www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Indulgences and Eastern Catholics

Again, your answers do not solve the issues being discussed here. The reception of the Mysteries is always a transformation, metanoia, of every aspect of our nature, and we, like the Apostles in the Troparion for the Transfiguration, "beheld as much as they could" .

To say, as the post from djs above seems to imply, that the reception of the Mysteries does not effect an immediate and whole transformation, albeit temporarily because of our sinful and passionate nature, again is most disturbing. Perhaps I misunderstand, but this line of thiking appears in a way to question the very efficacy of the Mystery.


This is very much in line with my suspicions.
I certainly do believe as I stated above, and in agreement with Alex, that repentance is absolutely necessary to continue our path of theosis. Whether this is analogous to "temporal punishment" I am skeptical. I see can't see much of a parallel with ascetical discipline as advocated by the Fathers and some spiritual accounting practices which seem to be implied through indulgences.

Ascetical discipline most certainly continues us on our path to theosis. As Alex says the understanding of the Latin Church has advanced in this regard (I can't remember the last time I even heard the name of the Raccolta mentioned).

In the East, the penances given from the Mystery of Repentance have generally not been a contractural agreement for reconciling past sins. They are rather askesis for us to gird against the passions, recurring sinful behavior, a means to acknowledge our sinful nature, and a way to continue to bring ourselves more into the presence of God and the acquisition of His Holy Spirit. Surely we must weep bitterly for our sins, but also know the power of the Mysteries are ineffable and have joy in the forgiveness of He who loves mankind.

Dear Diak,

Yes, an excellent explanation of the Eastern perspective here!

I myself tend to think of "vidpusts" that we, and sometimes the Orthodox have, as a kind of "public confession" (following private confession, of course).

There are many Orthodox parishes in Volyn, for example, who have "vidpusts" to this day in honour of local miraculous icons.

Unless there is another explanation of "vidpust" in the Eastern sense that I'm not aware of, I think that the persistence of this in some areas of Orthodoxy means exactly that.

Also, what about that paper put into the hands of the reposed by Orthodox priests?

Could you explain about that rite? Is that a kind of "vidpust?"

Alex

Perhaps your point is too theologically subtle for me. But I'd like to hear more.

You indicate that "reception is always a transformation, metanoia, of every aspect of our nature" and that to suggest a lack of immediate completeness of the transformation is to "question the very efficacy...". At the same time you say that the change is temporary "because of our sinful and passionate nature".

These ideas strike me as contradictory. If every aspect of our nature is transformed immediately and completely, then that transfomation must include immediate and complete transformation of our sinful and passionate nature. The change, therefore, cannot be temporary on account of that no longer extant nature.

All that I mean to imply by a lack of immediacy and/or completeness is that the theosis is an ongoing process - a point with which I think you agree. Perhaps "mitigation", eh?

And this, ISTM, is what the passage from the CCC is saying. The reconciliation is about the purification from the the lingering "unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified ..." "This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin" This freedom is advanced is advanced by practices which are as signified as efficacious by attachement of indulgences.

Yes, perhaps.

It is temporary because we continually disacard that transformation by our continued indulgence in harmful passions, sinfulness and ignorance of the profundity of receiving the Mysteries. I don't think that is contradictory at all. We have to live out that transformation, which is very difficult with our passionate and sinful natures, and we usually do a very poor job of the living out part.

Like Adam, when offered and given everything, we still are quite obstinate and indulge in harmful passions and sin. We take great Gifts, immeasurable Gifts, and discard them. But unlike Adam, we have Christ and His Mysteries to draw us back to Himself reconciled.

The contradiction, as I read it, is that "efficacy" in your usage implies that we no longer have that passionate and sinful nature. Thus how can our failure to "live out the transformation" be ascribed to a nature that we no longer have?

Dear djs,

Actually, you are right.

Confession completely transforms our soul by totally remitting sins - that is what I believe Diak is saying.

But it is but one more step along a life-long path to theosis or transfiguration.

Dr Hahn and the CCC relate the Eastern view to the idea of "temporal punishment.

It is good that they are "coming around" so to speak .

But, unless the Latin Church has finally cast aside its former view on the matter, temporal punishment is not what the East means by life-long ascesis.

Temporal punishment had to do with two types of punishment incurred by our sins.

Eternal punishment in hell was remitted by a good confession.

But there always remained the punishment that we endure in this life for the sins we committed, but that have been forgiven in confession.

Indulgences were then seen as a "remission" of this second form of punishment and could be applied to the souls in purgatory who were there because their temporal punishment had yet to be fully remitted before they entered Heaven.

The Eastern Church relates our life-long spiritual ascesis to the fact of the impact on our nature of Original Sin, with our sinful acts as the expression of our fallen nature.

So if a person never committed an actual sin in his or her life, the teaching of the Roman Church is that they would not need indulgences.

But in the East, there is no question but that, sinful acts notwithstanding, our nature is in rebellion against God and is under the law of sin.

We therefore need to spend a life-time in spiritual ascesis seeking the acquisition of the Holy Spirit for our end is Theosis and not only justification and redemption.

IF we understand the Eastern view on sanctification in this way, then indulgences are not only unnecessary, but even contradictory to the spiritual life of unending struggle and ascesis.

IF indulgences are not a remission of the debt (in the classic Western sense) of temporal punishment, what do they contribute to our spiritual life from within the Eastern spiritual perspective?

Actually, in that case they seem to be telling us - if we get an indulgence, we are free from the obligation to struggle spiritually.

However, even the classic Western definition of indulgences as a remission of the temporal punishment did not approach this conclusion.

For to receive the plenary indulgence - one necessary condition was to have no attachment to sin.

And only great Saints possessing the gift of dispassion could lay claim to such a statement about themselves.

And so, for the rest of us mere mortals on earth, a "plenary indulgence" is hardly possible for that reason - and it becomes a "partial indulgence" only.

The point you and Diak raise does indeed illustrate that Western Catholic theologians, while linking up with Eastern Christian thought, don't think things through and so wind up mixing apples with oranges, or spaghetti with spanakopita in this case.

There are some other glaring contradictions in terms of the mixing of Eastern and Western theologies contained in the CCC as well.

It should be rewritten, I believe, to keep the Latin and Eastern perspectives separate - unless the Latin Church wants to adopt Eastern theology in its integral wholeness.

Alex

Thanks Alex,
I was afraid that I may have been ignorantly venturing into H territory. I think that your point on plenary indulgences is well taken.

Hi,

I think we are not understanding each other quite well (now, that's news!).

When we say that the indulgences are for the remission of the temporal punishment due because of our sins even after being forgiven by confession, we do not mean the same thing as the need for our daily spiritual combat in our pilgrimage to God.

Prayer, self-control, acts of mercy. All Christians need that, these things in and of themselves have nothing to do with what we call temporal punishment.

Let's say I rob you, and I take $100. In our Latin Theology two things happened:

1. I broke my communion with God with my violation of one of His commandments. This breaking is punishable by eternal hell. Confession is the means to forgive this aspect of my sin, avoid the punishment, and restore my communion with God.

2. I "owe" you $100. My confession will not pay it back. God will not mail you a $100 check after I confess. Even then, I still owe you $100. Now, the natural way to "fix" this problem is restitution. In this example, it is not entirely impossible to give you back your money, and beg for YOUR forgiveness.

However this is not always possible. Maybe you needed that money for something that now is too late to obtain. In other cases the sin is not as simple as stealing money. If I kill somebody, I cannot restore his/her life. If I injure somebody, I cannot heal those injuries by sheer will, etc.

For those times when restitution is not possible, the Church gives you indulgence.

A rosary well prayed, a verse from Scripture well meditated, a sacrifice offered truly out of love can be worth much more than the $100, and that is what the Church is proclaiming: That a repentant heart can give an enormous value to acts that might seem simple on the outside.

Indulgences come out from the trust that God can make things right. They also remind us of the grave consequences of our sins.

Our acts of selfishness and weakness harm ourselves and our relationship with God and indeed with everybody else.

Our relationship with God, only God can fix, and he does, in His infinite mercy and love, trough the Sacrament of Penance.

But we can, and should, help fix our "horizontal" relationships. Indulgences are just one of the tools we use to do the work.

Shalom,
Memo.

There you Latins go again talking about money and indulgences...

Memo, the distinction you make gives me a better understanding of Diak's misgivings. But this distinction is not part of the discussion in the CCC.

Is there some authoritative text on this matter?

Hey, they make the world go round!

Diak,

I don't doubt what you say. This is what the Church has always taught, as we all know.

But, wouldn't you say that Catholics (and Orthodox, and all others receiving the Body and Blood of Christ) are as sinful as everyone else? How can this be, since because of the reception of the Eucharist, one would think Apostolic Christians would be less sinful than others. I'm not talking about Apostolic Christians as a whole; grouped together, I think that Ap-Xians (for short) are less sinful. But, I mean on a person to person basis. I know Catholic girls who are just as "loose" as anybody else.

So, why is this, since they're receiving the Eucharist which is supposed to make them holier?

Logos Teen

And just how do you know, young man? :p

Some friends served me what turned out to be a delicious slice of strawberry torte last night. Now there's an indulgence I can get along with! Incognitus