www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Return to Purgatory--Part I

In defending the doctrine of purgatory as a dogma of the entire Catholic Church I have been subject to a number of accusations. (See Question? Parts 1 & 2) These include: Trying to �induce members of the Eastern Churches to abandon their legitimate traditions� and demanding that �Byzantine Christians hav[e] to submit to Western Theology.� And asking Byzantine Catholics �to adopt this Western understanding. For us to adopt the Western understanding of purgatory with indulgences and everything that goes with it necessarily means we would also have to abandon sound Byzantine theology in favor of Western theology.�

But honestly, when I look back through my posts I don�t see any �Western theology�. I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the Second Vatican Council, from the Council of Trent (whose definition of Purgatory was endorsed by the Second Vatican Council with the Eastern Catholic Bishops present.) What is it in these quotes that is unacceptable to Eastern Catholics?

First I refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which says starting at 1030:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[604] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[605] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[606]
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."[607] From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.[608] The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead: Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.[609]

What in this is Western only and does violence to Eastern tradition? Where is the offence?


Then I quote the Council of Trent:

The Decree on Purgatory of the Council of Trent states:
"The Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Spirit and in accordance with sacred Scripture and the ancient Tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy Councils and most recently in this ecumenical Council that there is a purgatory and that the souls detained there are helped by the acts of intercession of the faithful and especially by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. Therefore this holy Council commands the bishops to strive diligently that the sound doctrine of purgatory, handed down by the Holy Fathers and the sacred Councils, be believed by the faithful and that it be adhered to, taught, and preached everywhere."

The Decree on Justification from the Council of Trent states:
"If anyone says that after the grace of justification has been received the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out for any repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this world or in the other, in purgatory , before access can be opened to the kingdom of heaven, anathema sit."

What here asks an Eastern Catholic to abandon his traditions?


Then after quoting St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, I quote Vatican II which says:

The Dogmatic Constitution On The Church, at 49, states: �When the Lord will come in glory, and all his angels with him (cf. Mt. 25:31), death will be no more and all things will be subject to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:26-27). But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory, contemplating "in full light, God himself triune and one, exactly as he is."�

Then later at 51 the Council endorses the previous teachings of Florence and Trent when it states: �This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death- and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent.�

If this is inconsistent with an Eastern understanding of the final purification I wonder why the Eastern bishops present signed the documents?

I would be interested to know exactly where these conflict with Eastern doctrine and tradition. You will have to be specific to these quotes. We could argue endlessly about the Frankish conquest of Constantinople and the Spanish Inquisition. Have at it. I�m beginning to feel like St. Sebastian already.

[This message has been edited by Perpetua (edited 12-31-98).]

Dear in Christ Perpetua,

I have been reading, with interest, all the posts around this subject over the past weeks. Many of my Byzantine brothers united with Rome have been putting up some vigourous
debate with you about Purgatory. Being Orthodox, not in Union with Rome, this certainly would be one of those points I would watch my Byzantine brethren deal with. Without actually engaging you from the path you have laid out, I would simply offer for your understanding what the Orthodox Catechism has to say about this subject. I am quoting, so that none of this is my own idea, from "A New Style Catechism on the Eastern Orthodox Faith for Adults", by Rev. George Mastrantonis; and, from the Slavic side..." Orthodox Dogmatic Theology" by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

* * * * * * * * * * *


For we must all appear before the
judgement seat of Christ, so that
each one may receive good or evil,
according to what he has done in
the body. 2Corinthians 5:10

The partial judgement of man is verified in Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The partial judgement takes place immediately after death, and there is no time to repent or improve the soul's moral condition. There are two conditions of the soul: that after death and that in the life after the final judgement at the Second Coming of Christ. However, the first Christians and Apostles believed that the Second Coming of Christ would take place soon. Christ did not disclose the day of His Second Coming, and the first Christians took it for granted that He would come in their lifetime, for

of that day or that hour no
one knows.....Take heed watch;
for you do not know when the
time will come
Mark 13:32-33

This is why the first Christians were not concerned with the partial judgement as such. However, they accepted the condition of the soul at the time "of the resurrection of the dead", and at the final judgement, both taking place after death.

The truth of the partial judgement which occurs immediately after death is verified by Scripture as a whole. It indicates that the soul is judged right after death according to belief and practice of the two great commandments, loving God and neighbor (cf. Matthew 22:37,39) Christ said

on these two commandments depend
all the law and the prophets
Matthew 22:40

This truth also is verified by Christ at the time of His being nailed to the Cross. Christ in answer to the thief who repented and confessed to Him said

today you will be with me in
Paradise
Luke 23:43

This utterane of Christ clearly indicates that the soul is judged immediately after death, and that the just soul goes immediately to "Paradise". If the partial judgement does not take place right after death, then the soul waits for the final judgement unrewarded or inpunished, or it has the opportunity to improve its moral condition.

The first Scriptural teaching regarding this is in the Parable of the Rich Man and the Poor Lazarus (cf. Luke 16:19-31) and clearly vcerifies that the partial judgement is made right after death, since the rich man goes to the place of torment and Lazarus goes to the place of reward and joy.

The truth that the partial judgement takes plce right after death is held by the Church, which invokes the Saints as being rewarded by Almighty God and thus living the blissful life in heaven.The prayers and hymns of the Church also indicate that the Partial judgement starts right after death, when the soul goes either to the state of joy or to the state of torment. The Sunod of Jerusalem, 1672, decreed: "we believe that the condition of the departed soul is either in joy or in torment...according to what each one has done".
The second scriptural teaching that the present life is the "testing place" of that of divine Grace, and not the time after death reads

for it is easy in the Lord's
sight when a man dies to repay
him according to his ways. An
hour of hardship makes one
forget enjoyment, and when a
man dies, what he has done is
disclosed.
Wisdom of Sirach 11:26-27

Scripture calls death ythe end of moral improvement and the present life the "testing place" of man's destiny, for

So then, as we have opportunity
let us do good to all men
Galatians 6:10
The FAthers of the Church hold this truth in their expositions on Scripture.

According to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the souls afters death receive rewards or punishments equal to the moral condition of each on earth. However, no one knows the real nature of bliss or punishment. The state of bliss for the just is known as Paradise, Heaven, Kingdom of Christ, Hingdom of God, Bosom of Abraham, Father's House and others. This state is in a place of joy in everlasting life. It is a state without pain or sorrow

for we who have believed enter
that rest
Hebrews 4:3
that shall hunger no more, neither
thirst any more: the sun shall not
strike them, nor any scorching
heat.
Revelations 7:16

This blissful life is also a communion with the saints and angels (cf.Matthew 8:11, Luke 13:28-29: Hebrews 12:22-23), a co-presence with Christ ( cf. John 14:3, 1 Corinthians 13:12) The condition of the unjust soul in damnation is known as Hades, Gehenna, Hell, Out of God's Sight, the Place of Torments, the Furnace of the Fire, Unextinquished Fire, Darkness and others. This state is of suffering and grief. The unjust souls depart to a place and condition

in Hades, being in torment
Luke 16:23


Concerning the state of the soul after the Particular Judgement, the Orthodox Church teaches thus

We believe that the souls of
the dead are in a state of
blessedness or torment according
to their deeds. After being
separated from the body, they
immediatelt pass over either to
joy or into sorrow and grief:
however, they do not feel either
complete belssedness or complete
torment. For complete blessedness
or complete torment each one
receives after the General Resur-
rection, when the soul is reunited
with the body in which it lived
in virtue or vice.
(Epistle of the Eastern
Patriarchs on the Orthdox
Faith, para. 18)

Thus the Orthodox Church distinguishes two different conditions after the Particular Judgement: one for the righteous , another for sinners; in other words, paradise or hell. The Church does not recognize the Roman Catholic teaching of three conditions:1) blessedness,2) purgatory, and 3) gehenna (hell).
The Fathers of the Church, basing themselves on the word of God, suppose that the torments of sinners before the Last Judgement have a preparatory character. These torments can be eased and even taken away by the prayers of the Church ( ibid).


* * * * * * * * * *

Again I offer these citings only to review the Orthodox Churches teaching on these subjects. While there may be interpretations of these paragraphs which could bolster the argument either way, it is important to note that the Orthodox are not interested in "nailing down" the way God works. We are more interested in His Grace than our merits and what they might perform. The Orthodox call the Sacraments , "Mysterion", which indicates the mystical way we feel we ought to look at things. Death and the state of the soul after death is also one of those Mysteries. We are not obliged to believe anything which may have come from private revelation (toll-houses!),
or mandated other than in the Symbol of Faith ( the Creed). This "elasticity" has served the Orthodox Church well for two thousand years. We have not had to go through the horrors of a Reformation or Counter-Reformation due to this elasticity and mystical outlook. Perhaps this is why many of us look with a jaundiced eyes when talk moves toward Union.
Our Byzatine Catholic brothers have been instructed to rediscover their Orthodoxy by His Holiness John Paul II. These tachings are a part of that rediscovery, and ought not to be something to ultimately separate us, as long as our "elasticity" is recognized and accepted as part of the One , Holy , Catholic and Apostolic Church we both claim to be.



unworthy monk Kyrill

The following is based upon extracts from two books (almost exclusively from the first and only a bit from the second since the first book contrasts the Western view from the Eastern one). Although much is taken directly from the original text some is heavily paraphrased and I have taken the liberty to omit quotation marks in case I have done an injustice to the author in my shortening. It hopefully, provides a concise primer on the different emphases that the East and West put on the journey of the soul after death (which the Romans call "purgatory"). The two books are:

"Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes", by Fr. John Meyendorff, Fordham University Press, 1974, pages 220-221 and

"Light for Life: Part One: The Mystery Believed", published by God With Us Publications (the publishing house of the Byzantine Catholic Bishops of the United States), 1994, pages 59-64.

There is a difference in perspective between the Byzantine and Roman Churches on the issue of the journey of the soul after death. The Latin approach is that divine justice requires retribution for all sins committed, and that, whenever �satisfaction' could not be offered before death, justice would be accomplished through the temporary �fire of purgatory' (Council of Lyons, 1724). The Byzantines do not take such a legalistic approach to divine justice because it seems to require a retribution for every sinful act. Byzantines interpret sin less in terms of the acts committed and more in terms of a moral and spiritual disease which was to be healed by divine forbearance and love. The Latins also emphasized the idea of an individual judgement by God of each soul, a judgement which distributes the souls into three categories: the just, the wicked, and those in a middle category - who need to be �purified' by fire. The Byzantines, meanwhile, without denying a particular judgement after death or agreeing on the existence of the three categories, maintained that neither the just nor the wicked will attain their final state of either bliss or condemnation before the last day. Both sides agreed that prayers for the departed are necessary and helpful. St. Mark of Ephesus (who was quite correct but currently overly trumpeted by the Orthodox) insisted that even the just need them; referring to the Eucharistic canon of St. John Chrysostom's Divine Liturgy (which is used by all Byzantines - Catholic and Orthodox), which offers the �bloodless sacrifice' for �patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and every righteous spirit made perfect in the faith,' and even for the Virgin Mary herself. Obviously, he understood the state of the blessed, not as a legal and static justification, but as a never-ending ascent, into which the entire communion of saints - the Church in heaven and the Church on earth - has been initiated in Christ. In the communion of the Body of Christ, all members of the Church, living or dead, are interdependent and united by ties of love and mutual concern; thus the prayers of the Church on earth and the intercession of the saints in heaven can effectively help all sinners, i.e., all men, to get closer to God. This communion of saints, however, is still in expectation of the ultimate fulfillment of the parousia and of the general resurrection, when a decisive, though mysterious, landmark will be reached for each individual destiny.

A legalism of satisfaction was the ratio theologica of the Latin doctrine on purgatory. For Byzantines, however, salvation is a communion and deification. On his way to God, the Christian does not stand alone; he is a member of Christ's Body. He can achieve this communion even now, before his death as well as afterward, and, in any case, he needs the prayer of the whole Body, at least until the end of time when Christ will be �all in all'. The Byzantine understanding of salvation through communion excludes any legalistic view of the Church's pastoral and sacramental power over either the living or the dead (hence the fact that the East respects but does not accept the West's doctrine of indulgences) or any precise description of the state of the departed souls before the general resurrection.

This communion in Christ, indestructible by death, makes possible and necessary the continuous intercession of all the members of the Body for each other. Prayer for the departed, as well as intercession by the departed saints for the living, express a single and indivisible �communion of saints'.

Nicholas Cabasilias tells us that �the life in Christ originates in this life and arises from it. It is perfected, however, in the life to come, when we shall have reached that last day.' The Lord will reveal fully the sons and daughters of God. Their bodies will be freed from that corruption to which they are now enslaved, and they will enter into the new world of the Spirit

---

The above took a bit of time to put together so, for now, I'll only comment on a few points of Pertetua's post:

>>But honestly, when I look back through my posts I don't see any "Western theology". I quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the Second Vatican Council, from the Council of Trent (whose definition of Purgatory was endorsed by the Second Vatican Council with the Eastern Catholic Bishops present.) What is it in these quotes that is unacceptable to Eastern Catholics?<<

All of the sources you quote are from the Western Church and reflect only Western Theology. We respect the theology of the West but we retain our authentic Eastern expression of the same mysteries. When you ask us to affirm and accept the Western expressions given at these councils you are at the same time asking us to abandon Eastern ones. None of the councils you quote provide as full and explanation of the Eastern approach to these mysteries as they do of the Western approaches. They constitute good Latin theology but ignore good Byzantine theology. Where, for example, is the Eastern approach to original sin detailed and explained as complimentary to the Western (the Eastern theology begins with our inheritance from Adam as mortality [since creation is good], the Western theology has the idea of guilt tied to the inheritance)? Where is the Eastern theology regarding the communion of saints (which would exclude the idea of measuring temporal punishments through indulgences because we see sin as a disease and not so much as a collection of wrongs that can be measured). Understanding the Byzantine Teaching of original sin, sin (in general) and the communion of saints is vital before one can appreciate and understand the Byzantine understanding of prayers for the dead. Prayers for the dead are an integral part of our understanding of the communion of saints. The councils you quote do not reflect equally both Eastern and Western theology but assume Western theology to be universal. How can we make the texts of these councils our own when they do not take us into account?

In the section Perpetua quoted following the footnote [605] the CCC speaks of "a purifying fire" for "certain lesser faults". Byzantines don't divine sin into mortal and venial categories. How then can we adopt this idea of a purifying fire for these lesser faults without also abandoning our understanding of sin as a disease and adopting the Latin understanding of dividing sin to categories of greater and lesser? It is this idea of the legalistic account and balance sheets required by this tracking of lesser and greater sins that we reject because it is foreign to our theology.

Byzantines are quite content to leave things as mysteries. Section 1030 is as far as we would comfortably be willing to go in explaining the journey of the soul after death other than adding that those gone before us are one with us in the communion of saints and we must pray for them as well as ask them to pray for us. We are content in trusting in God's mercy.

The second quote from Trent is clearly based upon the Western understanding of justification and guilt. We can respect this as good Western theology but we would need to alter the Byzantine theology of justification and sin to adopt the Western theology in order for us to adopt this expression as our own. How can we do this without abandoning our Byzantine Traditions? Trent is foreign to us since it speaks a different language than we speak.

>>If this is inconsistent with an Eastern understanding of the final purification I wonder why the Eastern bishops present signed the documents?<<

Most Byzantines rejected the Council of Florence. [It was mostly a political attempt at reuniting East and West and the discussions on eschatology forced. Even so, the differences of East and West were clearly evident with the West demanding that the East accept the Western positions on this.] Byzantine Catholics today look at Florence with very mixed emotions. Byzantines accept the Eastern Councils from 1054 until at least the beginning of the 17th century although we most likely did not have representatives at them and many of them did not directly affect us. We treat the Western Councils the same. As an example, our current customs regarding the Nativity Fast (Advent) were finalized at the Council of Constantinople in 1166. Since we recognize (and possibly actually sent bishops to) this council after the 1054 break between Rome and Constantinople does the West now accept it since we are once again in communion? Or, quite properly, does it look at the 1166 Council as a valid General Council in the East that doesn't affect them?

Byzantines were not part of the Council of Trent since the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic Churches were not in full communion with one another at the time of this council. Trent was a response to the Reformation. We had no such Reformation in the East to respond to so most of these issues don't affect us even if we agree it provides good Western theology.

Byzantines hailed the progress of Vatican II in acknowledging us as equal to the West. Note, however, that Vatican II brought great changes to the Western Church and none to the Eastern Churches - with the exception of asking the Eastern Catholics to restore the theology and customs that we had lost under the centuries when Latins considered themselves to be superior to Byzantines and other Catholics. Patriarch Maximus of Antioch (Byzantine-Melkite Catholic) spoke eloquently for the East at Vatican II - to the point where he was hailed even by the Orthodox. It has been some years since I have seen it but there has to be a copy of the text around to post here (any Melkites around?) The fact that some of our bishops signed the documents at Vatican II does not mean that Vatican II has fully expressed our theology. Byzantines supported and continue to support Vatican II not because it solved all the problems of the Church or treated us fairly but because it was and is a step in the right direction.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann, an Orthodox observer at Vatican II, whose response to the Decree on the Eastern Catholic Churches (not the "Eastern Rites" as it is incorrectly called in some publications) points out something quite well. It is not specifically relevant to the discussion about purgatory but it does address the need for mutual respect and understanding by both West and East on each other's theologies:

"There can be no doubt as to the positive, irenic, and constructive intentions of the Decree [on the Eastern Catholic Churches of Vatican II] as a whole. It is one more step, and a decisive one, toward the recognition of the Eastern tradition as �equal in dignity' to that of the West." "[But] the Decree seems to �take for granted' and to perpetuate the reduction of the differences between East and the West to the sole area of rites, discipline, and �way of life.' The Decree solemnly proclaims the equality of the Eastern tradition yet, at the same time, formulates and regulates it in terms of a Western and even juridical ecclesiology hardly adequate to its spirit and orientations. To a great degree it remains thus a Latin text about the Eastern tradition." [Taken from the Documents of Vatican II, America Press, 1966, pages 387-388]

Pope John Paul II, at the Plenary Session of the Congregation for the Eastern Churches held in Rome on October 1, 1998, once again stated that: "the right of the Eastern faithful to live and pray according to the tradition received from the Fathers of their own Church." Our understanding of the communion of saints and the 40 day pilgrimage of the soul are part of this same Tradition we have received from the Fathers. He also has asked the Byzantines to prepare new catechisms that 'take into account the special nature of the Eastern Churches' with a clear indication that while the new Catholic Catechism is good and profitable it does not reflect Byzantine theology. Please read his apostolic letters and encyclicals concerning the Eastern Churches.

Perpetua, our theology is based upon what we have inherited from the Fathers of the Church - not from the various councils in the West. I cannot provide quotes from the Western Councils to support Byzantine Theology since, for the most part, these councils did not include Byzantine expressions of theology. From 1054 until Vatican II the Latin Catholics considered their theology to be superior to the Byzantine and ignored the East. Great progress has been made since Vatican II. Pope John Paul II has been pushing us to move East in recovering our theology and in restoring what we have lost at a very fast pace. But if you look at us through the eyes of a Latin you will not know what we offer the Church and you will not realize that we cannot be explained from a legalistic perspective because our theology is lived, not documented with every detail accounted for. Your whole approach seems to be that we are to be considered wrong until we prove ourselves with documents of Western Councils. This alien to the Byzantine mindset. I do not condemn you or the Western Church's theology - in fact I have made a great effort to repeatedly state that we Byzantines fully respect it. It simply does not reflect the way we Byzantines think and live.

---

By the way, I have two priest friends assisting me in looking up the Paul VI reference to the difference between the big Seven Ecumenical Councils and the General Councils in the West. Both of them remembered it. One believes it to be Pope Paul VI's, *Lugduni, in urbe Galliae nobilissima,* 5 October 1974, addressed to Cardinal Willebrands: "Hoc Lugdunense Concilium, quod sextum recensetur inter generales synodos in Occidentali orbe celebratos". It deals with the qualitative difference between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the General Councils in the West. It does not seem to be available on the Vatican website and I am not yet positive it is the document with the proper quote. Would you (or anyone reading this) possibly have access to it? I am also asking around to find a source for the hard or electronic copy.

I will also try to find a copy of Patriarch Maximos' address to the bishops at Vatican II. I think it might provide you an insight toward a common ground on which we can discuss theology. In the meantime, can you point to the Byzantine parts on the journey after death, etc., outlined above that you object to? Or let me know if I have not provided enough for your consideration? Perhaps this will help us to find common ground. I don't believe that what is necessary to be believed is at issue here. The Eastern and Western theologies of original sin, justification and communion of saints both contrast and compliment one another.

To Father Kyrill:
Thanks for your summary of Orthodox doctrine on the last things.
I was a little surprised at your claim that the protestant reformation was due to a lack of �elasticity� in Catholic doctrine. Are you saying that the eastern doctrine could have been stretched to include the protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola scriptura? Or was the eastern church showing a lack of elasticity when it excluded the Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites?


To Moose:

Thanks for your response. I think though that you are creating conflicts between eastern and western approaches to Catholic doctrine where they really don�t exist. Your characterization of the doctrine of original sin in the west as inherited guilt sounds more like protestantism than Catholicism. The original sin of our first parents resulted in a loss of supernatural grace, one of the consequences of which was death. They were subsequently unable to pass this gift down to their children. Thus we suffer from a disorder (a disease as you state) that leaves us weakened.
You also state the communion of saints excludes the idea of indulgences and temporal punishment of sin. But actually the idea of indulgences is intimately linked with the communion of saints. Pope John Paul states this very beautifully in his most recent bull, Incarnationis Mysterium.

�Revelation also teaches that the Christian is not alone on the path of conversion. In Christ and through Christ, his life is linked by a mysterious bond to the lives of all other Christians in the supernatural union of the Mystical Body.� �Everything comes from Christ, but since we belong to him, whatever is ours also becomes his and acquires a healing power. This is what is meant by "the treasures of the Church", which are the good works of the saints. To pray in order to gain the indulgence means to enter into this spiritual communion and therefore to open oneself totally to others. In the spiritual realm, too, no one lives for himself alone. And salutary concern for the salvation of one's own soul is freed from fear and selfishness only when it becomes concern for the salvation of others as well. This is the reality of the communion of saints, the mystery of "vicarious life", of prayer as the means of union with Christ and his saints. He takes us with him in order that we may weave with him the white robe of the new humanity, the robe of bright linen which clothes the Bride of Christ.
�This doctrine on indulgences therefore "teaches firstly how sad and bitter it is to have abandoned the Lord God (cf. Jer 2:19). When they gain indulgences, the faithful understand that by their own strength they would not be able to make good the evil which by sinning they have done to themselves and to the entire community, and therefore they are stirred to saving deeds of humility".(18) Furthermore, the truth about the communion of saints which unites believers to Christ and to one another, reveals how much each of us can help others � living or dead � to become ever more intimately united with the Father in heaven.
Drawing on these doctrinal reasons and interpreting the motherly intuition of the Church, I decree that throughout the entire Jubilee all the faithful, properly prepared, be able to make abundant use of the gift of the indulgence, according to the directives which accompany this Bull (cf. attached decree).�

This decree by the way states �After worthily celebrating sacramental confession, which ordinarily, according to the norm of Canon 960 of the Code of Canon Law and of Canon 720 � 1 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, must be individual and complete�� and then later states that to obtain the indulgence there penitent should go to a church �and there take part devoutly in Holy Mass or another liturgical celebration such as Lauds or Vespers, or some pious exercise (e.g., the Stations of the Cross, the Rosary, the recitation of the Akathistos Hymn in honour of the Mother of God).� It seems that the Pope does not limit the benefits of indulgences to Latins only.

I don�t know what to tell you about mortal and venial sins. Surely you must believe that some sins are worse than others. All sins do damage. Some are easier to recover from.

You made 2 statements that seemed contradictory to me. First you said, �When you ask us to affirm and accept the Western expressions given at these [western] councils you are at the same time asking us to abandon Eastern ones.� Then later you say about the endorsement of purgatory and the Councils of Trent and Florence by the eastern bishops at Vatican II, �The fact that some of our bishops signed the documents at Vatican II does not mean that Vatican II has fully expressed our theology.� So when the eastern bishops signed these documents were they abandoning their eastern expressions of the Catholic faith. I don�t think so. And if they are not asking you to abandon your eastern traditions by affirming the teachings of these councils why do you say that I am doing so? I certainly would agree that Trent does not fully express eastern theology. It doesn�t even fully express western theology.

How is the search for the statement by Pope Paul on the ecumenical councils going?

Christ is Baptised!

I as a Babe in the Faith am so glad to see this form online. It puts light in my heart to read responses from people who so elequently up hold my Eastern faith. Brother M. Thank you.


dear Orthodox friend,

I am Orthodox too. I believe it is not God but man who see's us as seperate. May the Lord bless you and keep you.

Dear friends in Christ,

This has certainly been a lively and interesting discussion. My notes include dozens of references I want to look up and study! Thank you, everyone!

However, I have followed this with growing sadness as well, a sadness which is more acute because I, like Perpetua, am Latin rite Roman Catholic. Perpetua seems to embody the attitude which I notice and grieve over too often within our church; it is an arrogant, haughty, legalistic attack mode which comes over apologetics-minded RCs who try to catechise or evangelise by force.

I see this attitude within my immediate parish, within the Catholic press, and on the internet forums. It condenses into:
"We are right. We are always right. You are wrong. You are always wrong - except for a few little things we allow you to be right about if we agree with them too. But you'd better admit you're basically wrong, or else!" The message is so tragic you could put music to it and call it country western.

When this began I saw the eastern participants send up flares of alarm and one of them counterattack. Since then they have tried to reason. Some have offered gentle
attempts at truce. Each time, Perpetua jumps back with a refusal to accept and respect a different viewpoint, ever trying to shoot it down with an artillery of quotes, references, and disclaimers, all of which say, "You're wrong. You're always wrong, except for a few concessions I allow you. You'd better admit you're wrong, or else!" She will not understand that there is a difference in perspective here, and I think she will keep gnawing this bone until we all find out what purgatory is by personal experience.

Are the fruits of the Holy Spirit present in such tactics? Are bitterness and force fruits of the Holy Spirit? I'm not blaming Perpetua; she is influenced and overwhelmed by a negative behavior which has unfortunately taken root within the church.

As a RC I don't like to see our Orthodox brothers and sisters attacked this way. It's not my business to determine Perpetua's choices, but may I invite her to give some thought to the root of these strident and aggressive attitudes? Too much defense always results in offense.

One day I was reading the messages posted here, and somehow noticed that the word dogma spelled in reverse reads: amgod. When we get bent out of shape on behalf of a dogma, perhaps we think we are God. Yet, we are not. The other day the retired-in-residence priest in my parish remarked, "We live the mystery." He meant we don't have every answer. We are informed by the church and our conscience - but there is much we don't know, and never will know on this earth.

Perpetua, I admire your wonderful knowledge of documents, church history, etc. which show you are a very educated person, far, far, far beyond my own small stores of data. I do not at all mean to insult or embarrass you by these remarks. I only ask you to ask yourself if your aggression against these gentle and spiritual people is warranted or justified. Let me remind you that in the Roman Catholic church itself there is much disagreement, on many fronts, and one of the smaller issues concerns purgatory. There isn't universal agreement within our own church. And too, semantics play a role - several times here I've noticed people arguing when both sides really believe the same thing. If you become less harsh, perhaps you will become more able to do God's work, and you will do less harm. Please forgive me for my own arrogance in offering advice to you! I mean only kindness.

I believe it was Fr. Kyrill who said earlier in this discussion, "The Orthodox are not interested in nailing down the way God works." What a gift it would be to the legalistic RC church if they could adopt such a policy!

As I continue to follow the discussion, I find myself a sadfaced Latin with both feet east of the fence. I pray the Holy Spirit will one day dissolve the fence completely.

Dear in Christ Perpetua,

Please reread my post. I did not say the the Protestant Reformations was due to a lack of "elasticity" in Catholic doctrine. What I did say was

We have not had to go through
the horrors of a Reformantion
or Counter-Reformation due to
this elasticty and mystical
outlook

I am surprized that you could have misread me that much. But just so this is really clear.....

Because of elasticity in the doctrinal belief of the Orthodox Church there was not any situation which caused a need for a reformation, There was no rigid law which needed to be rebelled against. In the cases of Arius, Origen and the other heresies which arose in the early Church, it was they who could not live with the elastic theology. It was they who wanted to nail things down and define the stuffings out of theology, not the Orthodox Church. It was along these same lines that the Great Schism occured.


unworthy monk Kyrill

First off, God Bless You all.

To Judith: You are very unjust and uncharitable in labeling Perpetua as "aggressive" and accusing her of having an "arrogant, haughty, legalistic attack mode
which comes over apologetics-minded RCs who try to catechise or evangelise by force." Dr. John severely chastised Perpetua; her response was very civil, peaceful and calm. Where is the aggression? I am not Perpetua, so I cannot speak for her. However, it seems to me that she is only trying to understand why the Byzantine Catholics do not accept the "dogma" of Purgatory. She is not subtly hinting that they are wrong, only dialoguing, and slowly reaching an understanding with the members of this forum. I suggest to you, Judith, that you stop fawning. You can try to ingratiate yourself with members of this forum all you want, but they will not not judge you when you die. God will judge you, so it would be more wise for you to start pleasing Him, and to begin by not judging others.

And believe me, I do not write this post to shine like a hero. I will not be surprised if I receive worse retribution than did Perpetua. Nor am I writing this post to form a type of kinship with Perpetua. I am writing instead out of concern for your soul, Judith, and I am dead serious when I say this.

Judith, my dear sister in Christ, please pray for me. All members of this forum, please pray for me. And, please, let us be kind to one another. Christ is born! Glorify him!

Greetings, dear Ann,

Thank you for your comments! Before dashing off to work, I just wanted to reaffirm that the techniques of Perpetua, which I still believe are aggressive and strident, are the same as the huge majority of RCs I observe "defending the faith" to or in the presence of non-RCs. If you are of the same mind as they are, it looks heroic and loyal and - well - RIGHT. If you are openminded you quickly notice the, "We are right. You are wrong," attitude which only gets sharper as the debate continues.

I agree with you that it seems I am fawning over the Orthodox. Somehow they keep saying things that seem to be correct, for one. For another, I have a very poor way of expressing myself, as a basically inarticulate person, and quite often wish I could get things out more clearly. It's unfortunate.

In the same manner I have "fawned over" Anglicans, Methodists, Jews, Buddhists, and
various other groups, in RC discussions.
My reaction comes from a history of being in RC groups, parish or social or business, where a non-RC or a non-RC church is viciously attacked. The curious thing is, the RCs NEVER understand what they are doing.
They are confused when the other individual or group responds with a sudden silence, or prepares to leave the scene. I can't tell exactly what the attacked side is experiencing - it's negative, but is it sadness, defeat, fear, anger, or what? These scenarios have been enacted for most of my RC life. But other RCs never notice it. They are focussed solely on asserting their rightness.

Often I step in and defend people whose beliefs I do not share myself, such as Protestants who do not have the same view of Holy Communion. I just don't want their beliefs to be attacked. When I discovered the eastern rites, their way of connecting to
their religion seemed amazingly true. They really are a gentle people, which is obvious from the meager experience I have had with them. When I lived among them during my iconography practicum it was so amazing to me that I never, ever heard an unkind or sarcastic remark against other religions.
Many other features of their religious practice and behavior toward others impressed me with their less insular, less self-concentrated, more relaxed spirit, which I maintain would be wonderful for RCs to "catch" if only it were contagious!

Finally, in skimming some of the other forums before I found this one, I looked at one on a RC link (if only I had written down the URL so you could go there and see for yourself)
which was supposed to be a debate between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Anyway, the Orthodox individual was calm, objective, and factual, whereas the RC opponent quickly became very insulting and sarcastic. It went on for quite some time until the Orthodox person finally made a statement to the effect that he wasn't able to continue because they weren't getting anywhere and it was wasting their time. By then the RC was all but frothing at the mouth and proud of himself for driving away the enemy.

In gradeschool the nuns told us to cross the street rather than pass closely by a Protestant church, and at the same time to make the sign of the cross to protect ourselves from the evil within. We all feared and dreaded non-RCs. This attitude is still deep within the RC church, though to a lesser degree. One of the same nuns, as a home ec teacher, warned us that to waste an inch of sewing thread cost 100 years in purgatory. Rigid ways soon become irrational.

Dear Ann, thank you for pointing out the poor way I express my views. I agree with you wholeheartedly, and in the future will try to control this a little better. Let's both pray hard that I become more articulate! Let's also pray that RCs become more openminded.

As to God judging me, I know that will come, and it's scary! I'll have to say, "Look, I did the best I could with what you gave me!"
Maybe I could pass for one of those saints the Orthodox have, who are called Holy Fools. . .

Dear Brothers and Sisters!
Please excuse my bad english, for while writing this, I am sitting in Germany and am german. I am RC, but my Father converted, together with my grandmother, and my mother is still Protestant. So I at least hope that my point of view is less fixed and more tolerant than that of other RC's.
Perhaps I am too much of a RC, but I did not think that Perpetua's mails were insulting. Judith, could it be that you are too sensitive concerning other confessions?
Somebody said that the orthodox church is mor elastic, and that Arian wanted to fix christian faith to a certain point, which was avoided by banishing him. But - didn't one of the Ecumenical Councils say that Jesus Christ was man and god, both in full sense, inseparable, unmixable, and so on? The whole Creed (apostolic AND nicenic) consists in fixing christian faith against wrong teachings.
I am no theologist, I am just a student of art history in his second semester who thinks about his faith. So correct me if I am wrong.
God bless you! Christ is born!
Ansgar

[This message has been edited by Ansgar (edited 01-11-99).]

Thank you Perpetua and Fr. Kyril for your excellent synopsis of both the Western and Eastern understandings of the afterlife. I teach adult education with the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic jurisdiction in Pittsburgh and this topic does come up a lot. May I have your permission to reproduce these posts for use in the classroom?

Perpetua, as a Eastern Christian in union with Rome I feel the pain of your confusion. In fact, I live the pain. We in the Catholic Eastern churches find ourselves currently living between two worlds. Our churches do not currently live or express either of the traditions you and Fr. Kyril outline above. This is why you see our clergy and Bishops over the last several hundred years signing documents and promulagating practices that are not in keeping with our Orthodox heritage. This is why the Vatican is calling on Eastern Catholics to return to those practices.

But at the same time many of the faithfull of our Catholic churches do understand and live an authentic Orthodox spirituality. Sometimes, some people, in expressing this spirituality can get very defensive on our rights as Catholics to espouse these views. This is why we like to quote from the document on the Eastern Churches in Vatican II-it gives us permission to be different (in tune with the Orthodox) from the rest of what is in Vatican II.

With regards to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, I have been involved with the Office of Religious Education in the Byzantine Catholic Church off and on since 1984. When the Cathecism of the Catholic Church draft was circulated within the Eastern Conference of Diocesian Directors (NCDD) there was much debate. Many felt it should be retitled the Catechism of the ROMAN Catholic Church. Others pointed out that Eastern Patristic writers were often quoted in support of much later Roman Catholic theology. Ultimately, the NCDD through it's publication arm, God With Us Publications, decided to come out with a four part response mirroring the organization of the CCC's four parts. Unfortunately only Parts one (The Mystery Believed) and two (The Mysteryt Celebrated) are published to date.

Once you accept that the expression and understanding of the afterlife can differ from the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory, Fr. Kyril's post does an excellent job of summerizing the Eastern view.

I like to use analogies when explaining the differences between East and West in theology. The mysteries of God (in this case the afterlife) are like fine works of art. Imagine two people going to the Louve in Paris to see first hand the Mona Lisa. Both are then asked to detail the experience in words only afterwards.

The Roman Catholic would be like the art expert who details the technique of the painting the content of the art and the period and style it represents. Not being content with this surface view our expert would stretch their mind to the limits in understanding what may be under the surface, brushed on to protect the surface and all manner of things that can be resonable postulated but not absolutely proven. This will help many people who have not seen the original gain a fuller understanding of what is there. But there is an element of educated guesswork involved that may be overturned by future scholars.

The Orthodox person would write of the experience of seeing the painting. Of the images she evolks of love, and misunderstanding. They would detail how the sight of the painting has changed their world view, given them deeper understanding to their mission in life. Perhaps, even changed their relationship to a nation that went before them. They detail this experience to affect the lives of others.

Both of them have experienced the same thing. Both acknowledge the existance of the same thing. But both expess the experience in terms the other will have difficulty understanding and find meaning less to their own understanding.

We do not deny purgatory we just don't see things that way.

Pray for me as I endevour to share my faith with others.

Fr. Kyrill (I wish I could address you as "fellow concelebrant." Maybe in time) you state the Faith as received from the Fathers and the ancient Councils. While I am of the same Tradition but united with Rome, I appreciate your clear, concise and Orthodox expression of what life can be like after this life. Your explanation will be the one I use for All Souls Saturday Liturgies. Thanks for the mention of the texts too. Many years!

Moose, thank you too for expressing the Faith of our ancestors, without mixing the Roman understanding of the life to come. God love you.

TO ALL: We really don't need any more latinized expressions of our heritage and understanding of the Faith. The Orthodox Faith (whether united to Rome or not, though there will be arguments about how the Petrine primacy is to be exercised, the wrongful insertion of the "filioque," etc.) expresses the Faith of Christ wholly and completely on it's own. Perpetua's use of Western texts (or Eastern ones "turned" to back up later Roman developments in Western theology) bring home this point. The CCC is a Catechism for the ROMAN Church, not the UNIVERSAL Church which is a communion of Churches. The Faith has been handed over to the East one way and to the West in another way. Who is right and who is wrong? Are we saying the same thing in different ways. Maybe. None of us will know until we enter the next life. What East and West agree on is the responsibility of Christians to pray for the dead and that these prayers have an effect in the lives of those who have gone before us.

[This message has been edited by Batushka (edited 01-13-99).]

To Steve Puluka:

Thanks for your post. I have a couple of questions and comments.

You said, �Others pointed out that Eastern Patristic writers were often quoted in support of much later Roman Catholic theology.� I was not sure what you meant by this. Could you explain?

Next, where can I find the eastern catechism you mentioned?

You mentioned that purgatory is a topic that frequently comes up in your adult education classes. How do you present this topic to them?

You said, �Once you accept that the expression and understanding of the afterlife can differ from the Roman Catholic concept of purgatory, Fr. Kyril's post does an excellent job of summarizing the Eastern view.� I think the issue that we are facing here is this, �What is a Catholic required to believe? What are the essential doctrines, without which one will lack an adequate understanding of the Christian Faith?� It seems like the easy answer is�Whatever is a dogma defined by an Ecumenical Council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra. (I hesitate somewhat to bring the Pope into the conversation for fear of introducing yet another topic of disagreement, but I also couldn�t think of a good way to leave him out). Of course this answer is somewhat more complicated than that because there is still some amount of interpretation that has to be done to fully understand the bare expressions of the dogmas. Another complication in this conversation has been the question of which Councils are Ecumenical. Are there 7 or 21? This question has seemed to stall temporarily while waiting for Moose�s reference. But I would like to know what you and others think. What have you been taught?

One of the things I have found very troubling in this conversation is the expression of the belief that somehow Latins and Greeks really don�t really need to try to understand each others approach to the faith, or that there is no need to explain one in terms another. I am not at all convinced this is right. If we are of the same faith I do not see how one of us can simply write off the other as sort of legitimate but irrelevant.

And last, concerning your analogy of the 2 people admiring the Mona Lisa. It seems to me that it concedes way to much to the modern, secularized viewpoint; the one that says that there may be a God but it doesn�t matter much because He is basically irrelevant and distant; that we can�t really know much about Him or the cosmic order in creation (except maybe in a limited way in natural science); and OF COURSE it is impossible that man could have received a revelation FROM God concerning Himself or anything else. Thus, when the 2 people in your analogy look at the painting all that left for them to observe is either the technical aspects of painting and artistic expression, or the subjective feeling they have about the painting. I have a feeling that our forefathers of the east and the west (if they had stopped all that long to consider the Mona Lisa as really all that important) might have looked at it in a completely different way. They might have asked �What does this picture mean? What is it worth in eternity? Does it lead toward or away from God?�

Thanks again for your thoughtful comments.


[This message has been edited by Perpetua (edited 01-14-99).]

The new Eastern Catholic Catechism (which has the approval of the heirarchs of the various Eastern Catholic Churches in the USA) does not specifically mention purgatory in the main text. On page 64 of Volume 1 the traditional Eastern understanding that our prayers help those who have died is given. A footnote to this section in the back of the volume then states:

"The basic concept of purification of souls after death is based on 2 Maccabees 12:39-45 and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. The need for purificaton was taught by several Fathers of the East and West (among the earliest: St Clement of Alexandria, _Stromata_ 7:6). The Western Church, after St Augustine (_City of God_, 21.13, 24), elaborated this concept in the doctrine of `purgatory,' a place of painful purification, which was defined at the Councils of Lyons and Florence, which were called to ratify unions with the Byzantine Church. The Council of Trent reaffirmed these definitions, but forbade fanstastic descriptions. The Eastern Churches have been reluctant to speak with assurance of a separate place of purification or to describe that purification as `painful.' Yet none have been more committed to prayer that the departed be granted rest with the saints. In any dialogue on the question, Roman Catholics must admit that the description of purgatory was influenced by medieval mythology." (_Light for Life: The Mystery Believed, pp. 101-102, God With Us Publicatons.)

On the back of the volumes the address for God With Us Publications is given as PO Box 99203, Pittsburgh PA 15233 412-771-9119. It seems to me they are being distributed by a Catholic book distributor in the Mid-West but I can't find the catalog right now. Perhaps others have that information.

In Christ,

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[This message has been edited by DTBrown (edited 01-14-99).]

Dear Servant of God, Dave

Part of the Catechism is online at: http://www.byzantines.net/books/index.htm

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner