Author Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness  (Read 71501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
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.



Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

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.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

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? :


You are getting into unrelated matter.  I wanted to speak of the incident of God killing the son of David in the context of this thread - vindicatory punishment in the context of "Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness."

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

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?

If contributors to the forum are going to be rebuffed with such stark rudeness as "Who are you?" then we may as well all unsubscribe and go home.

During all the misrepresentations which you have offered on Orthodoxy (abortion and Orthodoxy being the latest and most serious) I don't think anyone has tried to squash you with "Who are you?"

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
This is getting to be interesting....  the idea of punishment (temporal) after going to confession but you don't know when you'll be punished (either this life or next) and you don't know what'll take (i.e. how much work --  prayer, attending Mass, fasting, almsgiving, the works of mercy, the patient endurance of sufferings, and indulgences) to be pardoned from your sins...  

although I am getting anxious about all this temporal sin I've built up for the past 40+ years and didn't know it  :( :o

« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 05:06:12 PM by Dave in McKinney »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

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? :


You are getting into unrelated matter.  I wanted to speak of the incident of God killing the son of David in the context of this thread - vindicatory punishment in the context of "Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness."

This is not some formal universal teaching.  It is not even offered at the level of a local synod. 

It is offered by a group of lay apologists. 

I would not ever use that pericope as an example of temporal punishment, so you'll have to make inquiry of the lay apologists who offer that teaching and the bishops who signed off on it.

And I know what you do with the formal teachings that I offer so heaven only knows what you would do with my opinions and that is all that I could offer here, an opinion, so I have no opinion to offer.

If you can find a conciliar reference to that pericope or some text from some local synod of bishops then we could examine that in light of your interests here, but barring that...it's all just opinion.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
This is getting to be interesting....  the idea of punishment (temporal) after going to confession but you don't know when you'll be punished (either this life or next) and you don't know what'll take (i.e. how much work --  prayer, attending Mass, fasting, almsgiving, the works of mercy, the patient endurance of sufferings, and indulgences) to be pardoned from your sins...  

although I am getting anxious about all this temporal sin I've built up for the past 40+ years and didn't know it  :( :o



Apparently you missed this the first three or four times it was published on the previous page of this thread!!   :o

It should take away all of your fears and tell you what to do AND it has the backing of the Councils of Florence and Trent!!

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.

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
But..
Quote
Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all.

and for a plenary indulgence it takes not just communion but also...
Quote
To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope’s intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope’s intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Offline stashko

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,994
  • Wonderworking Sitka Icon
Since there is no Man that livith and sinnith not ... How does one accomplish that above ::)....the Only way, i say Get Out Of Confusion.... ;D Holy Orthodoxy,Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy...
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 08:47:17 PM by stashko »
ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
But..
Quote
Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all.

and for a plenary indulgence it takes not just communion but also...
Quote
To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope’s intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope’s intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.


What need would you have of these things if you simply led a life dedicated to the glory of God and worked daily to increase in virtue and decrease in the passions and vices that are so deadly to the soul, and received communion worthily and often for the remission of sin, and the healing of your soul and your body?

Leave those other things to those whose pieties require such formulations.

Mary
« Last Edit: August 12, 2010, 09:13:42 PM by elijahmaria »

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811

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!


Has there been a radical break between what was taught before VII and after VII?

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
My eyes won't cope with the smaller size print in quotes and so I have to miss out on reading them.
Dear Father Ambrose:
At the bottom margin of my browser, toward the right hand side, there is a zoom type magnifying glass, and if I click on it, I can magnify what is in the browser by up to 400%. Have you tried it out?

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
But..
Quote
Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all.

and for a plenary indulgence it takes not just communion but also...
Quote
To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope’s intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope’s intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Generally, it is not all that easy to gain a plenary indulgence. And from what I can make out, in the RCC, there has been at least a slight movement (perhaps more) away from emphasizing gaining indulgences since VII.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin.......
 The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

Note the last sentence.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Things Done for the Dead, According to St. Gregory

Book 4 of the Dialogues of St Gregory

Chapter Fifty-five: what is available for the soul after death: and of a Priest of Centumcellis, who was desired bv a certain man's spirit, to be helped after his death, by the holy sacrifice: and of the soul of a monk called Justus.

GREGORY. If the sins after death be pardonable, then the sacred oblation of the holy host useth to help men's souls: for which cause the souls sometime, of them that be dead, do desire the same: for Bishop Felix, whom we spake of before, saith that a virtuous Priest, who died some two years since, and dwelt in the diocese of the city of Centumcellis, and was pastor of the church of St. John in the place called Tauriana, told him that himself did use (when he had need) to wash his body in a certain place, in which there were passing hot waters: and that going thither upon a time, he found a certain man whom he knew not, ready to do him service, as to pull off his shoes, take his clothes, and to attend upon him in all dutiful manner. And when he had divers times done thus, the Priest, minding upon a day to go to the baths, began to think with himself that he would not be ungrateful to him that did him such service, but carry him somewhat for a reward, and so he took with him two singing breads [=communion breads, becasuse the anaphora is sung over them]: and coming thither he found the man there ready, and used his help as he was wont to do: and when he had washed himself, put on his clothes, and was ready to depart, he offered him for an holy reward that which he had brought, desiring him to take that courteously, which for charity he did give him. Then with a sad countenance, and in sorrowful manner, he spake thus unto him: "Why do you give me these, father? This is holy bread, and I cannot eat of it, for I, whom you see here, was sometime lord of these baths, and am now after my death appointed for my sins to this place: but if you desire to pleasure me, offer this bread unto almighty God, and be an intercessor for my sins: and by this shall you know that your prayers be heard, if at your next coming you find me not here."

And as he was speaking these words, he vanished out of his sight: so that he, which before  seemed to be a man, shewed by that manner of departure that he was a spirit. The good Priest all the week following gave himself to tears for him, and daily offered up the holy sacrifice: and afterward returning to the bath, found him not there: whereby it appeareth what great profit the souls receive by the sacrifice of the holy oblation, seeing the spirits of them that be dead desire it of the living, and give certain tokens to let us understand how that by means thereof they have received absolution.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
But..
Quote
Only God knows exactly how efficacious any particular partial indulgence is or whether a plenary indulgence was received at all.

and for a plenary indulgence it takes not just communion but also...
Quote
To gain a plenary indulgence you must perform the act with a contrite heart, plus you must go to confession (one confession may suffice for several plenary indulgences), receive Holy Communion, and pray for the pope’s intentions. (An Our Father and a Hail Mary said for the pope’s intentions are sufficient, although you are free to substitute other prayers of your own choice.) The final condition is that you must be free from all attachment to sin, including venial sin.

Generally, it is not all that easy to gain a plenary indulgence. And from what I can make out, in the RCC, there has been at least a slight movement (perhaps more) away from emphasizing gaining indulgences since VII.

I would say that it is very very easy to gain...and KEEP.... a plenary indulgence for one who is prepared to lead the life that would not require indulgences at all.

In other words I would say that indulgences are for two kinds of people:

Those who need a kind of "mechanical" motivation to work toward dispassion

Those who have reached a level of dispassion and sanctity that is sufficiently advanced so that their acts of mercy and charity are for the benefit of others more than they are for themselves.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
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.


I missed this until just this moment.   I will try my best to remember to take the size up one!!

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Things Done for the Dead, According to St. Gregory

Book 4 of the Dialogues of St Gregory

Chapter Fifty-five: what is available for the soul after death: and of a Priest of Centumcellis, who was desired bv a certain man's spirit, to be helped after his death, by the holy sacrifice: and of the soul of a monk called Justus.

GREGORY. If the sins after death be pardonable, then the sacred oblation of the holy host useth to help men's souls: for which cause the souls sometime, of them that be dead, do desire the same: for Bishop Felix, whom we spake of before, saith that a virtuous Priest, who died some two years since, and dwelt in the diocese of the city of Centumcellis, and was pastor of the church of St. John in the place called Tauriana, told him that himself did use (when he had need) to wash his body in a certain place, in which there were passing hot waters: and that going thither upon a time, he found a certain man whom he knew not, ready to do him service, as to pull off his shoes, take his clothes, and to attend upon him in all dutiful manner. And when he had divers times done thus, the Priest, minding upon a day to go to the baths, began to think with himself that he would not be ungrateful to him that did him such service, but carry him somewhat for a reward, and so he took with him two singing breads [=communion breads, becasuse the anaphora is sung over them]: and coming thither he found the man there ready, and used his help as he was wont to do: and when he had washed himself, put on his clothes, and was ready to depart, he offered him for an holy reward that which he had brought, desiring him to take that courteously, which for charity he did give him. Then with a sad countenance, and in sorrowful manner, he spake thus unto him: "Why do you give me these, father? This is holy bread, and I cannot eat of it, for I, whom you see here, was sometime lord of these baths, and am now after my death appointed for my sins to this place: but if you desire to pleasure me, offer this bread unto almighty God, and be an intercessor for my sins: and by this shall you know that your prayers be heard, if at your next coming you find me not here."

And as he was speaking these words, he vanished out of his sight: so that he, which before  seemed to be a man, shewed by that manner of departure that he was a spirit. The good Priest all the week following gave himself to tears for him, and daily offered up the holy sacrifice: and afterward returning to the bath, found him not there: whereby it appeareth what great profit the souls receive by the sacrifice of the holy oblation, seeing the spirits of them that be dead desire it of the living, and give certain tokens to let us understand how that by means thereof they have received absolution.


Thank you so much for posting this!!  It is beautiful!

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Quote from: Council of Lyons 1245, Denzinger
456  23. Finally, since Truth in the Gospel asserts that "if anyone shall utter blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, neither in this life nor in the future will it be forgiven him" [cf. Matt. 12:32], by this it is granted that certain sins of the present be understood which, however, are forgiven in the future life, and since the Apostle says that "fire will test the work of each one, of what kind it is," and " if any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" [ 1 Cor 3:13,15], and since these same Greeks truly and undoubtedly are said to believe and to affirm that the souls of those who after a penance has been received yet not performed, or who, without mortal sin yet die with venial and slight sin, can be cleansed after death and can be helped by the suffrages of the Church, we, since they say a place of purgation of this kind has not been indicated to them with a certain and proper name by their teachers, we indeed, calling it purgatory according to the traditions and authority of the Holy Fathers, wish that in the future it be called by that name in their area. For in that transitory fire certainly sins, though not criminal or capital, which before have not been remitted through penance but were small and minor sins, are cleansed, and these weigh heavily even after death, if they have been forgiven in this life.

 457 24. Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell.--25. But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin itself, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 10:49:21 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Quote from: Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
535 (17) Also that the Armenians commonly believe and hold that in another world there is no purgation of souls, because, as they say, if a Christian confesses his sins, all his sins and the punishments of his sins are forgiven him. They do not even pray for the dead, that their sins may be forgiven them in another world, but in general they pray for all the dead, as for blessed Mary, the apostles. . . .
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Quote from: Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
570  We ask if you have believed and now believe that there is a purgatory to which depart the souls of those dying in grace who have not yet made complete satisfaction for their sins. Also, if you have believed and now believe that they will be tortured by fire for a time and that as soon as they are cleansed, even before the day of judgment, they may come to the true and eternal beatitude which consists in the vision of God face to face and in love.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
Quote from: Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
570  We ask if you have believed and now believe that there is a purgatory to which depart the souls of those dying in grace who have not yet made complete satisfaction for their sins. Also, if you have believed and now believe that they will be tortured by fire for a time and that as soon as they are cleansed, even before the day of judgment, they may come to the true and eternal beatitude which consists in the vision of God face to face and in love.
Yes. that is the traditional Roman Catholic view as I have understood it.

Offline frjohnmorris

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,177
Quote from: Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma
570  We ask if you have believed and now believe that there is a purgatory to which depart the souls of those dying in grace who have not yet made complete satisfaction for their sins. Also, if you have believed and now believe that they will be tortured by fire for a time and that as soon as they are cleansed, even before the day of judgment, they may come to the true and eternal beatitude which consists in the vision of God face to face and in love.
Yes. that is the traditional Roman Catholic view as I have understood it.

This is an area in which we disagree with the Catholics. We believe that honest Confession and Communion removes all sins. There is no satisfaction that we can offer to God that is greater than the sacrifice for us by Christ on the Cross. There is a line from a Stichera for the Pre-Lenten season that says, "Thou hast nailed my sins to the Cross..."
We do not believe in Temporal Punishment of that we have to suffer in purgatory if we have not done enough penance to atone for our sins. After he pronounces Absolution, the Priest says, "And now go in peace having no further care for your sins."
We do, however, believe that our spiritual growth towards deification continues in Heaven.

Fr. John  W. Morris.

Offline mikeforjesus

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,555
before I choose to be banned. I have to ask. If Jesus can not or will not break any of His rules how come He would lets some protestants also in heaven if as said at
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/metphil_heterodox.aspx  
and posters here said also He has another fold which is not blaspheming the Holy Spirit if they are not baptised nor do they believe in the real presence of the body and blood and Jesus said they are both required for salvation do we believe as I do they will be saved in the world to come hence not denying or contradicting Jesus words?
it is hard however to say which protestants so it is safer to be orthodox. I say it is hard because some may know orthodoxy is truth but not join it for whatever reason (would that be blaspheming the Holy Spirit?) and would have been better off it seems if noone preached it to them if not done with grace
Hence there is a purgatory for protestants and maybe catholics even some non christians who would have converted if the Church was more united because they are still children of God if they have serious heresies and stubborness for not reuniting (if that is a sin but not an unforgivable one)  who choose God and want to please Him but they must not wilfully refuse the truth perhaps. Hence unlike orthodox who pray for all I believe in a purgatory only for some or possibily for all if noone is blaspheming His Spirit but it seems some do and it is a real reality and risk which should be emphasised harshly. Some save with fear hating even the garment defiled by the flesh
The words I speak to you are Spirit and they are life. This means that we do not actually eat raw flesh or blood but plain bread and wine which Christ transforms by the Spirit for us
Sorry I know I am not very clear and too tired to edit it out and it will be impossible after a while having only quotes remaining
Can someone edit out this post to be more clear
« Last Edit: May 10, 2014, 08:35:09 AM by mikeforjesus »

Offline akimel

  • Fr Aidan
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 523
    • Eclectic Orthodoxy
An Eastern Orthodox discussion of purgatory and the particular judgment, with reference to the dogmatics of Fr Dumitru Staniloae:  "The Impersonality of Catholic Purgatory."

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,811
An Eastern Orthodox discussion of purgatory and the particular judgment, with reference to the dogmatics of Fr Dumitru Staniloae:  "The Impersonality of Catholic Purgatory."
Well, it says: "...hell implies two possibilities: that for some it will be eternal, and that for others it will be noneternal." Orthodox noneternal hell? Sounds to me somewhat similar to Roman Catholic  Purgatory, although there are perhaps some nuanced differences.

Offline mikeforjesus

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,555
The fact that the right hand thief entered paradise without any additional suffering is a strong argument against purgatory. However perhaps those who believe in purgatory think he was being purged while in paradise or that he had already been purged on earth. Purgatory is not taught as a second chance but a necessary purification of sins all must undergo and some orthodox assume everyone is purged on earth I think. However I do not know whether there is a purgatory on earth or after death for orthodox christians. I believe God's mercy does not punish us for our sins
« Last Edit: May 25, 2014, 10:53:07 AM by mikeforjesus »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
If one's spirit is the sort to want to "live however we want and still make it to heaven," then I suspect one's "continuation on a new level of that road which a person followed in his lifetime" is not the kind to lead to heaven, regardless of what "dynamic" obtains in the next world. That said, all that matters in either world is God, who "will have mercy one whom I will have mercy" (hardly to be bound by human dogmatic conceptions) to his glory.


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.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
An Eastern Orthodox discussion of purgatory and the particular judgment, with reference to the dogmatics of Fr Dumitru Staniloae:  "The Impersonality of Catholic Purgatory."
Well, it says: "...hell implies two possibilities: that for some it will be eternal, and that for others it will be noneternal." Orthodox noneternal hell? Sounds to me somewhat similar to Roman Catholic  Purgatory, although there are perhaps some nuanced differences.

Right.  The difference is that Orthodoxy holds that Hades (what is experienced by souls-without-bodies before the general resurrection) is for the damned (Satan, etc.) in Tartaros, the deepest part of Hades (see Resurrection Icon) and the chamber of Hades holding those who can be redeemed.  BTW, "Purgatorium" was de facto a translation of "Hades" in the 11th-13th centuries in Latin. 

To be honest, the differences between Orthodoxy and Rome on this are twofold:

1.  The idea of temporal purgatorial fires. 
2.  The RCC eventually confusing hades with gehenna (thus resulting in #1, the fires of purgatory).  From the Biblical point of view (and the OC pov) Gehenna does not exist yet.  Gehenna is the eternal incarceration of those who are unrepentant following the Last Judgement.  In short, Hades is a place for souls before the general resurrection, Gehenna is a place for persons (united soul and body) after the general resurrection.