Author Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness  (Read 72342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 05:04:36 PM by Wyatt »

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,660
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
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.
"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
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.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195

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.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

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.

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
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. 

Offline militantsparrow

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 653
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
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.
I no longer post on this forum

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline Jakub

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,749
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...
An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

Offline Irish Hermit

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

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?

Offline Irish Hermit

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

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".

Offline Irish Hermit

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

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.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2010, 08:24:48 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline elijahmaria

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

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

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.

Offline Alveus Lacuna

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,338
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: OCA
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?

Offline Irish Hermit

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


Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
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).

Offline Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian/GOA
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
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline Irish Hermit

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

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,885
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
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



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.
If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Jetavan

  • Argumentum ad australopithecum
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,885
  • Tenzin and Desmond
    • The Mystical Theology
Here's one definition of "limbo", from the Baltimore Catechism (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)

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.

Offline Irish Hermit

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



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?


Offline elijahmaria

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

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

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?



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

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
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. 

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
I am so glad that we are talking about Purgatory again.  ;)
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
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.

Offline Irish Hermit

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

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
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.  

Offline bogdan

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,614
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
« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 05:37:59 PM by bogdan »

Offline Wyatt

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,465
  • Faith: Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Latin Church
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.

Offline Irish Hermit

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

« Last Edit: July 30, 2010, 07:01:29 PM by Irish Hermit »

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline Irish Hermit

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

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?

Offline elijahmaria

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

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.

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
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.

Offline elijahmaria

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

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
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.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.