www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "Luther" movie

Dear Francis,

Your point on "measurement" with respect to the Lord Jesus' parable is surely taken out of context and is stretched to the limit!

No one would argue that all impurity that is in us must be put away before anyone may enter Heaven.

That is what life-long penance is for and in the after-life, there is a process of transfiguration and spiritual purification that continues as the soul is also aided by our prayers in its ascent to God in the Heavenly Kingdom.

But what does that have to do with a theology of indulgences? Or measurement of any kind?

My old Greek Catholic prayerbook used to quote that scripture as "proof" of the existence of a state of purgation or purgatory.

It can only offer "proof" that nothing impure may enter Heaven until the last vestige, not only of sin, but, even more importantly, of sinfulness, egotism etc. are purified.

You are right about your point on Theosis. But Theosis implies not only sins as acts we have committed, but even more importantly in the East, the sinfulness and fallenness of our state that needs to be transfigured by Theosis, Deification through Christ in the Holy Spirit.

That goes well beyond purging one of the "temporal punishment due to sins committed."

Alex

I apologize if I was uncharitable, but I never accused anyone of lying.

I was asking solely for the source of the quote "better half" that had been attributed to Martin Luther.

As Dr. Roman has clarified in his response, Luther apparently never used those words.

For the record, I wasn't asking because this quote challenged my world view. And I wasn't asking because I don't know how to use the Internet.

I pushed this point because putting quote marks around something -- especially a marvelous sound bite like that one -- suggests they are the exact words of a great man.

--Tim Cuprisin

Dear Tim,

Sorry about my silliness, please forgive me.

I am told by my old religion teacher with whom I have communicated that Luther did, in fact, use the term "better half."

In fact, as we see, Luther went well beyond "better" to "best."

I told him to cut the BS and come up with a source for that . . .

When and if he does, I'll get back to you.

Forgive me a sinner.

Alex

Dear Alex,

If "measurement" was not one of the points of Jesus' parable, why did he use the specific image of payment "to the last cent?" Once again, all I am proposing is that there is some sort of notion that there is an "amount" that needs to be paid with respect to some sin. I think the misunderstanding is the attribution of the notion that we can know what this "amount" is. Only God knows that. Western theology has never deigned to know or put a number to this amount.

I am also reminded of the man who asked Jesus what he needed to do to be perfect. Jesus gave him a concise list. Here again, we see the notion of "measurement." Once again, we can see a notion of "measurement" in terms of the good deeds we can do. HOWEVER, I do not say that we can know the exact "AMOUNT" of whatever it is that is being measured, because it is different with each person. All we know is that something, some act, can make satisfaction. We simply don't know HOW MUCH of that act is necessary to make complete satisfaction. Thus, as you proposed, we should not even worry about it,. We should instead do constant prayer and penance.

In all other respects, I think we see eye to eye.


Admin,

I accept that you think the western concept is acceptable, and I understand how you believe it is not necessary for eastern belief. But I am merely questioning YOUR understanding of the western concept.

Can you please give a specific example of how Western theology "measures sin?" Are you saying this because the Western Church has a category of sins called "venial" and one called "mortal?" If that is the case, you cannot assign such a notion to Western theology any more than you can assign it to eastern theology because eastern theology understands that some sins are more serious than others. If you have a different reasoning, please give a specific example as requested.

Can you please give a specific example of how Western theology "calculates forgiveness?" If forgiveness is obtained apart from indulgences (i.e., penance), how can you say forgiveness is being calculated? Or maybe the difference is between the Eastern and Western understanding of "forgiveness?" I did not know there was a difference, but your post suggests otherwise. FYI, to Western Catholics, forgiveness is obtained APART from penance. That is, forgiveness is that part of the Sacrament which would GUARANTEE our entrance into heaven. We do not calculate forgiveness because forgiveness applies to ALL sins, venial or mortal. Apologists normally give the example of David, who was forgiven, yet DESPITE that forgiveness, God took away his son as penance for his sin (i.e., his temporal punishment). Either your understanding of forgiveness is different from the Western understanding, or you are simply misunderstanding the doctrine of indulgences. To repeat, IOW, indulgences is related to TEMPORAL punishment; they are not necessary for salvation. Forgiveness, on the other hand, is what guarantees our salvation.

The only way you can justify your statement that forgiveness is being calculated is if 1) you think western tradition holds that penances are necessary for our salvation, which would be a terribly erroneous understanding of the western doctrine; or 2) Eastern tradition thinks penances are necessary for our salvation. Just because one calculates indulgences, it does not follow that one calculates forgiveness.

In Christ,
Glenn

...Just because one calculates indulgences, it does not follow that one calculates forgiveness.--- I want to add--- according to Western theology. The only way the opposite can be true is if one believes that indulgences are necessary for forgiveness to occur, which is NOT what Western theology states.

In Christ always

I also want to address this issue. Admin, I do not want to divine your position on salvation, but I think this statement is reflective of the misunderstanding that is occurring.

The only debt that cannot be repaid by us is the one connected with ETERNAL punishment. ONLY, and I must emphatically repeat, ONLY Jesus could possibly repay this debt. TEMPORAL punishment, on the other hand, is something with which we can by our actions in God's grace as a metaphyscial union with Christ's sufferings in this world, and with God's justice in Purgatory, be fully repaid. The parable in question reveals as much - that this particular debt CAN be repaid. Otherwise, why would Jesus bother to say that the debtor can be released?

This is also related to our discussion on "calculating forgiveness." As noted, forgiveness is related NOT to penance (that is, temporal punishment), but with salvation (that is, ETERNAL punishment).

In light of your statement quoted above, can you please explain the Eastern understanding of the relationship between penance and forgiveness? I mean, your assignment of a relationship between the debt that cannot be repaid and the parable in question (which is about Purgatory, not Hell (i.e., eternal damnation)) leaves me doubting about my understanding of Eastern theology. I always thought that that East and West had a common patrimony of belief regarding SALVATION. Judging from your posts, I may have been wrong.

In Christ always, and eagerly awaiting your response.

francisg,

Thanks for your post. The point I am making is that your choice of the parable of the unforgiving servant is not a good one to support your argument. The details of this parable really cannot be given another meaning than the one that is plain. The major point is the difference between the huge debt owed by the servant and tiny (by comparison) debt owed to the servant. The servant�s debt to the king is like the national debt, something a single individual could never repay in several lifetimes. The debt owed to the servant is tiny by comparison, something that could be repaid with a hundred days wages. The point of the parable is that God�s mercy is unlimited and we can receive forgiveness for our sins no matter how great but that we are expected in return to offer the same forgiveness to those who have sinned against us. The parable is NOT about hell or purgatory. It is about forgiveness and the duty to forgive (see also Mt 6:14,15). The servant is not handed over to the torturers because he cannot repay. He is handed over to the torturers because he was unwilling to forgive.

A discussion of temporal punishment is not one that Eastern Christianity gets into. Our whole lives are to be spent in peace and repentance. There is never a need to calculate anything. I�d be happy to enter into a discussion about the relationship between penance and forgiveness or even about salvation in general. I will ask that you begin a new thread since that discussion really has nothing to do with Luther.

Admin

Dear Francis,

I don't disagree with what you've said.

I just think, and perhaps I"m wrong or else making something out of nothing, that terms like "measurement" and "amount" relate more to the visible world of scientific inquiry that is experienced through the human senses than to spiritual realities.

The fact that our Lord used a parable does not have to mean that He intended it to be an exact reflection - but it could also have been a way to communicate a higher reality by means of the imperfect mode of human communication.

For the Eastern Church, there is no end to the dynamic process of growing closer to God, not even in Heaven. When a Divine Liturgy is celebrated in honour of a Saint, for example, that Liturgy does indeed "add" to the Saint's happiness and state of bliss etc.

And in our Liturgy we not only pray to the Mother of God and the Saints but also FOR them.

So the idea that there is a point at which we have spiritually "arrived" in God's Eyes, really doesn't exist - our joy in Heaven will be that we will always continue to explore the infinite depths of His rich Mercy and Wonder.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Except that after reading the extent to which some traditional Latin Catholics will stretch scripture to support their position - I think I'm beginning to appreciate Luther's critique of indulgences et al.

Alex

Admin,

Thank you for your explanation. I think I finally understand your point. It is the mere thought of ANY type of measurement that is incongruous with the Eastern mentality, since that tends to �materialize� what is unfathomably immaterial. I respect that position.

I have admitted that Western theology �formulates penance� (which, from your perspective, is a type of measuring, though I do not completely agree, but only in the sense that I do not believe the notion puts a LIMIT on anything). And I understand and accept that you cannot reconcile that with Eastern Tradition (and I also understand that you nevertheless believe it is acceptable and congruous to the WESTERN Tradition). However I think assigning such statements as �measuring sin� and �calculating forgiveness� to Western theology is going too far, and I have explained my reasons why this cannot be so. As I accept that the doctrine of indulgences is incongruous to the Eastern theological tradition, I also hope you will accept that statements such as �measuring sin� and �calculating forgiveness� is alien to the Western theological tradition.

I will soon post (before the week ends) a thread to discuss the Eastern concept of the relationship between penance and salvation. I was hoping there would not be anything to discuss (i.e., that Western and Eastern Tradition was in agreement on this issue), but judging by your reaction, it seems there might be some differences worth discussing. Looking forward to it.

Alex,

Luther�s critique of the doctrine of indulgences was based on his misconception that penance affected salvation. I.e., he assumed that the Western Church was literally selling salvation. You can gather this from a discussion with any Protestant polemicist; many Protestant polemicists in fact still believe that indulgences actually is a means to get to heaven! Ouch! :rolleyes:

In that light, I hope you still don�t feel the same respect for Luther�s critique that you expressed. ---- Unless, Eastern Christians also have the same misconception about indulgences that Luther did! But I think the basis for your criticism of indulgences is different from Luther�s. PLEASE tell me that I�m right in that assumption.

In Christ always.

Dear Francis,

You are right. I was joking about the Luther thing.

But Luther's misconception being as it may, some have suggested that, at the popular level in the Catholic Church of his day, there was "bad theology" that was allowed to go unchecked in the West, as my Jesuit professor often told us.

Catechism was poor as a whole.

Jan Hus was once distressed that some Czechs believed that "Svyata Troytsa" (Holy Trinity) referred to a woman saint, rather than to the central doctrine of Christianity.

In going after the Reformers, we need to balance things with the perspective that they often reacted (and over-reacted) to things they saw in popular Catholicism that later the Catholic Church itself condemned in terms of popular belief and practice.

There were also Catholics at the time who shared a number of views with Luther and other Reformers, but not all of course.

I once read the view of one Catholic who said that if Luther had remained faithful to Rome in the Catholic Church, he would have been a "second St Boniface of Germany."

I've also heard Catholic priests in this country quote Martin Luther, but refer to him as "Brother Martin." I checked this with them afterwards to confirm that they were actually quoting Martin Luther to illustrate points in their sermons . . .

One Catholic professor told me, without batting an eye, that he has no problem referring to Luther as to "Our Father among the Saints, Martin."

So please bear with me if I find Latin Catholic opposition to Luther on this forum to be confusing!

Consistency doesn't seem to be the Latin Church's strong suit these days . . .

Alex

Dear Francis,

Your points to the Administrator are well taken for the most part.

I don't think there really is anything to discuss, as you've mentioned.

It is really a question of different spiritual CULTURE that is at work in East and West.

I see this in my reading on hagiography.

For example, the West is much more practical and definitive.

One may see this in the listings of Western martyrs where minute detail is given, including, in some instances, the name of the street in Rome or Italy where the martyr was killed!

Perhaps the Western need to define indulgences, what they do and how much etc. is part of that.

For us, it has no place in our spirituality because: a) it states what cannot be known or defined; b) it SUGGESTS a spirituality of accountancy or contractual relationship with the Divine that is ALREADY spiritually flawed and c) it suggests that we can or should desire to attain to a point in time when we think we have been totally "made right" with God.

The plenary indulgence, in fact, can ONLY be plenary or full when the final condition is met, namely, that "all attachment to serious sin is absent."

And who can, with certainty, make that kind of a claim for himself or herself?

And when that attachment is not there, the plenary indulgence becomes partial - immediately.

These and other considerations make a system of indulgences a "non-starter" for the East.

If they are meant to encourage people to read the Bible, pray etc., that is fine.

But we must be doing that all the time in our Christian life.

And the goal of Christian life in the East is the "Acquisition of the Holy Spirit."

And that is a life-long process, never-ending in fact.

Alex

.

Now, now, Alex. You know very well that the opinion of a singular priest here and there, even though many of them have expressed it in your experience, do not a doctrine make!

Yeah�I know. You are probably thinking, �the opinions of a singular Pope here and there do not a doctrine make.� Yeah, I admit I opened myself up to that one. But that is a topic already covered in another thread.

Taking your cue, I don�t believe I will start a post on the Eastern understanding of the relationship between penance and salvation. East and West are probably agreed on that.

Finally, I just thought of something. With regards to the issue of �measuring sin�: (sorry to beat a dead horse)

In Western theology, a venial sin can become a mortal sin if done in persistent malice, and a mortal sin, by virtue of invincible ignorance, can be regarded as a venial sin, or not a sin at all! So there is really no measurement to speak of in Western theology even though there exists the terminology of �venial� and �mortal.�

In Christ always.

Dear Francis,

Of course, just because we seem to have more heretics up here than you do down there doesn't mean . . .

Anyway, I'm tired of all this theology stuff!

I've developed a rosary with the mysteries of the Stations of the Cross where the Seven Words of Christ are inserted as seven additional mysteries.

I find it very inspiring and will return to it now.

God bless you!

Alex

You know, after reading the thread on jurisdiction, I was smugly thinking to myself, �Man, these Easterners are so sensitive. They can�t look past their emotions and keep misinterpreting my intentions!�

THEN, I saw your first sentence, and I thought to myself, �I can�t believe Alex thinks that Easterners are in heaven and Westerners are in hell!� (That was in reference to �up here� and �down there� � forget the REST of your sentence!)

Ummm...Where did you say you were from? Canada? OOOOOH! I get it NOW! :p :p :rolleyes:

(hope you had a good laugh with that one)

God bless you abundantly!