|
0 members (),
294
guests, and
74
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,495
Posts417,377
Members6,141
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
St Mark of Ephesus was against Purgatory and the idea that the immediate afterlife is divided into categories like that. That was his main "beef" so to speak. I seem to remember his main issue was with the nature of purgation. Anyway, I just happened to run across the OCA Q&A site and it says QUESTION:
The Roman Catholic Pope recently proclaimed "indulgences" as a means to hasten entry into heaven (at least according to what I read in the popular press).
Does Orthodoxy share this belief or one similar to it? If not, do you consider this one of several major differences between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy?
ANSWER:
While this is a complex issue, I will try to offer a clear and concise response.
The Roman Catholic tradition of indulgences dates back several centuries. In essence -� and in short! -� it was taught that Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the saints had more "merits" than necessary. As a result, these "extra merits" may be "transferred" to others and, consequently, used toward their salvation. Hence, in this framework, a person who would be expected to spend time in purgatory [the Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory as a "third" or "alternate" state to heaven and hell] may have that time reduced through:
merits received by performing certain acts or prayers to which indulgences are attached, or
having the indulgences applied to the acts or prayers of another person transferred to them
This, according to this line of reasoning, reduces, or, in the case of a "plenary" indulgence, completely eliminates the amount of time one would have to spend in purgatory, during which his or her sins are "purged" in preparation for entrance into heaven.
I apologize for the brevity of this response, but in essence this is the nature of indulgences as seen by Roman Catholicism.
There is no similar concept of indulgences within Orthodox Christianity. I agree with Joe that it is linked (at least was in the past) with purgatory and temporal punishments.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
X. INDULGENCES
1471 The doctrine and practice of indulgences in the Church are closely linked to the effects of the sacrament of Penance.
What is an indulgence?
"An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions of Christ and the saints."81
"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin."82 The faithful can gain indulgences for themselves or apply them to the dead.NT
The punishments of sin
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.83
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."84
In the Communion of Saints
1474 The Christian who seeks to purify himself of his sin and to become holy with the help of God's grace is not alone. "The life of each of God's children is joined in Christ and through Christ in a wonderful way to the life of all the other Christian brethren in the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ, as in a single mystical person."85
1475 In the communion of saints, "a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things."86 In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin.
1476 We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy."87
1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission in the unity of the Mystical Body."88
Obtaining indulgence from God through the Church
1478 An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.89
1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
If a plenary indulgence can be granted only when one is completely detached from sin, then doesn't it make the indulgence redundant? Isn't detachment from all sin already the state of being free from temporal punishments?
My claim is that since any act of penance already detaches us from sin, to add indulgences to it is simply to add something that is redundant. It is not so much that indulgences are necessarily wrong (though they presuppose a conceptual framework not shared by Orthodox), they are simply unnecessary.
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Joe,
Well, detachment from sin doesn't necessarily mean one is free from temporal punishment for sin committed.
I understand the Roman Catholic view of indulgences and that is not the language at all I would use to understand them.
What I wouldn't mind having expanded for me is how Orthodox Christianity sees the "works of repentance" in relations to sin forgiven through Holy Confession.
Sometimes, one gets the impression that Orthodoxy teaches that Confession is all there is to the forgiveness of sins and complete reconciliation with God.
The Rudder's canons clearly emphasize "works of repentance" - how does Orthodoxy view these in this connection?
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Elizabeth Maria, Oh, everyone on the Forum has to be careful when conversing with you!! You know so very much and are so well read!  Dominicans have forever been interested in the Orthodox Church and not only as an object of mission work. We know that St Hyacinth came to Kyiv and when Kyiv was attacked by Tatars (or was it Mongols?) he took the Chalice with Holy Communion and the white alabaster statue of Our Lady and walked through the Dnieper River (much like Moses through the Red Sea). When the enemy saw this, they fled in terror. The statue is still venerated in Poland as "Our Lady of Kyiv." And the Dominican student of Savonarola, Maximus, left Italy after his teacher's martyric death, and went to Russia where he became an Orthodox monk and writer. He was canonized a Saint in 1988 by Orthodoxy and he is depicted on icons as an Old Believer with a Lestovka as he defended the Old Rite traditions! How the Rosary became so popular in Orthodox monasticism is anyone's guess. That St Seraphim of Sarov was explosed to Western spirituality is a given, since his icon the "Joy of all Joys" is definitely Western. (And St Seraphim was tonsured in the Kyivan Caves Lavra at the height of the Kyivan Baroque era). Don't know how popular kneeling was in ancient Russian spirituality, but St Seraphim kneeled a great deal, even through the night as he prayed. As for the rest of it, it's anyone's guess! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear AMM,
Just remembered - it was because of St Mark's protestations against the notion of "purgatorial fire" that the Greeks coming into union with Rome were not required to believe in such.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
Dr. Alex,
Strictly speaking, if a canonical penalty is being imposed upon a person, then that person should not receive absolution until the penance is fulfilled. This is the ancient practice of the Church and Fr. Alexander Schmemann suggests that this should still be the norm. For most sins, sacramental confession is simply not necessary and one's whole life should be one act of perpetual penance. To impose a canonical penance on someone who has not committed a truly grave sin (murder, fornication, adultery, etc) would be to abuse the spirit of the canons. When one is absolved in sacramental confession, one is absolved from all ecclesiastical penalties. I believe this is even specified in the some prayers of absolution. Once you are forgiven, you are forgiven, that's it. That is how the grace of God works. As far as freeing ourselves from sinful inclinations and unholy attachments, this is just part and parcel of the daily life of a Christ and if one were to attain a state of complete apatheia, then one would not need any indulgences or freeing of any penalties of any kind.
On the other hand, the Roman Catholic view seems to be saying that one builds up temporal punishments over time and unless one is absolved from those punishments (through penances and indulgences) then one must "passively" suffer those punishments in purgatory. This is the view that I do not think is compatible with Orthodoxy. Perhaps, there might be another way of explaining indulgences that would be. But it would be a way that departs from standard Catholic teaching as is found in the CCC.
Joe
Last edited by JSMelkiteOrthodoxy; 02/12/08 10:29 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Dear AMM,
Just remembered - it was because of St Mark's protestations against the notion of "purgatorial fire" that the Greeks coming into union with Rome were not required to believe in such. That seems a little hard for me to understand given this is one of the reasons the council was rejected (aside from just the basic idea that I would find hard to believe that a reality like Purgatory or the cleansing fire would be real for some people and not real for others). Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos goes in to some detail on the issue here http://www.pelagia.org/htm/b24.en.life_after_death.05.htmIt certainly seems linked to me as well to indulgences.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear AMM,
You mean that the Greeks in union with Rome were not required to accept the purifying fire view of Purgatory?
If so, then, in fact, they were not required to accept it.
St Mark of Ephesus had already left the council before that was formulated (including the non-necessity of having to include the Filioque).
It would certainly be unacceptable to St Mark to allow for the Greeks not to accept the puryfying fire but for the Latins to believe it - for him, that would be no unity at all. Just as, for him, to have the Greeks leave the Filioque out, only for the Latins to leave it in, would not mean full unity.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Joe,
Yes, I remember my friend having first to fulfill the canonical penance imposed on him before receiving absolution - that's an important point to consider here!
I'd have to find the reference, but it seems to me that there was an Orthodox document that discussed the need for works of repentance following the forgiveness of sins and apart from canonical penances.
And if someone died without having done these, they would need to be prayed for. I'm not referring to the Creed of St Peter of Kyiv since the original of that Creed, and as St Peter Mohyla himself insisted it be taught in his own Metropolia, contained a teaching on Purgatory.
So my question is do "works of repentance" have any relation to sins that are already forgiven (and apart from canonical penances).
IF so, then there could be room for "a doctrine of purgatory" of sorts for Orthodoxy.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
You mean that the Greeks in union with Rome were not required to accept the purifying fire view of Purgatory? My understanding is they were required, but how couldn't they be if it is a point of doctrine? Could purgatory, cleansing fire and temporal punishment be real for some people and not others? This was essentially my understanding The reunion of the Churches was at last really in sight. When, therefore, at the request of the emperor, Eugene IV promised the Greeks the military and financial help of the Holy See as a consequence of the projected reconciliation, the Greeks declared (3 June, 1439) that they recognized the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son as from one "principium" (arche) and from one cause (aitia). On 8 June, a final agreement was reached concerning this doctrine. The Latin teaching respecting the azymes and purgatory was also accepted by the Greeks. As to the primacy, they declared that they would grant the pope all the privileges he had before the schism. An amicable agreement was also reached regarding the form of consecration in the Mass (see EPIKLESIS). Almost simultaneously with these measures the Patriarch of Constantinople died, 10 June; not, however, before he had drawn up and signed a declaration in which he admitted the Filioque, purgatory, and the papal primacy. Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved. On 6 July, however, the famous decree of union (Laetentur Coeli), the original which is still preserved in the Laurentian Library at Florence, was formally announced in the cathedral of that city. The council was over, as far as the Greeks were concerned, and they departed at once. The Latin members remained to promote the reunion with the other Eastern Churches--the Armenians (1439), the Jacobites of Syria (1442), the Mesopotamians, between the Tigris and the Euphrates (1444), the Chaldeans or Nestorians, and the Maronites of Cyprus (1445). This last was the concluding public act of the Council of Florence, the proceedings of which from 1443 onwards took place in the Lateran palace at Rome. http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/f/florence,council_of.html I think St. Mark had indeed given up by that point seeing what the council was all about.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear AMM,
Yes, you are asking the $64,000 question!
In effect, Rome at Florence agreed that the fires of Purgatory were something that need not be absolutely agreed on for unity to be complete (just as two Creeds were agreed upon, one with and the other without the Filioque).
It was just THAT a purgatory or place where people who had not yet performed the works of repentance for sins forgiven or whose sins were not serious enough to merit eternal fire existed.
St Mark's view of unity was actually SIMILAR, according to Meyendorff, since St Mark came to Florence as a unionist. He believed that the Latins need not give up their view of the Filioque just as long as they agreed to remove it from the Creed. He believed that the Filioque was truly a heresy, but that God would heal it later once the Latins were reintegrated with Orthodoxy (in other words, heresy demonstrated a lack of Grace and the only way for the Latins to receive this Grace is through full reunion with the Church).
So both sides came to Florence with different political aims they wished to achieve but also with different understandings of what the true Faith is as a condition for achieving full ecclesial union.
What this shows us is that the Greeks took Florence quite seriously but expected that it would work out differently than it did.
Had Florence worked out in a way that St Mark and the legitimate Orthodox side had hoped, we would not only have one Church, East and West, today - that Council might even have been counted as an Ecumenical Council universally.
Alex
Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 02/12/08 11:16 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Dear Elizabeth Maria, Oh, everyone on the Forum has to be careful when conversing with you!! You know so very much and are so well read! Sarcasm aside, I delight in learning the stories about saints, whether Eastern or Western. And of course I am not a living encyclopedia. Thanks for sharing the story about St. Hyacinth. Yes, the Dominican Order has had many saints beginning with St. Dominic, who also radiated the divine light as did St. Seraphim of Sarov. I was a Dominican Tertiary before becoming Orthodox, so my study led me and others to Orthodoxy. And yes, I was profoundly affected by the Orthodox teaching that everyone should approach Holy Confession with profound repentance and prayers. One should not rush to confession immediately after sinning, in fact, Orthodox Priests do not like to hear confessions immediately before the Divine Liturgy but encourage people to confess just prior to the All Night Vigil on Saturday evening, so that one can be better prepared to receive Holy Communion. I am reminded of the simple soul who was asked about his style of prayer by St. John of Vianney. He replied, "I look at God and he looks at me." Simple souls like that do not need to have their minds cluttered by indulgences, only by what is essential for salvation -- and that is the love of God.
Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 02/12/08 12:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Elizabeth Maria,
Actually, I was not being sarcastic! You ARE very well read!
So St Maximus the Greek ought to be particularly close to you as he was also a former Dominican! And Savonarola has been particularly praised by Russian Orthodox theologians. Then there is St Thomas Aquinas and the Orthodox who loved him.
The nice thing about being associated with the Benedictines, as I am, is that should I ever become Orthodox, I can remain a Benedictine (although with another monastery . . .).
We can still regard you as being one of the "Domini Cani" or "Hounds of the Lord!"
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Thanks, Alex.
I do hope that the blessed Savanarola can be canonized one day.
Hopefully, despite having been burned at the stake in a depraved political move by his fellow Catholics, blessed Savanarola will be rightfully restored as one of her saints.
Truly if unity is to occur, then we all will have to focus on what is necessary for salvation -- the love of God and abhorrence of sin.
Last edited by Elizabeth Maria; 02/12/08 12:54 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
