www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Indulgences, purgatory, & prayer for the dead?

I was informed on this site he was one of two bishops opposed to the Melkite initiative.

AMM,

I believe that is correct.

God bless,
Todd

Sorry...you can PM if you want so we don't change the thread...I'm not sure what you are referring to

1. The actual dogma of the Church (whatever liturgical rite you and your immediate pastors follow) on the topic of purgatory is quite minimalistic. As such, it's precise details are a matter of conjecture or inference. This should not be any kind of obstical for Eastern Christians, as the entirity of ancient Christendom did not so confuse either the "Final" or "particular" judgements so as to believe that there is no possibility at all for some kind of spiritual improvement between death and the Last Day.

2. I don't know if anything could be said to be "final" of blessedness, whether one speaks of the 'beatific vision' or the divinization/theosis which leads toward and into it. It will
be a great mystery to see God "face to face" - as He is
uncircumscribed (not limited in any way) yet our capacities of
reason and our senses (both physical and spiritual) are in fact limited so long as we be creatures. As such, it cannot be looked at in a totally static, non-dynamic way. Though in the end, these are all analogies that we're indulging here, to explain something which only "flirsts" with human reason.


Being in communion with the Holy See, and recognizing the authority of the unique successor of St.Peter, they (Catholics of the Eastern Churches) can just as readily benefit from Papal Indulgences as much as any Roman Rite Catholic.



Yes, the Lutherans did not remove as much of the "Catholic content" from either their beliefs or their practices as did the "Reformed" traditions (Calvinist.)


Historically the Church has issued corrective measures of differing types and severity, in the hope of both healing the damage done to the souls of penitents by their sins, and in help making some satisfaction before God for the offence they have given Him in sinning.

While there is much diminishment now days amongst some Eastern Christians (whether in union with the Holy See or not) of the "legal" aspects of redemption, this (I believe) is misguided, and is not in keeping with the best witnesses we have of the Eastern/Byzantine Tradition. Even after the "Great Schism", the likes of Sts.Nicholas Cabasalis and Gregory Palamas (on the "Eastern Orthodox" side of the equation) spoke in a way about "the offence to the Divine Majesty" and the propitiary work of Christ on the Cross in a way that was indistinguishable from what Western authorities were saying at the same time - including the often unfairly maligned St.Anselm of Canterbury! And what is most interesting is that neither of these men that I've mentioned could be in any way portrayed as being "in the closet 'papists'" or anything like this - they were both against union with Rome (at least in terms of what they subjectively understood to be the basis for such a reunion; I'm still not convinced they were die-hard, irrationally stubborn anti-unionists, as can perhaps be said of some Eastern-Orthodox in later times).

The point is, "legal language" about the fall of mankind and the Redemption are not entirely foreign from Eastern soteriology, at least historically speaking. If the East pust MORE influence on the therapeutic elements of redemption, and the West MORE on the legal/justice elements, it just indicates a difference in temprament - and even that varies within the Eastern and Western Traditions (ex. compare Franciscan authors on this topic to Domican ones; the former are far more "eastern", the latter more "western" in the sense we often characterize these things.)

In a healthy situation, however, there is no absolute exclusion of the one from the other. This is why the Popes have rightly said the East and the West really do need each other, as they are parts of one another.

I'm explaining all of this first, to show that one of the fundamental arguments used against the practice of issuing Indulgences is incorrect - namely, that (supposedly) the "whole legal paradigm of salvation is false." No, that is false.

So, if there is some kind of reperation that we can and ought to make before God for our sins, that means penance is important. But it also means the prayers of others are important - because on a "legal" level, their "value", the righteousness with which they are born, etc. are pleasing to God, and can plead on our behalf to varying degrees. "Love covers a multitude of sins", etc. This is why western moralists have made such a big deal over "having a good death" - as the humility with which we accept our demise, and our love and yearning for God and to be with Him, can actually "make up" for the "temporal debt due to sin" that we may have been carrying up until then.

At the same time, it is known that Bishops (and not just the Pope) have waived or diminished disciplinary canons/rules for all sorts of reasons - the best being, if it is genuinely felt that the severity of a given rule may do more immediate harm to the penitent than good. After all, what may be good medicine to an otherwise strong man, can be poisonous to one who is very sickly. Further, this was a learning curve - it was found that the most ancient canons (which tended to be the strictest) and came from the age of the martyrs when the Churches were relatively small and zeal more firey (for to become a Christian was basically to accept a death sentence, or be open to one). To try and force that kind of discipline without those other factors, could be a big problem. So, that is why discipline tends to have eased with time.

However, the problem of the sins still remain. In a way, it's kind of like settling for these people to end up in purgatory; at least they will die in hope, and will see the World to Come. But it seems that the prayers of the Saints, and their righteousness and God-pleasingness, are quite powerful and the Lord (being outside of time) obviously hasn't "forgotten" them. Hence, it is possible for the Church to take hold of them and have them plead on our behalf. The Pope, being the visible head of the Church on earth, can certainly do this, and has.

Of course, it is very important to keep in mind that while the Church has unfolded a great deal about the Hierarchy's authority, and that of the Successor of St.Peter in particular, She has also said that whether or not God accepts the indulgences the Church has granted in any particular case is entirely discretionary on HIS part. So the idea that this is all "hocus pocus" with the Pope being able to "bend" God's arm in terms of the execution of His justice is false. Really, all the Popes and Hierarchs are doing is raising their hands to God and pleading for penitents both in their own authority (which they do at every Mass and Office) and by the glories and righteousness of the Saints (their "merits" - such as occurs whenever we invoke the Saints, including in the Divine Services of the various Rites of the Church.) This is just a very thought out, focused attempt at it with regard to the execution of penance. How the Lord "accepts our offering", no matter how well prepared on our behalf, is solely within His Sovereignty.

Dear Fr.Deacon Richard,


Well, certainly you do not condemn it. However, being Catholics all are subject to agreement with the Holy See on matters of faith, which the subjects of Purgatory and Indulgences fall within. That's not a terrible thing though - neither is a negation of the Byzantine Tradition. It's only if one accepts the untenable denial of dogmatic unfoldment through history (aka. "development of doctrine") that this is an issue.


Yes, it has fulfilled that end as well. It's not the sole or even primary end of the basic teaching, however.


You're right, this isn't a controversial matter at all. In so far as we can correctly divide these things, it would seem that the ordinary teaching of the Church is that disposition is quite important, if only because the Church doesn't believe indulgences must be accepted by God. This is why most of the traditional prayer books I've seen that get into this topic, they'll emphasize that to receive a Plenary Indulgence at least, one must have foresaken all attachment to sin, including venial sin. Now, if we're soul scorchingly honest, how many of us can really say we fulfill this?

So, there is nothing "cheap and easy" in the issuing of indulgences.


As it may have been considered by ignorant people in the past, who had not had the matter taught properly to them. If you look in the dogmatic treatments that have been given on the topic, they've always been pretty clear.


That's the kind of ignorance I'm pointing to as well. It was never the mind of the Church.


Yup...and just what is the "value" of canonical penance before God? How on earth do we weigh that? We can't, and so we don't.


Well, it's unfortunate if one doesn't avail themselves of them. If anything, the application of indulgences has been so liberal in these latter days of the aeon, that pretty much any pious activity can be "indulgenced" - so, if we be Catholics, why not?

If you look at the list of things indulgenced, you will see that nearly every Christian action (from reading scripture, to praying, to performing works of mercy, to going on pilgrimage, and everything in between) is on it. As Eastern Christians, we do not need to avail ourselves of this construct because this is covered in our theology of theosis.

Excellent point my friend! I was actually first made aware of this by an Eastern-Orthodox seminarian at St.Vladimir's (OCA.)

While the source you give puts this in a negative light, I'm heavily disinclined to portray it so. The fact is the Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox Churches have not been as dramatically separated on either an ontological or practical level as some polemicists would like to have it. The history of actual breaking of diptychs and concelebrations (let alone communing each other's flocks) is all over the place and incredibly inconsistent. As such, if "tie shoe fit", I'm not surprised at all if some Eastern Orthodox ended up issuing indulgences on the basis of their own perceived authority. People who are not entirely unalike, are not going to start thinking completely unalike.

Well, in so far as it has been solemnly defined, the "construct" is a matter of faith for all Christians, whatever their liturgical tradition. None of us lives in a theological ghetto - while it's true that you can see certain distinguishable "lineages" for this or that way of speaking about the Gospel, in the end there is alot of cross-polination, and it is all part of the "same thing." For example, the formulation of Nicea could be accussed of being "heavily Alexandrian" - and y'know what, that's true. But so is the content of that teaching.

So, let's not just flee from the schisms of the body (not being in each other's Churches), but also of the mind. Truth is truth.

Byzatine Thomist,

How can you be a Byzantine Christian and yet evince a complete ignorance of the doctrine of theosis as taught by the Eastern Fathers, which necessarily involves the real distinction between essence and energy in God. Theosis has nothing to do with the Thomistic concept of a beatific vision, which holds that man can actually have a vision -- limited only by his own finite intellect -- of the divine essence. Yet the Eastern Fathers held that the divine essence is utterly beyond any type of vision or participation, because God is absolutely heteroousios in relation to the world. Moreover, the vision of God (not to be confused with the false Thomistic notion of a beatific vision) is not an act of the intellect; instead, it is an uncreated and eternal gift of theosis, which involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energy that has the effect of making its recipient uncreated by grace. The gift of theosis brings about an existential change in man's own being, but not an essential change.

Now, as far as indulgences are concerned, the whole Western theory of indulgences is incompatible with Eastern Triadology, Christology, and the doctrine of grace, because grace is always and by definition unmerited. That being said, it is a sad fact of history that after the Ottoman conquests some hierarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches were infected with varying degrees of Latinization, but that does not make the false theory of indulgences a doctrine of the Byzantine Church.

Now, with that said, I would like to ask you a few questions.

What exactly do you know about Byzantine Triadology? I hope that you are at least aware of the fact that the East rejects the Scholastic / Thomistic theory, which is based upon the pagan philosophy of Aristotle, that holds that the persons (hypostaseis) of the Trinity are mere relations of opposition within the divine essence. First, because God is utterly beyond opposition, since He is essentially adiastemic, and so the persons cannot be relations of opposition; and second, because the persons of the Trinity are real subsistences, distinct from each other by their manner of origin (i.e., their tropos hyparxeos). In other words, the divine persons are not relations as Thomas taught; instead, they are real subsistences who are related to each other through the font of divinity, i.e., the Father.

I have another question for you, do you accept the monarchy of the Father as it has been taught by the Eastern Church, or do you accept the Roman theory of the filioque? Now it is clear to anyone who has studied the Fathers of the East that none them ever taught that the Son was a cause (aitia) within the Godhead (in fact this term aitia is never used by an Eastern Father in connection with the Son as it concerns the immanent Trinity), and yet this false teaching has been promoted by the Aristotelian Scholastics of the medieval period of the Western Church, even though it is contrary to both scripture and tradition. Now, part of the error of the West on this issue is due to its failure to distinguish between the ekporeusis (procession of origin) of the Holy Spirit as person from the Father alone, and the Holy Spirit's proienai (manifestation) as energy from the Father through the Son. This Western error has been compounded by the Scholastics failure to make a real distinction between essence and energy in God, due to the influence yet again of the pagan philosophy of Aristotle. As I indicated earlier, God is essentially beyond being, and so He is not the supreme being that Thomas Aquinas talks about, but although He is beyond being (hyperousios ousia) He still manifests Himself in the created order through His uncreated energies, which flow out from the three divine persons as a gift of grace to all of mankind. Now, in addition to the real distinction -- without a separation -- between the divine essence and the divine energies, there is also a real distinction -- without a separation -- between the three divine persons and the divine essence, and the divine energies and the divine persons. These distinctions are necessary in both Triadology and Christology, because the failure to make them leads to several different heresies.

I will now describe some of the reasons why these distinctions must be made in order to avoid falling into the errors of the Scholastic theologians of the West.

But before I do that it should be noted that the word homoousios itself, which was used by the First Council of Nicaea in order to describe the relationship that exists between the Father and the Son, is a term which indicates a relation of dependence; in other words, the term homoousios involves a recognition of the fact that the Son receives His hypostatic existence from the Father alone and is dependent upon the Father for His co-essential nature. St. Athanasios understood this and used this idea, along with the distinction between essence and will (the will being a natural energy of a hypostasis), in order to refute the heresy of Arius. In "Ad Serapionem" St. Athanasios speaks of the energy of the Trinity, and refers to the Spirit in relation to creation as the energeia of the Son. His understanding of the divine energy is that it comes from the Father, through the Son, and rests upon creation in the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, St. Athanasios makes a distinction between things natural to the Father (e.g., the generation of the Son, and the spiration of the Spirit), and things that are a result of the divine will and energy, i.e., the created order.

In addition, if you read the writings of the Cappadocian Fathers (e.g., St. Basil's "Adversus Eunomium," and his Letters 234, 235, etc., and his treatise "On the Holy Spirit"; St. Gregory of Nyssa's "Contra Eunomium," his treatise "On Not Three Gods to Ablabius"; and St. Gregory Nazienzen's "Orations," etc.), you will see that they never speak of a ekporeusis (procession) of the Spirit from the Son; moreover, they explicitly deny causality to the Son within the inner life of the Trinity, holding instead that the Father is the sole principle (Greek: monarche) of origin for the Son and the Spirit. I would add to this the fact that the distinction between essence and energy is fundamental to understanding the Cappadocian arguments against the heretic Eunomius, and if one fails to make this distinction, the result is an inexorable tendency to Eunomian essentialism. In addition to the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos the Confessor and St. John Damascene make the distinction between essence and energy, and both of them also deny any causal power to the Son within the Trinity.

Now, of course, following in line with the teaching of St. Maximos the Confessor and the Cappadocian Fathers, the Sixth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople III taught that there is a distinction between essence, energy, and hypostasis, because -- as the council decreed -- in Christ there are two natures, two natural wills and energies, and to say otherwise is to fall into the heresies of Monophysitism and Monothelitism. Thus, to fail to make these distinctions leads to problems in both Triadology and Christology as I mentioned above.

Now, the following Triadological and Christological (and even Soteriological) problems arise from the failure to make the necessary distinctions between essence (ousia), energy (energeia), and person (hypostasis):

(1) The failure to make a distinction between essence (ousia) and hypostasis in the Trinity leads to Sabellian modalism, because if the divine hypostaseis are identified with the divine essence (ousia), one necessarily confounds the persons of the Trinity. In other words, if the hypostasis of the Father is simply identical with the divine essence (ousia) as Thomas Aquinas taught, it follows that the divine essence (ousia) is the hypostatic characteristic of "paternity," now since the Son also possesses the divine essence (ousia), which -- because of a failure to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis -- is identical with the hypostatic property of paternity, it follows that the Son possesses the characteristic of paternity, and, as a consequence, He is the Father. The same holds with each of the hypostaseis in the Trinity, because if the divine essence (ousia) and Sonship are identical, it follows that the Father, who possesses the divine essence (ousia), is also the Son, etc.

(2) The failure to make a distinction between essence (ousia) and energy (energeia) in Triadology -- depending upon the particular case -- leads to Arianism or Eunomianism, because there is no distinction between the generation of the Son, which is natural to the Father, and the creation of the world, which is an act of the divine will and energy (energeia). Arius held that the divine energy (and in particular the divine will) is identical with the divine essence (ousia), and in doing this, he concluded that the Son is a product of the Father's will, and as such the Logos (Son) is a creature and cannot be very God of very God. Now, in order to avoid this error, St. Athanasios made a real distinction between the divine energy (energeia) and power (dynamis) -- including the divine will -- and the divine essence (ousia) or nature (physis). That being said, in St. Athanasios' theology the Son is generated by the Father, and generation (and procession as well) is a hypostatic act natural to the Father's person, which cannot be reduced to an act of the divine will, and as a consequence of this, the Son is homoousios with the Father, i.e., the Son is not a creature. The Cappadocian Fathers -- building upon the theology of St. Athanasios -- made this same distinction in order to refute the heresy of Eunomius, who taught that the Son was a product of the divine energy (energeia), which he called the Father, and because He was "willed" by God into existence, the Son was a created being. Responding to this heresy, the Cappadocians -- like St. Athanasios before them -- taught that the Son was generated by the Father, and not created through an act of the divine will and energy (energeia), and so, for the Cappadocians, the Son is fully divine and homoousios with the Father. These same doctrinal distinctions were applied by the Cappadocian Fathers to the Holy Spirit, who derives His existential origin from the hypostasis of the Father, and not through the divine will and energy (energeia), but by an act natural to the Father's person. Thus, the Spirit is not a creature, but is fully divine and uncreated.

The distinction between essence (ousia) and energy (energeia) also helps the Cappadocian Fathers to avoid the heresy of pantheism, because the world is a product of the divine will and energy (energeia), and not of the divine essence (or nature), which means that it is created, i.e., it comes into being out of nothing through an act of the will of the Triune God. Now, to fail to make this distinction leads to difficulties in distinguishing the hypostatic origin of the Son and the Spirit, from the creation of the world.

(3) The failure to make a distinction between hypostasis and the enhypostatic (personalized) energies causes confusion in connection with the gifts of the Spirit given through the sacraments. First, it needs to be noted that two hypostaseis can never be one in subsistence, and so there cannot be a "blending" of the created hypostasis of man with the uncreated hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Second, one hypostasis cannot participate in the subsistence of another hypostasis, because to be a hypostasis involves -- of its very nature -- distinct subsistence. Thus, salvation involves man's participation in the enhypostatic (personalized) energies of the Holy Trinity, and not in the divine essence (ousia) itself (which would involve the heresy of pantheism) nor in the hypostasis of any one of the three divine hypostaseis.

(4) Only the Son and Spirit can be homoousios with the Father, and to hold any other position on this matter by its very nature involves the heresy of pantheism. Man, even after he has been deified by grace, remains heteroousios in relation to the Trinity, and nothing can change that, because -- as St. Gregory of Nyssa pointed out -- there is an essential gap (i.e., a diastema) between the uncreated and the created, and so salvation does not involve an essential or a hypostatic change in man, as I indicated already above; instead, it involves a real participation in the uncreated divine energies. The divine energies unidirectionally transgress the adiastemic boundary between created and uncreated essence, giving man a real participation in God's uncreated life and glory, but not in the divine essence (ousia) itself, which always remains transcendent. As St. Basil said in reference to man's ability to know and participate in the divine, "The operations [energeiai] are various, and the essence [ousia] simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations [energeiai], but do not undertake to approach near to His essence [ousia]. His operations [energeiai] come down to us, but His essence [ousia] remains beyond our reach." [St. Basil, Letter 234, no. 1]

(5) The failure to make a distinction between essence (ousia) and hypostasis in Christology can -- depending upon the case -- lead to Nestorianism or Monophysitism and Monothelitism.

Now, if one posits the idea that hypostasis and essence (ousia) are identical as Aquinas does in the Summa [see the "Summa Theologica," Prima Pars, Q. 39, A. 1 and A. 2; and Q. 40, A. 1], it follows that because Christ has both a human nature and a divine nature He would also be two hypostaseis, and this of course is the heresy of Nestorius. In opposition to this idea the Church at Chalcedon taught that Christ is one divine hypostasis in two natures, and -- as a result of this teaching -- it follows that essence (ousia) and hypostasis cannot be identical.

Now, as I pointed out in an earlier part of this post, one hypostasis cannot participate in another hypostasis, because that would involve the destruction of one or both of the hypostaseis, or the "creation" of some kind of hybrid hypostasis. But in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, the holy Fathers taught that the one divine and uncreated hypostasis of the eternal Logos assumed from the Holy Theotokos a full and complete human nature, but without becoming a human hypostasis at the same time, because this would involve falling into the heresy of Nestorius. That being said, if essence (ousia) and hypostasis are really identical, it follows that the union of the two natures in Christ would be reduced to a mere union of grace no different than that which is received by a follower of Christ, and -- as I noted above -- this is simply another form of the Nestorian heresy.

Now, the failure to make a distinction between essence (ousia) and hypostasis can also lead to the heresy of Monophysitism, because if one identifies essence (ousia) and hypostasis the union of the two natures in Christ cannot occur in the hypostasis of the eternal Logos, but must somehow occur in the essence (or nature) of the Logos and the human nature assumed by Him. This of course would involve a blending of the two natures, which involves the bizarre notion of some type of "composite" nature that is both divine and human at that same time. Thus the failure to distinguish between hypostasis and essence (ousia) involves the absorption of Christ's human nature by His divine nature; and as a consequence, Christ is not fully human, because His humanity would be a mere phantasm or appearance absorbed into His divine nature, while He would also not be fully divine, because He would have a mixed human and divine nature, and that would mean that His divine nature -- as altered by this substantial mixing -- would be different than the divine nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Thus, this Christological error leads also to a Triadological error as well, because it makes the Son of God of a different essence (a composite essence) than the Father and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Father and the Holy Spirit would be true God, while the Son would only be a demigod.

(6) The failure to make a distinction between essence (ousia) and hypostasis in Christ has the additional difficulty of making human nature itself somehow "essentially" corrupt after the ancestral sin of Adam. Sin -- by definition -- is a personal (hypostatic) reality, and not a natural or essential reality, but if one fails to distinguish between essence (ousia) and hypostasis sin must be held to be natural to man, i.e., it must be held to be a part of his nature, rather than being a defect present within his hypostatic mode of willing as St. Maximos the Confessor taught [see St. Maximos, "The Disputation with Pyrrhus"]. This distinction highlights the fact that essence (ousia) and energy (energeia) are also distinct, because the will -- as a capacity -- is an essential energy of a nature, while the "mode of willing" is proper only to a hypostasis, i.e., the "mode of willing" is an enhypostatic (personalized) enactment of that natural capacity. Moreover, a nature (or essence) never wills anything, only a person (a hypostasis) can will to do something or not to do something.

Now in Christ there are -- as the Sixth Ecumenical Council taught -- two natural (or essential) wills and energies corresponding to His two natures, but of course if energy is identical with hypostasis it follows that the human nature assumed by Christ in the incarnation would become sinful, because sin would be a property of the hybrid human nature / hypostasis composite. But as St. Maximos pointed out, sin is found only in the "mode of willing," i.e., in the hypostasis of man, while it is not to be found in the will as a capacity of nature, and this means that Christ, in assuming human nature, does not assume sin itself (which as I noted earlier is found only within the hypostatic "mode of willing"), and so, Christ -- as the Chalcedonian decree (quoting scripture) says -- is like us in all things except sin.

Sections (5) and (6) can be summarized in the following manner:

[a] If essence (ousia) and hypostasis are identical, it follows that -- if one emphasizes the reality of the two natures in Christ -- the incarnation would involve not only the assumption of human nature, but also the assumption of a human hypostasis, and this is simply a form of the Nestorian heresy.

[b] If essence (ousia) and hypostasis are identical, it can also lead -- as ironic as it may sound -- to the heresy of Monophysitism, because if one emphasizes the reality of the unity of Christ's hypostasis, without distinguishing between essence (ousia) and hypostasis, it follows that Christ's human nature, since it has no connatural human hypostasis, would be absorbed into His divine nature, and as I already noted above, that is simply the heresy of Eutyches, which is called Monophysitism.

[c] If energy (energeia) and hypostasis are really identical it follows that Christ must have only one will and energy, because He is only one hypostasis, and this is simply the heresy of Monothelitism, i.e., the heresy of positing only one will and natural energy in Christ after the incarnation.


Byzatine Thomist,

I am truly saddened by the fact that in all of your many posts in this thread I did not read anything that remotely sounded Eastern. I hope that you will investigate the theology of the Fathers of the East, so that you can embrace your own doctrinal tradition, and in the process not continue to promote the continued Latinization of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

May God bless you as you continue your journey of faith,
Todd

Something that no one seems to have mentioned yet is that the doctrine of indulgences is based on the absurd notion that there is a treasury (i.e. bank account) of merit filled with the superogatory works of the saints (since we are permanently indepted to God, I fail to see how anything we do could be superogatory). These merits are then distributed by the Pope to the faithful who perform the particular actions desired by the Pope, whether that be particular prayers, or as in the middle ages, the extermination of heretics (see Lateran IV). That you can obtain indulgences for the dead suggests to me that the doctrine and practice is intrinsically bound up with a prisonlike view of purgatory. I must confess that I find this theology utterly bizarre.

Joe

Joe,

I have heard of an emotional bank account, ala Stephen Covey!

I think it is the Latin Medieval Church's own weak and imperfect way of trying to express the interdependency that exists between members of the communion of the Church in heaven and on earth (and everywhere in between!). Some of it is also rooted in the OT theology of the jubilee...

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo...

I think this sums up root of Orthodox/Catholic dialogue "issues"...Weak and imperfect expression coupled with "pig-headedness" and lust for power...(FYI...this is not only the issue between the Pope and the Orthodox Churches...you also see it amongst the Orthodox Patriarchs (eg...Constantinope & Moscow)

Sorry...this actually is more appropriate for the other thread we were dialoguing on...

Chris

Yes, I placed the question to help some young Luthern friends learn about the difference in understanding between the different Churches. I think the above statement is totally out of line, and I pray it does not deter them from their search.

I received this responce from them...
Hello,
I just visited the ByzCath forum and noticed that you'd posted my questions. Thank you. I read all the responses. I didn't mean to cause such a controversy (just kidding). Did you read the post that likened purgatory to being lined up and getting spanked? don't know if it's true or not, but it did create a funny mental image....

So I praise God that they are receiving much from all your posts.

Great points! I will say, though, that some of those involved in defining such things were not motivated by the lust of power or anything. They were just sincere believers attempting to express infinite mystery with finite concepts, conditioned as we are by our limited nature, culture, experience, etc etc.

My point is that I think we - today - should endeavor not to be bound by the same assumptions and conditions of disunity that affected our ancestors. For any Latin or any Greek or Syrian to think only within his or her own frame of reference without due consideration for other traditions is to fail to learn from the mistakes of the past. That to me expresses the aspiration of breathing with both lungs...

Blessed Fast!

Gordo

Indulgences really make no sense in Eastern Christian theology, because the Eastern Fathers focused upon divinization (theosis) as the goal of the Christian life, and not upon the Western legalistic concepts of the transfer of merit or the non-imputation of sin and guilt. In fact, many of these Western ideas originated with Augustine (at least in a nascent form) and only expanded in importance later as the feudal theories of justice and honor became more and more the focus of theology in the Western Church.

God bless,
Todd