

1. I said - temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.

And it is not. It remains as a noose around the neck of every sinner.  It is not atoned for by Christ.

1.  I said -  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.

And so it does.

So what is *wrong*?

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 05, 2010, 10:51:16 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 10:51:33 PM
Stanley,

We shall have to agree to differ.
OK.
I am only trying to explain what makes sense to me, as I have outlined above.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 05, 2010, 10:58:39 PM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
You haven't explained why it is fair to let the widow and her family suffer years and years a hellish life of poverty and suffering on earth, but let the disgusting criminal go scot free as he instantly at the moment of death. laughs with happiness and  goes into eternal bliss in paradise. So what you say with reference to Purgatory,  does not make sense to me.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 05, 2010, 11:09:41 PM
What is wrong?

This:

1. I said - temporal punishment is not taken care of through the Sacrifice of Christ on the the Cross.
Isn't it though? Prior to Christ's sacrifice, absolutely everyone who died went to Sheol. Now, after Christ's death and resurrection, there is heaven and the intermediate state that exists prior to heaven which the Western Church refers to as purgatory. If such a thing didn't exist before Christ's death on the Cross, but exists after His death, does that not suggest that purgatory exists because of Christ's sacrifice?

And it is not. It remains as a noose around the neck of every sinner.  It is not atoned for by Christ.
I doubt anyone undergoing purgatory sees it that way since they know that the fact they are experiencing purgatory means they are saved. If I died right now and began experiencing purgatory I would rejoice regardless of whether it was peaceful or horrid as I would know I was on the right path.

1.  I said -  It has to have personal expiation by the sinner.
The sinner did not put themselves in purgatory by their own power. Purgation was the state their soul went into after their personal judgment. How do you figure that the sinner is purging themselves? Even if one does expiation on earth for their sins, it is the grace of God which compels them to do good works.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 12:19:43 AM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
You haven't explained why it is fair to let the widow and her family suffer years and years a hellish life of poverty and suffering on earth, but let the disgusting criminal go scot free as he instantly at the moment of death. laughs with happiness and  goes into eternal bliss in paradise. So what you say with reference to Purgatory,  does not make sense to me.

I offered the example of the workers in the vineyard to indicate that its not simply my opinion that God's ways are not our ways.   Your idea of "justice" in your example may not be God's idea at all...most likely is not.

Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works

Purgation is a continuation of our participation in the salvific and restorative acts of Jesus Christ.  Purgatory is an act of grace...and it is not OUR act.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 02:45:22 AM
Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works
I don't deny that some people say that I am a heretic. But regardless of whether someone calls me a heretic or not, I am only giving what appears to make sense to me. I don't see where anyone has explained  how it is fair for a disgusting criminal to be smiling and laughing in eternal joy in paradise, while the widow and her family, including her crippled and paralysed daughter, are suffering through years of horror and pain - a real hell on earth because of the crimes committed against them by this thief who has given no restitution at all. Nothing. Nada to the widow and her suffering family.  Some people might say this is heresy, but still,  I don't see the justice in this situation? What people say about this criminal going directly to heaven without any intermediate purification just does not make sense to me. I am not buying it. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 08:17:26 AM
Do the Popes go to Purgatory?

The merits needed to operate the system of indulgences is the treasury of merits from two sources:

1. The merits gained by Christ by His sacrifice on the Cross

2.  The superfluous (supererogatory) merits of the Saints.  This is the excess of merits which they gained above and beyond what they needed for their salvation.


This treasury of merits is at the full disposal of the Popes.   Through the system of of indulgences they award these merits to other Catholics and they set the conditions for obtaining them.


So, do the Popes award themselves Plenary Indulgences?  Do they never go to Purgatory?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 06, 2010, 08:20:03 AM
Isn't it though? Prior to Christ's sacrifice, absolutely everyone who died went to Sheol.
Side bar discussion... Enoch & Elijah didn't go to sheol...
According to Jews though when the Messiah comes on the Mt. of Olives the dead will rise. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 08:32:59 AM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
You haven't explained why it is fair to let the widow and her family suffer years and years a hellish life of poverty and suffering on earth, but let the disgusting criminal go scot free as he instantly at the moment of death. laughs with happiness and  goes into eternal bliss in paradise. So what you say with reference to Purgatory,  does not make sense to me.

I offered the example of the workers in the vineyard to indicate that its not simply my opinion that God's ways are not our ways.   Your idea of "justice" in your example may not be God's idea at all...most likely is not.

Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works

Would you say that the Pope is sailing close to heresy with his teaching below?  Or would you say that he is an outright heretic?

"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967  
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html


Quote
Purgation is a continuation of our participation in the salvific and restorative acts of Jesus Christ.  Purgatory is an act of grace...and it is not OUR act.

I am sure that you could be right but since there is absolutely no magisterial definition to support what you are saying, you are probably incorrect and imposing your own preferred religious philosophy.

We see a contrary teaching to yours in the words of the Pope above in blue.   He mentions nothing of what you claim but he uses his magisterial authority to teach the faithful of the Catholic Church of expiation, fire, torments, purifying punishments.  These are the facts of what is taking place in Purgatory but I do not believe I have ever seen you mention them.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 09:29:42 AM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion.  

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise?  

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education.  

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it.  


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
You haven't explained why it is fair to let the widow and her family suffer years and years a hellish life of poverty and suffering on earth, but let the disgusting criminal go scot free as he instantly at the moment of death. laughs with happiness and  goes into eternal bliss in paradise. So what you say with reference to Purgatory,  does not make sense to me.

I offered the example of the workers in the vineyard to indicate that its not simply my opinion that God's ways are not our ways.   Your idea of "justice" in your example may not be God's idea at all...most likely is not.

Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works

Would you say that the Pope is sailing close to heresy with his teaching below?  Or would you say that he is an outright heretic?

"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967  
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html


Quote
Purgation is a continuation of our participation in the salvific and restorative acts of Jesus Christ.  Purgatory is an act of grace...and it is not OUR act.

I am sure that you could be right but since there is absolutely no magisterial definition to support what you are saying, you are probably incorrect and imposing your own preferred religious philosophy.

We see a contrary teaching to yours in the words of the Pope above in blue.   He mentions nothing of what you claim but he uses his magisterial authority to teach the faithful of the Catholic Church of expiation, fire, torments, purifying punishments.  These are the facts of what is taking place in Purgatory but I do not believe I have ever seen you mention them.


I mentioned them several times in this thread.  I have offered formal teaching.

You have your drum. 

Pound on.

It does not make you either accurate or correct.

You hate Toll House theology with the same passion.

I think you are dead wrong.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 09:35:25 AM
Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works
I don't deny that some people say that I am a heretic. But regardless of whether someone calls me a heretic or not, I am only giving what appears to make sense to me. I don't see where anyone has explained  how it is fair for a disgusting criminal to be smiling and laughing in eternal joy in paradise, while the widow and her family, including her crippled and paralysed daughter, are suffering through years of horror and pain - a real hell on earth because of the crimes committed against them by this thief who has given no restitution at all. Nothing. Nada to the widow and her suffering family.  Some people might say this is heresy, but still,  I don't see the justice in this situation? What people say about this criminal going directly to heaven without any intermediate purification just does not make sense to me. I am not buying it. 

I am not calling you a heretic.  That is silly.  I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.

It is a Protestant tendency.

Also it is clearly understood among Catholics who follow the saints and doctors of the Church that this ideal of equality in justice is a product of Reformed thinking and the Enlightenment.

Catholics understand that the good do not always get what they "deserve" in human terms, nor do the wicked always get their just deserts...again in human terms.

It is one test for being able to discern which Catholics pay attention to certain parts of Scripture, to the Fathers, particularly the desert fathers, and to the saints and doctors of the Church.

This world is NOT our home.  It is a fallen world and Jesus taught us NOT to expect human-bound equality from God...very explicitly in a very powerful gospel teaching.

Do I fault you for your thinking?  No.  It is the way you've been taught to see the world. 

There is another and more Catholic way.  That is all that I am saying to you.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 09:53:05 AM
I am trying to understand the Orthodox view on this, so please excuse this question. Suppose that a thief breaks into the online bank account of a widow and steals money from the account  worth $35,000. the widow was going to use this money for tuition for her son and daughter at the local college. The thief then spends the money for a vacation of some sort. Then he goes to confession and says he is sorry for having stolen this money from the widow. The priest tells him to give restitution to the widow so that her son and daughter can go to college. The thief agrees, but then as he is leaving Church he is killed in a tragic traffic accident. Now according to Catholic belief, the thief will have to undergo Purgatory, since the widow is still out the $35000. What is the Orthodox view on this. Will the thief then go directly to heaven even though the widow's children will be deprived of a college education and will have to spend years working in a sweatshop factory trying to support their mother and at the same time trying to get enough money to get themselves an education in college?

What Christ has taught us about this is given to us in the parable of the Prodigal Son and his return to his father.  Read it and re-read it.   Not a bank account or a poor widow in sight.  God's relationship with us is NOT the same as ours to the aggrieved widow.

Christ's teaching is reinforced in the parable of the Two Debtors, one of whom was unconditionally forgiven his debt and had to make no repayments.

Both parables are really worth meditating on.  They do away with this legalistic approach of "consequences" and bank accounts.

Partly we may blame Anselm for the modern Catholic understanding of God as an aggrieved widow or an outraged ruler. In Anselm's formulation, our sins were like an offence against the honour of a mighty ruler. The ruler is not free to simply forgive the transgression; restitution must be made. This is a crucial new element in the story; earlier Christians believed that God the Father did, in fact, freely forgive us, like the father of the Prodigal Son - that parable really deserves very serious thought in connection with this discussion. 

There is no such thing as "temporal punishment" due to sin.   That is a modern construal of Roman Catholic theology and one which I would hope they are moving away from.  It will certainly have to be abandoned to achieve union with the Orthodox.


So according to the Orthodox teaching, there is no justice for the robbed widow and her children who have to spend years of tremendous hardship suffering in a sweatshop? But you reward the criminal with eternal paradise? 

Stan, you're pulling my leg? ;D  Hopefully there will be justice for the widow and her children.

But as I pointed out above, let's not confuse God's relationship with us with the widow or a broken window (the example someone used a day or two back.)

Look at the teachings of Christ in the parables of the Prodigal Son and the Two Debtors.  God forgives and does nor ask for "restitution" from us.  It is something which we, being finite beings, cannot accomplish anyway.
No. I don;t think it is right. That is why Purgatory makes a whole lot of sense to me. Yes, the thief is sorry and has repented and confessed his sin. But if he dies without paying back the devout Catholic widow and her children what he has taken from them, then he will still have to pay for his temporal debt due to this terrible sin. Otherwise, we do not see justice and we know that God is all just. I don;t see how you can say Oh well, he made a small mistake so we will reward him with eternal salvation on the spot, even though the widow and her children have to endure years and years of cruel torment and suffering working and sweating in one of these filthy sweatships. Where is your mercy and kindness and sense of justice for this poor devout  Catholic widow and her family whose life savings have been taken from her without any restitution?
Yes, this thief will escape hell, since he has confessed and shown repentance for his sin. But still, because God is an all Just God, the thief will not go scot free and enter into paradise while the widow and her family are suffering this horrible hell and torment on earth trying to make ends meet and at the same time trying to save for a college education. 

He can be freed Stanley, IF, as with the good thief, Jesus chooses to release him by grace before he dies...If not he will release him by grace after he dies.

You have the right of it. 


Mary
No. I don't see that happening. Here is a widow with several children trying to make ends meet and her whole life savings have been robbed thus depriving her children of a better life and college education. On top of that, the thief has burned down her house, shot one of the children leaving her paralyzed and in a semi-coma for life,  and thereby left her and her children with a terrible hardship and hellish nightmare of suffering on earth for years and years. Now, you tell me that it is perfectly just and right that this thief, who has committed these terrible acts and given no restitution to this poor and decent widow and her family, simply goes to a Church, makes the sign of the cross, and beats his breast saying he is sorry and due to a traffic accident, he dies as he leave the Church and  he then goes straight to heaven and paradise without making any restitution and all the while the devout Catholic widow and her family and paralysed daughter have to endure years and years of terrible suffering and hardship and hunger on earth? Do you know what it is like to see your daughter in a semi-coma, paralyzed and helpless, and at the same time  have to endure this type of nightmarish hunger and starvation and poverty  imposed by a criminal element of society?  If God is a just God, why would He accept this criminal scot free into heaven and let this poor decent and devout Catholic widow and family suffer a veritable hell on earth for years and years?
I don;t see it. What makes sense to me is that the thief will have to undergo a time in Purgatory since he did not make any restitution to this widow and her family. Yes, he repented, and he will therefore avoid hell. But there was no restitution so there is still left a temporal punishment due to sin.
There are a lot of things which may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bible but nevertheless, they hold true.

 

I am afraid it does not matter if you see it happening or not.  The Church through the tradition of her saints and doctors teach us that God's justice is not our justice...or mercy.  It is also pretty clear in some of Paul's letters that we are not all graced in the same way, in the same measure.

It would make an interesting side discussion of its own.

M.
You haven't explained why it is fair to let the widow and her family suffer years and years a hellish life of poverty and suffering on earth, but let the disgusting criminal go scot free as he instantly at the moment of death. laughs with happiness and  goes into eternal bliss in paradise. So what you say with reference to Purgatory,  does not make sense to me.

I offered the example of the workers in the vineyard to indicate that its not simply my opinion that God's ways are not our ways.   Your idea of "justice" in your example may not be God's idea at all...most likely is not.

Purgatory is not mankind's actions used to "square" things, in any event.  That is the heresy of works

Would you say that the Pope is sailing close to heresy with his teaching below?  Or would you say that he is an outright heretic?

"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html


Quote
Purgation is a continuation of our participation in the salvific and restorative acts of Jesus Christ.  Purgatory is an act of grace...and it is not OUR act.

I am sure that you could be right but since there is absolutely no magisterial definition to support what you are saying, you are probably incorrect and imposing your own preferred religious philosophy.

We see a contrary teaching to yours in the words of the Pope above in blue.   He mentions nothing of what you claim but he uses his magisterial authority to teach the faithful of the Catholic Church of expiation, fire, torments, purifying punishments.  These are the facts of what is taking place in Purgatory but I do not believe I have ever seen you mention them.


I mentioned them several times in this thread.  I have offered formal teaching.


You have not offered formal teaching about Purgatory.  You frequently offer, as in this case, what we can see are your own our deeply held and even well reasoned convictions.   But they lack a magisterial definition and so you must not claim them as "formal teaching."  That tends to mislead the readers of this forum.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 10:03:24 AM

You have not offered formal teaching about Purgatory.  You frequently offer, as in this case, what we can see are your own our deeply held and even well reasoned convictions.   But they lack a magisterial definition and so you must not claim them as "formal teaching."  That tends to mislead the readers of this forum.

See above.

I don't post any of my own ideas.  I post what I have learned formally from my Church, in formal classroom settings and by correspondence and by spiritual formation with experienced teachers and an exceptionally well educated and holy spiritual father.... :angel:  I even have competent and holy Orthodox clergy and monastics who teach me what they can when they have time.

I am most fortunate in many regards.  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 

I keep you daily in my prayers.  It is a serious and necessary spiritual exercise for me.  I hope in the end it does us both some good.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:31:50 AM

  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 11:42:30 AM

  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.

I adhere to the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, not its various and sundry perversions.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 06, 2010, 11:43:52 AM
Isn't it though? Prior to Christ's sacrifice, absolutely everyone who died went to Sheol.
Side bar discussion... Enoch & Elijah didn't go to sheol...
According to Jews though when the Messiah comes on the Mt. of Olives the dead will rise. 
True, however notice that I said "everyone who died went to Sheol." Neither Enoch nor Elijah died.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 06, 2010, 11:50:51 AM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 12:08:19 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 06, 2010, 12:09:22 PM
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.




  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 06, 2010, 12:11:17 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 12:14:36 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 12:16:25 PM
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 06, 2010, 01:11:12 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.

So in the Catholic teaching...  is purgatory for the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed... or does it include all sins that they have been forgiven and have even bore fruits of their repentance?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FatherGiryus on August 06, 2010, 01:34:59 PM
Ah, Mary, the smell of red herring on the morning of a fast... no odor compares!   ;)


We've been through that one before, and none of it (especially as an isolated and late controversy with no official standing!) compares to the intellectual somersaults we've had to watch you endure to get through Infallibility, Filioque, Temporal Punishment, etc. and trying to figure out which statement and when is the 'most correct' or valid.

I know it is difficult for you to defend all this, but it is even more difficult to watch this dance as a bystander...  ;D



To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 01:45:18 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.

So in the Catholic teaching...  is purgatory for the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed... or does it include all sins that they have been forgiven and have even bore fruits of their repentance?

In the briefest possible form: Purgatory is for those who are not damned, but who have died leaving in the wake of their passing unresolved sins, habitual tendencies toward particular sins, and those unrestored consequences of sins that have been forgiven and absolved but which require the combined action of ourselves and Jesus to restore to their original goodness, ie., original justice...same thing as goodness.  

This is part of the teaching of the Church that we share in the redemptive actions of the Messiah.

It has been spoken of in the Church over time as Poena.  Poena in Latin is not restricted to one explanatory meanings with respect to purgation.  It most often translates as penalty, punishment and loss...with loss being the most powerful explanatory meaning, that to the ordinary eye speaks of pain, penalty and privation.  And so it has been catechized.

The very fact that Poena is complex in its nuance does not mean that one MUST emphasize one element of poena over any other.  

The saints of the Catholic Church...their writings....are replete with references to the punishing effects of being without the continuous presence of Jesus in union with the soul.   I am trained as a Carmelite secular and the saints of that order, the ancient and the reformed, speak often of the burning pain caused in the soul when the Indwelling is not immediately and constantly present.  

This is the burning punishment of Purgation.  The realization that the Beloved Lord is there but we cannot experience the sweetness and peace of his presence because our souls are not ready to receive him.

To do the kinds of things with these teachings that Father Ambrose does is a perversion of a very beautiful spiritual reality.  

Purgation, here and in the hereafter, is a direct act of grace in our souls.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 06, 2010, 04:07:42 PM
Thank you Mary. 
So it sounds like the orthodox understanding pretty much (as far as I can tell):
Quote
In the Orthodox doctrine, ...which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 06:27:19 PM
error
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 06:33:47 PM
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 08:21:28 PM
Thank you Mary. 
So it sounds like the orthodox understanding pretty much (as far as I can tell):
Quote
In the Orthodox doctrine, ...which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also.


I have heard Orthodox clergy say that there is a particular and a final judgment taught in Orthodoxy and I have heard it said here and other places that there is only a final judgment.  I have also been exposed to the teaching on Toll Houses.

I have never heard any Orthodox person talk about a period of purgation after death, in those terms, though I have heard some Orthodox talk about the need for the soul to be purified.

I have read the essay by Alexander Kalomiros called River of Fire and I find it to be a bit soft in terms of God's willingness to hold mankind accountable for their freely willed choices.  I have heard this essay represents Orthodox doctrine from some, while others say it is not precisely doctrine.  Some Catholics I know personally think the River of Fire is pretty close to Catholic teaching.  I am not so sure how I would understand "close."

M.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 08:34:39 PM
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:31:04 PM

  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.

I adhere to the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, not its various and sundry perversions.


You do not substantiate what you adhere to with references to magisterial teaching.

Instead you appeal to anonymous Catholic and Orthodox clergy who are your spiritual mentors and to various courses of study you have undergone.  One would think that at least the courses of study would have familiarised you with the sources of magisterial teaching and provided you with references but ....
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:38:09 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 06, 2010, 10:49:46 PM
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:


I am not a toller myself but I am a ladder man   The teaching of ladders strung between earth and heaven, each city having many of these ladder sites where dead souls collect to start their upward climb.  This is the older Catholic teaching found in, of course, Saint John of the Ladder in the sixth century.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/StJohnClimacus.jpg)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 06, 2010, 11:39:24 PM
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary
I agree with Pope Paul VI. Do you say this is heresy  or not?
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 11:45:51 PM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here.  

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language?  

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 06, 2010, 11:48:46 PM
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary
I agree with Pope Paul VI. Do you say this is heresy  or not?
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

So until you are prepared to understand that God's holiness and justice do not equate to being the same thing as God, you are going to read something into this text that is not there.

Be my guest.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 12:02:49 AM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 12:10:13 AM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.

Instead you keep referring to an anonymous circle of Catholic and Orthodox priests who are your spiritual mentors.  For us who have not the slightest idea of your teachers and their personal quirks and preferences, this means nothing.  We would like to hear the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium since we have been told, at least a thousand times, that nothing but magisterial teaching has any real currency in Catholic theology.  Is that not the perennial assertion made by you and the Catholics who write here?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 12:37:29 AM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 12:39:47 AM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.


Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium. 

That should be obvious to anyone who has your training in Catholic matters.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 12:58:18 AM
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.


Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium. 


Catechetical texts are no longer trustworthy.  For example, much dishonesty has taken place in the re-presentation of the Baltimore Catechism in its web versions.    What does not suit contemporary Catholic teaching has been removed.

That is why the only reliable source for Catholic teaching are the statements of the Magisterium.  Even those can contradict one another from century to century but they are more reliable than modern catechetical material.

My enormously wide circle of friends among the Catholic clergy agree with me. :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 01:19:29 AM

Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium.  

That should be obvious to anyone who has your training in Catholic matters.

It means pretty much zilch.  Catholic training in the old ways is meaningless in the face of the modern insistence on revamping and of hiding inconvenient doctrines of the past.  In fact such training invites scorn and derision from much of the modern Catholic clergy and from the seminaries.

Every article in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ has the Imprimatur of some Archbishop.

But people keep telling us -- that's wrong and that's wrong and that's just a lot of hooey!

From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

-oOo-
Please go back to message 63 in this thread for further commentary

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28892.msg457168.html#msg457168
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: theistgal on August 07, 2010, 01:22:26 AM
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 02:27:27 AM
Mary has confirmed it!!   Limbo is the formal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  It is formal teaching, it is inalienable, it is truth.

Shultz wrote:

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.


Mary repied:

You cannot have a de facto Catholic doctrine.  It is either formal teaching or it falls into some other category with the most benign being a pious belief or mistake.


Mary confirms that Limbo is formal teaching:


Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 02:45:11 AM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 08:38:13 AM
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)

LOL....That has actually happened over the years on a variety of Listservs and it does not matter one wit.  What you see here is what he continues to repeat in the face of all kinds of people including my spiritual father, and a very traditional Latin rite Catholic,  and another friend who was a Trappist monk, telling him that he is wrong and my reading and explanations are correct...as well as other Orthodox participants who were in agreement.

There's no attempt to seek out meaning.   The focus is on form and black and white. 

At any rate...it's been done to no avail.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 08:42:02 AM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


I have worked through meaning here and you can accept it or reject it as Catholic teaching.

As I have said before I commune with many Catholics who do not believe as I believe, who have not been taught and formed as I have been.

If you want to see God as the Divine Punisher and thereby Author of Evil...have it it.  If you want to believe that Jesus cannot sanctify who He chooses, when He chooses...have at it.

It is not Catholic.  But that is not the end of the world either and nothing new.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 08:50:06 AM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


PS: The reformed and protestant world has always had trouble understanding the Catholic teaching on divine justice.  Divine justice for the reformers is a God with blood in his eye, and Old Testament God of vengeance and an eye for an eye.  It is not that way for Catholics.

Much of what I am talking about is the teaching of saints and doctors of the Church. 

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.

In Orthodoxy St. Symeon the New Theologian thought that only monks could understand certain parts of theology and only monks could achieve theosis.  That mentality was not lost in the west.  It carried through and rose its head strongly after Catholic monastic life all but died out after the Protesters and Protestant Reformers and the attendant wars.  Only this time it was secular clergy who treated the laity as though they were idiots and barbarians....maybe we were.... :angel:

Reading more than one doctrinal history always helps a good bit in sorting out what is truly Catholic and what passes in and out on shifting historical currents.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 08:53:27 AM
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)

LOL....That has actually happened over the years on a variety of Listservs and it does not matter one wit.  What you see here is what he continues to repeat in the face of all kinds of people including my spiritual father,


Removed by Irish Hermit.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 10:01:59 AM

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.


This is awfully unfair.  The Baltimore Catechism has glowing recommendations and Imprimaturs from literally dozens of Catholic bishops

See http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bapprob.htm

It was also officially in use in most of the United States from 1885 to 1970, almost a hundred years.  It cannot have been too foul!

You are very quick to denigrate whatever does not agree with your own faith agenda.    It is quite comical in this instance because you have just recommended that we look at the catechetical material and so we mention the longest running Catechism in the States and you are rubbishing it because you do not find it sympathetic.  These things should be marked with a Mary's Imprimatur or Non Licet Imprimari.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 10:14:11 AM

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.


This is awfully unfair.  The Baltimore Catechism has glowing recommendations and Imprimaturs from literally dozens of Catholic bishops

See http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bapprob.htm

It was also officially in use in most of the United States from 1885 to 1970, almost a hundred years.  It cannot have been too foul!

You are very quick to denigrate whatever does not agree with your own faith agenda.    It is quite comical in this instance because you have just recommended that we look at the catechetical material and so we mention the longest running Catechism in the States and you are rubbishing it because you do not find it sympathetic.  These things should be marked with a Mary's Imprimatur or Non Licet Imprimari.   :laugh:

Well you can thank the Irish Jansenists in America for that marvelous publication...set for people who were not expected to read much and write even less.

Even my monsignor in grade school taught me its shortfalls very early in my life.

He was Irish too but not a Jansenist.  He, like my mother's family, came from Tyrone, green through and through,  and he'd always invite me for tea when I would get in trouble for asking too many questions in religion class and he'd teach me and then we'd look at pictures from his trips back home. I was always the tallest girl and taller than all the boys in my class so I did everything last for 10 years,  and when I graduated from that school to go to the public high school in my town...last in line again... he whispered in my ear as he gave me my diploma, "Don't fret, they always save the best for last."  I think it is what kept me from landing in the ditch and staying there later in life.

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.

M.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 10:22:17 AM
I think this article carries some interesting messages with respect to a loving God and purgation:

http://josephkarlpublishing.blogspot.com/2010/08/did-you-know-that-god-isnt-nice.html

Did you know that God isn’t nice?
Well, He’s not. And neither should you be.

So says Sister John Sheila Galligan, I.H.M, S.T.D., professor in theology at Immaculata University in Immaculata, PA.

“The young people that I’m meeting are coming from a culture that seems to promote religion and spirituality as ‘niceness’,” said Sr. Galligan. “…The commandment that’s out there today is, ‘Be nice,’ or [in] other language, ‘Be tolerant, never make a judgment,’ et cetera.”

The culture of niceness rejects anything that challenges the autonomy of the individual. It has bastardized the meanings of words such as “love”, “freedom” and “marriage”, confusing people and leaving them ignorant about God, the meaning of life, and the dignity of the human person. In fact, the origin of the word “nice” is the Latin word nescius, which means “ignorant”.

“That kind of culture activity of ‘being nice’ is destructive, and it’s not what Christianity is all about,” said Sr. Galligan. “God is not nice. God is good, and goodness is different from niceness.”

The culture of niceness also eschews the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

“We have a tradition that is [almost 2,000] years of the best of philosophical and theological minds, with the contemporary blessings of [Popes] John Paul II and Benedict [XVI], who are also very able to engage young people, old people—the culture,” said Sr. Galligan.

But “instead of looking at the world in light of the Church and its teachings,” she said, “we come from the world and make a judgment on the Church and its teachings.”

Niceness is the fruit of sloth, what Sr. Galligan calls “the most neglected capital sin,” and “the ultimate boredom.” Commonly regarded as laziness, sloth is a “poisoning of the will,” she said, a lack of the will for the good. Niceness is the symptom of a soul poisoned by sloth.

“Niceness [is the attitude], ‘I do not have the will for your good, [so] I’m just going to go with the flow and be pleasing’,” she said.

Sr. Galligan is trying to free her students from the shackles of the “go with the flow” mentality of niceness because “They haven’t been trained to think, to argue” she said. “They’ve only been trained to accept.”

So for all its destructiveness, why have we allowed ourselves to be hypnotized by niceness?

The reason is, said Sr. Galligan, “we don’t want to ever think about the existential questions: ‘Who or what am I? Where am I going? How do I get there?’ And, even more, ‘Whose am I?’”

To ask the existential questions is to open oneself up to the possibility there is an “other” toward whom one must center himself. In a culture of niceness that fosters self-centeredness, the tendency is to avoid pursuing the answers to those questions.

“We’re always into that self-protective mode,” said Sr. Galligan. “…Truth and goodness become a threat, because then I have to acknowledge my humanity, which is wounded and tends toward self.”

Self-centeredness, however, “makes for unhappiness, loneliness,” she said. “I’m enclosed within myself. I’m imprisoned, and I’m made to be looking at you.”

The other-centeredness that is at the heart of true Christian living reveals the answers to the existential questions. To be other-centered is to image Him Who is other-centeredness itself, the Trinitarian God. Only in the penetrating intimacy of other-centeredness can we be truly happy.

But in a futile attempt to find happiness and alleviate their “ultimate boredom”, those who have fallen into the quicksand of sloth pursue empty and fleeting passion, a pursuit Sr. Galligan described as “getting into bizarre things to excite [oneself] for a few minutes.” Yet fulfilling and lasting passion can come only from the other-centered, self-giving life of charity.

So don’t be nice. Instead, burn with love for God and neighbor, as God burns with love for you.

“God is fire,” said Sr. Galligan. “He’s not bland fogginess.”
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 10:31:32 AM

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.


Either your forgettery or mine is faulty because soon after I came back onto your list and while the Orthodox priestmonk in question was not on it himself, you told us that he was your spiritual father.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 10:38:35 AM

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.


Either your forgettery or mine is faulty because soon after I came back onto your list and while the Orthodox priestmonk in question was not on it himself, you told us that he was your spiritual father.

It is also possible that you misunderstood.  But my spiritual father has always been Catholic and always nearby when I am writing publicly so as to guide should I err, though more and more he says that is no longer necessary.  He says he now reads because he likes what I write.

M.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 11:02:02 AM
I do think this article deserves some comment since it does represent traditional Catholic teaching.  The nun commenting in the article would be about my age, and would have been taught out of the same Baltimore, with all of its shortcomings, but this woman seems to have found a more constant truth in the teaching of the Church, as have I been able also to discern a more adult and spiritually accurate way of understanding the ancient teaching of the Church.

Mary

I think this article carries some interesting messages with respect to a loving God and purgation:

http://josephkarlpublishing.blogspot.com/2010/08/did-you-know-that-god-isnt-nice.html

Did you know that God isn’t nice?
Well, He’s not. And neither should you be.

So says Sister John Sheila Galligan, I.H.M, S.T.D., professor in theology at Immaculata University in Immaculata, PA.

“The young people that I’m meeting are coming from a culture that seems to promote religion and spirituality as ‘niceness’,” said Sr. Galligan. “…The commandment that’s out there today is, ‘Be nice,’ or [in] other language, ‘Be tolerant, never make a judgment,’ et cetera.”

The culture of niceness rejects anything that challenges the autonomy of the individual. It has bastardized the meanings of words such as “love”, “freedom” and “marriage”, confusing people and leaving them ignorant about God, the meaning of life, and the dignity of the human person. In fact, the origin of the word “nice” is the Latin word nescius, which means “ignorant”.

“That kind of culture activity of ‘being nice’ is destructive, and it’s not what Christianity is all about,” said Sr. Galligan. “God is not nice. God is good, and goodness is different from niceness.”

The culture of niceness also eschews the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

“We have a tradition that is [almost 2,000] years of the best of philosophical and theological minds, with the contemporary blessings of [Popes] John Paul II and Benedict [XVI], who are also very able to engage young people, old people—the culture,” said Sr. Galligan.

But “instead of looking at the world in light of the Church and its teachings,” she said, “we come from the world and make a judgment on the Church and its teachings.”

Niceness is the fruit of sloth, what Sr. Galligan calls “the most neglected capital sin,” and “the ultimate boredom.” Commonly regarded as laziness, sloth is a “poisoning of the will,” she said, a lack of the will for the good. Niceness is the symptom of a soul poisoned by sloth.

“Niceness [is the attitude], ‘I do not have the will for your good, [so] I’m just going to go with the flow and be pleasing’,” she said.

Sr. Galligan is trying to free her students from the shackles of the “go with the flow” mentality of niceness because “They haven’t been trained to think, to argue” she said. “They’ve only been trained to accept.”

So for all its destructiveness, why have we allowed ourselves to be hypnotized by niceness?

The reason is, said Sr. Galligan, “we don’t want to ever think about the existential questions: ‘Who or what am I? Where am I going? How do I get there?’ And, even more, ‘Whose am I?’”

To ask the existential questions is to open oneself up to the possibility there is an “other” toward whom one must center himself. In a culture of niceness that fosters self-centeredness, the tendency is to avoid pursuing the answers to those questions.

“We’re always into that self-protective mode,” said Sr. Galligan. “…Truth and goodness become a threat, because then I have to acknowledge my humanity, which is wounded and tends toward self.”

Self-centeredness, however, “makes for unhappiness, loneliness,” she said. “I’m enclosed within myself. I’m imprisoned, and I’m made to be looking at you.”

The other-centeredness that is at the heart of true Christian living reveals the answers to the existential questions. To be other-centered is to image Him Who is other-centeredness itself, the Trinitarian God. Only in the penetrating intimacy of other-centeredness can we be truly happy.

But in a futile attempt to find happiness and alleviate their “ultimate boredom”, those who have fallen into the quicksand of sloth pursue empty and fleeting passion, a pursuit Sr. Galligan described as “getting into bizarre things to excite [oneself] for a few minutes.” Yet fulfilling and lasting passion can come only from the other-centered, self-giving life of charity.

So don’t be nice. Instead, burn with love for God and neighbor, as God burns with love for you.

“God is fire,” said Sr. Galligan. “He’s not bland fogginess.”

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 03:17:01 PM

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


I have worked through meaning here and you can accept it or reject it as Catholic teaching.

As I have said before I commune with many Catholics who do not believe as I believe, who have not been taught and formed as I have been.

If you want to see God as the Divine Punisher and thereby Author of Evil...have it it.  If you want to believe that Jesus cannot sanctify who He chooses, when He chooses...have at it.

It is not Catholic.  But that is not the end of the world either and nothing new.

Mary
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 05:56:59 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.

I tend to read professional theologians very selectively, Stanley.  I most often stay pretty close to the saints and doctors of the Church who did address doctrinal issues in their spiritual writings and who the Church recognize as being orthodox teachers of the faith.

Only after one is well grounded spiritually and doctrinally is it really possible to approach some of the other great teachers of the Church who have been acknowledged for the orthodoxy of their teaching and writing.

Takes a long time even for a cradle Catholic to really become imbued with insight.  Some day I hope to come close to increasing in wisdom.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 08:31:57 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 08:53:56 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.

The Church is pretty slow to claim something is heretical.  They may say that it is insufficient or that it comes close to an edge of some kind, or that an idea is not fully representative of the truth, but there's a great deal of leeway in secular documents and discussions.  It takes a great deal to have a book banned or an idea banned or a person banned. 

The freedom to think and express things of the faith, in a variety of ways, often makes some people very uncomfortable.  Some people need the security of a very straightforward, black and white pronouncement.  That is what makes a question and answer catechism so attractive for teaching the average layman.  There's real security in that format.  The trouble is that it often does not tell the whole story or explain things that really ought to be explained.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 09:08:26 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.

The Church is pretty slow to claim something is heretical.  They may say that it is insufficient or that it comes close to an edge of some kind, or that an idea is not fully representative of the truth, but there's a great deal of leeway in secular documents and discussions.  It takes a great deal to have a book banned or an idea banned or a person banned. 

The freedom to think and express things of the faith, in a variety of ways, often makes some people very uncomfortable.  Some people need the security of a very straightforward, black and white pronouncement.  That is what makes a question and answer catechism so attractive for teaching the average layman.  There's real security in that format.  The trouble is that it often does not tell the whole story or explain things that really ought to be explained.

Mary
It is a clear, unambiguous statement:
Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
.................
Purgatory has been officially taught in Catholic schools in the USA for more than eighty years from the Baltimore catechism. 
Now some dissenting Catholics are trying to change the Catholic teaching on it.
How many bishops were there who signed the documents of the third plenary Council of Baltimore held in 1884? Was it fourteen archbishops, sixty-one bishops, and six abbots?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 07, 2010, 09:38:53 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, ....
If an RC does not believe the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism, perhaps that RC can take a look at the RC book Read me or Rue It;
According to the RC Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon: “We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It by E. D. M. [These initials used by Fr. O'Sullivan stand for Engant de Marie, that is, "Child of Mary" Ed.]
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm#PURGATORY
WHAT IS PURGATORY?
It is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain. …..
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says that the fire of Purgatory is equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this Earth!
….
The existence of Purgatory is so certain that no Catholic has ever entertained a doubt of it. It was taught from the earliest days of the Church and was accepted with undoubting faith wherever the Gospel was preached.

1. The fire we see on Earth was made by the goodness of God for our comfort and well-being Still, when used as a torment, it is the most dreadful one we can imagine.
2. The fire of Purgatory, on the contrary, was made by the Justice of God to punish and purify us and is, therefore, incomparably more severe


 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 07, 2010, 11:16:32 PM
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, ....
If an RC does not believe the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism, perhaps that RC can take a look at the RC book Read me or Rue It;
According to the RC Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon: “We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It by E. D. M. [These initials used by Fr. O'Sullivan stand for Engant de Marie, that is, "Child of Mary" Ed.]
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm#PURGATORY
WHAT IS PURGATORY?
It is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain. …..
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says that the fire of Purgatory is equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this Earth!
….
The existence of Purgatory is so certain that no Catholic has ever entertained a doubt of it. It was taught from the earliest days of the Church and was accepted with undoubting faith wherever the Gospel was preached.

1. The fire we see on Earth was made by the goodness of God for our comfort and well-being Still, when used as a torment, it is the most dreadful one we can imagine.
2. The fire of Purgatory, on the contrary, was made by the Justice of God to punish and purify us and is, therefore, incomparably more severe


If this is what you want to believe you go right ahead.  I have half a dozen books in my library that tell the most gruesome tales.

I also have saints and doctors of the Church who do not, apparently, have the need to "visualize" purgation as you do and these seers do.

It is not the teaching of Trent and it is not the teaching of the CCC.

So please...enjoy!!  You and Father Ambrose.  You love it.  He hates it.

The Church does not teach it.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 07, 2010, 11:46:37 PM
/\ 

It is not the teaching of Trent and it is not the teaching of the CCC.

Here is the teaching of Trent.....
Decree on Purgatory by the Council of Trent, 25th session, 1563. 

"The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with sacred Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy Councils and most recently in this ecumenical Council that there is a purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped by the acts of intercession (suffragia) of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar."

The Council simply affirms the existence of purgatory and the value of praying for the deceased.

Mary wrote:
Quote
I adhere to the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, not its various and sundry perversions.

In fact Mary does not adhere to the formal teaching of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent but adds in all manner of other elements and guesswork and a patchwork of favourite ideas which are not taught by the Catholic Church and may be seen as a perversion of its teachings.

For example:
Quote
Mary:
This is the burning punishment of Purgation.  The realization that the Beloved Lord is there but we cannot experience the sweetness and peace of his presence because our souls are not ready to receive him.

This, as with so much other material presented by Mary as the formal teaching of the Church with regard to Purgatory, is not formally taught at all by the Catholic Church.  One could go through message after message and point to her idiosyncratic ideas.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 08, 2010, 01:23:26 AM
Dear Fr Ambrose,

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.  

The definitive and formal teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory is quite minimal, as Mary has accurately stated.  Beyond that, there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of opinion, just as there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of Orthodox opinion on the intermediate state.   Mary's presentation of purgatory is hardly idiosyncratic, as is easily confirmed by reading Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI; nor is it novel, as is easily confirmed by reading St Catherine of Genoa and the Venerable John Henry Newman.    

Perhaps you find it disturbing that the Catholic Church in fact allows a diversity of views on purgatory.  Inter-Catholic debate on purgatory can be vigorous and controverted.  But do not be too gleeful.  Given the absence of authoritative and irreformable Orthodox teaching on the intermediate state, and given the diversity of positions that I know to exist within Orthodoxy, I would suggest that those who live within ecclesial glass houses should not throw stones.  

Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.  

I am reminded of an Orthodox priest who responded to an Orthodox layman who was quoting the canons of the Church against his parochial teaching:  "Who gave you permission to read the canons and who gave you the authority to quote them against your bishops and priests?"  And so I say to you, "Who gave you permission to read the dogmas of the Catholic Church and who gave you authority to quote them against Catholics?"   The principle here is basic:  those who speak fluently the language of a community are those who are best equipped to understand and interpret the teachings of their community.  You live outside the Catholic Church and understand neither its theology nor praxis.  Catholicism is a foreign language to you.  You have neither the right nor competence nor sympathy to correct Mary or any other Catholic on their apprehension of the teachings of their Church.  

I have repeatedly addressed the subject of purgatory on this forum and find it beyond frustrating that you continue to present yourself as an infallible spokesman for the Catholic Church, especially when your interpretation of Catholic teaching is so often off-base.  

Fr Alvin Kimel  

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 02:55:05 AM

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.

Or perhaps from too long an immersion in the world and teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church?   I realise you are a new convert to Catholicism and perhaps you are aware of the former teaching and do not want to pay it any heed, or perhaops you simply do not know.

The changes in the teaching which have taken place are not insignficant. 

Is it really worth the bother to examine the modern Roman Catholic interpretation?  The doctrine is so unstable at this point in time.  It may well change again. It may well have a fresh revamping with the next generation of Catholics who may choose to return to the traditional Roman Catholic belief about Purgatory or to continue down the path of transmogrifying the new teaching into something different again.

Pope Paul VI issued his "Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences" Indulgentiarum Doctrina in 1967.  This traditional understanding of Purgatory was proclaimed by Peter a mere 43 years ago.   But now, less then 50 years later, speculative theologians are presenting a reconstructed understanding which differs radically from the Pope's.  Purgatory Lite.

Now this theological instability is something of a worry for Orthodoxy.   On the one hand there is no doubt that the modern teaching of Purgatory as Fr Kimel proposes in line with contemporary progressive theologians is a welcome change to Orthodoxy since it represents a revamping of the older and unacceptable traditional version of the Popes and Western Saints and it is deconstructing Purgatory in a manner quite acceptable to the Orthodox.  With the passage of time we may hope that the conscious belief in Purgatory may become as vitiated in the Catholic West as Limbo is becoming and, in many areas, has already become.

On the other hand we have concerns about the reconstruction theology which is at work within Catholicism because of the bizarre attempt to make out that this reconstruction is not taking place and that the modern theology is the same as the traditional theology.  This problem is spoken of here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 03:13:16 AM

Perhaps you find it disturbing that the Catholic Church in fact allows a diversity of views on purgatory.  Inter-Catholic debate on purgatory can be vigorous and controverted.  But do not be too gleeful.  Given the absence of authoritative and irreformable Orthodox teaching on the intermediate state, and given the diversity of positions that I know to exist within Orthodoxy, I would suggest that those who live within ecclesial glass houses should not throw stones.
 


You are comparing apples and oranges and wish to criticize us (the apples) because we do not act like oranges.

We have been told uncountable times on this forum that the only genuine Catholic teaching is found in magisterial definitions.  Outside of that we are only looking at theological dubia.  It is for this reason that the opinion about Limbo is so easily dismissed from the Catholic Catechism, no matter how many hundreds of years it has formed part of the living faith and tradition of the bishops, the clergy and the faithful.  The concept of "magisterial teaching" is absent from Orthodoxy and hence the apples and oranges of your comparison.

All through this discussion on Purgatory Elijahmaria has stepped outside the magisterial teaching and has offered us her own opinions, not marking them as being merely opinions but claiming them as the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

So I criticize her and hold her to account within the context of your own Church's teaching and the apprehension of the way authority is given to that teaching.  You may do the same with orthodox teaching if you wish, but we must be aware of the difference between the two approaches and judge each by its own criteria.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 03:26:10 AM

I am reminded of an Orthodox priest who responded to an Orthodox layman who was quoting the canons of the Church against his parochial teaching:  "Who gave you permission to read the canons and who gave you the authority to quote them against your bishops and priests?"

Yikes. I do not know why a priest would say such a stupid and unorthodox thing, unless maybe he had been driven to the edge of exasperation by an annoying individual.

The Orthodox faithful are taught their responsibility for maintaining and transmitting the faith and its praxis.  Having a knowledge of the Ecumenical Councils and their sacred canons is an imperative if the Orthodox are to fulfill their Spirit-led obligation to guard holy Orthodoxy.

Removing the study of the Ecumenical Councils and the canons to the preserve of clergy only is so far removed from the authentic spirit of Orthodoxy!  A very disturbing thought!  I can only surmise that this priest was truly ignorant of what Orthodoxy expects of the entire Church including the faithful.  Either that or he was, as I say, simply at the end of his tether with a pesky parishioner.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 08, 2010, 09:08:58 AM
To me its sad what we've let this thread come down to polemics and personal attacks.  There are many lost folks, like me, who are hoping there's a loving yet conservative place to rest our spiritual souls.  This thread has been insightful at times... can we get back on track?  Better yet maybe that all that needs to be said has alreayd been said...
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 10:14:53 AM
To me its sad what we've let this thread come down to polemics and personal attacks.  There are many lost folks, like me, who are hoping there's a loving yet conservative place to rest our spiritual souls.  This thread has been insightful at times... can we get back on track?  Better yet maybe that all that needs to be said has alreayd been said...

Dave,

You may be right, but there's no denying that Purgatory is one of the hot subjects which pops up time and again in Catholic-Orthodox discussion groups.  If you click the tag "Purgatory" at the bottom of the messages it will take you to some of the numerous threads which have also been tagged with "Purgatory".

It's also a hot topic in Catholic discussion groups where you will find the Catholics taught the older understanding battling with the younger Catholics in an effort to understand one another.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 11:41:43 AM
To me its sad what we've let this thread come down to polemics and personal attacks.  There are many lost folks, like me, who are hoping there's a loving yet conservative place to rest our spiritual souls.  This thread has been insightful at times... can we get back on track?  Better yet maybe that all that needs to be said has alreayd been said...

Dave,

You may be right, but there's no denying that Purgatory is one of the hot subjects which pops up time and again in Catholic-Orthodox discussion groups.  If you click the tag "Purgatory" at the bottom of the messages it will take you to some of the numerous threads which have also been tagged with "Purgatory".

It's also a hot topic in Catholic discussion groups where you will find the Catholics taught the older understanding battling with the younger Catholics in an effort to understand one another.

You skip the part where I AM one of those Catholics taught under the basic question and answer format of the Baltimore Catechism.

I've read all of the lurid books on purgatory reprinted by TAN and other traditional book printers and sellers. 

But as Father Kimel says one turns to the saints and doctors of the Church, and the formal teaching texts of the Church which have achieved universal status...when seeking the formal teaching of the Church and not the wild piety of those who find fear to be the most expedient teacher.

To Father Kimel's list I would add Teresa of Avila's works for a strong spiritual synthesis of the Church's doctrinal body, including the here and the hereafter, and the realized but unrecognized Eschaton... :laugh:

Father Kimel's letter is quite kind and balanced and should mean something since, as you were so quick to say earlier in this thread, Father and I do not always agree in perspective.

Mary

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 11:46:32 AM
To me its sad what we've let this thread come down to polemics and personal attacks.  There are many lost folks, like me, who are hoping there's a loving yet conservative place to rest our spiritual souls.  This thread has been insightful at times... can we get back on track?  Better yet maybe that all that needs to be said has alreayd been said...

Dear Dave,

In some ways all of the basic Catholic truths concerning purgation have been laid out here. 

What is your experience as a Catholic with these teachings and with spiritual teachings of the saints in general? 

Mary

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 11:57:27 AM

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.

Or perhaps from too long an immersion in the world and teachings of the pre-Vatican II Church?   I realise you are a new convert to Catholicism and perhaps you are aware of the former teaching and do not want to pay it any heed, or perhaops you simply do not know.

The changes in the teaching which have taken place are not insignficant. 

Is it really worth the bother to examine the modern Roman Catholic interpretation?  The doctrine is so unstable at this point in time.  It may well change again. It may well have a fresh revamping with the next generation of Catholics who may choose to return to the traditional Roman Catholic belief about Purgatory or to continue down the path of transmogrifying the new teaching into something different again.

Pope Paul VI issued his "Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences" Indulgentiarum Doctrina in 1967.  This traditional understanding of Purgatory was proclaimed by Peter a mere 43 years ago.   But now, less then 50 years later, speculative theologians are presenting a reconstructed understanding which differs radically from the Pope's.  Purgatory Lite.

Now this theological instability is something of a worry for Orthodoxy.   On the one hand there is no doubt that the modern teaching of Purgatory as Fr Kimel proposes in line with contemporary progressive theologians is a welcome change to Orthodoxy since it represents a revamping of the older and unacceptable traditional version of the Popes and Western Saints and it is deconstructing Purgatory in a manner quite acceptable to the Orthodox.  With the passage of time we may hope that the conscious belief in Purgatory may become as vitiated in the Catholic West as Limbo is becoming and, in many areas, has already become.

On the other hand we have concerns about the reconstruction theology which is at work within Catholicism because of the bizarre attempt to make out that this reconstruction is not taking place and that the modern theology is the same as the traditional theology.  This problem is spoken of here

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044



Dear Father Ambrose,

When you have at least one Catholic saint and doctor of the Church some 500 years ago now teaching a deeply integrated apophatic spirituality that expresses this New Theology that you are claiming has occurred in the Catholic Church over the past 50 years, you are certainly going to loose your credibility among well formed and well educated Catholics with active spiritual lives.  They will simply smile politely and move on, much they way they do with people on the street handing out Chick Tracts.

And the reformed saints of Carmel are not the only ones in their life times.  So there others from that time and then those who lived considerably longer than 500 years ago.

The only people where you are going to find currency with your well practiced polemics are wavering Catholics who have not been well formed and in some cases have been deformed through no fault of their own, and other sympathetic Orthodox believers and reformed groups or protestants.

There is no stopping you but I know without a doubt that what you are doing is done with full knowledge and there is a price to be paid for knowingly telling half-truths even if it is, as you believe, for a good cause.   You might some day, before you pass on over, give that some serious consideration.

Mary

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 08, 2010, 12:11:45 PM
Dear Fr Ambrose,

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.  

The definitive and formal teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory is quite minimal, as Mary has accurately stated.  Beyond that, there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of opinion, just as there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of Orthodox opinion on the intermediate state.   Mary's presentation of purgatory is hardly idiosyncratic, as is easily confirmed by reading Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI; nor is it novel, as is easily confirmed by reading St Catherine of Genoa and the Venerable John Henry Newman.    

Perhaps you find it disturbing that the Catholic Church in fact allows a diversity of views on purgatory.  Inter-Catholic debate on purgatory can be vigorous and controverted.  But do not be too gleeful.  Given the absence of authoritative and irreformable Orthodox teaching on the intermediate state, and given the diversity of positions that I know to exist within Orthodoxy, I would suggest that those who live within ecclesial glass houses should not throw stones.  

Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.  

I am reminded of an Orthodox priest who responded to an Orthodox layman who was quoting the canons of the Church against his parochial teaching:  "Who gave you permission to read the canons and who gave you the authority to quote them against your bishops and priests?"  And so I say to you, "Who gave you permission to read the dogmas of the Catholic Church and who gave you authority to quote them against Catholics?"   The principle here is basic:  those who speak fluently the language of a community are those who are best equipped to understand and interpret the teachings of their community.  You live outside the Catholic Church and understand neither its theology nor praxis.  Catholicism is a foreign language to you.  You have neither the right nor competence nor sympathy to correct Mary or any other Catholic on their apprehension of the teachings of their Church.  

I have repeatedly addressed the subject of purgatory on this forum and find it beyond frustrating that you continue to present yourself as an infallible spokesman for the Catholic Church, especially when your interpretation of Catholic teaching is so often off-base.  

Fr Alvin Kimel  
Post of the month right here. Can I get an "Amen"?  ;D
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 12:14:02 PM

There is no stopping you but I know without a doubt that what you are doing is done with full knowledge and there is a price to be paid for knowingly telling half-truths...


Mary, Mary, you measure me with your measure and speak untruths against me. I would rather admit to ignorance than confess to half truths.  I do not deal in half truths.  I most certainly do NOT use half truths in any evangelising work, whether among Catholics or atheists or Buddhists.

"Is de réir an tomhais lena dtomhaiseann sibh a thomhaisfear chugaibh"
Mark 4:24
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 08, 2010, 12:18:05 PM

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.

Certainly what the Orthodox have felt when a certain Ruthenian Catholic lady has been expounding on her limited knowledge of Orthodoxy and abortion.   :laugh:  But we still love her and devote prayer time for her.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 02:01:35 PM

There is no stopping you but I know without a doubt that what you are doing is done with full knowledge and there is a price to be paid for knowingly telling half-truths...


Mary, Mary, you measure me with your measure and speak untruths against me. I would rather admit to ignorance than confess to half truths.  I do not deal in half truths.  I most certainly do NOT use half truths in any evangelising work, whether among Catholics or atheists or Buddhists.

"Is de réir an tomhais lena dtomhaiseann sibh a thomhaisfear chugaibh"
Mark 4:24

You cannot duck this one. 

You have too much formal Catholic training and experience to duck this one.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: theistgal on August 08, 2010, 08:07:33 PM
Mary, wouldn't you agree that part of the reason RC teaching is somewhat confusing is that all those "wild books" published by TAN that you referred to earlier received the same approval from the Church - the 'nihil obstats' and 'imprimaturs' indicating the Church's approval - as the undeniably more reliable saints and doctors of the church you yourself tend to agree with more?  And even some of those fear-mongering books you quite rightly dislike were authored by saints.  How would the average Catholic in the pews know that what they were told was "approved Catholic teaching" might not be after all?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 08:23:30 PM
Mary, wouldn't you agree that part of the reason RC teaching is somewhat confusing is that all those "wild books" published by TAN that you referred to earlier received the same approval from the Church - the 'nihil obstats' and 'imprimaturs' indicating the Church's approval - as the undeniably more reliable saints and doctors of the church you yourself tend to agree with more?  And even some of those fear-mongering books you quite rightly dislike were authored by saints.  How would the average Catholic in the pews know that what they were told was "approved Catholic teaching" might not be after all?

They don't know.  They can't know and that has been a very serious problem in the Catholic Church for a while but not really more than four or five generations passed.

So the circumstances that you decry and rightly so are not old in the Church relatively speaking, and it did not begin really until well after the decline in western monasticism in England and Europe.  The pain and punishment of purgation as taught to the people by monastics was nothing more than a continuation of the difficulties in the spiritual life begun here.  The burning desire for God that was a punishment in itself when it could not be slaked by his presence and grace...and so on.

That is part of it but as monastic life declined one saw an increase in various places...southern France...Ireland...in particular.  Places where Jansenist tendencies arose in response to circumstance, be it the Albigensian heresies or the attitude of some Benedictines which said that the laity really could never achieve sanctity in this life or union with God, divinization or theosis, however you call it...only monastics could achieve such spiritual heights.

Once that began, the only thing left to keep the flock in line was fear.  

Caritas had been removed from them...the Way of Perfection no longer guided many faithful who were caught up in areas of virulent heresy or where the protestants destroyed the organic development of healthy asceticism over generations for the laity as well as for the monk.

It is a complicated history and I am telling it in short choppy bursts but I only intend to point to particular circumstances that led to some of the more rigid pieties of the 17 and 18 hundreds...and into the 20th century when the renewal of monastic life began to reverse some of these trends.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: theistgal on August 08, 2010, 08:30:05 PM
And yet the nihil obstats and imprimaturs on those books, which continue to be reprinted and sold by TAN and other Catholic publishing houses, have never been revoked.  I see these books all the time in Catholic bookstores and gift shops.  So Catholics today are still learning these "rigid" teachings which you say are mistaken and not current Catholic doctrine.

Since the Magisterium has found the time to condemn the likes of Charles Curran, Hans Kung, et al (and rightly so), why don't they occasionally aim their guns at some of these popular books which will undoubtedly be read by FAR more Catholic laity than those more scholarly works?

For example, just take a look at these books published by TAN at a site called "Marianland" - the very first one is by St. Alphonsus Liguori!

http://www.marianland.com/hell010.html
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 08, 2010, 09:31:26 PM
And yet the nihil obstats and imprimaturs on those books, which continue to be reprinted and sold by TAN and other Catholic publishing houses, have never been revoked.  I see these books all the time in Catholic bookstores and gift shops.  So Catholics today are still learning these "rigid" teachings which you say are mistaken and not current Catholic doctrine.

Since the Magisterium has found the time to condemn the likes of Charles Curran, Hans Kung, et al (and rightly so), why don't they occasionally aim their guns at some of these popular books which will undoubtedly be read by FAR more Catholic laity than those more scholarly works?

For example, just take a look at these books published by TAN at a site called "Marianland" - the very first one is by St. Alphonsus Liguori!

http://www.marianland.com/hell010.html

Charles Curran's and Hans Kung's teachings are explicitly heterodox and now and then they are heretical. 

These others are not. 

The expectation is that the well informed Catholic, these days, should be able to distinguish between the a punishing experience and God inflicting punishments in a way that would render God the purveyor of evil.

Not all pain is evil, ect., etc.

The expectation is that there are clergy and monastics out here teaching the flock AND that the flock will seek out the teaching if the pastors are lax.

Most of what you and Father Ambrose are complaining about is a matter of not making distinctions and understanding meaning in proper context.  The rest is popular pieties that may or may not be useful to all but are not, in themselves, heresy or heterodoxy when rightly understood.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 08, 2010, 10:35:01 PM
Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I don't think that this is such a good idea. If the RCC is serious about union with the EO Church, I would think that it would be  important and necessary for Catholics to know how the EO see and interpret RC teaching.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2010, 01:30:16 PM
Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I don't think that this is such a good idea. If the RCC is serious about union with the EO Church, I would think that it would be  important and necessary for Catholics to know how the EO see and interpret RC teaching.
Dialog is completely pointless if every time we try to explain ourselves, the Orthodox point to an Encyclical, an excerpt from our Catechism, or a quote from one of our Ecumenical Councils and say "No, you are wrong, THIS is what you really believe." It's as pompous as Protestants who quote the Bible to us to attempt to disprove Catholicism. I often wonder if such Protestants know they are quoting Catholic literature to try to disprove the Catholic Church. I would think the very Church who produced such teachings would have the correct interpretation of them. Outsiders quoting our own texts to try to explain to US what WE believe is ridiculous, not to mention arrogant.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 09, 2010, 03:41:46 PM
Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.
I don't think that this is such a good idea. If the RCC is serious about union with the EO Church, I would think that it would be  important and necessary for Catholics to know how the EO see and interpret RC teaching.
Dialog is completely pointless if every time we try to explain ourselves, the Orthodox point to an Encyclical, an excerpt from our Catechism, or a quote from one of our Ecumenical Councils and say "No, you are wrong, THIS is what you really believe." It's as pompous as Protestants who quote the Bible to us to attempt to disprove Catholicism. I often wonder if such Protestants know they are quoting Catholic literature to try to disprove the Catholic Church. I would think the very Church who produced such teachings would have the correct interpretation of them. Outsiders quoting our own texts to try to explain to US what WE believe is ridiculous, not to mention arrogant.
Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2010, 05:09:17 PM
Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?
What I disagree with is hearing Orthodox quoting our Catechism, Councils, Encyclicals, etc., arriving at their own interpretation of them, and then when we tell them "no, that is not what that means," then they simply keep quoting the same thing over and over again to attempt to reassert their own erroneous understanding of our doctrine. To me, that does nothing to advance dialog, that just keeps misconceptions about the Catholic Church alive. Bishop Fulton Sheen said it best when he said "there are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church." As long as people wish to be stubborn and hold on to their own prejudices against the Catholic Church instead of taking the time to find out what the Church actually believes, there will be no progress in the discussion. It will continue to be a lot of talking in circles as has already happened in this thread.

As far as teachings, teachings can never change outright, but our understanding of them can and does change over time as the Holy Spirit leads us into a fuller understanding of the Truth. If this were not so then there would be no need for any Ecumenical Councils throughout the history of the Church since the faith once received would have needed no clarification or definition.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 09, 2010, 05:42:00 PM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
    

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2010, 06:11:11 PM
The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
Exactly. I would never think of explaining to an Orthodox Christian what they believe. I would never presume to know what they believe better than they do. That is the epitome of arrogance. What I would do is ask them to please clarify their beliefs so that I can better understand their faith. That is the proper way to approach dialog. As I have said before and I will say again, this accusatory attitude smacks of Protestantism. Protestants always believe they are experts on what the Catholic Church believes, and they are always the ones who are most wrong about what we actually believe. I think of such comments as "Why do you Catholics worship Mary?" which a friend of mine's grandfather actually asked. This is not the correct approach. What he should have asked is "Do Catholics worship Mary," to which the answer is absolutely not. The way he phrased it, however, indicates that he absolutely believes he has the correct understanding of Catholic teaching (which he doesn't) and he disagrees with it (which of course is justified especially since WE DO NOT TEACH NOR PRACTICE SUCH THINGS).

So, for the Orthodox on here, I am curious, do you actually disagree with the doctrine of Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church herseli? It's obvious that you disagree with the anti-Catholic caricature of our teachings that is perpetuated by you, but what about the actual teachings themselves?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 09, 2010, 06:34:32 PM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
    


I would have to disagree simply because Catholics need to know what the Orthodox people believe about Catholicism and how they see it to be.  Just as Catholics go around discussing toll houses, so too, the Orthodox should let Catholics know about some of the papal encyclicals and serious and long-lived officially approved catechetical instruction that might present a problem for them.
One possible problem might be the changes in Catholic teachings since Vatican II, and the disagreement among Catholics on some of these changes.  If you surf to some of the Traditional Catholic blogs or to some of the more liberal Catholic blogs, you would know what I mean.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 07:13:56 PM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
    


I would have to disagree simply because Catholics need to know what the Orthodox people believe about Catholicism and how they see it to be.  Just as Catholics go around discussing toll houses, so too, the Orthodox should let Catholics know about some of the papal encyclicals and serious and long-lived officially approved catechetical instruction that might present a problem for them.
One possible problem might be the changes in Catholic teachings since Vatican II, and the disagreement among Catholics on some of these changes.  If you surf to some of the Traditional Catholic blogs or to some of the more liberal Catholic blogs, you would know what I mean.

Have you read much from the 16th century Spanish spiritual writers of the Catholic Church?  Have you read much of Venerable Louis of Granada, O.P. or of the contemporary Dominican, Father Jordan Aumann?

Now there are works that are classical in their Catholicism and by reading Father Jordan's little historical commentaries and Fray Louis' texts on the Christian Life it certainly helps to put some of those seemingly contested texts into perspective.  Father Jordan Aumann's works are actually available on-line if you're interested.

Have you ever thought about lay formation in a religious order even just to spend a year or two in Carmelite or Dominican formation.  I suggest those two because they are the two orders that have formal study for the formation of their lay members.  I have four years of formation as a Carmelite secular during which time I read all of the translated works of SS. John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila and Edith Stein/Theresa Benedicta of the Cross, among others.  It has been very helpful to me as well as the prayer discipline that I began with them so many years ago.

I would think that in a mobile world like ours one would not need an especially privileged life to explore some of the world outside of contentious Catholic blogdom.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 08:38:23 PM

Exactly. I would never think of explaining to an Orthodox Christian what they believe.


The most prominent Catholic on the forum is without question Mary whom we love.   She is forever explaining to the Orthodox what we believe whether it be in the area of our sacramental theology or, the most recent example, what we believe about abortion.

Another factor to take under consideration is that not a few Orthodox here are former Roman Catholics or Byzantine Catholics and are as well educated in the tenets of Catholicism as any Catholic on the forum.

Fr Ambrose o..o~
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 08:43:53 PM

So, for the Orthodox on here, I am curious, do you actually disagree with the doctrine of Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church herseli?

The rationale for Purgatory is based on the doctrine that sin incurs two kinds of punishment -- eternal and temporal. 

The eternal punishment was assumed by Christ on the Cross. 

The temporal punishment must be expiated by each individual either on earth or in Purgatory.


The Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishment.

So for the Orthodox the teaching of Purgatory makes no sense.




Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 08:48:08 PM

It's obvious that you disagree with the anti-Catholic caricature of our teachings that is perpetuated by you,

Wyatt,

I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.

It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are.

And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 09, 2010, 09:04:24 PM

So, for the Orthodox on here, I am curious, do you actually disagree with the doctrine of Purgatory as taught by the Catholic Church herseli?

The rationale for Purgatory is based on the doctrine that sin incurs two kinds of punishment -- eternal and temporal. 

The eternal punishment was assumed by Christ on the Cross. 

The temporal punishment must be expiated by each individual either on earth or in Purgatory.


The Orthodox do not believe in temporal punishment.

So for the Orthodox the teaching of Purgatory makes no sense.


But many Orthodox do grasp and accept the idea of purgation.   That much I have experienced. 

So that seems to leave open a great deal of leeway for talking about various pieties and whether or not Orthodoxy, universal Orthodoxy, rejects a particular judgment, or a theology of atonement, or whether or not the west can grasp the subtleties of Toll Houses or an origenism with respect to universal salvation that is said not to really be an origenism, and the like.  These things are, as yet, not clear to me.  But there are certainly Orthodox clergy, and laity of course, who have discussed these things at length in front of me over the years.

There are still things to talk about including the meaning of temporal punishment.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 09:38:50 PM

, or whether or not the west can grasp the subtleties of Toll Houses

At best the toll houses are seen as a theory or an "illustrative metaphor" about the way the
partial judgement takes place at death.  At worst they are seen as a heresy which introduces
a serious aberration into sober orthodox soteriology.

We come back to the fact that the bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad declined in their 1980 Resolution on the toll houses
to proclaim them as church teaching.

Instead they warned the faithful that conjectures about the afterlife are not
beneficial for our salvation.

Bishop Jerome of Manhattan and Secretary to the Synod of the Russian Church
Abroad has stated as regards the toll house theory that the Russian Church Abroad
cannot promulgate "matters of faith that would differ from what the Orthodox Church,
as a whole, has always held."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 10:35:57 PM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
    

Re the above...

Dear Father Kimel,

You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years.

Prior to that you were a priest of the Episcopalian Church for 25 years.

Now, if you wanted to speak about Anglicanism I would listen to you because of your knowledge and experience which extends over 25 years and no doubt longer than that.  I would not think that just because you converted to Roman Catholicism that 25 years of Anglican study, life and experience were expunged from your cranium.

I would expect you to be able to expound on Anglicanism.  You must be well acquainted with its doctrines and able to compare them to Roman Catholicism.

Well, you're not the only one to make such changes in life and some of the ex-Catholics on the forum are in the same situation with regard to their former faith.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 09, 2010, 11:13:52 PM
You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years.
HA. That is how long I have been Catholic as well. I must be stupid since I have only been Catholic for three years and was Protestant before that. I must have one day, for whatever reason, just concluded that all the Protestant lies about Catholicism were false without actually doing any research of my own. I can assure you, sir, that sadly I know more in my three years of being a Catholic Christian than life long Catholics do about their faith. I am not proud about that, especially since that is a pretty shameful fact and doesn't say much about cradle Catholics, but unfortunately in my experience it proves true. I came to Catholicism on my own as an 18 year old. No teaching that I have heard from actual Catholic sources has rubbed me the wrong way, not even Papal Infallibility since, when you actually study it with an open mind, you will realize that A. it is quite limited and only applies in a very select few situations, and B. Protestants often put as much if not more (usually more) faith into what their individual pastors say , or even into themselves (i.e. MY interpretation of Scripture is correct, nevermind the 1,500 years of Christendom before the beginning of my heretical movement). Everyone in Protestantism is their own Pope.

Well, you're not the only one to make such changes in life and some of the ex-Catholics on the forum are in the same situation with regard to their former faith.
Their conversion was based on falsehood. Lord have mercy!
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 09, 2010, 11:40:44 PM
not even Papal Infallibility since, when you actually study it with an open mind, you will realize that A. it is quite limited and only applies in a very select few situations,

Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stashko on August 10, 2010, 12:01:10 AM
Dear Fr Ambrose,

Please stop telling the world what the Catholic Church teaches about purgatory.  You possess neither the  authority nor the theological background to speak on Catholic teaching on purgatory.  Your knowledge of the subject is limited and distorted by polemic intent.  

The definitive and formal teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory is quite minimal, as Mary has accurately stated.  Beyond that, there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of opinion, just as there exists a fairly wide and legitimate diversity of Orthodox opinion on the intermediate state.   Mary's presentation of purgatory is hardly idiosyncratic, as is easily confirmed by reading Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI; nor is it novel, as is easily confirmed by reading St Catherine of Genoa and the Venerable John Henry Newman.    

Perhaps you find it disturbing that the Catholic Church in fact allows a diversity of views on purgatory.  Inter-Catholic debate on purgatory can be vigorous and controverted.  But do not be too gleeful.  Given the absence of authoritative and irreformable Orthodox teaching on the intermediate state, and given the diversity of positions that I know to exist within Orthodoxy, I would suggest that those who live within ecclesial glass houses should not throw stones.  

Restrict yourself to interpreting Orthodox theology, and allow Catholics to interpret and present the teaching of the Catholic Church.  

I am reminded of an Orthodox priest who responded to an Orthodox layman who was quoting the canons of the Church against his parochial teaching:  "Who gave you permission to read the canons and who gave you the authority to quote them against your bishops and priests?"  And so I say to you, "Who gave you permission to read the dogmas of the Catholic Church and who gave you authority to quote them against Catholics?"   The principle here is basic:  those who speak fluently the language of a community are those who are best equipped to understand and interpret the teachings of their community.  You live outside the Catholic Church and understand neither its theology nor praxis.  Catholicism is a foreign language to you.  You have neither the right nor competence nor sympathy to correct Mary or any other Catholic on their apprehension of the teachings of their Church.  

I have repeatedly addressed the subject of purgatory on this forum and find it beyond frustrating that you continue to present yourself as an infallible spokesman for the Catholic Church, especially when your interpretation of Catholic teaching is so often off-base.  

Fr Alvin Kimel  
Post of the month right here. Can I get an "Amen"?  ;D


You won't from Me ...Fr.Ambrose Probably forgot more than what this Catholic Priest thinks he Knows, Fr. was a Former Catholic Before He was Drawn to the true Light Of Holy Orthodoxy and converted from confusion to clarity..... ;D Even Catholics Are confused in what they believe,read a catholic forum  and see.. ;D
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 10, 2010, 12:21:59 AM
Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.
Sources?

You won't from Me ...Fr.Ambrose Probably forgot more than what this Catholic Priest thinks he Knows, Fr. was a Former Catholic Before He was Drawn to the true Light Of Holy Orthodoxy and converted from confusion to clarity..... ;D Even Catholics Are confused in what they believe,read a catholic forum  and see.. ;D
I belong to a Catholic forum and I have never seen any confusion. I have seen more confusion on this forum than anywhere else because there is no official "Eastern Orthodox" teaching. It is a bunch of opinions. The Orthodox cannot even tell me with a unified voice what the status of the Roman Catholic Church is. Orthodox may like to claim they are unified, but they are not. There is no unified teaching in Orthodoxy. If the Holy Spirit is truly guiding Orthodoxy, then why do some believe that Catholics have the Holy Eucharist in our Churches and some do not? Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not? If the Holy Spirit is with you then why is there so much factionalism within Orthodoxy? If you are truly the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, wouldn't He want you to know these things since these are things which are crucial to Salvation?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 12:34:14 AM
Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

Sources?


The Internet.  I pulled these figures together when I was on CAF a few years ago.  But a search won't bring up the message.  CAF deleted thousands of Orthodox messages at the time they booted most of us off there.  They had complaints that too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

So may I put the question to you.  You say you have learnt more in 3 years as a Catholic than any cradle Catholic -  What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stashko on August 10, 2010, 12:43:35 AM

[/quote]
I belong to a Catholic forum and I have never seen any confusion. I have seen more confusion on this forum than anywhere else because there is no official "Eastern Orthodox" teaching. It is a bunch of opinions. The Orthodox cannot even tell me with a unified voice what the status of the Roman Catholic Church is. Orthodox may like to claim they are unified, but they are not. There is no unified teaching in Orthodoxy. If the Holy Spirit is truly guiding Orthodoxy, then why do some believe that Catholics have the Holy Eucharist in our Churches and some do not? Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not? If the Holy Spirit is with you then why is there so much factionalism within Orthodoxy? If you are truly the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, wouldn't He want you to know these things since these are things which are crucial to Salvation?
[/quote]



If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux.... ;D
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 12:45:37 AM
Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

Sources?


The Internet.  I pulled these figures together when I was on CAF a few years ago.  But a search won't bring up the message.  CAF deleted thousands of Orthodox messages at the time they booted most of us off there.  They had complaints that too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

So may I put the question to you.  You say you have learnt more in 3 years as a Catholic than any cradle Catholic -  What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?

There are actually CDF documents that address what is to be believed  by Catholics.  All this other business is inconsequential, except for Ott who is still a tried and true systematics text.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 12:48:50 AM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind.  

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community.  

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves.  

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?    
    

Re the above...

Dear Father Kimel,

You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years.

Prior to that you were a priest of the Episcopalian Church for 25 years.

Now, if you wanted to speak about Anglicanism I would listen to you because of your knowledge and experience which extends over 25 years and no doubt longer than that.  I would not think that just because you converted to Roman Catholicism that 25 years of Anglican study, life and experience were expunged from your cranium.

I would expect you to be able to expound on Anglicanism.  You must be well acquainted with its doctrines and able to compare them to Roman Catholicism.

Well, you're not the only one to make such changes in life and some of the ex-Catholics on the forum are in the same situation with regard to their former faith.

Laff...

Which do you claim more often as your past...Your protestant side or your Catholic side?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 12:50:25 AM


If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux.... ;D

You'd have a bit more credibility if you could speak for yourself, rather than allowing others to speak for you.... ;)

PS: Catholics know what they believe and it is not what Father Ambrose says they believe. 

Catholics look at meaning.  Protestants tend to add meaning.

Father Ambrose grew up with the best of both and now cherry picks depending on his mood  :laugh:

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:03:06 AM

 If you are truly the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, wouldn't He want you to know these things since these are things which are crucial to Salvation?


In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity"

~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Unwittingly the Pope has proclaimed that the papacy is not necessary for the preservation of faith and morals.

The Orthodox steadfast witness and adherence to the Apostolic faith since Rome parted company is startling proof that neither the Papacy nor the Magisterium (seen as so essential by Rome) are at all necessary for the preservation of the Faith.

Fr Ambrose  o..o~
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:05:11 AM
Wyatt,

Would you have a look at message 209 and tell us what caricatures the Orthodox are guilty of about Purgatory.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:11:02 AM

Not really. No, I would not agree. I think it is important to discuss these previous RC encyclicals and teachings and see how they compare with the post Vatican II teachings and further how they would fit in with the RC EO dialog. After all, according to RC belief, teachings never change essentially, isn't it true?

The question of doctrinal continuity is an interesting question, but it is not what is being addressed here and probably cannot be addressed here, because the Catholic understanding of magisterial authority and the hermeneutics of dogmatic statements is not easily grasped by non-Catholics--heck, it's not easily grasped by Catholics.  Catholics vigorously debate among themselves the continuity of specific magisterial teachings--usury and religious freedom immediately come to mind. 

What is at issue here in this thread is the impropriety and arrogance of someone outside the Catholic Church telling Catholics what their dogmas mean.  Just as it would be improper for a Catholic, Lutheran, or Baptist to tell the Orthodox what their Church authoritatively teaches, so it is improper for Orthodox to tell Catholics what their Church authoritatively teaches.  Churches are living communities and their beliefs cannot be reduced to dead formulae.  The members of a given community are the best, and indeed only, interpreters of the beliefs of that community. 

I can understand how a non-Catholic might say to a Catholic, "On the basis of the Baltimore Catechism, Catholics appear to believe that purgatory is a place where people must first be punished by God before they are admitted into his presence" (or something like that).  But if the Catholic replies, "No, that is now what we believe.  We believe ____," then the non-Catholic should accept, if only out of politeness and charity, the Catholic's interpretation of his Church's teaching.   Of course, it might well be the case that regarding the doctrinal question being discussed Catholics might disagree among themselves, and such disagreement may and should be noted; however, the non-Catholic has no right to enter into the inter-Catholic debate and take sides, as it were.  The only folk who are competent to tell non-Catholics what Catholics believe are Catholics themselves. 

If we assume that both parties in a conversation are committed to truth and mutual understanding, then it seems to me that both parties will go out of their way to ensure that they are not misrepresenting, distorting, and caricaturing the views of the other.  Otherwise, what's the point of the conversation?   
     

Re the above...

Dear Father Kimel,

You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years.

Prior to that you were a priest of the Episcopalian Church for 25 years.

Now, if you wanted to speak about Anglicanism I would listen to you because of your knowledge and experience which extends over 25 years and no doubt longer than that.  I would not think that just because you converted to Roman Catholicism that 25 years of Anglican study, life and experience were expunged from your cranium.

I would expect you to be able to expound on Anglicanism.  You must be well acquainted with its doctrines and able to compare them to Roman Catholicism.

Well, you're not the only one to make such changes in life and some of the ex-Catholics on the forum are in the same situation with regard to their former faith.

Laff...

Which do you claim more often as your past...Your protestant side or your Catholic side?

M.

I've probably been inside Protestant churches no more than 10 times in my 64 years of life.

You must remember that during my years of Catholic education it was actually forbidden to enter Protestant churches.   If you wanted to go to a relative's wedding or funeral you needed permission from your parish priest.  Baptism - forget it! -you wouldn't get permission.  You youngsters probably find that hard to believe.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:14:29 AM
Problem is that nobody actually knows when those few select situations apply.   The number of infallible teachings is one of the mysteries held in the bosom of the Catholic Church.  Not even the Popes know.

The Roman apologist Scott Hahn says there are only TWO.

Tim Staples says there are  FOUR, and maybe more.

The famous Roman Catholic priest and broadcaster Fr Leslie Rumble says there are EIGHTEEN  (although he is not quite sure about four of them.)

The even more famous Ludwig Ott says there are SIXTY.

So what is infallible for the Catholic Church is a bit of a guess work.

Sources?


The Internet.  I pulled these figures together when I was on CAF a few years ago.  But a search won't bring up the message.  CAF deleted thousands of Orthodox messages at the time they booted most of us off there.  They had complaints that too many Catholics were converting to Orthodoxy.

I remember that Karl Keating, the head of CAF, had his own figure for infallible statements, but I cannot remember what it was.  Lots of confusion in trhe Catholic world.  What is infallible to one Catholic is not infallible to the next.

So may I put the question to you.  You say you have learnt more in 3 years as a Catholic than any cradle Catholic -  What have you been taught?  How many infallible statements are there?   And even more important, *what* are they?

There are actually CDF documents that address what is to be believed  by Catholics.

So why the not insignificant confusion among very well known Catholic apologists and writers!?  If they are ignorant in this important matter... well, it hardly bodes well for whatever else they are saying to the Catholic faithful.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:19:23 AM


If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux.... ;D

You'd have a bit more credibility if you could speak for yourself, rather than allowing others to speak for you.... ;)

PS: Catholics know what they believe and it is not what Father Ambrose says they believe. 

Catholics look at meaning.  Protestants tend to add meaning.

Father Ambrose grew up with the best of both and now cherry picks depending on his mood  :laugh:

I think you are fishing for information about my early years. :laugh:  I grew up with basically no contact with Protestantism.  It was simply forbidden.   It was even the days (do you remember this?) when it was forbidden and sinful to read a Protestant translation of the Bible.

My knowledge of Protestantism is abysmal and only piecemeal.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 10, 2010, 01:31:43 AM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.  When you do so (and why haven't you already done so?!), you will discover crucial differences between what you believe the Catholic Church teaches on purgatory and what the Catholic Church is in fact presently teaching on purgatory. 

You have been a Roman Catholic for, I believe, 3 years. Prior to that you were a priest of the Episcopalian Church for 25 years. Now, if you wanted to speak about Anglicanism I would listen to you because of your knowledge and experience which extends over 25 years and no doubt longer than that.  I would not think that just because you converted to Roman Catholicism that 25 years of Anglican study, life and experience were expunged from your cranium.  I would expect you to be able to expound on Anglicanism.  You must be well acquainted with its doctrines and able to compare them to Roman Catholicism.

You are quite correct.  I am well acquainted with Anglican theology and am able to competently contrast Anglican theology with contemporary Roman Catholic theology.  But I was not an ordinary Anglican.  I am Anglo-Catholic trained and a graduate of Nashotah House.  I have been reading Catholic theology, both systematic and liturgical, for thirty-five years.  I have even been published in a Catholic academic journal.  This is why I can confidently declare, Fr Ambrose, that your representations of Catholic theology, particularly on key issues like purgatory, are severely flawed.  They are at best one-sided and at worst blatantly wrong.  You may have been raised a Catholic (at least so I have been told); but unfortunately you do not have a sound grasp of Catholicism.  This is why the Catholics who read this forum cannot recognize their faith in your construals of Catholic doctrine.  Anyone can quote from documents they find on the internet; but understanding what these documents mean within the context of a living religious community is quite a different matter.   

I am not trying to persuade anyone to become Catholic or dissuade anyone from becoming Orthodox.  This is where you and I differ.  I love Orthodoxy, but you look on Catholicism as an enemy of the true faith, as great an enemy, to quote your words, as Islam and Communism.  It is difficult to understand an enemy.  It is difficult to even want to understand an enemy.  And it is most certainly impossible, apart from the grace of Christ, to love your enemy.  If you honestly believe the Catholic Church to be your your enemy, then not only does it become increasingly impossible for you to speak truthfully about her but the temptation to misrepresent and distort her teachings and practices becomes almost irresistible.  As Fr Gregory Jensen recently wrote on his blog:

Quote
We cannot evangelize and reconcile to Christ those who we do not love. … Unfortunately some Orthodox Christians … have no love for the Catholic Church. The absence of love need not be the same as hate--though it often is. But the absence of love makes it impossible for us to speak convincingly about the Gospel.

Oh how spiritual destructive it is to name another as one's enemy.   As St Silouan remarked, "He who does not love his enemies, does not have God’s grace."

All I am asking from the Orthodox members of this forum is that they accurately represent contemporary Catholic teaching, without polemical distortion.  I do not think this is too much to ask.  I do not ask anyone to accept me as an authority on Catholicism.  As you point out, I have only been a Roman Catholic for a short time (specifically five years, not three) and though I passed the theological examinations for ordination, my comprehension of historic Catholic theology is severely limited by my lack of sympathy for and instruction in scholasticism.  Fortunately for me, however, the Catholic Church no longer ties itself to medieval scholastic formulation, as evidenced by the Catholic Catechism.  One does not need to be a Thomist in order to achieve a rudimentary grasp of Roman Catholic theology.  But do not take my word on these matters.  Read John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict.  If your understanding of Catholic doctrine conflicts with theirs, then you know that your understanding is most likely defective.         

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 01:57:02 AM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.


I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  :laugh:

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 02:05:13 AM

Oh how spiritual destructive it is to name another as one's enemy.   As St Silouan remarked, "He who does not love his enemies, does not have God’s grace."


Father, the history of Roman Catholicism in its contacts with Orthodox Christians has certainly seen it acting time and again as our enemy and pursuing our annihilation.

That does not prevent us loving Catholics as individuals and wishing them salvation.   It has always been the way of the Church to suffer in times of persecution but to make a major effort not to loose its grip on the Saviour's command to love our enemies..

There is something I like to quote and you may have seen it before, from Saint Gregory of Nazianzen


"We seek not conquest but the return of our brethren,
whose separation from us is tearing us apart."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 02:43:41 AM

If catholics don't believe the same thing as Father Ambrose  was taught , when he was catholic ,and they argue with him like this Catholic Priest did It Proves what Fr.Ambrose has said that what was then and isn't  now, but something entirely different the catholic church  is in a state of flux.... ;D

Absolutely logical.   

I may be right, I may be wrong, but the contrast between what I am saying from pre-Vatican II and what Fr Kimel is saying post-Vatican II is sure proof of changes in Catholic teaching.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 10, 2010, 10:10:17 AM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.


I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  :laugh:

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past?  

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy?  

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.    

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stashko on August 10, 2010, 11:14:16 AM
The Catholic Church Is Chasing After New Revelation ,even from questionable taiking Apparitions ,unknown to the ancient Holy Fathers Faith Once delivered....

It's so sad that the Catholic Saint's the Pillars of faith ,that lived and died for what they believed in, isn't relevant now,, The Only thing that Matters , is what is believed in the present....Out with the Old ...In with the New...

I've  said this before ,and its worth repeating ,The Catholic Church is sowing it own Demise.....


If  Catholic Faithful Of 1000 yrs, 500 yrs or even 200 yrs ago, were to appear in the present ,They wouldn't recognize their Catholic Church ,at all...this was mentioned before I Believe by Father Ambrose ,Instead they would feel more comfortable  in the Holy Orthodox Churches ....... ;D


Welcome Holy Catholic Saints ,To Holy Orthodoxy ,Upon Your Death, The veil Has Been Lifted ,all of your errors Have been corrected that you believed in ,when you lived on this earth...You have received the true faith And Light Of Holy Orthodoxy,Never Fear For Holy Orthodoxy will never Abandon you,but will love and Honor You till the end of time and beyond.......You'll never be Irrelevant... ;D


Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Schultz on August 10, 2010, 11:32:40 AM
Well said, stashko.

Yes, that's right.  WELL SAID!   :o
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 10, 2010, 11:54:19 AM

[/quote]
Their conversion was based on falsehood. Lord have mercy!
[/quote]

What you say here is shameful. Lord have mercy!, indeed.

The same could be said of your own conversion.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: FormerReformer on August 10, 2010, 11:59:30 AM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.


I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  :laugh:

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past?  

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy?  

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.    



This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes.  Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?"  To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 12:08:59 PM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.


I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  :laugh:

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

I have told you before, Father Ambrose, that you can copy the words but you do NOT comprehend the meanings and you impute meaning to the words that are not there.

There has been NO change in meaning on the teaching of purgatory in the Church.  

The words change to reflect historic patterns in metaphor and analogy.  The words change to reflect the bias for or against the capabilities of the laity to comprehend.  The words change to reflect regional historical conditions.  The words change to express one side or the other of the mercy/justice set of concepts...ect.

But you care little for any of this because ALL you can do is grasp words that are freighted with meaning for outsiders that do not belong to the words.  That is called polemics.

You are wrong about the meaning of purgatory and purgation in the Catholic Church and from what I have been able to determine over the years, you are wrong with great energy of purpose and contempt.

What you try to paint as a profound change in Catholic doctrine and dogmatics is NOT.  It only looks that way to those looking in from the outside and a hostile outside at that.

I thank God that not all Orthodox bishops do as you do.  And that is where the accords will come.  Not from me.  And blessedly not from you.  But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 10, 2010, 12:15:58 PM
Fr Ambrose and others (even other romans) have listed several official statements that say exactly what they mean. Then you would have us believe that you have the authority to reinterpret them to a point that they have become null and void, therefore making (in your mind) no change in doctrine. If you don't agree with Florence then declare it a false council. If you don't agree with the past popes, theologians, and catechisms than repudiate them so that we can take you seriously. Until then any discussion is pointless. Does JP2 or Benedict XVI trump Florence?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 12:29:03 PM
Fr Ambrose and others (even other romans) have listed several official statements that say exactly what they mean. Then you would have us believe that you have the authority to reinterpret them to a point that they have become null and void, therefore making (in your mind) no change in doctrine. If you don't agree with Florence then declare it a false council. If you don't agree with the past popes, theologians, and catechisms than repudiate them so that we can take you seriously. Until then any discussion is pointless. Does JP2 or Benedict XVI trump Florence?

Neither Benedict nor John Paul changed what was stated in Florence or Trent.  That is the flaw in what you are saying. 

If I tell you what temporal punishment means, you or Father Ambrose and others, will simply tell me that it is my opinion.  But that would not be true.  And that is where my primary concern lies in this so-called discussion.

My concern lies with meaning.  You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation.

So you can go on and on convincing yourself and others that you do, and I don't but that does not make it real. 

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 10, 2010, 12:55:58 PM
"You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation"


Seriously, though you have no idea whether I am clueless or not. You know nothing about me period. Perhaps I am one of the numerous former romans...maybe I am a spy....or any other conjecture.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 10, 2010, 01:15:04 PM
It's so sad that the Catholic Saint's the Pillars of faith ,that lived and died for what they believed in, isn't relevant now,, The Only thing that Matters , is what is believed in the present....Out with the Old ...In with the New...


Is there a resource that would describe some of the changes with quotes?
Thanks.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 01:20:02 PM
"You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation"


Seriously, though you have no idea whether I am clueless or not. You know nothing about me period. Perhaps I am one of the numerous former romans...maybe I am a spy....or any other conjecture.

Frankly, it means nothing to me to know your background.  

I have family members who don't know and could care less the meaning of temporal punishment.

To them...punishment is punishment.  Why translate it as "punishment" if it means something other than God inflicting punishments on his people?

Sound familiar?

The point is what the Church means and has meant over the ages and generations.  That is what is important.  And you won't find that out asking my cousin Sue.

If you really had some knowledge of what I am saying, we'd not be having this discussion, or you'd be supporting what I say and adding to it as Father Al and others have done or tried to do.

This issue has never been the words that Father Ambrose offers.  The issue has always been the meaning, which when I offer it, he rejects it in the most unctuous manner;  dismisses it as the ravings of a bright but surely deluded elijahmaria.

How many people here like or trust me well enough to over-ride that kind of assassination?

How many people would read the texts I might suggest to get a real feel for the teaching in the Church over time?

How honest is this so-called discussion really?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 02:45:44 PM
In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.
But has there been a change in the teaching of the Orthodox Church on slavery. For example, weren't the Roma (gypsies) widely held as slaves in Moldavia in the 14th or 15th century? And if the Orthodox Church was oposed to slavery, then how would one explain the class of slaves called  ţigani mănăstireşti ("Gypsies belonging to the monasteries"), who were the property of Romanian Orthodox and Greek Orthodox monasteries?
See: Will Guy, Between Past and Future: The Roma of Central and Eastern Europe, University of Hertfordshire Press, Hatfield, 2001. ISBN 1902806077 p. 267
Neagu Djuvara, Între Orient şi Occident. Ţările române la începutul epocii moderne, Humanitas, Bucharest, 1995. ISBN 973-28-0523-4 p. 43, 44
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Schultz on August 10, 2010, 03:01:03 PM
Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stashko on August 10, 2010, 03:06:01 PM
Well said, stashko.

Yes, that's right.  WELL SAID!   :o

Sorry Schultz ,I didn't mean to shock You,,I Have to give Fr.Ambrose  All the credit, for my new outlook on things ,especally ,on the westen catholic Saints...

When ever Fr. Brings Up a western Saint especally a irish ones, he has great love for them,That gave me Food for thought, Plus he never condemed my former outlook towards them , but thur his post about the Western Saints ,started me to think how wrong i was about them .......A work in Progress I Am.... ;D
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 10, 2010, 03:09:13 PM
Mary,

Where's the beef? You put forward your opinions, your interpretations, your conjecture. Fr Ambrose is nice enough to brush that aside and ask for evidence. Please show us a magesterial teaching from Rome. You are quick to tell Orthodox what they believe and when they refute it you talk about cloak and dagger type meetings with Orthodox Clergy and laity that of course agree with you(convenient). There must be an entire unorthodox underground movement! The council of Florence is definitive your opinions are not. I don't disagree with you that may not be the present teaching of Rome but then you have another problem on your hands.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 03:28:35 PM
Mary,

Where's the beef? You put forward your opinions, your interpretations, your conjecture. Fr Ambrose is nice enough to brush that aside and ask for evidence. Please show us a magesterial teaching from Rome. You are quick to tell Orthodox what they believe and when they refute it you talk about cloak and dagger type meetings with Orthodox Clergy and laity that of course agree with you(convenient). There must be an entire unorthodox underground movement! The council of Florence is definitive your opinions are not. I don't disagree with you that may not be the present teaching of Rome but then you have another problem on your hands.

The point is what the Church means and has meant by the term "temporal punishments" over the ages and generations is not what some Orthodox faithful say it means.

This issue has never been the words that Father Ambrose offers.  The issue has always been the meaning, which when I offer it, he rejects it in the most unctuous manner;  dismisses it as the ravings of a bright but surely deluded elijahmaria.

How many people here like or trust me well enough to over-ride that kind of assassination?

How many people would read the texts I might suggest to get a real feel for the teaching in the Church over time?

How honest is this so-called discussion really?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 10, 2010, 03:40:02 PM
So asking for evidence is now character assassanation? Or pehaps your last post has some hidden meaning which you alone can teach us. Sounds very gnostic to me.  You give your opinion and it might be possibly correct, but you are one of a billion people each with their own varying opinions. So that is why we would like something verify that your opinion is correct. So do you agree with the statements Council of Florence?

Or do you agree with Cardinal Husar: "Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith." 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 03:48:08 PM
I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments. 

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment. 

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 05:33:21 PM
Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.


I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today. 
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: theistgal on August 10, 2010, 05:47:40 PM
Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.


I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps we Catholics should not use this issue to beat the Eastern Orthodox with, since the majority of slaveholders in the southern U.S. were Catholic, and did not seem to be overly troubled in conscience about it:  http://www.jstor.org/pss/25025139

In the issue of chattel slavery, a lot of Christians were misguided.  We all have historical sins to atone for.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 06:39:10 PM
Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.


I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps we Catholics should not use this issue to beat the Eastern Orthodox with, since the majority of slaveholders in the southern U.S. were Catholic, and did not seem to be overly troubled in conscience about it:  http://www.jstor.org/pss/25025139

In the issue of chattel slavery, a lot of Christians were misguided.  We all have historical sins to atone for.
Yes.
But the question concerned whether or not the E. Orthodox Church has ever changed its teaching.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Schultz on August 10, 2010, 06:58:56 PM
Last I checked, slavery wasn't a theological issue, but a political one.


I recommend checking further. I would contend that it is a sin and it is morally wrong for the white European to enslave the colored woman (or man). This is a serious denial of her right to live as a human being and I would be  surprised to find that anyone would say that the enslavement of the colored woman by the white European male is not immoral, unethical and seriously wrong according to the Christian moral code today.  
Do you say that according to the Eastern Orthodox Church, the enslavement of the colored woman (or man)  by the white European male is not a sin?  That there is nothing wrong with it?

The meaning of slavery itself in the United States and how it became an issue of race is a political issue which is couched in morality.  Of course it's wrong for someone to be enslaved because of their race.  This is a red herring and a ridiculous statement.  And, as far as I know, there was never a pronouncement from any Orthodox church which said that Africans should be allowed to be enslaved by white men simply for being Africans.  Do you know of any?  For me to answer such a question, you have to show that the Orthodox Church once said that it was okay for the "peculiar institution" of the South to exist or to continue to exist.

St. Paul apparently condoned slavery, as he told slaves to accept their lot in life.  Are you saying that St. Paul was wrong, theologically speaking?  
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Aindriú on August 10, 2010, 07:38:49 PM
Can someone pass the popcorn?  ;D

Seriously though, I've almost forgot what the topic is. What is the current issue? All I've seen for the past few posts is vague statements "that's not what it says!/yes it is!".

LOL.
My two cents: The RCC uses different language to define the same belief. They aren't changing their belief about purgatory. However, unlike Orthodox, they have a different culture/method to approaching the Divine. One of these approaches is to define the xxxxx out of everything. The belief (doctrine) doesn't change. What does change is how it is put into words.

Things that do change are ideas like Limbo. Being something that was popular, though never official, the Vatican does what it does (gives marching orders to the faith, ie this is the wrong direction, go this way), and perspective is (hopefully) brought back to orthodoxy.   
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 08:30:39 PM
This is where we left off on the actual topic under consideration:

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments. 

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment. 

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 08:50:42 PM

My concern lies with meaning.  You haven't got a clue what "temporal punishment" means with respect to purgation.



The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1472) defines "temporal punishment" as an unhealthy attachment to creatures.

So there you go -and you thought I didn't have a clue about the contemporary meaning of "temporal punishment."
 :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 08:56:46 PM

But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.


I am not anti-unionist.   I hope strongly for the union of our Churches.  But it cannot be achieved by doctrinal compromise or clever formulations which gloss over and disguise major doctrinal differences.  It can only come about by the complete acceptance by Roman Catholics of the orthodox faith.  Nothing less will suffice.

For that opinion I am quite prepared to answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am wondering if your Orthodox mentors whom you mention disagree with that?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 09:02:05 PM

But you like all anti-unionists down the ages will do all you can to whip the laity into a frenzy of negativity and for that you will answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.


I am not anti-unionist.   I hope strongly for the union of our Churches.  But it cannot be achieved by doctrinal compromise or clever formulations which gloss over and disguise major doctrinal differences.  It can only come about by the complete acceptance by Roman Catholics of the orthodox faith.  Nothing less will suffice.

For that opinion I am quite prepared to answer to a power beyond bishop and throne.

I am wondering if your Orthodox mentors whom you mention disagree with that?

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists, all of whom thought and think that the Catholic Church must change because she is heretical.

quack-quack

Apparently you have nothing further of substance to add to what I posted as the Church's ancient teaching concerning temporal punishments.

It's been fun.

M.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:06:05 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:12:25 PM

Apparently you have nothing further of substance to add to what I posted as the Church's ancient teaching concerning temporal punishments.


I have given you the contemporary Catholic meaning of "temporal punishment."   It is an "unhealthy attachment to creatures" ~CCC1472.

I would not dare to proceed and point out how that is totally out of whack with the teachings pf previous Popes and Councils and tradition because you will simply whack me over the head and Fr Kimel will tell me that I am incapable of understanding the present and most up-to-date teaching.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 09:17:25 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:17:54 PM

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists,



I see.  So the Roman Catholic Church must be considered anti-unionist because it demands that the Orthodox make changes in their sacramental theology, their ecclesiology, etc, to suit the Roman Catholic Church.  Thanks for clarifying that.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:20:16 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 09:22:33 PM


The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.
I think that there was a need to change the acceptance of slavery, as one example. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 09:27:22 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?
Interesting question.
I think that the CCC would be considered part of the ordinary magisterium of the RCC, which is authoritative and generally accepted, but non-infallible.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 09:31:32 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

In Christ,

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:32:56 PM

The Catholic Church is one holy catholic and apostolic.  There will never be any need to change any part of her to suit anyone else...ever.

So if you think that it will be necessary to do so then you categorically and historically fit with the anti-unionists,


Presumably your Orthodox spiritual mentors are also "anti-unionist" or do they agree with you that the Roman Catholic Church has to change no part of her teachings and praxis to enter into union with Orthodoxy?

If that is the case I would be a little wary of such mentors and their grasp of Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:38:26 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:40:12 PM
I am not aware of any Orthodox caricatures of your doctrine of Purgatory.  It would help us for the future, to recognise these caricatures if you would give us a list of what they are. And those of us who are guilty of the caricatures would be able to avoid them.

You had me rolling on the floor loud with this one, Fr Ambrose.   :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

If you would like to read Orthodox caricatures of the Catholic construal of purgatory, I suggest that you compare your own postings on purgatory with the teachings of Pope John Paul II (http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm) and Pope Benedict XVI (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html), both of whom, I think, may be judged reliable expositors of the Catholic faith.


I have quoted teachings on Purgatory from Pope Paul VI, from the Councils of Florence and Trent (ecumenical and infallible in Catholic eyes) from Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventura ----- it is really worrying when modern Catholics who uphold what you keep insisting is the present teaching and the contemporary teaching see the traditional Catholic teaching as a caricature.

When speaking of doctrine, terms such as 'present' and 'contemporary' send chills down orthodox spines.  :laugh:

You confirm what I say, that the teaching on Purgatory is in a state of flux.  The Orthodox may rejoice that the present construal tends towards something more orthodox, and may that tendancy strengthen.  But the lack of integrity in claiming that the teaching of today is identical with the teaching of yesterday - well, that is certainly a worry.  Are you aware of writings from Catholic theologians who have the courage to say openly that the teaching has changed?  I have read an article or two on the Web but have not kept the links.

There are at least three different questions before us:

(1) What does the Catholic Church presently teach about purgatory?

(2) Is this teaching different from what was taught in the past? 

(3) What level of magisterial authority do the various doctrinal formulations on purgatory, past and present, enjoy? 

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   



This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes.  Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?"  To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"


BINGO!
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 09:46:50 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try.  :laugh:
I think that Father Kimel says that there has been a "clarification" and a "reinterpretation" of the doctrine of Purgatory: "During the past fifty years a significant clarification of the doctrine of Purgatory has occurred. Moving away from the juridical categories in which the doctrine has typically been expressed, Catholic theologians have sought to interpret the doctrine in personalist terms that more adequately express the encounter between sinners and the God who is a trinitarian community of love. If one looks closely, one can see signs of this reinterpretation in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of Pope John Paul II—specifically coalescing around the notion of “temporal punishment for sin.” "
See "Clarifying Purgatory"
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/clarifying-purgatory/

 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 09:57:36 PM

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472
CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that 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."

"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."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try.  :laugh:
I think that Father Kimel says that there has been a "clarification" and a "reinterpretation" of the doctrine of Purgatory: "During the past fifty years a significant clarification of the doctrine of Purgatory has occurred. Moving away from the juridical categories in which the doctrine has typically been expressed, Catholic theologians have sought to interpret the doctrine in personalist terms that more adequately express the encounter between sinners and the God who is a trinitarian community of love. If one looks closely, one can see signs of this reinterpretation in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of Pope John Paul II—specifically coalescing around the notion of “temporal punishment for sin.” "
See "Clarifying Purgatory"
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/clarifying-purgatory/


 

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.

The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.

By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 10, 2010, 10:27:34 PM
Quote
Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

from http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp)

So we're forgiven from our guilt, and we won't go to hell, but we may still be punished?!  Is there a list somewhere of temporal punishments and their  corresponding sins?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 10:35:56 PM
Is there a list somewhere of temporal punishments and their  corresponding sins?

No, because it is subjective.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 10:42:39 PM


Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   



Father Kimel,

I am sitting here, my eyes streaming with tears of laughter.  I have rarely met with such a caricature of the Catholic understanding of tradition.  Please tell me you did not mean it to come out that way it sounds, it was just occasioned by the heat of the discussion.   Please do not write any more or all this laughter may give me a heart attack.   If this is truly how modern Catholicism views its doctrines in relation to its traditional teaching then it is certainly time to shut up shop.  Shut up shop and come home to Orthodoxy.  We'll teach you the true value of tradition and its continuance through every age.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 10:49:10 PM
So asking for evidence is now character assassanation? Or pehaps your last post has some hidden meaning which you alone can teach us. Sounds very gnostic to me.  You give your opinion and it might be possibly correct, but you are one of a billion people each with their own varying opinions. So that is why we would like something verify that your opinion is correct. So do you agree with the statements Council of Florence?

Or do you agree with Cardinal Husar: "Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith." 

Holding my breath, waiting for the appearance of the new Catechism from the Greek Ukrainian Church and wondering if it is going to expound on these things.  Foxes in the hen house.   :laugh: :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: theistgal on August 10, 2010, 11:02:08 PM
I too have tears streaming down my face as I read this thread, but they're not from laughter.  How can we ever hope to reunite in this world when there is such a vast chasm between us, so filled with scorn and willful misunderstandings on both sides?  God help us all. :(
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 11:10:53 PM
I too have tears streaming down my face as I read this thread, but they're not from laughter.  How can we ever hope to reunite in this world when there is such a vast chasm between us, so filled with scorn and willful misunderstandings on both sides?  God help us all. :(

Oops!   Shouldn't be giving scandal.  I apologise for that.   But I am developing into an old curmudgeon.  Mary is already a better one than I shall ever be. :laugh:  We strike sparks off one another.  We adopt highhanded stances.  I adore her.

While I do have a hope for the union of our Churches I am also inclined to accept these words from Saint Nektary of Optina, the last Optina Elder who died in 1927:

Once N. Pavlovich asked the Elder: "Is it possible to hope for the unification of the churches?"

He replied, "No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church."

"Wisdom has built herself a house with seven pillars. Orthodoxy has these seven pillars. But God's wisdom has other dwellings- they may have six pillars or fewer, and accordingly a lesser measure of grace." Saint Nektary of Optina


Source: Elder Nektary of Optina by I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 10, 2010, 11:12:58 PM
I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments.  

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment.  

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Here is another substantive aspect the concept of temporal punishments.  Most of the instances of "krima" used in the passages below are the compound word "katakrima"  which indicates eternal damnation indicated by the addition of "kata".

However in 1 Corinthians 11:29, damnation or judgement is translated from krima...without the addition of kata indicating that the judgment is not eternal but immediate, temporary, temporal.  

Krima, when not compounded with kata, means that it is a temporary or temporal judgment....or as you can see below, krima can also refer to the punishment with which one is sentenced as part of that judgment.

So it is clear that the idea of temporary or temporal punishments is found in Scripture and can be equally rendered as temporal judgment.  

It is from this idea of eating unworthily to our temporary judgment in the Apostle Paul, that we arrive at  the teaching that the worthy reception of Eucharist will remove the temporary jugements incurred by those consequences of our sins that we cannot remove or resolve on our own.  

We cannot resolve our broken and fallen tendencies to be attached to the things of this temporal world without the burning power of God's grace and therefore...again....the constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that in this life Eucharist will heal all temporal punishments, and hereafter it will be the burning power of God's grace outside of the Eucharist that will heal us of that which has not been healed in this life.

These things are not new teaching at all.  They are grounded in Scripture, and as noted they are part of the teachings of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Strong's #2917: krima (pronounced kree'-mah)

    from 2919; a decision (the function or the effect, for or against ("crime")):--avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, + go to law, judgment.

    Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

    krima

    1) a decree, judgments

    2) judgment

    2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others

    2b) in a forensic sense

    2b1) the sentence of a judge

    2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced

    2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence

    3) a matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court

    Part of Speech: noun neuter


    Usage:

    This word is used 28 times:
    

    Matthew 7:2: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with"
    Matthew 23:14: "make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
    Mark 12:40: "make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 20:47: "make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 23:40: "in the same condemnation?"
    Luke 24:20: "delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him."
    John 9:39: "Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this"
    Acts 24:25: "temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled,"
    Romans 2:2: "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth"
    Romans 2:3: "thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
    Romans 3:8: "good may come? whose damnation is just."
    Romans 5:16: "gift: for the judgment was by one to"
    Romans 11:33: "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
    Romans 13:2: "and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
    1 Corinthians 6:7: "among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why"
    1 Corinthians 11:29: "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the"
    1 Corinthians 11:34: "that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest"
    Galatians 5:10: "ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever"
    1 Timothy 3:6: "being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."
    1 Timothy 5:12: "Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."
    Hebrews 6:2: "of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
    James 3:1: "that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
    1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house"
    2 Peter 2:3: "make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and"
    Jude 1:4: "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the"
    Revelation 17:1: "I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth"
    Revelation 18:20: "prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."
    Revelation 20:4: "upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the"

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 10, 2010, 11:27:57 PM
How can we ever hope to reunite in this world ....
I don't see an overabundance of enthusiasm on the E. Orthodox side for reunion with the Catholics. On the other hand, the Catholics are slow in recognising the problems that the E. Orthodox have with the Roman papacy. And of course, the OO have a problem with the idea that the E. Patriarchs and/or the Roman Pope should lead the Church.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 11:35:47 PM
At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   


Father Kimel,

That really is a shocking statement.  If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.

Those who agree with you may stay with her to assist to complete her protestantisation.

Those who cannot agree with you may leave and find a home in Orthodoxy.

I believe that the ramifications of your words are that deep and that serious.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 10, 2010, 11:37:17 PM
How can we ever hope to reunite in this world ....
I don't see an overabundance of enthusiasm on the E. Orthodox side for reunion with the Catholics.

In the light of what Fr Kimel has just said, who would blame them.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: LBK on August 10, 2010, 11:52:03 PM
Fr Alvin's statement of:
 
Quote
Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.
 

is either a serious misunderstanding on his part of his church's modus operandi, or, he is, indeed, describing the reality. The last sentence is particularly disturbing.

If the latter is true, then there can never be reunification between the RC and the Orthodox, and my respect for the RC church has diminished greatly. What this post of his is saying, in effect, is proclaiming a kind of papal protestantism, where doctrine can be altered according to papal decree. Additions and subtractions - additions like filioque, purgatory and immaculate conception, subtractions such as "limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching".

Has the RCC really strayed so far from its apostolic roots?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 12:01:00 AM
Fr Alvin's statement of:
 
Quote
Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.
 

is either a serious misunderstanding on his part of his church's modus operandi, or, he is, indeed, describing the reality. The last sentence is particularly disturbing.

If the latter is true, then there can never be reunification between the RC and the Orthodox, and my respect for the RC church has diminished greatly. What this post of his is saying, in effect, is proclaiming a kind of papal protestantism, where doctrine can be altered according to papal decree. Additions and subtractions - additions like purgatory and immaculate conception, subtractions such as "limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching".

Has the RCC really strayed so far from its apostolic roots?

Here is the portion of the quote that determines Father Kimel's meaning and I believe Father Ambrose would have to be blind to miss it: " At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago."

It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:

Therefore it only matters that we look at what the Church teaches today because it is the same as yesterday.
++++++++++++

I agree that Father Kimel took a verbal short cut BUT the fact that he highlighted the words: It does not matter what YOU THINK ..."   Indicates that he doesn't give a rat's rump about what Father Ambrose says the Catholic Church teaches or not...What he cares about is what the Church teaches today...because it is the same as the universal teaching for all time.

That is the real message and the highlighted words and the context of his comments should indicate meaning...unless someone seeks to wrap a different meaning into the words.

Mary

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 12:03:02 AM
These texts are much more relevant to the topic at hand:

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments.  

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment.  

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Here is another substantive aspect the concept of temporal punishments.  Most of the instances of "krima" used in the passages below are the compound word "katakrima"  which indicates eternal damnation indicated by the addition of "kata".

However in 1 Corinthians 11:29, damnation or judgement is translated from krima...without the addition of kata indicating that the judgment is not eternal but immediate, temporary, temporal.  

Krima, when not compounded with kata, means that it is a temporary or temporal judgment....or as you can see below, krima can also refer to the punishment with which one is sentenced as part of that judgment.

So it is clear that the idea of temporary or temporal punishments is found in Scripture and can be equally rendered as temporal judgment.  

It is from this idea of eating unworthily to our temporary judgment in the Apostle Paul, that we arrive at  the teaching that the worthy reception of Eucharist will remove the temporary jugements incurred by those consequences of our sins that we cannot remove or resolve on our own.  

We cannot resolve our broken and fallen tendencies to be attached to the things of this temporal world without the burning power of God's grace and therefore...again....the constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that in this life Eucharist will heal all temporal punishments, and hereafter it will be the burning power of God's grace outside of the Eucharist that will heal us of that which has not been healed in this life.

These things are not new teaching at all.  They are grounded in Scripture, and as noted they are part of the teachings of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Strong's #2917: krima (pronounced kree'-mah)

    from 2919; a decision (the function or the effect, for or against ("crime")):--avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, + go to law, judgment.

    Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

    krima

    1) a decree, judgments

    2) judgment

    2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others

    2b) in a forensic sense

    2b1) the sentence of a judge

    2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced

    2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence

    3) a matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court

    Part of Speech: noun neuter


    Usage:

    This word is used 28 times:
    

    Matthew 7:2: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with"
    Matthew 23:14: "make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
    Mark 12:40: "make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 20:47: "make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 23:40: "in the same condemnation?"
    Luke 24:20: "delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him."
    John 9:39: "Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this"
    Acts 24:25: "temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled,"
    Romans 2:2: "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth"
    Romans 2:3: "thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
    Romans 3:8: "good may come? whose damnation is just."
    Romans 5:16: "gift: for the judgment was by one to"
    Romans 11:33: "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
    Romans 13:2: "and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
    1 Corinthians 6:7: "among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why"
    1 Corinthians 11:29: "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the"
    1 Corinthians 11:34: "that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest"
    Galatians 5:10: "ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever"
    1 Timothy 3:6: "being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."
    1 Timothy 5:12: "Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."
    Hebrews 6:2: "of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
    James 3:1: "that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
    1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house"
    2 Peter 2:3: "make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and"
    Jude 1:4: "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the"
    Revelation 17:1: "I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth"
    Revelation 18:20: "prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."
    Revelation 20:4: "upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the"


Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 11, 2010, 12:14:47 AM
If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.
I think it is true to some extent that there is a lot of division in the RCC today.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 11, 2010, 12:29:25 AM
If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.
Wow...talk about pot/kettle.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 03:23:29 AM
[
It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:


I see that you are profess an anti-unionist attitude.

Unless the Roman Catholic Church changes its teaching it will never be accepted into unity with the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 03:46:08 AM

I belong to a Catholic forum and I have never seen any confusion.

Spend some time on CAF.  I think it is the largest forum on the Catholic internet.   Quite an amount of dissension there.

Quote

 I have seen more confusion on this forum than anywhere else because there is no official "Eastern Orthodox" teaching.

It is rude to put Eastern Orthodox in inverted commas and I am sure you know that.  I do not write "Roman Catholic."

Quote

The Orthodox cannot even tell me with a unified voice what the status of the Roman Catholic Church is.

There are certainly different opinions within Orthodoxy about the Roman Catholic Church.

Your own Church varies in its opinions of us.   Recently Pope Benedict said that we are a true Church but defective.  Other Popes have said we are heretics.  Who is right?  Popes such as Pope Eugene and others have officially proclaimed that we are going to hell.     There is no unified voice in your Church about the status of Orthodoxy - just a bunch of opinions over the years.


Quote

If the Holy Spirit is truly guiding Orthodoxy, then why do some believe that Catholics have the Holy Eucharist in our Churches and some do not?

There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.


Quote


Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not?


I am not aware of any Orthodox Church which prohibits the use of contraception (given certain conditions.)


Quote

If the Holy Spirit is with you then why is there so much factionalism within Orthodoxy?

The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.

Quote


If you are truly the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, wouldn't He want you to know these things since these are things which are crucial to Salvation?

An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.

Contraception - the question is settled

"Factionalism" - not a desirable thing but it does not prevent salvation

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 04:45:18 AM

Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not?


The Claretian Fathers published an article in their magazine on contraceoption.  It is called "It is Time to End the Hypocrisy on Birth Control"

It highlights the dissension and confusion in the Catholic Church.

I found that it has been placed in The Free Libnrary

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It's+time+to+end+the+hypocrisy+on+birth+control.(Column)-a020643239

-oOo-

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) estimtes that 97% of Catholic married couples are using forms of contraception forbidden by the Catholic Church and which are gravely sinful

see message 14
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501

One cannot begin to imagine the catastrophic effect of these Catholics in a state of continuous mortal sin - on the spiritual life of their families and on their parishes.  They must be like a cloud of volcanic ash stifling the spiritual life of the parishes.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 05:27:50 AM
Dear Wyatt,

With reference to message 214 --- Have you discovered the number of infallible statements and what they are?

Dear Mary,

With reference to message 263 --- Have you discovered the magisterial definition of "temporal punishment"?  That will provide the basis for the discussion you would like.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 05:38:28 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 05:55:29 AM
Additional information is given by Pope Paul VI.  He teaches that temporal punishment is inflicted by God.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 11, 2010, 08:19:12 AM
Additional information is given by Pope Paul VI.  He teaches that temporal punishment is inflicted by God.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.



So how DO we know if the bad things that happen to us are punishments or just stuff that happens? I think passages like beginning of Luke 13 and Matt 5:45?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 08:44:39 AM
[
So how DO we know if the bad things that happen to us are punishments or just stuff that happens? I think passages like beginning of Luke 13 and Matt 5:45?

Yes, it is not as clear for many of us as it was for David in 2 Samuel 12.

Here we see the principle of temporal punishment clearly at work.  Whether this also lines up somehow with modern Catholicism's teaching of "unhealthy attachment to creatures" (David's attachment to his baby son) I do not know.

"Then Nathan said to David.................... "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

"This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."


Presumably in Catholic understanding this temporal punishment due to sin, the death of his boy, freed David form any further punishment in the afterlife for the sins he had committed.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 09:21:49 AM
[
It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:


I see that you are profess an anti-unionist attitude.

Unless the Roman Catholic Church changes its teaching it will never be accepted into unity with the Orthodox Church.

You say that but I do not think that is going to be what is required at all.  In fact I think these discussions are all about how to allow both confessions to carry on as they are in communion as we did for a 1000 years before.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 09:25:39 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 09:38:46 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

Btw, I just checked your quote from Trent and while it mentions temporal punishment it provides no definition.   Stop pulling my leg!  :laugh:
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 09:43:17 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 09:48:08 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

All I am hearing is evasion.

 For some reason you shy away from providing the magisterial definition.  Why?  That piques my curiosity.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 10:00:44 AM
Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

All I am hearing is evasion.

 For some reason you shy away from providing the magisterial definition.  Why?  That piques my curiosity.

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.

This is something that you already know and so what you do here is clearly meant to do nothing but block the opportunity to discuss the Conciliar magisterial teaching that I have given you some half dozen times now along with the transliteration of the Greek word that is the Scriptural foundation for the term "temporal punishments"...which can mean punishment, judgment, condemnation, etc.  and has been translated in all that variety over time as bible translations have proliferated.  The common Catholic translation is "judgment".  I offered you this data on "krima" from Strong's so that there would be no accusation of undue bias in my Scriptural sources.

So you actually have what you have been demanding and you don't dare acknowledge it because it flies in the face of your hysterical effort to tell unsuspecting Orthodox and Catholics an outright falsehood about Catholic teaching and its meaning with regard to the Catholic teachings on purgation.  I guess you count on ignorance to lend credence to your doctrinal distortions of Catholic teaching.

It is a fraud that you are perpetrating here and I don't quite understand why you would want to do that.

Mary

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 10:14:27 AM

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.


And you are trying to lead us astray with word games.  >:(

How many times have you and other Catholics laughed the Orthodox to scorn for assuming that "doctrines" and "traditions" (even those which have been around for centuries) which have no magisterial definition are a part of Catholic theology?  Limbo comes to mind at once, and so does many of the teachings on Purgatory.

No, we shan't fall into that trap again.  We shall never assume that things without magisterial definition have any certainty in Catholicism.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 10:28:36 AM

This is something that you already know and so what you do here is clearly meant to do nothing but block the opportunity to discuss the Conciliar magisterial teaching that I have given you some half dozen times now along with the transliteration of the Greek word that is the Scriptural foundation for the term "temporal punishments"...which can mean punishment, judgment, condemnation, etc.  and has been translated in all that variety over time as bible translations have proliferated.  The common Catholic translation is "judgment".  I offered you this data on "krima" from Strong's so that there would be no accusation of undue bias in my Scriptural sources.

So you actually have what you have been demanding and you don't dare acknowledge it


Ok, so call me a thickhead.  I have been looking out for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment but have not seen it in any of your messages.  Humour me.  Could you spell it out for me.

The Magisterium teaches us that temporal punishment is......................................................................................
______________

Ah! Forget it.  It's like pulling a tooth just to get the definition out of you.  The difficulties ahead in any further discussion are impossible to imagine. :-\
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 10:39:57 AM

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.


And you are trying to lead us astray with word games.  >:(

How many times have you and other Catholics laughed the Orthodox to scorn for assuming that "doctrines" and "traditions" (even those which have been around for centuries) which have no magisterial definition are a part of Catholic theology?  Limbo comes to mind at once, and so does many of the teachings on Purgatory.

No, we shan't fall into that trap again.  We shall never assume that things without magisterial definition have any certainty in Catholicism.


Father,

Doctrinal teaching and discussions of doctrinal teaching do not make me laugh, scoff or scorn.  I am a teacher for Christ's sake and have been so for many years both formally and informally.  I don't laugh at those who struggle honestly to gain understanding.

I will poke fun at gamers and nasties, which might be better than a poke in the nose, I don't know.

Catholics cannot always discern what is what when they read Catholic documents or documents written by Catholics.  Many cannot even make the simple distinction that I just made.

I never laugh at those who make honest errors, I don't care what I think of them personally.  An honest error triggers the natural born teacher in my and that is how I respond.

Whatever your personal war is, I really don't care at all.

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 10:56:24 AM

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.


I wish to say that I have diligently read Mary's messages and still do not have the foggiest what the official meaning, the magisterial meaning of "temporal punishment" is.

I can define it for you in the context of the older tradition of papal encyclicals, even as recently as 1967 and Pope Paul VI's encyclical,  but I am sure that the modern meaning differs.  Good luck to those who understand it, whatever it may be.  I surrender.

I have my own opinions on why my worthy sister is blowing a smoke cloud over this issue.  Those can be read at message 1044 here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: BoredMeeting on August 11, 2010, 11:05:43 AM
The Magisterium teaches us that temporal punishment is......................................................................................
I guess some questions have no discernible answer.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 11:10:39 AM

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.


I wish to say that I have diligently read Mary's messages and still do not have the foggiest what the official meaning, the magisterial meaning of "temporal punishment" is.

I can define it for you in the context of the older tradition of papal encyclicals, even as recently as 1967 and Pope Paul VI's encyclical,  but I am sure that the modern meaning differs.  Good luck to those who understand it, whatever it may be.  I surrender.

I have my own opinions on why my worthy sister is blowing a smoke cloud over this issue.  Those can be read at message 1044 here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


The Scriptural root of the catholic concept of temporal punishment can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:29 in the form of the Greek word "krima" meaning punishment or judgment.

If you want to understand the technical term "temporal punishment" as it has actually been used formally the Catholic Church for centuries, you must understand the Greek transliterated "krima" as it is used in the aforementioned passage in Paul,  and the Latin "poena" as it is used by the Church to explain judgments that separate us from the Trinity but do not damn us to eternal damnation or "katakrima."

I am sorry that I cannot "fix" your difficulty but other than spiritual texts that presume a certain rudimentary understanding I don't have much more I can give you in simple terms that can easily be referenced in this medium.  

I have often written to the CDF in Rome for clarifications on specific topics that have eluded me over time and always I get a very helpful response with references.

I suggest that might be an avenue for you to help clear up some of your confusion.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 11:18:13 AM
The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


I wrote to you earlier that I have read this quote from Trent and it does not provide a definition of temporal punishment.   

If you asked the people in your catechism classes, "Based on this quote from Trent what is temporal punishment?" they would NOT be able to answer you.

You are just pulling my leg and wasting my time!
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 11, 2010, 11:23:34 AM
Spend some time on CAF.  I think it is the largest forum on the Catholic internet.   Quite an amount of dissension there.
Okay, fair enough. If your point is that laypeople sometimes have varying opinions which do not necessarily reflect genuine Church teaching, then I am with you.

rude to put Eastern Orthodox in inverted commas and I am sure you know that.  I do not write "Roman Catholic."
Oh my, scandalous punctuation. My apologies.

I really should have typed it as "Eastern Orthodox teachings" rather than just putting Eastern Orthodox in quotations, that was my mistake.

There are certainly different opinions within Orthodoxy about the Roman Catholic Church.

Your own Church varies in its opinions of us.   Recently Pope Benedict said that we are a true Church but defective.  Other Popes have said we are heretics.  Who is right?  Popes such as Pope Eugene and others have officially proclaimed that we are going to hell.     There is no unified voice in your Church about the status of Orthodoxy - just a bunch of opinions over the years.
Well, to a degree I suppose there is room for opinion since this subject is not doctrine or dogma, yet I think it is clear to look at the Catholic Church and to see that, overall, we have great respect for the Orthodox Church. What I am finding out is that certain laypeople and clergy can be quite difficult.


There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.
I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?

I am not aware of any Orthodox Church which prohibits the use of contraception (given certain conditions.)
Even worse.

The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.
Indeed, the Council of Jerusalem, and indeed all of the Ecumenical Councils, were called to end division. Why is there so much division within the Orthodox Church 2000 years after Christ, especially when He Himself prayed for the Church to be one as He and the Father are one?

An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.
Not for those within your Church, but it a determining factor in how likely it is for us to have salvation, is it not? I am not an avid proselytizer anyway since I tend to subscribe to the St. Francis method of evangelization, but I am especially not concerned about trying to convert an Orthodox or swaying someone from the Orthodox Church because I believe you possess Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments. In fact, a friend of mine was just recently received into the Orthodox Church and I was very happy for him. Unfortunately, I found out pretty quickly that he didn't seem to be that happy that I am Catholic now, which is a shame. I told him my conversion story and he told me his, but I have a feeling he wasn't as moved by mine (simply because it was a conversion into Catholicism) as I was of his.

"Factionalism" - not a desirable thing but it does not prevent salvation
It is okay for varying opinion on things which are not doctrinal. If my understanding is correct, there are beliefs within both Catholicism and Orthodoxy which one may or may not believe since they are simply theological opinions which the Church does not have an official definition for (i.e. toll houses in Orthodoxy or limbo of the infants in Catholicism). What I am wondering, and perhaps you could tell me, is if there are any disagreements within Orthodoxy among the episcopate concerning things which are not theological opinion, but actually doctrinal. Do you know if any such instances?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 11:31:33 AM
The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


I wrote to you earlier that I have read this quote from Trent and it does not provide a definition of temporal punishment.   

If you asked the people in your catechism classes, "Based on this quote from Trent what is temporal punishment?" they would NOT be able to answer you.

You are just pulling my leg and wasting my time!

I don't know if you can find too many traditional catechists who use a dictionary to teach concepts.

Even in the secular world one does not use a dictionary to teach how a particular and technical concept is used in context.  In fact you'd be hooted out of the academy if you showed up to your first Physics 101 class, as the instructor, armed with a dictionary and nothing else.   

Many concepts cannot be simply defined because they depend on other concepts to give them their full meaning, and cannot be explained either, EXCEPT in context, which demands some other way of expressing truths other than definitional statements.  "Temporal punishment" is a technical concept, not just a string of words to be defined.

In dictionary terms and according to the segment I offered on Eucharist which is grounded in Scripture and Council, a temporal punishment is a judgment...a temporary judgment.

I thought for sure you would catch that much at least.

But that barely scratches the surface with regard to meaning.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Jetavan on August 11, 2010, 11:34:28 AM
"Temporal punishment": the punishment (or, more accurately, the resulting outcome) that is the effect of harmatia, or 'missing the mark'.

Unlike "eternal punishment" (or "EP"), temporal punishment (or "TP") does not last forever.

Unlike EP, TP is simply part of a cause-and-effect process, in which the effect is proportional to the cause.  In the case of EP, the effect ("eternal punishment") is not in proportion to the cause (an act of harmatia).
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 11:39:43 AM
"There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

Quote
I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?"

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion. We'll see what happens as it happens. Romans seem to not understand the role of the laity in the Orthodox Church. They will defend the faith even from their bishops when they are wrong hence why false unions have never been accepted by the Orthodox Church.  

You speak of the divisions within Orthodoxy... you must know more than I do. there are definitely different schools of thought... and sometimes we very loudly debate amongst ourselves, but we are united. I would think that the divisions in the Roman communion would be more of your concern and more pressing.

Also, if there ever was a union it would not be structural in nature as we are just too different. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 11, 2010, 11:53:16 AM
This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes. Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?" To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"

The question of the continuity of present teaching with the teaching of the past is not of course irrelevant to Catholics--quite the contrary. But for purposes of this discussion, it is absolutely critical that the question "What is the present teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory?" be separated from "Has the Catholic Church 'changed' its teaching on purgatory?" I understand why the latter question is of such polemical interest to folks like Fr Ambrose; but until Fr Ambrose and others like him cease to arrogate to themselves the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, there can be no fruitful discussion. Catholics are rightly insulted when non-Catholics keep imposing upon them their polemical reconstructions and caricatures of Catholic belief.  

But the point you raise, FormerReformer, is of great interest and deserves its own thread, because it touches on what may be an important difference between Catholic and Orthodox understandings of ecclesial authority. Orthodoxy appeals to the consensual teaching of the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. When doctrinal disagreement occurs, Orthodox theologians ask, "What did the Church Fathers teach?" As we know, faithful Christians will often disagree in their identification and interpretation of the consensual teaching of the patristic Church. How are such differences authoritatively resolved?

The Catholic, on the other hand, looks to the present teaching of the Church to resolve, if not definitively then at least reliably, the question "What did the Apostles teach?" and "What did the Fathers teach?" The Catholic does this because he trusts that the Holy Spirit is guiding the pastors of the Church. Hence the provocative words of Henry Cardinal Manning in his book The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (1881):
Quote
As soon as I perceived the Divine fact that the Holy Spirit of God has united Himself indissolubly to the mystical body, or Church of Jesus Christ, I saw at once that the interpretations or doctrines of the living Church are true because Divine, and that the voice of the living Church in all ages is the sole rule of faith, and infallible, because it is the voice of a Divine Person. I then saw that all appeals to Scripture alone, or to Scripture and antiquity, whether by individuals or by local churches, are no more than appeals from the Divine voice of the living Church, and therefore essentially rationalistic. (p. 44)

The doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, “Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.” No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount at most to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. (p. 227)

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox appeal to patristic consensus looks very similar to the Protestant appeal to the plain teaching of Scripture. Both appear to be appeals to antiquity and thus ultimately appeals to the private judgment of clerics, historians, and theologians. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic appeal to the contemporary teaching of the Magisterium looks like advocacy of progressive, and even new, revelation. How can the present-day teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, for example, be essentially identical to the teaching of the medieval Catholic Church when it appears to be so different? Of course, the positions of both Churches are far more nuanced than what I have here simplistically stated; but this is, I think, a matter worthy of substantive, patient, and charitable discussion.
  
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 11:54:29 AM

There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?

I was formed in the Serbian Church which believes that the Roman Catholic Church has no sacraments and the Pope is an unbaptized layman.  See my little anecdote of the meeting of my spiritual father and the Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb, the Parable of the two Water Glasses.

You will find it here, message 18
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446330.html#msg446330

But it must be frankly said that other Orthodox accept the validity of RC sacraments.  See message 18.


The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.

Quote
Wyatt...Indeed, the Council of Jerusalem, and indeed all of the Ecumenical Councils, were called to end division. Why is there so much division within the Orthodox Church 2000 years after Christ, especially when He Himself prayed for the Church to be one as He and the Father are one?

The great problem facing Orthodoxy today are the dissenting groups which have left the canonical Church since 1924 and hived off on their own over the Calendar question.  These groups do not form a part of the canonical Church and indeed, they are quite vociferous in denying that we have valid sacraments of any sort.  To them I am myself simply an unbaptized person and not a Christian priest.


An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.

Quote
Wyatt....Not for those within your Church, but it a determining factor in how likely it is for us to have salvation, is it not?

Salvation is possible for those who do not posses the Eucharist.  Your own Church would not teach these days that the Anglicans and the Buddhists and the Muslims and Jews are not going to be saved because they lack the Eucharist.  I believe the only ones who would teach that are your own modern schismatics.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 12:11:50 PM

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 12:23:32 PM

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia? if this is so are they not out of step with the rest of Orthodoxy? I was under the impression that the widespread use of economia in the russian Church had to do with the reacceptance of eastern catholics. One priest I met railed against vesting and said that it may have been appropriate in the 17th century Russia but that it no longer has a place in the Church. Personally, I think the Serbian Church has it right. I am heartned to see this in one of your posts: BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a radical rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 12:28:18 PM
I do hope that the Great Council will take this up, as well as irregularities in the middle east,  and dare i say it? the calendar issue. I know that none of that is on the agenda however, I would imagine that anything could be introduced from the floor.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 12:35:06 PM

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia? if this is so are they not out of step with the rest of Orthodoxy? I was under the impression that the widespread use of economia in the russian Church had to do with the reacceptance of eastern catholics. One priest I met railed against vesting and said that it may have been appropriate in the 17th century Russia but that it no longer has a place in the Church. Personally, I think the Serbian Church has it right. I am heartned to see this in one of your posts: BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a radical rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.

Do you think that Archbishop Hilarion and the Moscow Patriarchate are unaware of these things thereby allowing Archbishop Hilarion to state categorically that the Catholic Church has valid sacraments?

I understand from comments on this list and other Orthodox venues that the laity have the power to remove any heretical bishop in Orthodoxy?  Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?

He also has a book on the Internet that you can google as a Russian catechism.  In it are many teachings that seem to compare very favorably to what I know of Catholic teaching.  That would be further indictment I would think...but it is on an official RO website, so I do quite understand why that would be allowed?

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 12:37:00 PM

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia?

Yes.  This is not an unusual position.  For example, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod of bishops accept the validity of the sacrament of Orders in the Catholic Church and regard the Pope and all the RC bishops as true and authentic bishops who minster to their flocks true and authentic sacraments.   

There simply is no unified view.  I believe that we have to say that openly.

If you have the time, a small study of this monograph by Archimandrite Amvrossy Pogodin should be interesting and illuminating. Father Amvrossy was a very scholarly man and so well respected that he was chosen as one of the four delegates sent by Metropolitan Philaret, the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, as an observer at the Second Vatican Council in Rome.
 
"On the reception into the Orthodox Church"
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 12:44:55 PM
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 12:50:30 PM
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office. 

I expect also that he and Pope Benedict see eye to eye on many things in that regard.

I cannot say the same for all current members of the Roman Curia or the College of Bishops, and I am including all particular Churches when I speak of the College of Bishops.

That variety in opinion and attitude has its parallels in Orthodoxy as well from what I can see.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 01:02:46 PM
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office. 
 

No, Elijahmaria, read my lipz.  He is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy.

Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 01:03:11 PM
Fr. Thank you for all the information. I feel truly blessed to have found this forum and the many wise contributors such as yourself. I do like Metropolitan Hilarion though I stand by my belief that there are no sacraments out side the church. This does not mean however, that if a the Church were to come to a agreed statement I would not recognize it. Of course I would submit myself to its authority. As for Auxilliary Metropolitan John I think he is perhaps not the best person for the job. I often wonder why it seems that we have no end of discussions with Romans but can't seem to work anything out with the old calendarists.
It seems that many of the Bishops that I understood or identified with have been called home.
Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 01:07:30 PM
/\ /\ Metropolitan Hilarion (Volokolamski) is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   In this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.

On the other hand and apart from that, he is extremely well disposed towards the Roman Catholic Church.

I think that he should be opposed to any misuse of the papal office.  
 

No, Elijahmaria, read my lipz.  He is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy.

Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."



Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."


From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..

Indeed!!  I have read all of the documents you've referenced.

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.

None of us know the possibilities for the Future, in Christ.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 01:13:20 PM
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 01:25:30 PM
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  


Apparently the recognition of Catholic sacraments is an action of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to Father Ambrose, and not an act of economy.

I do think it is important for Catholics to be able to distinguish between what is assertion and what is actual fact in what often becomes common parlance among Orthodox faithful.

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 01:25:45 PM

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.


Please see message 17.  It will show you how are far afield you are in understanding the Metropolitan

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.msg300946.html#msg300946

Do you write for Zenit?  They also put a pro-papal spin on every news item concerning the Orthodox.  They sometimes give the impression that union is happening before lunchtime tomorrow and the Pope is summoning the Patriarchs to the Vatican to make their obeisance..
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 01:34:24 PM
"Does that power extend to the removal of Archbishops and Patriarchs?  Is that what is taking so long to remove Archbishop Hilarion?  They laity simply do not have the power to remove him?"

Who here has called for his removal? What crime has he committed? I think he is wrong but it is not his unilateral action. Why do you concern yourself with whether the laity should remove him? If he was guilty of some heinous act and he was going to be removed... it would still not be for you to know the hour as you are not a member of the Orthodox Church. Also, Patriarchs/primates have been removed/retired/exiled etc. Some do the smart thing and repent before it comes to that. A Roman should know that the Church moves at its own speed.  


Apparently the recognition of Catholic sacraments is an action of the Moscow Patriarchate, according to Father Ambrose, and not an act of economy.

I do think it is important for Catholics to be able to distinguish between what is assertion and what is actual fact in what often becomes common parlance among Orthodox faithful.

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary

The Synod of Bishops would almost always deal with this issue first as it would be aware of any problems as they are kept informed by the laity. One could look to the OCA which has removed its Primate and the Bishop of Alaska in the last few years. The Synod thought it best to forcibly retire both. The Laity made their concerns known and the Synod exercised its authority.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 01:41:57 PM

I know Catholics who think that Orthodox faithful can simply remove a bishop if they do not like what he says or thinks what he says is heresy.  They seem to think Catholics should be able to do the same thing.

Mary

If a hierarch or clergyman is accused of committing an ecclesiastical crime, it is up to the Spiritual Courts and the decision of the Holy Synod as to whether the clergyman or hierarch is to be formally tried and punished.

It is not a decision that is made by public opinion.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 01:46:34 PM

You understand him to mean it will never happen.  I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.


Please see message 17.  It will show you how are far afield you are in understanding the Metropolitan

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20203.msg300946.html#msg300946

Do you write for Zenit?  They also put a pro-papal spin on every news item concerning the Orthodox.  They sometimes give the impression that union is happening before lunchtime tomorrow and the Pope is summoning the Patriarchs to the Vatican to make their obeisance..

I don't think in these ways at all Father.  I remain hopeful and leave the sour stomachs to others.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: BoredMeeting on August 11, 2010, 02:35:14 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 11, 2010, 02:42:54 PM
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 02:43:22 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 11, 2010, 02:46:21 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary

Mary,

From having many conversations on the internet with both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, it certainly seems to me that Catholics are more open to dialog and unity than the Orthodox are. Has that been your experience too?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 03:04:03 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.

We don't know whether or not that is possible yet.  We've barely begun to even look.

Many, I have noticed believe it or not, have their minds made up one way or the other.

I prefer to remain hopeful and trust in Providence and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Mary

Mary,

From having many conversations on the internet with both Catholic and Orthodox Christians, it certainly seems to me that Catholics are more open to dialog and unity than the Orthodox are. Has that been your experience too?

Oh boy...Wyatt.  This one is tough to answer in a phrase or two.  I would say that the Internet has a preponderance of Orthodox who are either dead set against dialogue with Catholics at all or those who reject dialogue that might result in communion with no real alteration in teaching on the part of the Catholic Church.  We are looking at those who harbor some permutation of this now.  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.

But I have found, walking around in the world that this perspective is not the only one and may not even be the dominant one.

I hope that addresses your interest...I feel funny even saying this much and turning the people here on the Forum with us into third persons in a two way conversation....but there it is.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 03:52:20 PM
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 04:07:27 PM
Fr. Ambrose,
I have read the article on the reception of converts. I may need to read it again as it appeared that they are quoting a canon from the 2nd Ecumenical council that seems to contradict their arguement but then go on with their arguement as if there is full agreement. The part of the canon that seems to contradict their arguement is:

As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies - for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, - all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks [i.e., pagans]. Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]
 
This would seem to be against accepting roman sacraments. Romans have zero immersions, not a one. (I cannot speak for Eastern Catholics) The Filioque has attributed the Procession of the Holy Spirit to the Son instead of the Father alone which seems to be confusing their persons, and other abominable things :papacy, infallibility, etc. This part of the canon seems to apply to Latins more than the first portion:

Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves 'pure and better,' Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, 'seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Edit: On second look it appears there was some portion I missed I will read it and get back to you.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 05:46:32 PM
Fr. Ambrose,
I have read the article on the reception of converts. I may need to read it again as it appeared that they are quoting a canon from the 2nd Ecumenical council that seems to contradict their arguement but then go on with their arguement as if there is full agreement. The part of the canon that seems to contradict their arguement is:

As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion, Montanists, who are called Phrygians, and the Sabellians, who teach that Father and Son are the same person, and who commit other abominable things, and [those belonging to] any other heresies - for there are many of them here, especially among the people coming from the country of the Galatians, - all of them that want to adhere to Orthodoxy we are willing to accept as Greeks [i.e., pagans]. Accordingly, on the first day we make them Christians; on the second day, catechumens; then, on the third day, we exorcise them with the act of blowing thrice into their face and into their ears; and thus we do catechize them, and we make them tarry a while in the church and listen the Scriptures; and then we baptize them."[27]
 
This would seem to be against accepting roman sacraments. Romans have zero immersions, not a one. (I cannot speak for Eastern Catholics) The Filioque has attributed the Procession of the Holy Spirit to the Son instead of the Father alone which seems to be confusing their persons, and other abominable things :papacy, infallibility, etc. This part of the canon seems to apply to Latins more than the first portion:

Those heretics who come over to Orthodoxy and to the society of those who are saved we receive according to the prescribed rite and custom: we receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatianists who call themselves 'pure and better,' Quatrodecimans, otherwise known as Tetradites, as well as Appolinarians on condition that they offer libelli (i.e., recantations in writing) and anathematize every heresy that does not hold the same beliefs as the holy, catholic and apostolic Church of God, and then they should be marked with the seal, that is, anointed with chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears. And as they are marked with the seal, we say, 'seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.'

Edit: On second look it appears there was some portion I missed I will read it and get back to you.

There's a whole thread active now on Orthodox baptisms that are not done by full immersion.

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 05:51:39 PM
There was actually quite a bit more to the article or articles. I thought it made a very strong historical arguement for accepting Roman baptism though I did not get the impression that it ever denied that it was through economia as St Basil stated. This gives me much to ponder. Does ROCA still baptize all converts?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 11, 2010, 05:52:52 PM
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
A. Fair enough, you think I am a heretic, I think you are a schismatic. Agree to disagree I suppose.

B. So, to Christ, only those within the visible boundaries of the True Church matter? In other words, to hell with the rest of them (no pun intended), eh? Don't you think it pains Christ to see Christians so divided, or do you think that Christ doesn't even consider anyone outside the boundaries of the True Church even a Christian?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 06:05:44 PM
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.
A. We aren't in error.

B. We should seek unity because Christ willed His followers to be one, so having thousands of schismatic groups and offshoot sects in addition to the True Church (whichever Church that might be, which we certainly disagree on) is an offense to Christ.

A) you are free to believe that as are the thousands of other sects . I do not think that many Orthodox share this appraisal.

B) The Church is whole, it is one, it is complete. Any and all are free to join it. The Church does not become diminished when individuals move away from sound doctrine and practise.
A. Fair enough, you think I am a heretic, I think you are a schismatic. Agree to disagree I suppose.

B. So, to Christ, only those within the visible boundaries of the True Church matter? In other words, to hell with the rest of them (no pun intended), eh? Don't you think it pains Christ to see Christians so divided, or do you think that Christ doesn't even consider anyone outside the boundaries of the True Church even a Christian?

A) I do not consider you personally or romans in general to be heretics. On that we can agree. However, I find some of your beliefs to be in opposition to the beliefs of my Chuich and therefore were I to adopt them then I would be a heretic.
B) Everyone is loved by Christ and called by Him that does not mean they accept him or his Church. Nor is salvation only for those in the Visible Church. God will judge each of us it is not for me to assume. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few that would be considered Christians however, there are others where I find it difficult to understand as it seems that they preach another different Gospel. I cannot say more than that without running afowl of the forum's rules. I believe St Augustine said something about on the day of judgment people who think they are outside the church will find out that they are in it and some that think they are in the Church will find that they are outside of it.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 06:11:51 PM
[
Oh boy...Wyatt.  This one is tough to answer in a phrase or two.  I would say that the Internet has a preponderance of Orthodox who are either dead set against dialogue with Catholics at all or those who reject dialogue that might result in communion with no real alteration in teaching on the part of the Catholic Church.  We are looking at those who harbor some permutation of this now.  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.


Dear Wyatt,

I would not want you to believe Mary who is saying that those of us who speak about necessary changes in the Roman Catholic Church are some sort of oddity among the Orthodox.  She is mistaken.

Here is the last official statement by the Orthodox of a list of errors the Roman Catholic Church needs to address and correct.

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 06:16:16 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.


Putting it very briefly and without nuancing it, the ultimate judge of this for the Orthodox will be not the bishops but the Church. 
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 11, 2010, 06:21:27 PM
I understand him to mean it has not happened yet.
But why would the Orthodox want to follow the Romans into error?

We've avoided it for this long; we'll stay with the correct way.

Our respective bishops may decide that it is not an error of doctrine or the truth of revelation, as expressed in BOTH confessions,  but may discover that what divides us is human error that can be corrected to be more in line with the spirit and intent of revelation, scripture and tradition...thereby leaving both confessions doctrinally intact.


Putting it very briefly and without nuancing it, the ultimate judge of this for the Orthodox will be not the bishops but the Church. 

The same thing can be said for the Catholic Church.

However I will be happy for the opportunity to see how it works in Orthodoxy.

I was please to hear at least on person here say he would follow his bishop or the bishops of the Church.

That bodes well for mutual understanding among the faithful remnant.

Mary
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 06:35:42 PM

Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  

Slavonic has been my bread and butter for many decades.  Russian and Serbian cannot distinguish linguistically between hades and hell.  There is one word -ad.

The term "Harrowing of Hades" is new to me.  It has been created in America to suit the various schemes of the afterlife which the American Orthodox seem to like to think about.   :laugh:

If you read the English translations of what is written on hell by Met Hilarion you will see that the translators use hell and hades interchangeably, even though in Russian he is using only one word (ad.)

Have a look at an extract from one of his article here.  There in an indiscriminate use of both "hades" and "hell" by the translators.

See Message 8 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26716.msg420385/topicseen.html#msg420385
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 11, 2010, 06:40:31 PM

Does ROCA still baptize all converts?


It varies from diocese to diocese.

In 1972 when the question came up in Synod and some bishops wanted, as a counter to ecumenism, to mandate baptism for all converts regardless of origin there were other bishops who disagreed (Canada for example) and said that they would continue with the practices of pre-revolutionary Russia.  So the synodal resolution on the matter simply recommended baptism for all but left the decision in the hands of the local bishops.

In this diocese of Australia and New Zealand (mine) the policy of baptizing everybody was never adopted but the diocese stayed with the pre-revolutionary ways of doing things.  If you have a copy of the Hapgood service book you will find these various methods of reception detailed there.

Fr Ambrose
ROCA - Australia and New Zealand
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stanley123 on August 11, 2010, 07:21:42 PM
  In fact, this entire Orthodox net-forum has its genesis in people who are convinced that the Catholic Church MUST alter her doctrinal or dogmatic teachings on any number of items.
From what I read, the Orthodox position is that: "... our Orthodox Church of Christ is always ready to accept any proposal of union, if only the Bishop of Rome would shake off once for all the whole series of the many and divers anti-evangelical novelties that have been 'privily brought in' to his Church, and have provoked the sad division of the Churches of the East and West, and would return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 09:41:50 PM
It was my understanding that it is just a matter of precison due to the NT Greek where Hades = Sheol the abode or state of being dead and gehenna = hell or eternal damnation in the lake of fire. English really has the one word so they are just borrowing hades so that they can have the distinction. I could be wrong but this what they had in wikipedia:

In the New Testament
In the synoptic gospels Jesus uses the word Gehenna 11 times to describe the opposite to life in the promised, coming Kingdom (Mark 9:43-48).[11] It is a place where both soul and body could be destroyed (Matthew 10:28) in "unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).

Gehenna is also mentioned in the Epistle of James 3:6, where it is said to set the tongue on fire, and the tongue in turn sets on fire the entire "course" or "wheel" of life.

The complete list of references is as follows:

Matt.5:22 whoever calls someone "you fool" will be liable to Gehenna.
Matt.5:29 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
Matt.5:30 better to lose one of your members than that your whole body go into Gehenna.
Matt.10:28 rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.
Matt.18:9 better to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna.
Matt.23:15 Pharisees make a convert twice as much a child of Gehenna as themselves.
Matt.23:33 to Pharisees: you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna?
Mark 9:43 better to enter life with one hand than with two hands to go to Gehenna.
Mark 9:45 better to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into Gehenna.
Mark 9:47 better to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into Gehenna
Luke 12:5 Fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into Gehenna
James 3:6 the tongue is set on fire by Gehenna.
[edit] Translations in Christian Bibles
The New Testament also refers to Hades as a temporary destination of the dead. Hades is portrayed as a different place from the final judgement of the damned in Gehenna. The Book of Revelation describes Hades being cast into the Lake of Fire (Gehenna) (Revelation 20:14). Hades the temporary place of the dead is said to be removed for ever and cast into the Lake of Fire commonly understood to be synonymous with Gehenna or the final Hell of the unsaved. This indicating that any who die after this would never go to a temporary place, Hades, just instead a final judgement of saved or condemned. The King James Version is the only English translation in modern use to translate Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna as Hell. The New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard Bible (among others) all reserve the term hell only for when Gehenna is used.

Treatment of Gehenna in Christianity is significantly affected by whether the distinction in Hebrew and Greek between Gehenna and Hades was maintained:

Translations with a distinction:

The New International Version, New Living Translation, New American Standard Bible, and basically every English translation except the King James in modern use, all reserve the term Hell only for when Gehenna is used. All translate Sheol and Hades in a different fashion. The exception to this is the New International Version's translation in Luke 16:23, which is its singular rendering of Hades as Hell.
The Arabic Van Dyke distinguishes Gehenna from Sheol.
In texts in Greek, and consistently in the Orthodox Church, the distinctions present in the originals were often maintained. The Russian Synodal Bible (and one translation by the Old Church Slavonic)also maintain the distinction.




Fr Do you know slavonic? I ask because when I was a member of a Serbian mission they translated Hades as hell. So i was wondering if that was what it said in slavonic. they would say in english Harrowing of hell instead the harrowing of Hades.  

Slavonic has been my bread and butter for many decades.  Russian and Serbian cannot distinguish linguistically between hades and hell.  There is one word -ad.

The term "Harrowing of Hades" is new to me.  It has been created in America to suit the various schemes of the afterlife which the American Orthodox seem to like to think about.   :laugh:

If you read the English translations of what is written on hell by Met Hilarion you will see that the translators use hell and hades interchangeably, even though in Russian he is using only one word (ad.)

Have a look at an extract from one of his article here.  There in an indiscriminate use of both "hades" and "hell" by the translators.

See Message 8 at http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,26716.msg420385/topicseen.html#msg420385
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 09:45:28 PM
Also, the historical timeline in that article seemed to mention the practices in Russia and Greece only. Did the Serbs/Bulgarians/Romanians also accept Roman baptism? And if so when did the Serbian Church stop?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 11, 2010, 10:04:11 PM
I saw this in the other forum on baptism:
From the Didache:

Quote
But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

From this, it seems that, from earliest times, the Church has practised economy where the ideal could not be had, and that this was accepted as legitimate.  So there is no question, it seems to me, about whether true baptism can be performed by pouring.  The question is whether this concession to lack of resources/human weakness is to be taken advantage of where there is absolutely nothing preventing the baptism being done fully.  This seems a separate, but related, question.

This definitely changes how I read  "As for Eunomians, however, who are baptized with a single immersion,". I was wrong on this. However, I do think that does raise the question as whether it is an abuse.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 01:29:27 AM

It was my understanding that it is just a matter of precison due to the NT Greek where Hades = Sheol the abode or state of being dead and gehenna = hell or eternal damnation in the lake of fire.



There is no agreed teaching in Orthodoxy about the details of the afterlife. Beyond a very broad outline we are "looking through a glass darkly." For example, Saint John Maximovitch says that the damned go to Gehenna. Other modern teachers see Gehenna as the Lake of Fire and not yet in existence.  It is the Lake of Fire which will be created in the future on Judgement Day. And again, other people will tell you it is already in existence but uninhabited.   So that raises a question or two.

In the 1970s when Fr Seraphim and The Orthodox Word had made sure that we all had the schema of the afterlife firmly fixed in our brains, at least according to Fr Seraphim's ideas, I could have rattled off the difference between hell and hades and gehenna, sheol and tartarus in 10 seconds.   

But when I learned through my spiritual father at the monastery in Serbia that this schema cannot be found in the Fathers, that they do not teach much about the afterlife very precisely, that they interchange terms constantly and that it is not possible to draw up any consistent schema based on the Fathers - well, what was the point of adopting any one schema and insisting that it was *the* one?     So it is not a case of "simply not knowing."  It is more a case of giving up and admitting with Saint Paul that at the very best we can only "see through a glass darkly" and all our speculative systems about the afterlife are pretty much based on the pride of the human mind which cannot bear to admit that it does not know something and so to fill the vacuum it spins theories of its own.

Again, I see the profound wisdom of the bishops of the Russian Church Abroad who warned people in their 1980 Resolution on the toll houses that there is great spiritual danger in creating conjectures about the afterlife.  After all, if even such a Saint as Saint John of San Francisco has his own theories, are we ourselves really qualified to pick and chose between dissonant theories?
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 02:26:22 AM
I
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 12, 2010, 09:10:17 AM
I
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

  3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.” (Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: akimel on August 12, 2010, 12:52:24 PM

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: stashko on August 12, 2010, 02:21:08 PM
The Popes ;D The Medieval ones Also.......... ;D
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Wyatt on August 12, 2010, 03:11:37 PM
Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!
(http://www.barbandgreg.com/images/Emoticons/amen.gif)
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 03:58:34 PM
Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”(Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun

Mary, in 2 Samuel 12, God kills the son of David in what would appear to be an illustration of the principle of "vindicatory punishment" taught by the Council of Trent (see above in red.)   Would Catholics assent to this interpretation of God's action?

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Dave in McKinney on August 12, 2010, 04:18:06 PM
from Catholic.com on 2 Sam 12 and purgatory  ( http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp (http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp) )

Quote
Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)


Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

So why was the baby punished for his dad's sins? This seems in direct contradiction of Ezekiel Chp. 18 -- the soul that sins is the one that dies.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: ICXCNIKA on August 12, 2010, 04:21:20 PM

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!



Personality contest? I don't think this answers any of the genuine questions brought up by members of this forum. Is there a magesterial teaching or not? I am guessing since it keeps getting ignored there is not. Which is fine. I do not ever see our two respective communions being able to overcome our differences but we should still work together when we can.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 12, 2010, 04:32:16 PM
Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”(Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun

Mary, in 2 Samuel 12, God kills the son of David in what would appear to be an illustration of the principle of "vindicatory punishment" taught by the Council of Trent (see above in red.)   Would Catholics assent to this interpretation of God's action?

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."


I have see apologists use it but I have never seen it used formally.

Also:  Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church teaches that God is the author of Old Testament evil?

Does Orthodoxy recognize this pericope or do you just eliminate it because it has the Lord striking a child?  Does Orthodoxy teach that the Lord of the Old Testament is not the same Lord of the New?

Are you suggesting that the judgment of the God of the Old Testament is lesser than the judgments of the God of the New?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was never harsh in his judgments?

The example that you offer above also is only one example used by apologists to illustrate the Tridentine teaching.  Here are others.

If you are going to use one, why not use them all? :

Quote
Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others


In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).

Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church

God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.

Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 04:34:53 PM

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!



What makes the Orthodox wring their hands with horror is you quite openly state that what matters doctrinally is the present teachings of the Popes of the 21st century -John Paul II and Benedict XVI- and even such recent papal teaching as that of Pope Paul VI in 1967 may be quietly and politely relegated to the scrap heap as an historical curiosity.  As for what was taught by the Popes and holy men and women in previous centuries, hey, please don't make our brains ache by going back beyond Richard Nixon!
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on August 12, 2010, 04:41:15 PM
My eyes won't cope with the smaller size print in quotes and so I have to miss out on reading them.

If we want to place long text in quotes could we please enlarge it a little?  One size larger, 10 points, makes it legible for my ancient eyes.

Many thanks.

Something from Trent.   Are we getting closer to a magisterial statement on temporal punishment?

It must be emphasized that the primary reason for temporal punishment is to make satisfaction for sin. The Council of Trent emphasizes that the penitents should keep in mind that “the satisfaction imposed by them is meant not merely as a safeguard for the new life and as a remedy to weakness, but also as vindicatory (i.e. avenging) punishment for former sins.”(Council of Trent, Session 14, Chapter 8.)

Vindicate in this case Father means that the punishment/judgment sets us free from all temporal punishment due to sin.

Now I agree that you have to know the range of meanings of the Latin "vindicare" and "poena" to grasp the accurate meaning of the text.  You also have to know the mind of the Church in order to move more deeply into the text.

So I don't intend to follow you on a merry chase with this one.

I have explained these concepts sufficiently in the most recent posts and as far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to add to the discussion.

This attempt on your part is not opening up anything new that I have not already covered.

Mary

Main Entry: vin·di·cate
Pronunciation: \ˈvin-də-ˌkāt\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): vin·di·cat·ed; vin·di·cat·ing

1  to set free : deliver
2 : avenge
3 a : to free from allegation or blame b (1) : confirm, substantiate (2) : to provide justification or defense for : justify c : to protect from attack or encroachment : defend
4 : to maintain a right to
synonyms see exculpate, maintain

— vin·di·ca·tor \-ˌkā-tər\ noun

Mary, in 2 Samuel 12, God kills the son of David in what would appear to be an illustration of the principle of "vindicatory punishment" taught by the Council of Trent (see above in red.)   Would Catholics assent to this interpretation of God's action?

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."


I have see apologists use it but I have never seen it used formally.

Also:  Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church teaches that God is the author of Old Testament evil?

Does Orthodoxy recognize this pericope or do you just eliminate it because it has the Lord striking a child?  Does Orthodoxy teach that the Lord of the Old Testament is not the same Lord of the New?

Are you suggesting that the judgment of the God of the Old Testament is lesser than the judgments of the God of the New?

Are you suggesting that Jesus was never harsh in his judgments?

The example that you offer above also is only one example used by apologists to illustrate the Tridentine teaching.  Here are others.

If you are going to use one, why not use them all? :

Quote
Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others


In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).

Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church

God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.

Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.


Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: elijahmaria on August 12, 2010, 04:45:36 PM

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.  The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.  By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

It may, of course, well be that my approach to theology remains "Anglican," but on the question before us, namely, purgatory, sin, and temporal punishment, what I have presented in my writings is based completely on the present teaching of the Catholic Church, as articulated in the Catholic Catechism, the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Statement on Justification, and the writings of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. 

Who are more reliable expositors of the Catholic Faith, John Paul II and Benedict XVI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  Who has a better understanding of the Catholic Faith, John Paul and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church? Whose interpretations of purgatory and the temporal punishment of sin are more likely to be in accord with, say, the Council of Trent, John Paul II and Benedict XI or Fr Ambrose of the Orthodox Church?  I'm putting my money on the Popes!



What makes the Orthodox wring their hands with horror is you quite openly state that what matters doctrinally is the present teachings of the Popes of the 21st century -John Paul II and Benedict XVI- and even such recent papal teaching as that of Pope Paul VI in 1967 may be quietly and politely relegated to the scrap heap as an historical curiosity.  As for what was taught by the Popes and holy men and women in previous centuries, hey, please don't make our brains ache by going back beyond Richard Nixon!


I think by now even the Village Idiot knows that Father Kimel is saying forthrightly that what is taught in the Catholic Church today is fully grounded in Scripture and Tradition, which would include all other formal expressions of any particular Truth of revelation to be found in the history of the Church.

You of course deny that...but who are you?

M.
Title: Re: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness
Post by: Irish Hermit on