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

Brothers and Sisters,
I think that part of the issue that has been discussed here is an issue of systematic theology. There is a distinction made between 'apophatic' and 'kataphatic' theology. The distinction comes from ways of describing God and His interventions in human life. In one approach, one can make positive statements about God and spiritual reality: "God is omnipresent", "God is just", etc. In the Eastern approach, one does not make 'positive' statements, but rather 'negative' ones. "God isn't unjust" , "God isn't unloving". While the superficial understanding of this variation of approach to systematic theology doesn't seem like much, in reality, it DOES define ways of dealing with spiritual reality. While Western Christians are very comfortable with saying what "God will do", Eastern Christians are more likely to exclude what "God won't do" or "What God is not". Thus, in terms of 'sin' or an understanding of "who" is in communion or 'good standing' with God, we Easterners are more likelely to focus on the things that alienate a person from God than on the 'necessary elements' that unite a person with the Creator.

In terms of 'purgatory' or other Western systematic theology concepts, we Eastern Christians have a tendency to not 'define' what is reality, but rather a tendency to say what is unacceptable in terms of our understanding of Christ's Gospel. So, as we gather together the items that we believe as Christians, we may not come up with a coherent quilt of theological beliefs, but rather a collection of beliefs that represent our best efforts at understanding theological reality.

This has been my major theological problem with Perpetua's insistence that anyone in communion with Rome be 'obligated' to accept the 'positivist' approach to systematic theology without acknowledging that the kataphatic, 'negative statement' is also a legitimate theological approach to the realitites of the spiritual world.

To obligate us Easterners to the 'positive' statement approach is to do violence to the way that we approach God and spiritual reality. We are, in many ways, more aligned with the approach of our spiritual forebears, the Jews, in that we are uncomfortable with saying "God HAS TO....", rather than saying, "It is unlike God to DO XXXXX..." We don't have God by the short hairs. We withdraw, in awe, before the presence of the Godhead, prefering not to "demand XYZ" of God, but rather to acknowledge that because of His promises, we expect God to BE just, loving, paternal, etc. and that whatever happens is a result of His Divinity.

So, we don't 'demand' that God create a purgatory, or even a heaven or hell. We only believe that God, AS GOD, will do what is best for us, His creation. And our response to questions about spiritual reality, is to throw ouselves upon His mercy, and to PRAY. Both for ourselves, the living, as well as for those who have died. (I guess that's why our public prayer, liturgical services last so long-- we want to make our collective prayers heard!!)

Just as our dealings with our fellow human beings is complicated (to say the least!!) and had led to the develpment of all the social sciences including psychology, sociology, law, etc., so our dealings with God are also complicated. And we use theology to help us understand this relationship. And just as psychology and the other social sciences can be accomplished as 'dogmatic' or 'non-dogmatic/interpretative', so too can our theologies be dogmatic ('positive statements = Western) or (non-dogmatic/interpretative = Eastern).

So, as I see it, I don't think that there can be rapprochement between Eastern and Western theologies until and unless each community is willing to acknowledge the theolgical differences of the other and is, perhaps most importantly, willing to admit that the alternative approach is legitimate, valid, and OK.

So when I demand that Perpetua (and others) allow us Greek Christians to be who we are, I am not demanding that there be only one approach to God, but only that we Eastern Christians be left alone to pray and seek God according to our own lights-- without being forced to accept the 'positivist' systematic approach of the Western churches. And the Church as a universal community has told us to be who we are and to do what we need to do.

So, with all due respect, and fraternal charity, the Wetern Christians should back off and let us be who we are--as a legitimate community of baptized Christians, who are trying our best to find God--according to our best efforts. And we will be in communion with you Western Christians, as well as with all of our Eastern brothers and sisters, seeking to do God's will.

And as the Great Lent comes to us, and as we abstain from meat and dairy products, and celebrate the Presanctified Liturgy, and give alms to the poor, and offer our private and public prayers, we will remember all of our fellow Christians; and we will beg God's mercy upon all of His children.

May God have mercy upon us all.

Perhaps the discussion has reached a point where I may interject a personal question/comment.

The bottom line for Easter Rite Catholics is that they really have no choice but to accept the idea of Purgatory because it was defined by a canonically accepted "Ecumenical council" of the Roman Church. Everything goes through the Pope, does it not? Byzantine Catholics can do their best to explain the concept WITHIN the context of these definitions, they cannot contradict the basic tenets of Purgatory. Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned. Eastern Catholicism is thus tethered, and perhaps limited, by the Western approach.

Is this a good summary of the situation as it presently exists?

Another good topic of conversation would be why Purgatory needs to be dogmatically defined as being necessary for salvation in the first place.

Actually, Bill, I think you might have missed the whole point of the discussion. For Byzantines to accept the Latin teachings as the Latins state them would be to acknowledge that the Latin approach to theology is superior to the Byzantine. As Moose and others pointed out earlier the Church (esp. in the Vatican II Council) has made it quite clear that the Eastern and Western theological systems are equal. One is not superior to the other. The fact that even the Decree on the Eastern Churches was written in a 'language' that was foreign to the Byzantine mind indicates that the Latin theologians in Rome still haven't caught on. But it was a step in the correct direction. For Romans to ask Byzantines to reword Latin understandings in a Byzantine mindset would do a great injustice to both theological systems. Some things just don't translate and need to be understood in their original language / context.

The Byzantines here have repeatedly stated that they respect Latin theology and accept it as good Latin theology. But the Romans here have demanded that the Byzantines adopt the Roman formula of theology and accept the mysteries as the Romans have worded them - thus doing injustice to the Byzantines. Perpetua, perhaps without understanding, is asking for this injustice.

You are correct in saying that "Eastern Catholicism is thus tethered, and perhaps limited, by the Western approach." But this is in violation of the teachings of the Church. We are equal brothers and sisters in Christ and we are called to witness Orthodoxy within the Catholic Church. We are not some bastard stepchildren - unless we choose to be.

Dave wrote:

>>>>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.<<<<

Theological Book Service
7373 S. Lovers Lane Rd.
Franklin, WI. 53132-9976
Phone: 414 529-6400 800 558-0580
Fax: 414 529-6419 800 369-4448
E-mail: tbs@execpc.com

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Bill Mo wrote:

>>>>Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned.<<<<
---------------------------------------------
Wrong. Then why do we have two separate Codes of Canon Law. According to the Vatican, what MUST be abandoned is any Latinization that has crept into the Eastern Churches.

Joe Prokopchak
St. Nicholas Byzantine Catholic Church
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh.

Bill Mo wrote:
>>>>Thus like it or not, any concept of the Eastern Churches which does not agree with Roman Catholic councils must be abandoned.<<<<
---------------------------------------------

Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Code of
Canons of the Eastern Churches

Issued January 6, 1996 by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches

The Vatican

Libreria Editrice Vaticana - 1996

Table of Contents

>snip<

4. Conciliar and post-conciliar principles and norms for the Eastern Churches

All the Christian Churches are founded on the one message of Christ
and necessarily share a common heritage. Therefore, quite a number of
principles of the conciliar Constitution on the sacred liturgy
universally provide valid elements for the liturgies of all the
Churches and should be applied even in the celebrations of Churches
that do not follow the Roman rite.[9] The practical norms of the
Constitution and those of the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983
must be understood as affecting only the Latin Church.[10] The
principles and norms of liturgical nature which directly concern the
Eastern Churches are found instead in various conciliar documents,
such as in >Lumen Gentium< (n. 23), >Unitatis Redintegratio< (nn. 14-
17) and even more importantly in >Orientalium Ecclesiarum<. These
exalt the inalienable value of the specific, and thus diversified,
traditions of the Eastern Churches. After the Second Vatican Council,
the most important collection of norms for the Eastern Churches is
constituted by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.

>snip<

7. The heritage of the Eastern Churches
The conciliar documents, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches
and the repeated authoritative declarations of the Magisterium affirm
the inalienable value of the particular heritage of the Eastern
Churches. >Lumen Gentium< n. 23 declares that these, by divine
Providence, whilst safeguarding the unity of the faith and the unique
divine structure of the universal Church, enjoy their own theological
and spiritual heritage, their own discipline, and their own
liturgical usage. >Orientalium Ecclesiarum< n. 1 specifies that in
these shines the Tradition derived from the Apostles through the
Fathers, which constitutes part of the divinely revealed, undivided
heritage of the Universal Church.

Within the unity of the Catholic faith, each one of these heritages
expresses the variety of its manifestations.[12] The fullness of the
Mystery of God reveals itself progressively according to the
historical and cultural circumstances of peoples and expresses itself
in each of the Eastern Churches' manner of living the faith.[13]

>snip<

10. The duty to protect the Eastern heritage
Desiring that these treasures flourish and contribute ever more
efficiently to the evangelization of the world, >Orientalium
Ecclesiarum< affirms, as do successive documents, that the members of
Eastern Churches have the right and the duty to preserve them, to
know them, and to live them.[14] Such affirmation contains a clear
condemnation of any attempt to distance the Eastern faithful from
their Churches, whether in an explicit and irreversible manner, with
its juridical consequences, inducing them to pass from one Church
>sui iuris< to another,[15] or whether in a less explicit manner,
favoring the acquisition of forms of thought, spirituality, and
devotions that are not coherent with their own ecclesial heritage,
and thus contrary to the indications so often emphasized by Roman
Pontiffs and expressed, with particular force, already in the
Apostolic Letter >Orientalium Dignitas< of Leo XIII.
The danger of losing the Eastern identity manifests itself
particularly in a time like the present, characterized by great
migrations from the East toward lands believed to be more hospitable,
which are prevalently of Latin tradition. These host countries are
enriched by the heritage of the Eastern faithful who establish
themselves there, and the preservation of such heritage is to be
sustained and encouraged not only by the Eastern pastors but also by
the Latin ones of the immigration territories, because it wonderfully
expresses the multicolored richness of the Church of Christ.

>snip<

I can post a lot more, but I hope you are getting the idea.

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian

[This message has been edited by Joe Prokopchak (edited 01-15-99).]

>>>>or whether in a less explicit manner,
favoring the acquisition of forms of thought, spirituality, and
devotions that are not coherent with their own ecclesial heritage,
and thus contrary to the indications so often emphasized by Roman
Pontiffs and expressed, with particular force, already in the
Apostolic Letter >Orientalium Dignitas< of Leo XIII.<<<<

Do I need to highlight the above text? Maybe make it bold type? How about all CAPS? Or maybe tell everyone that these words come from an " Official Vatican Document ".

Joe Prokopchak
Byzantine Catholic/Ruthenian

Regarding Bill Mo's post: No, we are not tethered to the Roman Church, nor are the Eastern Churches subservient to its theology. We are Churches unto ourselves, but perhaps the 19th century and early 20th century Irish bishops' based ecclesiastical life in the United States has engendered in American Catholics the notion that 'unity demands uniformity'. And that anything that does not correspond to this Anglo-Irish ecclesiology must be rooted out and destroyed. They did it to the Germans, putting monasteries with breweries under interdict, they did it to the Italians, the French, the Portuguese and the Poles too by instituting diocesan regulations that quashed their individualism. And they tattle-taled to Rome on these Slavs with their married priests who were 'scandalzing the faithful'. Scandalized because the Latins had been taught by their clergy that priests can't marry. Oooops! They taught the people an untruth-- and then screwed us over to cover up their errors. All for the sake of uniformity. And we lost THOUSANDS of our people to orthodox jurisdictions. And we're still living with the effects today.

And no, the Pope isn't the final word. It's simplistic theology, a la the Baltimore Catechism. By demanding that people study a particular document (i.e., the catechism), ecclesiastical authorities can train people in lock-step uniformity. But the down side of this approach is that people don't have to 'struggle' with issues, whether moral, theological or even liturgical. It's all spelled out in the catechism. But the reality is, the Church isn't the simplistic rote answers contained in catechetical documents. And so, despite the catechism's declarative sentences about the Pope being the visible head of the Church, and Christ's vicar, the reality is much more complicated and involves a whole ecclesiology that has developed over 2 millenia. And the simple sentences about the reality of purgatory and limbo (as well as Gehenna, Hades, the New Jerusalem, the "Kingdom", etc.) are al the results of one or other system of theology, mostly based--but not exclusively--on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas (as well as Bonaventure, Bellarmine and others).

So, if we Easterners prefer Sts. Basil, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory the Illuminator, etc., that's our tradition and our business.

In summary, we Eastern Christians have our own ways. Some of us are in sacramental communion with the Bishop of Rome, and the Patriarch of the West. But we are in communion as individual, canonical Churches. Not as sub-Churches, or 'rites of the Catholic church' (this term is highly offensive!!) or as some type of vassal organizations.

And while it may distress a number of Latin Rite Christians to discover at this stage of their lives thatthey have been deceived into believing that theirs is the only "legitimate" and "canonical" Church, -- the reality is that this is just NOT true. Just because there is no discussion of us in the Baltimore Catechism, doesn't mean that we don't exist. And just because the simple Q+A of the catechism and other educational texts taught a particular theology, doesn't mean that that's it. There's a lot more out there about the nature of the Church and theology. And as an adult, I think we each have an obligation to educate ourselves. And that's not my idea, I'm just passing on a message from your Council documents directed to Latin Catholics. (Thanks to Joe for the citations; we know where we can start our study.)

In answer to Bill Mo's question...

Perhaps Purgatory is the wrong subject to illustrate his point. Are Byzantine Catholics required to assent to Vatican I on the universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome? This is potentially a much larger problem in Orthodox/Catholic dialogue than any other. I know for me, personally, it was this question which led me to the Orthodox Church despite my great love for the Ruthenian Church and people. I had been an ardent supporter of Archbishop Elias Zoghby's proposal for "dual communion," sometimes called the "Melkite initiative." It sought to find a way where Eastern Catholics could state they were in union with the Bishop of Rome to the limits acknowledged by the Fathers of the East before the Schism. This proposal was rejected by the Antiochian Orthodox Synod and also by Rome (letter from Cardinals Cassidy, Silvestrini and Ratzinger written at the request of John Paul II). Rome said any formulation of faith on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome must contain what is taught in Vatican I and II.

I hate to sound pessimistic...but there is NO way that Orthodox will accept Vatican I (or what Vatican II says on that also).

I know many Eastern Catholics interpret the subject of Purgatory from an Eastern perspective and some Roman Catholics (like Perpetua apparently) feel they're denying an essential dogma.

Is there an Orthodox way to interpret Vatican I?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

As this conversation begins to move away from purgatory toward what I think are the more important issues that have been underlying the discussion, I wanted to make some things clear about what I have been trying to say. It appears to me that from the comments that people continue to make that I have not made it sufficiently clear thus far. And so, with apologies to Fr. Kyrill, I will make an attempt to "nail down" what I have been trying to say AND what I have not been trying to say. They are:

1. Purgatory (by any name) is a dogma of the Universal Church.
2. The definition of this dogma at the Ecumenical Council of Trent is to "be adhered to, taught, and preached everywhere", as are all dogmas of the Church.
3. No Catholic may legitimately deny a defined dogma of the Church.
4. Definitions of dogmas at councils do not say all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.
5. There may be different legitimate expressions of this dogma in different traditions of liturgy and theology.
6. Almost the entire DOGMATIC teaching of the Church on purgatory is summed up in the passages I quoted at the top of this thread.
7. The dogmatic teaching on purgatory should not be confused with various artists' or writers' conceptions of it. (The Council Fathers at Trent did not append Dante's Purgatorio or a Grunewald painting to their decree.) This well stated by the footnote that DTBrown quoted from the eastern catechism.

Is any of this offensive to a Byzantine Catholic?

Thank you Joe Prokopchak for the recommendation of Theological Book Service.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I am not a professional writter so plaese bear with me.

It seams to me that there are some terms being misused. Could anyone please define( Ecumenical Council, Dogma, Doctrine, Dogmatic teaching, Universal Church)? I seams to me that we have not had an Ecumenical Council since the first 7. I also did not know that Dogma and Doctrine were used interchangably. Last but not least I thought that the Universal Church was composed of several Churches.

Totaly confused.

By the way does anybody know just how the Lefevers(sorry about the spelling) fit into the sceam of the Universal Church?

Thanks,

Sophia



[This message has been edited by Sophia (edited 01-16-99).]

Sophia wrote:

>>>I also did not know that Dogma and Doctrine were used interchangably.<<<
--------------------------------------------
Dear Handmaid of the Lord, Sophia

Sometimes you will see these two words mistakenly used interchangably. There is a big difference between a dogma and a doctrine. All dogmas are also doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas. The Magisterium of the Catholic Church classifies Church teaching into several different categories of importance. A dogma is on the highest order of Church teaching. All the other doctrines are classified into several different orders of importance. I tried to explain this earlier in this forum, but I saw that I was only beating my head up against a wall so I refrained from anymore explanation.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thank you again Perpetua for the concise synopsis of the Roman Catholic position on Purgatory. In my desire to be brief in my post I'm afraid I compromised clarity, my apologies.

<<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?>>

These are a synopsis of conversations with other members of Eastern Churches in Union with Rome who are involved in Catechetical ministries in our respective Churches. We share resources through the ECDD (Eastern Catholic Diocesian Directors). The conversations occured after receiving draft copies of the Catechism of the Catholic Church prior to publication.

The separate publication of our own point of view was selected as the response to the Catechism of the Catholic Church by our Bishops as it had been used in the past when the the National Conference of Catholic Bishops issued their documents on the Sacrments of Christian Initiation. Father David Petrus authored the compainion document from the Eastern Catholic point of view which outlines our very significant differences with the Roman approach.

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

All publications of the ECDD are published under the name of God with Us publications and available from:

Theological Book Service
7373 S. Lovers Lane Rd.
Franklin, WI. 53132-9976
Phone: 414 529-6400 800 558-0580
Fax: 414 529-6419 800 369-4448
E-mail: tbs@execpc.com

Most of these publications are geared for general adult education. A more scholarly treatment of the differences between east and west can be found in Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)" University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-65373-0. This is part two of a five part series on the history of the Christian Church. The parrallel volume #3 "The Growth of Medieval Theology" details the same for the west with a separate volume on the Reformation (#4).

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

This topic comes up with Byzantine Catholics because until the mid-seventies when we developed our own catechism for use in english we taught the Baltimore Catechism of the Roman Church. In addition, most of our clergy received their education in Roman seminaries for much of the period of our union with Rome (350+ years). As an adult educator I must explain to people why we are teaching something different than they learned as children.

I teach from "Light for Life The Mystery Celebrated" with far less eloquence than Father Kyril's post and your excellent synopsis of the Western point of view. Hence, my desire to use both your material for this topic.

As far as my attempt at analogy goes, I apologize again for not being clearer. All analogies break down at some point since they are not the real object. You are correct in outlining where mine fails.

The point I was trying to make by analogy was that both the East and the West agree that there is some state in the after life that makes prayers for the dead efficacious, this is the Mona Lisa. We differ in how we describe and respond to this understanding. This differs greatly from how most Protestants see things.

My main point being the reality of this state has not been seen or experienced by anyone in this life and all our attempts to understand it will be incomplete in some way.

A favorite hymn in our church goes like this:

So great is God in Power and Glory, no mortal tongue can ever proclaim. So great His throne and power sublime, no mortal mind can ever contain. The one true God, we worship with love, brighter than sun more splendid than stars above.

We acknowledge that human language AND the human mind fail us in contemplating these mysteries.

Thank you for your followup points. They do focus the discussion well.

1. Purgatory (by any name) is a dogma of the Universal Church.

Purgatory by it's very name carries the definitions and baggage of Roman Catholic theology and does not "fit" well in the Eastern spirituality.

2. The definition of this dogma at the Ecumenical Council of Trent is to "be adhered to, taught, and preached everywhere", as are all dogmas of the Church.

The East did not attend, nor accept this council. This was an articulation by and for the Western Church that does not bind the East. In the same way that the Council of Jerusalem in the 1600's would not bind or affect the West should reunion with the Orthodox occur.

3. No Catholic may legitimately deny a defined dogma of the Church.

Here is where the Eastern Catholics will assert our rights under the union agreements and subsequent papal instructions to maintain our own Theology, Ritual and Discipline.

4. Definitions of dogmas at councils do not say all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.

Agreed, as mentioned above, no human can ever express all there is to be said about a particular doctrine.

5. There may be different legitimate expressions of this dogma in different traditions of liturgy and theology.

Here is where the whole discussion comes to rest. We agree on the basic premise that the afterlife has some purification dimension, the east sees what that is differently than Roman Catholics and we object to being forced to call this state purgatory.

6. Almost the entire DOGMATIC teaching of the Church on purgatory is summed up in the passages I quoted at the top of this thread.

Again, I commend you on your excellent summary on the topic of purgatory. I must confess that my education is more to patristics, church history and scripture so I am not able to comment on the Dogmatic versus Doctrine question.

7. The dogmatic teaching on purgatory should not be confused with various artists' or writers' conceptions of it. (The Council Fathers at Trent did not append Dante's Purgatorio or a Grunewald painting to their decree.) This well stated by the footnote that DTBrown quoted from the eastern catechism.

Agreed, Rome teaches from authority in documents, not artists. The East however teaches primarily in Icons and prayer. We point to art because in our own churches Icons are "Theology in pictures" and the rich prayer life of our church expresses our understanding of the truth.

Is any of this offensive to a Byzantine Catholic?

I am not offended. I admire what I have learned about the Roman Catholic faith over the years and have known several people that found a faith filled rich and rewarding path to God in the Roman Church.

I hope that you and other Roman Catholics can say the same about us from Byzantine Catholic churches. I will understand if you can not.

Thank you again for your well researched and written posts. May God go with you!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks to Steve for the easy to understand, concise and right teaching on the understanding of the General Councils of the West, our outlook on them and how they bind or do not bind Byzantine Catholics. It is time for us to claim our rightful heritage and to boldly (but charitably) proclaim it. God love you for the work you do for our Churches. Perpetua, can we not agree to disagree on how these Councils are received by the Byzantines? You probably feel we cannot. We seem to speak different langauges. Hopefully, we can agree that we are called to pray for the dead, that these prayers help those who have gone before us, and that these departed ones are in communion with us through Christ and His Church. Perpetua, many years in health and happiness.

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. Pardon my denseness, but despite the quotes from various Papal encyclicals, a simple yes or no answer to the following question will suffice.

Are Byzantine Catholics expected to believe the definitions/pronouncements of the 20 odd "ecumenical" councils of the Roman Catholic Church?

I understand full well from the above discussion that it is the desire of the Catholic Church that the Eastern Rite Catholics fully recover their heritage and approach to theology, spirituality, etc.

My point was that if the answer to the above question is indeed yes then Eastern Catholics must somehow explain, as best they can from an Orthodox or Eastern perspective, the conventions derived by an overwhelmingly Latin theological body. Not to say that it is necessarily good or bad, but simply a fact of life for the Eastern Catholic.

Simply by the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has convened many more councils, the Eastern Catholic is more likely to run into a dogmatic "fence" than an Orthodox theologian.

However if the answer is no and Eastern Catholics are under no obligation to accept the dogmatic proclamations of councils convened without their input then we have an entirely different situation.

A good example might be the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox theologian might say that it (as dogma) is not a necessity given the eastern view of the fall of man and original sin, while not denying that it may be true. (A good number of Orthodox do believe in the IC, but the majority do not.) By the fact that it has been declared dogma, is the Eastern Catholic placed in a position where he must accept a conclusion which was driven more by western notions of the fall and original sin and place it in his own eastern context?

Thank you for your responses. I didn't mean for anyone to take it as an insult.

Please forgive me.

Bill

For too many years the Eastern catholic churches were treated as a child and responded in kind to the Roman Church. We have moved beyond that stage, but sometimes only to an adolecent relationship.

Regarding purgatory, it was asked "Are Byzantine Catholics expected to believe the definitions/pronouncements of the 20 odd "ecumenical" councils of the Roman Catholic Church?"

I believe the answer is, pace Perpetua, that Byzantines and other Eastern Catholics recognize our brothers and sisters of the Roman Church as orthodox Christians, and therefore nothing it teaches definately is heretical. The Roman General Councils represent an orthodox definition. It may not be the best definition, or the clearest or the prefered means of expressing it to Byzantines, but it is ultimately reconcilable to byzantine teachings, even if it is difficult to see at first. I.E. BOTH are true.

As to DTBrown's comment about the Roman Response to the Melkite Initiative, having read the document, I have a different interpetation.

I am sure when the bureaucrat bishops first read the Synodical statement, it caused the worse case of clercial constapation since Luther. But their public reponse was very restrained (I mean that literally; I'll bet it took every fiber in their being to hold back from what they wanted to say)! In many ways, it was exactly as sister churches should relate to each other. One church issues a statement and fraternally shares it with the other churches, open to any insights, comments or observations its sisters may have. Responses are fraternally made and fraternally recieved.

This is what I mean as adolesent. Too often the discussion even among the Byzantine is: are we subject to Rome or autonomous? The answer should be neither, we are sisters, we love one another, help one another, advise one another, yet are distinct.

Finally, I am not a theologian but my guess is the Vatican I claims of papal authority ar overstated. But I am utter convience of the pastoral usefullness of the petrine ministry. With all love and respect for the Orthodox, I think their lack of a universal (earthly) center of unity has been a disaster to them.

I've been a bit tied up the last few weeks and have not had the chance to respond to some of the posts and questions on this topic. All of the Byzantines who have posted, however, have done an excellent job in explaining our theology and I have little to add that I have not already posted.

Since Bill Mo asked for specific answers to his questions, I'll provide them:

>>Are Byzantine Catholics expected to believe the definitions/pronouncements of the 20 odd "ecumenical" councils of the Roman Catholic Church?<<

No. Byzantines certainly respect the theology taught at these councils (and we don't think that they are in any way odd or strange! ) but the teaching of these councils simply do not reflect authentic Byzantine theology. Councils (be they full Ecumenical Councils - of which there were seven - or General Councils in the West) are to be seen as teaching authentic Catholic theology. Nowhere are they to be seen as the final say or the definitive explanation of anything. To say that one has fully explained any Mystery is to say that humanity fully understands the Mystery of the Trinity. This is not possible and it is why Byzantines call the Sacraments "Mysteries".

>> I understand full well from the above discussion that it is the desire of the Catholic Church that the Eastern Rite Catholics fully recover their heritage and approach to theology, spirituality, etc.<<

Be careful of terminology here. Byzantine Catholics are not "Eastern Rite Catholics" (although this is a very common term) as in a subgroup of the Catholic Church somehow under the Roman Catholic Church. Byzantine Catholics are one of the suri iuris (complete) Churches that, along with the Roman and other Churches, together make up the Catholic Church. Each of these Churches and their respective theological approaches are fully equal to the others. Since 1054 the Roman Catholic Church has been mostly cut off from the Byzantine Churches and has tended to view Latin theology as the only expression of Catholic theology. This is incorrect and since Vatican II there have been real efforts by Rome to correct this imbalance.

>> A good example might be the Immaculate Conception. The Orthodox theologian might say that it (as dogma) is not a necessity given the eastern view of the fall of man and original sin, while not denying that it may be true. (A good number of Orthodox do believe in the IC, but the majority do not.) By the fact that it has been declared dogma, is the Eastern Catholic placed in a position where he must accept a conclusion which was driven more by western notions of the fall and original sin and place it in his own eastern context? <<

Byzantine Catholics may question the necessity of declaring the Immaculate Conception as a dogma but we do respect this teaching. I am rather curious to understand why many of our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters seem to think that we must also accept Latin definitions / explanations of this mystery. What would be unacceptable to Roman Catholics in the Byzantine understanding of original sin? East and West do have different approaches to original sin - and by extension the IC. Why would Romans not respect authentic Catholic theology - as expressed by the Byzantines - on this issue? Why would a Latin expect a Greek to learn Latin in order to pray? What's wrong with a Greek speaking Greek? It seems we always get back to the RC starting point that Latin Catholic theology is the default standard and that other Catholic theological systems - including the Byzantine - are somehow suspect until proven acceptable to the Latin system.

>> Thank you for your responses. I didn't mean for anyone to take it as an insult.<<

No insult taken.

----------

Note to Perpetua. I simply haven't had time to do any research regarding the two documents I referred to in a earlier post:

1. Pope Paul VI's, Lugduni, in urbe Galliae nobilissima,* 5 October 1974, addressed to Cardinal Willebrands: Hoc Lugdunense Concilium, quod sextum recensetur inter synodos in Occidentali orbe celebratos dealing with the qualitative difference between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the General Councils in the West.

2. Patriarch Maximos' address to the bishops at Vatican II.

If you are still interested in understanding the Byzantine understanding of the "General Councils in the West" you might want to research these in your local library (a good Catholic university library should have them available). If you find them and want to post them we can continue that discussion.

Dear Moose,

What you say does indeed sound promising, although somewhat confusing. Let me see if I have it right. (sorry for my denseness once again)

You as Byzantine Catholics accept the basic pronouncements such as:

1.) When the Theotokos was conceived there was indeed a "singular act of grace" thus the Immaculate Conception.

2.) The Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra."

3.) etc. etc.

As teaching authentic Catholic theology and not optional pious belief, but rather required.

But you are not expected to adopt the western theology by which the conclusion was derived.

Or is it that such things as the Immaculate Conception are indeed optional pious beliefs as they would be for an Orthodox believer? (I use Orthodox (big O) vs. Catholic only as a way of distinguishing between those not in communion with Rome with those who are and not as a pegorative.)

I just have a hard time wrapping myself around the concept. In my period of "searching" several years back I got in a conversation with a monk from an "Ultra-Catholic" website (they questioned JP II's orthodoxy but recognized his authority!) where I posited the Eastern theology of the fall and original sin and why I didn't rule out the IC as possibly being true, but couldn't quite accept it as dogma. He said I was going "straight to hell" for besmirching the Theotokos. He just couldn't grasp that the difference between the western notion of a permanent "stain" on the soul and simply inheriting a condition of the sin like sickness and bodily death rather than inheriting "the sin" itself. His absolute vehemence for his position colors my perception of this discussion. It just didn't seem as if Rome would allow any wiggle room as far belief in the IC, infallibility, etc. thus I poke and probe for a more conciliar approach.

God Bless and Thank all of you for your most gracious patience.

Bill

>>1.) When the Theotokos was conceived there was indeed a "singular act of grace" thus the Immaculate Conception.<<

We explain this mystery according to the Byzantine understanding of original sin. Why would two different explanations of the same mystery be unacceptable?

>>2.) The Pope is infallible when speaking "ex cathedra."<<

One needs to understand the Western concept here. The Latin Church does not teach that the pope may speak "ex cathedra" on a whim. The infallibility of the Church is when the pope speaks "ex cathedra" as the result of his presiding over a council. The pope has spoken "ex cathedra" only a few times and such proclamations as the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception were made only after great consultation with all (or at least a majority) of bishops of the Catholic Church. The fact that the Eastern Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) were not part of the development of the current Latin understanding of the authority of Peter is why Pope John Paul II has asked the Orthodox to "help him define the role of Peter in the next millennium". A bit confusing? That's why JPII is asking for a redefinition.

>> As teaching authentic Catholic theology and not optional pious belief, but rather required.

But you are not expected to adopt the western theology by which the conclusion was derived.

Or is it that such things as the Immaculate Conception are indeed optional pious beliefs as they would be for an Orthodox believer? (I use Orthodox (big O) vs. Catholic only as a way of distinguishing between those not in communion with Rome with those who are and not as a pejorative.)<<

Be careful! The conclusion of you words could easily be that Latin theology is the only authentic Catholic theology and that Byzantine theology is nothing more than a cultural pious explanation that needs to conform to the correct Latin expression. Read my previous post again. Why do you keep using Latin theology as the ultimate reference point against which all other Catholic theology must be judged?

>> I just have a hard time wrapping myself around the concept. In my period of "searching" several years back I got in a conversation with a monk from an "Ultra-Catholic" website (they questioned JP II's orthodoxy but recognized his authority!) where I posited the Eastern theology of the fall and original sin and why I didn't rule out the IC as possibly being true, but couldn't quite accept it as dogma. He said I was going "straight to hell" for besmirching the Theotokos. He just couldn't grasp that the difference between the western notion of a permanent "stain" on the soul and simply inheriting a condition of the sin like sickness and bodily death rather than inheriting "the sin" itself. His absolute vehemence for his position colors my perception of this discussion. It just didn't seem as if Rome would allow any wiggle room as far belief in the IC, infallibility, etc. thus I poke and probe for a more conciliar approach.<<

Why do you use this "Ultra-Catholic" monk as the reference point for all Catholic theology? Why not use the teachings of Pope John Paul II as your measuring stick instead? [His encyclical Mother of the Redeemer - Redemptoris Mater (1987) is one of the best explanations of the role of the Theotokos - East or West.] Don't forget that most Roman Catholics are unaware of our existence. It should come as no surprise that they would assume that the Latin expression is the only valid Catholic expression. You seem to be falling into the same method of thinking. That's why we Byzantine Catholics have such a big job on our hands to defend and witness our Orthodoxy within the Catholic Churches.

Dear Moose,

Thank you once again for your reply.

I think I'm clear on your position(s) now and once again, I apologize for my rather ham-handed phraseology.

It appears as if the the Byzantine Catholic ultimately believes the eastern and western theological viewpoints are reconilable in the treasury of dogma of the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman See. To use an analogy, they see a path from New York to Chicago to meet a friend.

To the Orthodox, they are not convinced that there can necessarily be a connection between the dogma of those in communion with Rome and their own theology, so one or both bodies must attempt to redefine, re-interpret, or whatever in order to eventually meet. In other words, they don't think they can get from New York to Chicago so they either A.) build a road to Chicago, B.) decide ultimately to meet their friend in St. Louis or somewhere in between, or perhaps a little of both A.) and B.).

Why do I use the example of that monk? Because being sent to hell as a rejoinder in a theological inquiry is something that tends to stick with a guy. That and the underlying sub-current of conversations with the RCIA and parish priests I talked to was "Oh I don't think that'll fly here." Message: "These two points of view probably aren't reconcilable." Granted it was only three local parishes, but the unanimity of opinion was something that struck me as a definite trend. It hasn't put me off the trail, but it has made my steps cautious.

Thanks Again,

Bill

Glory to Jesus Christ!-
This is my first entry into the Byzantine forum on-line but I have been following all the posts- especially this one dealing with purgatory with a lot of interest.
It seems to me that the Latin doctrine of purgatory and the Byzantine teachings of the journey of the soul after death are both correct and worthy of being held as dogma by the entire Catholic Church. They do not contradict one another since they relate to two entirely different points in the afterlife. Both the Eastern and Western doctrines deal with the particular judgement of the individual soul after death and before the general judgement of all people together at the end of time; but the Byzantine doctrine of the journey of the soul begins with the seperation of body and soul at death, the arrival of the guardian angel to guide us on our journey, the accusation of the demons trying to claim our souls, the vision of heaven and hell and finally the declaration of our destiny by God. Byzantine theology doesn't really meditate much farther than this while Latin theology skips all these "particulars" of the particular judgement and goes right into the verdict on the soul rendered by God and it's subsequent purification (when necessary) in purgatory. So they don't really contradict, they just deal with two different "time-frames" of something that happens to us outside of time.
As a Byzantine Catholic I can accept both doctrines fully while recognizing that since my whole liturgical life and spirituality are Eastern, the Latin doctrine- while dogmatically true and binding- isn't helpful to me as the Byzantine doctrine is since we haven't "worked it into" the entire fabric of our tradition.
Do I seem too wishy-washy? :-)

To David:

This seems perfectly reasonable to me.

To BillMo:

>>It appears as if the Byzantine Catholic ultimately believes the eastern and western theological viewpoints are reconcilable in the treasury of dogma of the Catholic Church in communion with the Roman See.

To the Orthodox, they are not convinced that there can necessarily be a connection between the dogma of those in communion with Rome and their own theology, so one or both bodies must attempt to redefine, re-interpret, or whatever in order to eventually meet.<<

The Church (East and West) usually uses Councils to address specific issues (i.e. the First Ecumenical Council was called because of the heresy of Arianism). The teachings of these Councils reflect the best understanding of the bishops involved but the words used to express these teachings may or may not always be the best words. These words do not necessarily perfectly explain the mystery (which is, of course, why we call them "mysteries"). The First Ecumenical Council provided a suggested (not infallible) method for calculating the date of Pascha. But it wasn't specific enough and different branches of the Church interpreted it differently. Also, those Christians whom we call "Oriental Orthodox" accepted only the first Four Ecumenical Councils and we labeled them as heretics. From my understanding, recent dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches seems to indicate that it was the terminology used at the Council that they rejected - not the teachings themselves. Byzantines tend to be happy with leaving things as mysteries. Romans tend to be very legalistic and want everything documented with all the t's crossed and the i's dotted. This is the major difference. Byzantines will join the Orthodox in stating that we Byzantines don't need the Western teaching on Purgatory and are really confused why anyone would want to make up lists of sins and what categories they fall into. But if it works for the West - fine. Just don't force it down our throats. It also should be noted in this thread that someone posted elsewhere that the union treaties between the Byzantine Catholic and Roman Catholic Churches had specific clauses stating that we would not be forced to adopt the Western Teaching on Purgatory but would retain the Byzantine Teaching.

>>To the Orthodox, they are not convinced that there can necessarily be a connection between the dogma of those in communion with Rome and their own theology, so one or both bodies must attempt to redefine, re-interpret, or whatever in order to eventually meet.<<

To redefine something means that one's current definition is somehow lacking or poorly worded. This doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong.

>>Why do I use the example of that monk? Because being sent to hell as a rejoinder in a theological inquiry is something that tends to stick with a guy.<<

Flee from those who would condemn anyone to hell so easily. It this monk truly was interested in your salvation he would have taken the time to explain his understanding the Teachings and would have been willing to research and understand yours.


To David:

>>It seems to me that the Latin doctrine of purgatory and the Byzantine teachings of the journey of the soul after death are both correct and worthy of being held as dogma by the entire Catholic Church. They do not contradict one another since they relate to two entirely different points in the afterlife.<<

You are correct in stating that they are two entirely different approaches to the journey of the soul after death. You are also correct in stating that we can respect the Western teaching. As Byzantines, however, we cannot make the Western teaching our own since the Western approach - as good and valid as it is - does not mesh with Byzantine theology. I fully understand and respect that the Latins cannot make the Byzantine teaching its own, either. For our part we should be an authentic witness of all things Byzantine - doctrine, liturgy, and etc. We cannot be fence sitters between the Eastern and Western approaches - even though both are valid. This may seem a bit harsh but we must remember that since we reestablished communion with Rome we have not always been faithful to the East and have a task ahead of us to restore our authentic Byzantine Traditions. Just this past Saturday, Pope John Paul II again made it clear in his conclusion of the Synod of the Americas in Mexico City that Eastern Catholics "'have the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own particular discipline', given the mission they have of bearing witness to an ancient doctrinal, liturgical and monastic tradition ." Also, "The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West...." emphasis in italics added

Moose,

I think that I am now starting to understand. Important Western theological formulations are true, but in no way exhaust the mystery.

My professor Dr. Scott Hahn, a well-known Western Theologian, has repeatedly made the following statements in his lectures:

"When the Pope and the bishops in union with him promulgate a document or dogma,it is true, but not the whole truth. It is without error, but does not necessary contain all the truth. In no way does it exhaust the mystery."

"In Protestant theology, faith and theology are indistinguishable. Denominations define themselves in terms of their systems of faith. If your theological system changes, your denomination changes. In the Catholic Church there can be drastically different theological systems functioning side by side."

Dr. Hahn is a top-notch western theologian, and is really on-top of what the Western Church teaches. So even in good Western theology, there is an acknowledge that the Western perspective is by no means the only perspective. As Pope John Paul has said repeatedly, the Western Church can learn a great deal from the Eastern Church.

Yours in Christ,

Antony

I am a relative new-comer to this on-going debate about Purgatory/East-West Theology. But there are several points that I think may have been missed or overlooked (at least in my reading of the most recent additions to this debate):

1. We don't know what happens beyond the borders of Death.
The Church can make all the "dogmatic" statements it may want about death/judgement/heaven/hell (classically referred to as "the Last Things"), but she is only guessing at the full depth of the mystery. No one has come back from the dead to tell us what really happens on the other side (even Jesus was silent on this fact after His Resurrection), so any argument, conciliar or otherwise, is academic at best.

2. Purgatory was always seen as an invention of God's Mercy.
The doctrine of the purification of the soul after death came about because people wondered what happened to those who died but weren't really bad enough to get into hell, but weren't exactly good enough to get into heaven. Surely, God could not damn them for all eternity for "minor" transgressions. The Western Church, at this time, having suffered through the invasion of the barbarians, the Dark Ages and the Black Plague adopted a somewhat "legalistic" approach to sin. The Celtic Penitentials outlined various sins and the penances necessary to mitigate guilt and restore innocence. X sin = x penance, it was simple. You stole a cow, Five our Fathers. You gossiped about your neighbor, five Hail Mary's, You slept with your neighbor's wife - make a Pilgrimage. What, then, happened to a person who, while they were not the worst sinner the world has ever known, nonetheless did not live a blameless life (in other words, your average, everyday Christian). Because God's Justice is always tempered by Mercy, the Church began to teach that souls who were fit for neither heaven nor hell underwent a state of purification or purgation after death. "God wills not that the sinner should die, but should live."

3. The "method of purgation" was left to the imagination of the people.
The Church never clearly taught that there was "fire" in purgatory (or that purgatory was a "place- a room - a country"). The image of fire comes from the psalms and the writing s of the Apostles who compare this purification with "gold that is tested in fire." For other imaginative forms of purgation, read Dante's works or have another look at Dickens' A CHRISTMAS CAROL -especially the scene between Scrooge and the ghost of Marley who must wander the earth in death because he never wandered it in life.

4. The Teaching of Purgatory is considered a "Doctrine" not a "Dogma" per se.
The Holy Father in his Encyclical "The Splendor of Truth" and in a later Apostolic teaching which further dilenates his thoughts in The Splendor of Truth, clearly teaches that there are levels of Revelation. The first being those "Truths" that are revealed from God - most often contained in the Scriptures and/or the longest strands of consistent Church Teaching. These must be believed by all Catholic Christians. Here we have truths such as The Trinity, The Incarnation, Salvation and Justification in Christ, The Church, and all the truths contained in the credal statements of the Church.
The second level is those truths which arise from the first and are consistent with Church Teaching from the earliest times(Apostolic Tradition):The Teaching Authority of the Bishop, The Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, etc.
A Third level contains those truths which, while not revealed directly in Scripture or the Apostolic Tradition, radiate from it and further enhance the basic truth. The teaching of Purgatory falls in this category.It is a consistent teaching of the Church from the time of the Council of Florence onward that arose from the faith of the people in an all-merciful and loving God.

Poor Perpetua
You are asking so that you may understand your faith more fully, and yet you did not realize what a bee's nest you stirred up. The Church is called Catholic because she is just that "Catholic" - a Greek word which means "Universal" - able to encompass all things - even differing theological opinions!

As for Judith,
you accuse Perpetua of being "self-righteous" in trying to "push" the doctrine of Purgatory on the Eastern churches. "Judge not, lest you be judged!"

Purgatory is an invention of God's mercy. It exists because our God is all-merciful as well as all-just. We, too, need to be merciful to one another. In His Mercy is our hope.

Dear All,

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

Thank you to everyone who is engaging in this (for the most part!) courteous and edifying dialogue. This thread has become very *long*! I will close this and open up a new "Purgatory II" thread to continue the conversation.

IN CHrist
unworthy monk Maximos, moderator