www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West An Orthodox Critique of Purgatory

FYI: http://goo.gl/5WS7XA

This is really interesting. I dealt in my dissertation with some medieval Orthodox polemics on purgatory. It was a very new issue for anti-Latin writers of the 13th-century, but their critique was almost the opposite of this fellow: they accused the Latins of denying the eternity of Hell!

Universalism, including in Byzantine garb, would take away free will. Prayer for the dead logically presupposes an intermediate state.

And you think this to be true why?

One of the distinctions between the Oriental Orthodox Churches, on the one hand, and the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches on the other, is the belief in particular judgment. I don't see the matter as a Church-divinding issue because:

(1) As far as EO-OO relations, the Eastern understanding of particular judgment as not being final is practically identical as the Oriental understanding of only a Final Judgment.

(2) As far as Catholic-Orthodox relations (really, it is a matter of Latin-Eastern/Oriental relations), I believe the twain can still meet on the basis of two things:

First, even those who do not believe in the finality of particular judgment agree that there are certain persons who enjoy the beatific vision right now. Hence, a mitigated finality in this regard is admitted.

Second, even those who do believe in the finality of particular judgment agree that we cannot know who is definitely damned. Hence, even Latin Catholics pray generally for the dead, which is also the praxis of those who do not believe in the finality of particular judgment.

An Eastern/Oriental will pray for a man considered "bad" in life with hope because he/she believes God MIGHT grant Grace to the person; a Latin will pray for the same man with the same hope because he/she does not know that person is definitely damned (the man, for example could have had a sincere change of heart at the moment of death). Practically speaking, there is no difference. Theologically speaking, that we cannot definitely know the state of the man is a mainstay of both eschatological systems.

Can the "twain still meet" also on the basis of a third proposition: that even those who hold the particular judgement to be final, or the experience of beatific vision to be immediate, would admit that until the bodily resurrection occurs there is something "incomplete" or "lacking" in some sense.

Good point. I know Eastern critics of the Western concept say the Western eschatology considers the state of the blessed in heaven as a STATIC state - distinct from the dynamic state assumed by Eastern eschatology. However, I'm not really aware that the Westerns have an actual, definite teaching on that matter. All I know is that they teach that the ultimate goal is heaven - period; and that whatever state the blessed are in, it is never equal to the divinity of the Godhead. On the issue of static vs. dynamic, I agree that there is nothing that - all things considered - necessitates separation.

Hmmm....

This thread will go on for some years, it would seem, until we will all find out how things really are . . . unfortunately, we won't be able to come back and do any more posts here on this topic at that point . . .



Alex

Though I think the Western position might have difficulty explaining "what" is lacking before the final judgment, I would think (I say this as a Latin) the Western position must suppose something is yet lacking, else the resurrection of the body has no value and the final judgment no purpose.

Purgatory was never mentioned in Christianity until sometime after the French Enlightenment and revolution when the French embraced Judaism and Jews as equals....Purgatory is a Jewish concept where Hell is Temporary and everybody good and bad go there temporarily to atone for sins and then move to Heaven ....another words in Judaism HELL IS TEMPORARY ......Latin Rite Catholics talked about Purgatory in the 19th century .....Limbo which came out of Purgatory was first mentioned by Catholics in the early Twentieth Century .... Limbo is Something which both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox reject.....is where the un Baptized go notably infants.......

]

No, it did not.

When Augustine wrote about the absolute necessity of Baptism, he left a note in the margin (Limbus) to the effect of, "What about infants?"

"Limbo"comes from the note in the Limbus, and has never been Catholic theology or teaching (notwithstanding the number of sisters that may have taught it to their classes).

hawk

The limbo of infants is the highest part of Dante's hell (noble pagans are there too).

A note of clarification. It is important to note that "Limbo," as in the "limbo of children", simply refers to Hell; however it specifically refers to the state of those who suffer the poena damni, i.e., deprivation of the Beatific Vision, but are either exempted from the poena sensus, i.e., the sufferings inflicted in Hell in proportion to one's personal sins, or else suffer mitigated sufferings (theologians are divided). Unbaptized children who did not attain the use of reason belong to this category.

While never the direct subject of a dogmatic definition, limbo was certainly the general teaching of the Roman Church at least as far back as St. Augustine - the only change was that the African Fathers believe unbaptized infants suffered the poena sensus, perhaps in a mitigated form, whereas by the time of St. Thomas Aquinas, it became more common (though not universally) to teach that they suffered the poena damni only.

Besides the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent speaking on the necessity of Baptism, the only magisterial references I can think of are Pope John XXII's 1321 letter Nequaquam sine dolore to the Armenians (old Denziger 493a) and Pope Pius VI's 1794 bull Auctorem Fidei (ibid., 1526). The former does not use the term "limbo," but is pretty clear on the basic idea, while leaving the question of mitigated punishments unanswered; the latter describes the position that Limbo is a "Pelagian fable" to be "false, rash, injurious to Catholic schools."

The doctrine has certainly fallen out of favor, but it has not really been replaced by any clear teaching on the subject; the modern Catechism relies on the mercy of God while essentially ignoring many centuries of near-unanimous teaching by the Roman theologians - a unanimity that before Vatican II was often understood as a sign of infallibility.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia (1910) says that the general teaching of the Catholic Church on the matter of Limbo since St. Thomas Aquinas is that infants dying in a state of original sin do NOT suffer either the poena sensus or the poena damni, but are in a state of perfect natural happiness (as distinct from the perfect supernatural happiness of those regenerated in Christ and enjoying the adoption afforded by Baptism).

The Encyclopedia also states that this latter teaching (regarding perfect natural happiness) was the ancient belief of the Church before St. Augustine, and that he had believed in it as well at the beginning of his ministry.

It appears the teaching is pretty old in Latin Catholicism. I wonder what the fuss is about.

Blessings