Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness

[Irish Hermit]

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

If one substitutes "unhealthy attachment to creatures" in the above where it says "temporal punishment" it doesn't seem to make any sense.   Yet that is the teaching of the CCC para 1472

CCC1472 says something slightly different:
"1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain."

"On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin."

Is this the present magisterial teaching on "temporal punishment"?  Or is there some other definition in another document?

As I said there is apparently nothing left of real substance to say on this topic.  You are desperately grasping at straws here and that you are perfectly capable of doing all on your own.

Ho! ho!  I see what is happening.  You are unable to provide a magisterial definition of "temporal punishment" and to deflect attention away from this fact you are resorting to ad hominem.  Nice try. 

I think that Father Kimel says that there has been a "clarification" and a "reinterpretation" of the doctrine of Purgatory: "During the past fifty years a significant clarification of the doctrine of Purgatory has occurred. Moving away from the juridical categories in which the doctrine has typically been expressed, Catholic theologians have sought to interpret the doctrine in personalist terms that more adequately express the encounter between sinners and the God who is a trinitarian community of love. If one looks closely, one can see signs of this reinterpretation in both the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the writings of Pope John Paul II—specifically coalescing around the notion of “temporal punishment for sin.” "
See "Clarifying Purgatory"
http://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/clarifying-purgatory/

 

Father Kimel's approach won't wash.  It is a thoroughly Anglican approach to theology, simply choosing what one's heart inclines to.

The fact is that the traditional teaching enjoys magisterial approval and the approval of (RC) Ecumenical Councils.

By way of contrast, the opinions of modern theologians are only that -opinions, which do not enjoy magisterial definition.

[Dave in McKinney]

Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

from http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

So we're forgiven from our guilt, and we won't go to hell, but we may still be punished?!  Is there a list somewhere of temporal punishments and their  corresponding sins?

[stanley123]

Is there a list somewhere of temporal punishments and their  corresponding sins?

No, because it is subjective.

[Irish Hermit]

Until you directly and clearly acknowledge the present teaching of the Catholic Church, questions two and three cannot be constructively discussed.  Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   

Father Kimel,

I am sitting here, my eyes streaming with tears of laughter.  I have rarely met with such a caricature of the Catholic understanding of tradition.  Please tell me you did not mean it to come out that way it sounds, it was just occasioned by the heat of the discussion.   Please do not write any more or all this laughter may give me a heart attack.   If this is truly how modern Catholicism views its doctrines in relation to its traditional teaching then it is certainly time to shut up shop.  Shut up shop and come home to Orthodoxy.  We'll teach you the true value of tradition and its continuance through every age.

[Irish Hermit]

So asking for evidence is now character assassanation? Or pehaps your last post has some hidden meaning which you alone can teach us. Sounds very gnostic to me.  You give your opinion and it might be possibly correct, but you are one of a billion people each with their own varying opinions. So that is why we would like something verify that your opinion is correct. So do you agree with the statements Council of Florence?

Or do you agree with Cardinal Husar: "Questions like purgatory, the Immaculate Conception or the filioque are theological concepts, not faith." 

Holding my breath, waiting for the appearance of the new Catechism from the Greek Ukrainian Church and wondering if it is going to expound on these things.  Foxes in the hen house.   

[theistgal]

I too have tears streaming down my face as I read this thread, but they're not from laughter.  How can we ever hope to reunite in this world when there is such a vast chasm between us, so filled with scorn and willful misunderstandings on both sides?  God help us all.

[Irish Hermit]

I too have tears streaming down my face as I read this thread, but they're not from laughter.  How can we ever hope to reunite in this world when there is such a vast chasm between us, so filled with scorn and willful misunderstandings on both sides?  God help us all.

Oops!   Shouldn't be giving scandal.  I apologise for that.   But I am developing into an old curmudgeon.  Mary is already a better one than I shall ever be.  We strike sparks off one another.  We adopt highhanded stances.  I adore her.

While I do have a hope for the union of our Churches I am also inclined to accept these words from Saint Nektary of Optina, the last Optina Elder who died in 1927:

Once N. Pavlovich asked the Elder: "Is it possible to hope for the unification of the churches?"

He replied, "No! only an Ecumenical Council could do that, but there will be no more councils. There have already been seven councils, like the seven sacraments and the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. For our age, the number of fullness is the number seven. Eight is the number of the future age. Only separate people will be united to our Church."

"Wisdom has built herself a house with seven pillars. Orthodoxy has these seven pillars. But God's wisdom has other dwellings- they may have six pillars or fewer, and accordingly a lesser measure of grace." Saint Nektary of Optina


Source: Elder Nektary of Optina by I.M. Kontzevitch Pages 181 and 182

[elijahmaria]

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments.  

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment.  

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

Here is another substantive aspect the concept of temporal punishments.  Most of the instances of "krima" used in the passages below are the compound word "katakrima"  which indicates eternal damnation indicated by the addition of "kata".

However in 1 Corinthians 11:29, damnation or judgement is translated from krima...without the addition of kata indicating that the judgment is not eternal but immediate, temporary, temporal.  

Krima, when not compounded with kata, means that it is a temporary or temporal judgment....or as you can see below, krima can also refer to the punishment with which one is sentenced as part of that judgment.

So it is clear that the idea of temporary or temporal punishments is found in Scripture and can be equally rendered as temporal judgment.  

It is from this idea of eating unworthily to our temporary judgment in the Apostle Paul, that we arrive at  the teaching that the worthy reception of Eucharist will remove the temporary jugements incurred by those consequences of our sins that we cannot remove or resolve on our own.  

We cannot resolve our broken and fallen tendencies to be attached to the things of this temporal world without the burning power of God's grace and therefore...again....the constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that in this life Eucharist will heal all temporal punishments, and hereafter it will be the burning power of God's grace outside of the Eucharist that will heal us of that which has not been healed in this life.

These things are not new teaching at all.  They are grounded in Scripture, and as noted they are part of the teachings of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Strong's #2917: krima (pronounced kree'-mah)

    from 2919; a decision (the function or the effect, for or against ("crime")):--avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, + go to law, judgment.

    Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

    krima

    1) a decree, judgments

    2) judgment

    2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others

    2b) in a forensic sense

    2b1) the sentence of a judge

    2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced

    2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence

    3) a matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court

    Part of Speech: noun neuter


    Usage:

    This word is used 28 times:
    

    Matthew 7:2: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with"
    Matthew 23:14: "make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
    Mark 12:40: "make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 20:47: "make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 23:40: "in the same condemnation?"
    Luke 24:20: "delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him."
    John 9:39: "Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this"
    Acts 24:25: "temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled,"
    Romans 2:2: "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth"
    Romans 2:3: "thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
    Romans 3:8: "good may come? whose damnation is just."
    Romans 5:16: "gift: for the judgment was by one to"
    Romans 11:33: "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
    Romans 13:2: "and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
    1 Corinthians 6:7: "among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why"
    1 Corinthians 11:29: "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the"
    1 Corinthians 11:34: "that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest"
    Galatians 5:10: "ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever"
    1 Timothy 3:6: "being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."
    1 Timothy 5:12: "Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."
    Hebrews 6:2: "of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
    James 3:1: "that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
    1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house"
    2 Peter 2:3: "make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and"
    Jude 1:4: "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the"
    Revelation 17:1: "I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth"
    Revelation 18:20: "prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."
    Revelation 20:4: "upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the"

[stanley123]

How can we ever hope to reunite in this world ....

I don't see an overabundance of enthusiasm on the E. Orthodox side for reunion with the Catholics. On the other hand, the Catholics are slow in recognising the problems that the E. Orthodox have with the Roman papacy. And of course, the OO have a problem with the idea that the E. Patriarchs and/or the Roman Pope should lead the Church.

[Irish Hermit]

At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.   

Father Kimel,

That really is a shocking statement.  If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.

Those who agree with you may stay with her to assist to complete her protestantisation.

Those who cannot agree with you may leave and find a home in Orthodoxy.

I believe that the ramifications of your words are that deep and that serious.

[Irish Hermit]

How can we ever hope to reunite in this world ....

I don't see an overabundance of enthusiasm on the E. Orthodox side for reunion with the Catholics.

In the light of what Fr Kimel has just said, who would blame them.

[LBK]

Fr Alvin's statement of:
 

Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.

 

is either a serious misunderstanding on his part of his church's modus operandi, or, he is, indeed, describing the reality. The last sentence is particularly disturbing.

If the latter is true, then there can never be reunification between the RC and the Orthodox, and my respect for the RC church has diminished greatly. What this post of his is saying, in effect, is proclaiming a kind of papal protestantism, where doctrine can be altered according to papal decree. Additions and subtractions - additions like filioque, purgatory and immaculate conception, subtractions such as "limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching".

Has the RCC really strayed so far from its apostolic roots?

[elijahmaria]

Fr Alvin's statement of:
 

Until you admit that the Catholic Church, at least as articulated in the Catholic Catechism and the teachings of John Paul II and Benedict XI (as well as the large majority of bishops and priests), does not teach what you personally believe to be the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, further conversation is futile and a waste of my time and the time of every Catholic who contributes to this forum.  At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago.  What matters, all that matters, is what the Catholic Church as a living body in fact and reality teaches today.

 

is either a serious misunderstanding on his part of his church's modus operandi, or, he is, indeed, describing the reality. The last sentence is particularly disturbing.

If the latter is true, then there can never be reunification between the RC and the Orthodox, and my respect for the RC church has diminished greatly. What this post of his is saying, in effect, is proclaiming a kind of papal protestantism, where doctrine can be altered according to papal decree. Additions and subtractions - additions like purgatory and immaculate conception, subtractions such as "limbo is no longer part of Catholic teaching".

Has the RCC really strayed so far from its apostolic roots?

Here is the portion of the quote that determines Father Kimel's meaning and I believe Father Ambrose would have to be blind to miss it: " At this point it doesn't matter what you think the Catholic Church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago."

It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:

Therefore it only matters that we look at what the Church teaches today because it is the same as yesterday.
++++++++++++

I agree that Father Kimel took a verbal short cut BUT the fact that he highlighted the words: It does not matter what YOU THINK ..."   Indicates that he doesn't give a rat's rump about what Father Ambrose says the Catholic Church teaches or not...What he cares about is what the Church teaches today...because it is the same as the universal teaching for all time.

That is the real message and the highlighted words and the context of his comments should indicate meaning...unless someone seeks to wrap a different meaning into the words.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

These texts are much more relevant to the topic at hand:

I am going to offer this teaching on Holy Communion in the Catholic Church.  At the end of this segment there is a paragraph that speaks of the remission of temporal punishments.  

My question is that IF the "remission of temporal punishments" is a brutal act of a vengeful God, then how can these consequences of sin be washed away by reception of Eucharist?   How can Eucharist remit temporal punishment?  Is it a vengeful sacrament?  A sacrament devoid of love and mercy? ...short of giving me a smirky smile and telling me there are no sacraments...but that is not the issue here at the moment.  

And IF one leads a moral and virtuous life in the Church, and regularly partakes of the so-called Catholic sacraments of Confession and Communion and dies a holy death...what is left to be purified in any fire of LOVE?

And if one does not choose to lead such a life and must face purgation after death, should not the Lord purge him in the fires of his LOVE then, as he does in the Eucharist now?

This is the ancient teaching of the Church which the active Orthodox in this discussion dismiss as a falsehood or something that is not REALLY the formal teaching of the Church with respect to temporal punishment due to sin here and hereafter...as I said early on in this discussion.

Bearing in mind that this excerpt takes it back to AT LEAST the Council of Trent explicitly, which automatically takes it back to the Council of Florence by extrapolation.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/holycomm.htm

Effects of Holy Communion

Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed. Since the earliest times, the benefits of receiving the Body and Blood of Christ were spelled out to encourage frequent, even daily, Holy Communion.

Thus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem (died 387) said that reception of the Eucharist makes the Christian a "Christbearer" and "one body and one blood with Him" (Catecheses, 4,3). St. John Chrysostom (died 407) speaks of a mixing of the Body of Christ with our body, "…in order to show the great love that He has for us. He mixed Himself with us, and joined His Body with us, so that we might become one like a bread connected with the body" (Homily 46,3). These and other comparisons of how Communion unites the recipient with Christ are based on Christ's own teaching, and St. Paul's statement that, "the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the Body of the Lord? For we, being many, are one bread, all that partake of this bread." (I Corinthians 10:16-17).

So, too, the church officially teaches that "Every effect which bodily food and bodily drink produce in our corporeal life, by preserving this life, increasing this life, healing this life, and satisfying this life - is also produced by this Sacrament in the spiritual life" (Council of Florence, November 22, 1439). Thus:

   1. Holy Communion preserves the supernatural life of the soul by giving the communicant supernatural strength to resist temptation, and by weakening the power of concupiscence. It reinforces the ability of our free will to withstand the assaults of the devil. In a formal definition, the Church calls Holy Communion "an antidote by which we are preserved from grievous sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551).

   2. Holy Communion increases the life of grace already present by vitalizing our supernatural life and strengthening the virtues and gifts of the Holy Spirit we possess. To be emphasized, however, is that the main effect of Communion is not to remit sin. In fact, a person in conscious mortal sin commits a sacrilege by going to Communion.

   3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

Here is another substantive aspect the concept of temporal punishments.  Most of the instances of "krima" used in the passages below are the compound word "katakrima"  which indicates eternal damnation indicated by the addition of "kata".

However in 1 Corinthians 11:29, damnation or judgement is translated from krima...without the addition of kata indicating that the judgment is not eternal but immediate, temporary, temporal.  

Krima, when not compounded with kata, means that it is a temporary or temporal judgment....or as you can see below, krima can also refer to the punishment with which one is sentenced as part of that judgment.

So it is clear that the idea of temporary or temporal punishments is found in Scripture and can be equally rendered as temporal judgment.  

It is from this idea of eating unworthily to our temporary judgment in the Apostle Paul, that we arrive at  the teaching that the worthy reception of Eucharist will remove the temporary jugements incurred by those consequences of our sins that we cannot remove or resolve on our own.  

We cannot resolve our broken and fallen tendencies to be attached to the things of this temporal world without the burning power of God's grace and therefore...again....the constant teaching of the Catholic Church is that in this life Eucharist will heal all temporal punishments, and hereafter it will be the burning power of God's grace outside of the Eucharist that will heal us of that which has not been healed in this life.

These things are not new teaching at all.  They are grounded in Scripture, and as noted they are part of the teachings of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Strong's #2917: krima (pronounced kree'-mah)

    from 2919; a decision (the function or the effect, for or against ("crime")):--avenge, condemned, condemnation, damnation, + go to law, judgment.

    Thayer's Greek Lexicon:

    krima

    1) a decree, judgments

    2) judgment

    2a) condemnation of wrong, the decision (whether severe or mild) which one passes on the faults of others

    2b) in a forensic sense

    2b1) the sentence of a judge

    2b2) the punishment with which one is sentenced

    2b3) condemnatory sentence, penal judgment, sentence

    3) a matter to be judicially decided, a lawsuit, a case in court

    Part of Speech: noun neuter


    Usage:

    This word is used 28 times:
    

    Matthew 7:2: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with"
    Matthew 23:14: "make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation."
    Mark 12:40: "make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 20:47: "make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation."
    Luke 23:40: "in the same condemnation?"
    Luke 24:20: "delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him."
    John 9:39: "Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this"
    Acts 24:25: "temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled,"
    Romans 2:2: "we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth"
    Romans 2:3: "thou shalt escape the judgment of God?"
    Romans 3:8: "good may come? whose damnation is just."
    Romans 5:16: "gift: for the judgment was by one to"
    Romans 11:33: "how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!"
    Romans 13:2: "and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."
    1 Corinthians 6:7: "among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why"
    1 Corinthians 11:29: "eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the"
    1 Corinthians 11:34: "that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest"
    Galatians 5:10: "ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever"
    1 Timothy 3:6: "being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil."
    1 Timothy 5:12: "Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith."
    Hebrews 6:2: "of the dead, and of eternal judgment."
    James 3:1: "that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
    1 Peter 4:17: "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house"
    2 Peter 2:3: "make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and"
    Jude 1:4: "who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the"
    Revelation 17:1: "I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth"
    Revelation 18:20: "prophets; for God hath avenged you on her."
    Revelation 20:4: "upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the"

[stanley123]

If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.

I think it is true to some extent that there is a lot of division in the RCC today.

[Wyatt]

If it is true then I think that all the faces the Catholic Church is division and schism.

Wow...talk about pot/kettle.

[Irish Hermit]

[
It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:

I see that you are profess an anti-unionist attitude.

Unless the Roman Catholic Church changes its teaching it will never be accepted into unity with the Orthodox Church.

[Irish Hermit]

I belong to a Catholic forum and I have never seen any confusion.

Spend some time on CAF.  I think it is the largest forum on the Catholic internet.   Quite an amount of dissension there.

 I have seen more confusion on this forum than anywhere else because there is no official "Eastern Orthodox" teaching.

It is rude to put Eastern Orthodox in inverted commas and I am sure you know that.  I do not write "Roman Catholic."

The Orthodox cannot even tell me with a unified voice what the status of the Roman Catholic Church is.

There are certainly different opinions within Orthodoxy about the Roman Catholic Church.

Your own Church varies in its opinions of us.   Recently Pope Benedict said that we are a true Church but defective.  Other Popes have said we are heretics.  Who is right?  Popes such as Pope Eugene and others have officially proclaimed that we are going to hell.     There is no unified voice in your Church about the status of Orthodoxy - just a bunch of opinions over the years.

If the Holy Spirit is truly guiding Orthodoxy, then why do some believe that Catholics have the Holy Eucharist in our Churches and some do not?

There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not?

I am not aware of any Orthodox Church which prohibits the use of contraception (given certain conditions.)

If the Holy Spirit is with you then why is there so much factionalism within Orthodoxy?

The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.

If you are truly the True Church founded by Jesus Christ, wouldn't He want you to know these things since these are things which are crucial to Salvation?

An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.

Contraception - the question is settled

"Factionalism" - not a desirable thing but it does not prevent salvation

[Irish Hermit]

Why do some believe contraception is wrong and some do not?

The Claretian Fathers published an article in their magazine on contraceoption.  It is called "It is Time to End the Hypocrisy on Birth Control"

It highlights the dissension and confusion in the Catholic Church.

I found that it has been placed in The Free Libnrary

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/It's+time+to+end+the+hypocrisy+on+birth+control.(Column)-a020643239

-oOo-

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) estimtes that 97% of Catholic married couples are using forms of contraception forbidden by the Catholic Church and which are gravely sinful

see message 14
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25065.msg389501.html#msg389501

One cannot begin to imagine the catastrophic effect of these Catholics in a state of continuous mortal sin - on the spiritual life of their families and on their parishes.  They must be like a cloud of volcanic ash stifling the spiritual life of the parishes.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear Wyatt,

With reference to message 214 --- Have you discovered the number of infallible statements and what they are?

Dear Mary,

With reference to message 263 --- Have you discovered the magisterial definition of "temporal punishment"?  That will provide the basis for the discussion you would like.

[Irish Hermit]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

[Irish Hermit]

Additional information is given by Pope Paul VI.  He teaches that temporal punishment is inflicted by God.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.

[Dave in McKinney]

Additional information is given by Pope Paul VI.  He teaches that temporal punishment is inflicted by God.

Please refer to his "INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA" (Apostolic Constitution On Indulgences) which was solemnly promulgated by His Holiness, on 1st January 1967

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html

1.2. It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or "purifying" punishments.

So how DO we know if the bad things that happen to us are punishments or just stuff that happens? I think passages like beginning of Luke 13 and Matt 5:45?

[Irish Hermit]

[
So how DO we know if the bad things that happen to us are punishments or just stuff that happens? I think passages like beginning of Luke 13 and Matt 5:45?

Yes, it is not as clear for many of us as it was for David in 2 Samuel 12.

Here we see the principle of temporal punishment clearly at work.  Whether this also lines up somehow with modern Catholicism's teaching of "unhealthy attachment to creatures" (David's attachment to his baby son) I do not know.

"Then Nathan said to David.................... "Why did you despise the word of the LORD by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own. You killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.'

"This is what the Lord says: 'Out of your own household I am going to bring calamity upon you. Before your very eyes I will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight.  You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.' "

"Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord."

"Nathan replied, "The Lord has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.  But because by doing this you have made the enemies of the Lord show utter contempt, the son born to you will die."

"After Nathan had gone home, the Lord struck the child that Uriah's wife had borne to David, and he became ill.  David pleaded with God for the child. He fasted and went into his house and spent the nights lying on the ground. The elders of his household stood beside him to get him up from the ground, but he refused, and he would not eat any food with them.

"On the seventh day the child died."

Presumably in Catholic understanding this temporal punishment due to sin, the death of his boy, freed David form any further punishment in the afterlife for the sins he had committed.

[elijahmaria]

[
It does not matter AT ALL what some Orthodox priest thinks the Catholic Church taught last year, a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

: The Catholic Church does not change her doctrinal teachings:

I see that you are profess an anti-unionist attitude.

Unless the Roman Catholic Church changes its teaching it will never be accepted into unity with the Orthodox Church.

You say that but I do not think that is going to be what is required at all.  In fact I think these discussions are all about how to allow both confessions to carry on as they are in communion as we did for a 1000 years before.

Mary

[elijahmaria]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

Btw, I just checked your quote from Trent and while it mentions temporal punishment it provides no definition.   Stop pulling my leg! 

[elijahmaria]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

All I am hearing is evasion.

 For some reason you shy away from providing the magisterial definition.  Why?  That piques my curiosity.

[elijahmaria]

Definition of Temporal Punishment from www.carm.org

Temporal Punishment - suffering that occurs either in this life or in purgatory that removes the punishment of sins already forgiven.
 
http://www.carm.org/catholic-terminology

I offered teaching from two Councils that gives the formal teaching on the remission of temporal punishment.

When you deal with that then I will happily explain to you the meaning of some of the more informal teachings and explanations.

You, as an oppositional Orthodox, don't get to dictate the terms of any discussion of Catholic things to me.

You asked for a discussion on temporal punishment.

I asked for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment.

Many of the problems with the interminable discussions on the forum are occasioned because no definition of the terminology was given at the commencement of the discussion.

I don't think it qualifies as "dictating the terms of any discussion" to ask for a definition. It seems eminently sensible to me.

You have several definitions.

What you don't have is the right to dictate meaning.  That is what you seek and what you will never have the right to have from anyone.  It cannot be given away.

I might as well tell Bill Clinton he can define the terms of Catholic Moral Theology or Orthodoxy Christology.

All I am hearing is evasion.

 For some reason you shy away from providing the magisterial definition.  Why?  That piques my curiosity.

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.

This is something that you already know and so what you do here is clearly meant to do nothing but block the opportunity to discuss the Conciliar magisterial teaching that I have given you some half dozen times now along with the transliteration of the Greek word that is the Scriptural foundation for the term "temporal punishments"...which can mean punishment, judgment, condemnation, etc.  and has been translated in all that variety over time as bible translations have proliferated.  The common Catholic translation is "judgment".  I offered you this data on "krima" from Strong's so that there would be no accusation of undue bias in my Scriptural sources.

So you actually have what you have been demanding and you don't dare acknowledge it because it flies in the face of your hysterical effort to tell unsuspecting Orthodox and Catholics an outright falsehood about Catholic teaching and its meaning with regard to the Catholic teachings on purgation.  I guess you count on ignorance to lend credence to your doctrinal distortions of Catholic teaching.

It is a fraud that you are perpetrating here and I don't quite understand why you would want to do that.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.

And you are trying to lead us astray with word games. 

How many times have you and other Catholics laughed the Orthodox to scorn for assuming that "doctrines" and "traditions" (even those which have been around for centuries) which have no magisterial definition are a part of Catholic theology?  Limbo comes to mind at once, and so does many of the teachings on Purgatory.

No, we shan't fall into that trap again.  We shall never assume that things without magisterial definition have any certainty in Catholicism.

[Irish Hermit]

This is something that you already know and so what you do here is clearly meant to do nothing but block the opportunity to discuss the Conciliar magisterial teaching that I have given you some half dozen times now along with the transliteration of the Greek word that is the Scriptural foundation for the term "temporal punishments"...which can mean punishment, judgment, condemnation, etc.  and has been translated in all that variety over time as bible translations have proliferated.  The common Catholic translation is "judgment".  I offered you this data on "krima" from Strong's so that there would be no accusation of undue bias in my Scriptural sources.

So you actually have what you have been demanding and you don't dare acknowledge it

Ok, so call me a thickhead.  I have been looking out for the magisterial definition of temporal punishment but have not seen it in any of your messages.  Humour me.  Could you spell it out for me.

The Magisterium teaches us that temporal punishment is......................................................................................
______________

Ah! Forget it.  It's like pulling a tooth just to get the definition out of you.  The difficulties ahead in any further discussion are impossible to imagine.

[elijahmaria]

This is posturing for the crowd, Father.

Magisterial formulations come in the form of explanations and historical references, and not definitions.

And you are trying to lead us astray with word games. 

How many times have you and other Catholics laughed the Orthodox to scorn for assuming that "doctrines" and "traditions" (even those which have been around for centuries) which have no magisterial definition are a part of Catholic theology?  Limbo comes to mind at once, and so does many of the teachings on Purgatory.

No, we shan't fall into that trap again.  We shall never assume that things without magisterial definition have any certainty in Catholicism.

Father,

Doctrinal teaching and discussions of doctrinal teaching do not make me laugh, scoff or scorn.  I am a teacher for Christ's sake and have been so for many years both formally and informally.  I don't laugh at those who struggle honestly to gain understanding.

I will poke fun at gamers and nasties, which might be better than a poke in the nose, I don't know.

Catholics cannot always discern what is what when they read Catholic documents or documents written by Catholics.  Many cannot even make the simple distinction that I just made.

I never laugh at those who make honest errors, I don't care what I think of them personally.  An honest error triggers the natural born teacher in my and that is how I respond.

Whatever your personal war is, I really don't care at all.

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.

I wish to say that I have diligently read Mary's messages and still do not have the foggiest what the official meaning, the magisterial meaning of "temporal punishment" is.

I can define it for you in the context of the older tradition of papal encyclicals, even as recently as 1967 and Pope Paul VI's encyclical,  but I am sure that the modern meaning differs.  Good luck to those who understand it, whatever it may be.  I surrender.

I have my own opinions on why my worthy sister is blowing a smoke cloud over this issue.  Those can be read at message 1044 here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

[BoredMeeting]

The Magisterium teaches us that temporal punishment is......................................................................................

I guess some questions have no discernible answer.

[elijahmaria]

In this case I have given you all you have demanded.  If you choose to ignore it that's on you.

I wish to say that I have diligently read Mary's messages and still do not have the foggiest what the official meaning, the magisterial meaning of "temporal punishment" is.

I can define it for you in the context of the older tradition of papal encyclicals, even as recently as 1967 and Pope Paul VI's encyclical,  but I am sure that the modern meaning differs.  Good luck to those who understand it, whatever it may be.  I surrender.

I have my own opinions on why my worthy sister is blowing a smoke cloud over this issue.  Those can be read at message 1044 here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13820.msg421044.html#msg421044

The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.


The Scriptural root of the catholic concept of temporal punishment can be found in 1 Corinthians 11:29 in the form of the Greek word "krima" meaning punishment or judgment.

If you want to understand the technical term "temporal punishment" as it has actually been used formally the Catholic Church for centuries, you must understand the Greek transliterated "krima" as it is used in the aforementioned passage in Paul,  and the Latin "poena" as it is used by the Church to explain judgments that separate us from the Trinity but do not damn us to eternal damnation or "katakrima."

I am sorry that I cannot "fix" your difficulty but other than spiritual texts that presume a certain rudimentary understanding I don't have much more I can give you in simple terms that can easily be referenced in this medium.  

I have often written to the CDF in Rome for clarifications on specific topics that have eluded me over time and always I get a very helpful response with references.

I suggest that might be an avenue for you to help clear up some of your confusion.

Mary

[Irish Hermit]

The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

I wrote to you earlier that I have read this quote from Trent and it does not provide a definition of temporal punishment.   

If you asked the people in your catechism classes, "Based on this quote from Trent what is temporal punishment?" they would NOT be able to answer you.

You are just pulling my leg and wasting my time!

[Wyatt]

Spend some time on CAF.  I think it is the largest forum on the Catholic internet.   Quite an amount of dissension there.

Okay, fair enough. If your point is that laypeople sometimes have varying opinions which do not necessarily reflect genuine Church teaching, then I am with you.

rude to put Eastern Orthodox in inverted commas and I am sure you know that.  I do not write "Roman Catholic."

Oh my, scandalous punctuation. My apologies.

I really should have typed it as "Eastern Orthodox teachings" rather than just putting Eastern Orthodox in quotations, that was my mistake.

There are certainly different opinions within Orthodoxy about the Roman Catholic Church.

Your own Church varies in its opinions of us.   Recently Pope Benedict said that we are a true Church but defective.  Other Popes have said we are heretics.  Who is right?  Popes such as Pope Eugene and others have officially proclaimed that we are going to hell.     There is no unified voice in your Church about the status of Orthodoxy - just a bunch of opinions over the years.

Well, to a degree I suppose there is room for opinion since this subject is not doctrine or dogma, yet I think it is clear to look at the Catholic Church and to see that, overall, we have great respect for the Orthodox Church. What I am finding out is that certain laypeople and clergy can be quite difficult.

There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?

I am not aware of any Orthodox Church which prohibits the use of contraception (given certain conditions.)

Even worse.

The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.

Indeed, the Council of Jerusalem, and indeed all of the Ecumenical Councils, were called to end division. Why is there so much division within the Orthodox Church 2000 years after Christ, especially when He Himself prayed for the Church to be one as He and the Father are one?

An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.

Not for those within your Church, but it a determining factor in how likely it is for us to have salvation, is it not? I am not an avid proselytizer anyway since I tend to subscribe to the St. Francis method of evangelization, but I am especially not concerned about trying to convert an Orthodox or swaying someone from the Orthodox Church because I believe you possess Apostolic Succession and valid Sacraments. In fact, a friend of mine was just recently received into the Orthodox Church and I was very happy for him. Unfortunately, I found out pretty quickly that he didn't seem to be that happy that I am Catholic now, which is a shame. I told him my conversion story and he told me his, but I have a feeling he wasn't as moved by mine (simply because it was a conversion into Catholicism) as I was of his.

"Factionalism" - not a desirable thing but it does not prevent salvation

It is okay for varying opinion on things which are not doctrinal. If my understanding is correct, there are beliefs within both Catholicism and Orthodoxy which one may or may not believe since they are simply theological opinions which the Church does not have an official definition for (i.e. toll houses in Orthodoxy or limbo of the infants in Catholicism). What I am wondering, and perhaps you could tell me, is if there are any disagreements within Orthodoxy among the episcopate concerning things which are not theological opinion, but actually doctrinal. Do you know if any such instances?

[elijahmaria]

The key to the confusion that you profess here, Father, lies in the following teaching that can be found in the Council of Trent and by extension then in the Council of Florence.

3. Holy Communion cures the spiritual diseases of the soul by cleansing it of venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sin. No less than serving as an antidote to protect the soul from mortal sins, Communion is "an antidote by which we are freed from our daily venial sins" (Council of Trent, October 11, 1551). The remission of venial sins and of the temporal sufferings due to sin takes place immediately by reason of the acts of perfect love of God, which are awakened by the reception of the Eucharist. The extent of this remission depends on the intensity of our charity when receiving Communion.

I wrote to you earlier that I have read this quote from Trent and it does not provide a definition of temporal punishment.   

If you asked the people in your catechism classes, "Based on this quote from Trent what is temporal punishment?" they would NOT be able to answer you.

You are just pulling my leg and wasting my time!

I don't know if you can find too many traditional catechists who use a dictionary to teach concepts.

Even in the secular world one does not use a dictionary to teach how a particular and technical concept is used in context.  In fact you'd be hooted out of the academy if you showed up to your first Physics 101 class, as the instructor, armed with a dictionary and nothing else.   

Many concepts cannot be simply defined because they depend on other concepts to give them their full meaning, and cannot be explained either, EXCEPT in context, which demands some other way of expressing truths other than definitional statements.  "Temporal punishment" is a technical concept, not just a string of words to be defined.

In dictionary terms and according to the segment I offered on Eucharist which is grounded in Scripture and Council, a temporal punishment is a judgment...a temporary judgment.

I thought for sure you would catch that much at least.

But that barely scratches the surface with regard to meaning.

Mary

[Jetavan]

"Temporal punishment": the punishment (or, more accurately, the resulting outcome) that is the effect of harmatia, or 'missing the mark'.

Unlike "eternal punishment" (or "EP"), temporal punishment (or "TP") does not last forever.

Unlike EP, TP is simply part of a cause-and-effect process, in which the effect is proportional to the cause.  In the case of EP, the effect ("eternal punishment") is not in proportion to the cause (an act of harmatia).

[ICXCNIKA]

"There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

Quote
I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?"

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion. We'll see what happens as it happens. Romans seem to not understand the role of the laity in the Orthodox Church. They will defend the faith even from their bishops when they are wrong hence why false unions have never been accepted by the Orthodox Church.  

You speak of the divisions within Orthodoxy... you must know more than I do. there are definitely different schools of thought... and sometimes we very loudly debate amongst ourselves, but we are united. I would think that the divisions in the Roman communion would be more of your concern and more pressing.

Also, if there ever was a union it would not be structural in nature as we are just too different. 

[akimel]

This may be why dialogue between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics always seem to be at cross-purposes. Orthodoxy asks the question "what has been taught always?"  whereas Roman Catholicism asks "what is the present teaching?" To us (the Orthodox) the majority position is that of your saints and teachers who have gone on before, the current teaching is but a vocal minority.

This also causes us to ask the question "If it doesn't matter what the Catholic church taught a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, then will it matter in a hundred years what it teaches today?"

The question of the continuity of present teaching with the teaching of the past is not of course irrelevant to Catholics--quite the contrary. But for purposes of this discussion, it is absolutely critical that the question "What is the present teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory?" be separated from "Has the Catholic Church 'changed' its teaching on purgatory?" I understand why the latter question is of such polemical interest to folks like Fr Ambrose; but until Fr Ambrose and others like him cease to arrogate to themselves the authority of the Catholic Magisterium, there can be no fruitful discussion. Catholics are rightly insulted when non-Catholics keep imposing upon them their polemical reconstructions and caricatures of Catholic belief.  

But the point you raise, FormerReformer, is of great interest and deserves its own thread, because it touches on what may be an important difference between Catholic and Orthodox understandings of ecclesial authority. Orthodoxy appeals to the consensual teaching of the Church Fathers and Ecumenical Councils. When doctrinal disagreement occurs, Orthodox theologians ask, "What did the Church Fathers teach?" As we know, faithful Christians will often disagree in their identification and interpretation of the consensual teaching of the patristic Church. How are such differences authoritatively resolved?

The Catholic, on the other hand, looks to the present teaching of the Church to resolve, if not definitively then at least reliably, the question "What did the Apostles teach?" and "What did the Fathers teach?" The Catholic does this because he trusts that the Holy Spirit is guiding the pastors of the Church. Hence the provocative words of Henry Cardinal Manning in his book The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost (1881):

As soon as I perceived the Divine fact that the Holy Spirit of God has united Himself indissolubly to the mystical body, or Church of Jesus Christ, I saw at once that the interpretations or doctrines of the living Church are true because Divine, and that the voice of the living Church in all ages is the sole rule of faith, and infallible, because it is the voice of a Divine Person. I then saw that all appeals to Scripture alone, or to Scripture and antiquity, whether by individuals or by local churches, are no more than appeals from the Divine voice of the living Church, and therefore essentially rationalistic. (p. 44)

The doctrines of the Church in all ages are primitive. It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. How can we know what antiquity was except through the Church? No individual, no number of individuals can go back through eighteen hundred years to reach the doctrines of antiquity. We may say with the woman of Samaria, “Sir, the well is deep, and thou hast nothing to draw with.” No individual mind now has contact with the revelation of Pentecost, except through the Church. Historical evidence and biblical criticism are human after all, and amount at most to no more than opinion, probability, human judgment, human tradition. (p. 227)

From the Catholic perspective, the Orthodox appeal to patristic consensus looks very similar to the Protestant appeal to the plain teaching of Scripture. Both appear to be appeals to antiquity and thus ultimately appeals to the private judgment of clerics, historians, and theologians. From the Orthodox perspective, the Catholic appeal to the contemporary teaching of the Magisterium looks like advocacy of progressive, and even new, revelation. How can the present-day teaching of the Catholic Church on purgatory, for example, be essentially identical to the teaching of the medieval Catholic Church when it appears to be so different? Of course, the positions of both Churches are far more nuanced than what I have here simplistically stated; but this is, I think, a matter worthy of substantive, patient, and charitable discussion.
  

[Irish Hermit]

There are differing opinions among the Orthodox on this question.  It is not of vital importance since it is peripheral to the life of the Church.

I would think whether or not the Catholic Church possesses the Holy Eucharist is of great importance. Are you saying that whether or not another group outside of Eastern Orthodoxy possesses the Bread of Life and Cup of Eternal Salvation is neither here nor there?

I was formed in the Serbian Church which believes that the Roman Catholic Church has no sacraments and the Pope is an unbaptized layman.  See my little anecdote of the meeting of my spiritual father and the Catholic Archbishop of Zagreb, the Parable of the two Water Glasses.

You will find it here, message 18
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28315.msg446330.html#msg446330

But it must be frankly said that other Orthodox accept the validity of RC sacraments.  See message 18.

The Church has always had "factionalism."  Read the Acts of the Apostles and the account of the first Council at Jerusalem.  Called to stop the factionalism among the Apostles about the question of circumcision.

Wyatt...Indeed, the Council of Jerusalem, and indeed all of the Ecumenical Councils, were called to end division. Why is there so much division within the Orthodox Church 2000 years after Christ, especially when He Himself prayed for the Church to be one as He and the Father are one?

The great problem facing Orthodoxy today are the dissenting groups which have left the canonical Church since 1924 and hived off on their own over the Calendar question.  These groups do not form a part of the canonical Church and indeed, they are quite vociferous in denying that we have valid sacraments of any sort.  To them I am myself simply an unbaptized person and not a Christian priest.

An opinion on the Roman Catholic Church is not crucial to salvation.

An opinion on whether the Roman Catholic Church has a valid Eucharist is not crucial to salvation.

Wyatt....Not for those within your Church, but it a determining factor in how likely it is for us to have salvation, is it not?

Salvation is possible for those who do not posses the Eucharist.  Your own Church would not teach these days that the Anglicans and the Buddhists and the Muslims and Jews are not going to be saved because they lack the Eucharist.  I believe the only ones who would teach that are your own modern schismatics.

[Irish Hermit]

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.

[ICXCNIKA]

While I am sure there are some clergy and laity that do hold that the Roman Church has sacraments, even a russian bishop recently stated his opinion. However, neither his opinion nor anyone else's private opinions speak for the Orthodox Church. I have never seen any official statement that the Orthodox Church recognizes the sacraments of any outside its communion.

If you jump to this thread  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27981.msg443750.html#msg443750
and read message 210, you will see that the most senior priest in the Russian Church Abroad speaks of the teaching of the Russian Church that Roman Catholics possess authentic sacraments, that their baptism is a genuine baptism, that it is the Body and Blood of Christ which their priests give to the Catholic faithful, that the Pope and all the bishops are authentic hierarchs.  This has been the teaching of the Russian Church since the important Moscow Councils in the 17th century.

Perhaps this question will be addressed if the upcoming Great Council is held?  But I suspect that we shall muddle along as we are.

Fr. Ambrose, Are saying that russians accept the sacraments without the use of economia? if this is so are they not out of step with the rest of Orthodoxy? I was under the impression that the widespread use of economia in the russian Church had to do with the reacceptance of eastern catholics. One priest I met railed against vesting and said that it may have been appropriate in the 17th century Russia but that it no longer has a place in the Church. Personally, I think the Serbian Church has it right. I am heartned to see this in one of your posts: BUT... ... on the other hand we find that in the 1980s at one of the Meetings of the Catholic-Orthodox International Theological Dialogue that the Orthodox bishops and theologians (including the Russian delegates) refused to recognise Catholic baptism per se.   A rejection of Catholic baptism obviously entails a radical rejection of all Catholic Sacraments.