www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News "Luther" movie

Dear Francis,

Yes, I don't condemn Purgatory and don't say it can't be spiritually helpful for others.

The Eastern pentitential spirituality is very rich and meaningful indeed.

It sees penance, suffering etc. for sin and sinfulness in human nature as primarily medicinal, rather than as something, in my view, that is to satisfy justice.

We are to pray always, invoking the Name of the Lord Jesus and glorifying the Holy Trinity, in this way calling down upon ourselves the Grace of God that saves, sanctifies and deifies us.

I just don't find anything approaching that perspective in the West - and certainly not in Protestantism!

The East does not have any notion about "temporal punishment due to sin."

Instead, it is because of our fallen state, that continues as such even after the spiritual rejuvenation we experience in baptism and confession, that we need to undertake spiritual discipline that is seen as a spiritual remedy or "epitimia."

The Orthodox theologian, John Meyendorff, said that Orthodox and Catholic eschatology can indeed come into agreement.

But he said that the East will never have a system of indulgences.

However, Eastern Catholic Churches do indeed offer the opportunity for their faithful to receive indulgences.

When the Roman Church reformed its system of indulgences into "full" and "partial," a full or plenary indulgence was given to the devotion of the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary, under certain conditions, of course.

Some Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, following the advice from Rome, assigned plenary indulgences to the Akathist of the Passion of our Lord and the Akathist to the Mother of God in place of the above.

And there are indulgenced pilgrimages in Eastern Catholic Churches as well. I'm not saying that I will not participate in such - I do at least once a year - such as the upcoming one at my in-laws' church. But I no longer "collect indulgences" as I used to and FOR ME at least, my experience with indulgences was truly a juridical, calculating one.

When I say the Jesus Prayer, even though it has a "partial indulgence" attached to it (it used to be one of 300 days), I don't think about that, but say it for myself and for others as often as I can.

And as for prayer for the dead, the Eastern Church is constantly engaged in assiduous prayer for the faithful departed and there are 12 special times for their commemoration - apart from the weekly Horological commemoration on all Saturdays of the year.

The Eastern Churches have a truly high and developed sense of penitential spirit (just look at the lives of the ascetical Orthodox Saints) with the spirituality of unceasing prayer, fasting, good works and prayer for the dead.

However the juridical notions surrounding indulgences and purgatory have been reduced in the aftermath of Vatican II and further reforms in that area, there is nothing incomplete about the Eastern Church's spirituality of penance and prayer for the dead.

There is a reticence to define just what such prayer and ascetical practice calls down on us from God. But we cannot know about the "full" or "partial" blessings we receive from the Lord. We may only realize whether we are doing what we can to be totally devoted to Him - or otherwise.

Protestantism is also a form of salvation based on juridical views.

The entire argument between Protestants and Catholics was really cast within a framework of "accountancy" i.e. "What will equal justification (and salvation)?"

This is simplified, but I'll say it this way anyway - the RC response was "Faith and works equals justification" while the Protestant response was "Faith alone equals justification."

So the Protestant paradigm was originally seen by Protestants to try and reduce the "pressure" on humans and the need for good works since we are sinful etc.

But the "faith" they were talking about was still a "work" or, as William Barclay put it, the "passive aspect of our response to Christ."

In any event, you are absolutely right - my true spiritual home is in the East and while I may have had a mistaken upbringing in the Latinisms I once had, I do not condemn the West or Western liturgical/spiritual traditions or doctrines.

I still practice many Western devotions, perhaps with an Eastern slant, but that is my prerogative.

And I venerate many Western saints and Western miraculous Images of Our Lady.

I see no reason not to borrow from the riches of the West.

And when I say the Rosary in an oratory or read Scripture for half an hour, I will pray for the intentions of the Holy Father and offer up the indulgence associated with those acts for the reposed and/or myself.

But I no longer worry about the "what if's" that I used to.

I believe I am being true to the Catholic heritage of my Particular Catholic Church.

In fact, I think many in my church today would consider me to be Latinized.

Do you think I care?

You are right, I don't

And have you read my Akathists dedicated to Western devotional themes that are listed on the Faith and Worship section?

If not, you really should, you know!

Although you are no longer a Protestant, there is always the danger of backsliding you know!

Alex

Might I add one thing for consideration in this discussion? The Latin doctrine of indulgences appears to Byzantines as very unnecessary. We Byzantines certainly believe that some sins are more deadly than others. We just don�t see a need to categorize them as the Latins do. Nor do we put measurements on God�s mercy.

Dear Administrator,

You always know what to say at the right time, don't you?

I wouldn't worry about purgatory, if I were you.

But I'm not . . .that's the whole problem

Alex

Thanks for all the sarcastic smiley-faces, the convenient anecdote about the anonymous Lutheran minister, the non-sequitor about Jan Hus and cooked gooses and all the other b.s. that you're throwing.

Name one, single, solitary published source for the "better half" quote.

And don't hide behind the excuse that you have "work life issues." Those issues haven't prevented you from posting more than 50 examples of your opinion today (not counting yesterday).

--Tim Cuprisin

Alex,

The fact the you no longer worry about Purgatory I think reflects the true Catholic attitude towards Purgatory. So more power to you. Thank you for clarifying the rich penitential spirituality of the Eastern Tradition. I have always respected the Eastern Tradtiion, and I am blessed to find even more reason to do so.

Though I have heard Easterners downplay the suffering aspect of Purgatory, I personally believe that punishment and suffering is one valid path to theosis, as St. Paul distinctly revealed to us: God disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness.(Heb 12:10) St. Paul grants for the East and West a path by which there can be a true meeting of the minds. How appropriate for the Apostle who constantly taught, "let there be no dissensions among you," and "be of full accord and one mind."

Also, I have the impression, from my meager studies of Eastern theology, that "indulgences" are not as useless as some may say, even to Eastern spirituality. I think indulgences can and should be viewed as nothing more than an extension of the Incarnation principle - that is, as material applications of God's grace or uncreated energies in our lives. In that sense, it cannot possibly be "useless, even according to Eastern spirituality. Perhaps it is a matter of semantics.

The understanding that indulgences are a "measurement" of God's mercy is very poignant. I can see how it can be viewed in that way, and in that view find a valid complaint against it. In defense of it, however, the "measurement" should be viewed not as being done to God's mercy, but to the gravity of the sin to which God's mercy is applied. As you noted, Eastern theology also admits that some sins are greater than others. Consequently, is it not logical to conclude that more mercy is required the worse the sin is? Can we agree on this?

From this perspective, I believe it is easy to see that it is not God's mercy that is being measured, as if it could be, since God's mercy is infinite. But certainly, the Western Catholic Church cannot be blamed for introducing the notion that there is an actual measurement for one's sin. You can "blame" Jesus for that bit of knowledge in his relation of the parable of the unforgiving servant. 20 years for a "Hail Mary;" 50 years for an "Our Father;" 7 years for an "Act of Contrition." (I don't know if those numbers are correct. Hahaha!) Note that though these indulgences places a measurement for an act of goodness, the doctrine of indulgences has NEVER placed a LIMIT on them, indicating that we can never know, outside of a private revelation, how much is necessary to "pay the last farthing." This distinction betweeen "measurement" and "limit" is supremely important in one's judgment of the doctrine of indulgences. The fact that a measurement exists and can exist is established by Jesus himself. What has never been done, and what the Church has never done, is place a "LIMIT" on the sufficiency or application of indulgences. It is to THIS idea that we must ground our complaints. However, the Western Catholic Church, as stated, has NEVER done this. Since we do not know the LIMIT, then, we should not worry whether we can do enough. What is impossible with us is only possible with God. To repeat, this mental attitude of peace with regards to the temporal punishments we may acquire through our sins is the true and proper attitude of a Catholic, an attitude which the Eastern Church has successfully promoted and maintained.

There has been a lot of misinterpretation about the doctrine of indulgences, and we must admit that the doctrine is quite easily conducive to such a situation. And therein lies the danger. But we can no less discard the doctrine of indulgences due to the POSSIBILITY of such misinterpretation, than we can discard the doctrine of the communion of saints for the mere possibility that it can lead to idol worship.

In Christ always

francisg,

We can agree that God�s mercy cannot be measured but we cannot agree on what you have proposed. The problem with making conclusions about the amount of mercy required for particular sins is that it is still a calculation of God�s mercy. God�s mercy is infinite. We cannot measure it. To state that one sin requires less mercy from God and another more mercy from God is a measurement of His forgiveness. From the Eastern perspective it is better simply to trust in God�s mercy and pray. There is never a need to measure sin and calculate formulas of forgiveness. We don�t need to worry about the calculations because we know that God�s mercy is more than enough.

Regarding your use of the parable of the unforgiving servant from Matthew 18, I�m not sure I understand your use of this parable to support your argument. That parable is about God�s infinite mercy towards us (forgiveness of sin) and our responsibility to show the same mercy to those who have wronged us. It teaches that forgiveness that comes from the heart brings grace, which accomplishes reconciliation and healing in the Church. It teaches that if we do not forgive others their sins God will not forgive us our sins. The number seven referenced is simply an inversion of Gn 4:24.

BTW, at the official level Byzantine Catholics do not hold the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences. We accept that they are good and acceptable but we do not adopt them. We keep to the essentials here. There is no reason for us to alter our theological formula on the journey of the soul after death.

Admin

Admin,
At the conclusion of the parable of the unforgiving servant, Jesus states that he should not be released until the last cent has been paid.

The parable of the unforgiving servant not only teaches us about the value of forgiveness, it also provides for us insight into the divine "economy" (if you will). Jesus himself tells us that these parables are intended to grant us insight into the mystery of the Kingdom of God. Forgiveness of one another is not a mystery, Admin. It was also preached in the Old Testament. I believe the parallel this parable provides with regards to purgatory is exactly that mystery into which Jesus intended to provide us insight.

I do not see how you can validly attribute this to Western theology. As I mentioned, though there is a notion of measurement, a notion introduced by Jesus himself in the parable in question, the Western Church has never deigned to place limits on the extent of sin or God's mercy. WE do not know how many works or prayers we need in order to satisfy God's justice, and it would be futile for anyone to attempt to find any statement even remotely like that in the doctrine of the Western Church.

Also, I believe you have misapplied the term "forgiveness" in our discussion. A true statement of the case would be "formulas of penance." We cannot even say, "formulas of satisfaction," much less "formulas of forgiveness," because, as I have often stated, we cannot know how much satsifaction can be rendered for a sin, and the Church has never deigned to determine that value. The term "formulas of forgiveness" would be totally alien to Western theology. There is only one type of forgiveness, nor more, no less - the forgiveness of sin, ANY sin. There are no gradations of forgiveness, only gradations of satisfaction. Even then, as said, we cannot know how much penance is necessary to fulfill satisfaction for any sin.

Now, to repeat an example: the Church says "one Our Father equals 20 years in Purgatory." Does the Church say that one Our Father will satisfy the required penance? No, because we cannot determine this. Does the Church say that one Our Father will satisfy forgiveness? Absolutely not, because forgiveness is already obtained BEFORE penance is required. Forgiveness does not depend on penance. This is not a formula for satisfaction, much less one for forgiveness; it is a formula for penance. But it does not set limits on anything.

Finally, I believe I should not even have mentioned "mercy" in my statement that you quoted. I was too hasty. In fact, in line with the REST of my last post, I assert that Western theology has never deigned to put a measure on God's mercy. In fact, NOTHING has been measured in the doctrine of indulgences. There is only a doctrinal statement that THERE IS a gradation of satisfaction that reflects the seriousness of a sin; but nowhere has the Church ever stated the quantity of the gravity, nor the quantity of the satisfaction required. Admin, can you provide any statement from the western Church to refute my previous statement?

I truly doubt you can. In the absence of such proof, I think the whole issue is one big misunderstanding of a semantic nature, much like the issue with the monophysites.

In Christ always.

Post in response to Tim Cuprisin deleted because I myself started to sound too much like Luther in his reply to the Pope . . .

Alex

francisg,

Thanks for your post. I still don�t understand your application of this parable to support your argument for indulgences. The model in the parable is the forgiveness of God (which is infinite). Likewise, man�s forgiveness should also be limitless. If we do not forgive others then we ourselves are not forgiven. �[U]ntil the last cent has been paid� follows immediately after �In anger the master handed him over to the torturers�. Torture does not repay debt and under these conditions there would be no end to the torture because the debt could not be repaid.

Does the West measure sin and calculate forgiveness? Yes it does. It�s part of the whole theology of indulgences. Any time a number is associated with an indulgence it is an attempt to measure God�s mercy. Even the use of the term "formulas of penance" is risky. It suggests that we must go through a specific number of steps in order to qualify for forgiveness. To speak of �gradations of satisfaction� is to miss the whole point of God�s infinite mercy. What is really needed is repentance and reformation in the heart. The mere fact that the Western theology of indulgences discusses formulas at all is something that we Easterners are uncomfortable with. The whole Eastern approach is presented to us in prayer at every Divine Service in the Litany of Supplication: �That we may spend the rest of our life in peace and repentance, let us beseech the Lord�.

Don�t get me wrong. I have had numerous discussions on this topic with friends who are Roman Catholics (both priests and theologians). I respect that the Western theology is an acceptable one. But, simply put, it is not part of our Byzantine Catholic theology nor should it be.

Admin

I have to agree with Alex that Tim�s post is extremely uncharitable.

If Tim is really interested in verifying Alex�s claim, the more charitable way to go about it would be to post a message stating that he would like to learn more and can Alex make a recommendation for further reading. Alex does not have a history of making untruthful posts and it is not charitable Tim to accuse of Alex of lying.

Dear Friends (and Tim),

Here is an internet article on the relationship between Martin Luther and the Eastern Churches to get one started off: "What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church?"

http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/features/ask/2002/feb08.html

More information on what Luther and Lutherans thought about the Orthodox Church is in George Mastrantonis' AUGSBURG AND CONSTANTINOPLE, Brookline, Mass, 1982.

One may also write directly to the "Lutheran Rite" Old Catholics at:

http://members.aol.com/EvCathCh/index.HTML

Also, I have FOUND the Martin Luther quote on the Eastern Churches on the internet - internet surfing is something else Tim can work on:

http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/lutheran.htm

The quote is the 19th footnote in the article.

Martin Luther said: ". . .I now say that the Greeks . . .are not heretics and schismatics but . . .the best followers of the Gospel on earth!"

O.K., so I was wrong - apologies to Tim - Luther didn't say the Orthodox were "better" - he said they were the "best."

One thing I will say is how tiresome it is when someone on this forum says something that is a surprise or shock to the world-view of another and then that person is put on the spot and asked to provide references, quotes, all sorts of things - otherwise one is lying or concocting things.

It never occurs to the one experiencing the "shock," that it is perhaps he or she that needs to have their worldview expanded a bit by more research etc.

I like to think that I don't deserve the kind of cruel and insulting language that I had thrown at me above. No one does.

Alex

I almost wish I could have the final say in this thread, because it disturbs me somewhat, to see the recent trend among Catholic intellectuals to view Luther in a more favorable light. Without claiming to be the final authority on Luther, I think it important for us all to remember, that while Luther pointed out some very real abuses in the Church, and even composed some beautiful hymns and sermons, he was also a man who wished eternal damnation on those who dared disagree with him, advocated murder, condoned adultery, promoted tyranny (even by 16th century standards) and was coarse, cruel,foul mouthed and arrogant beyond belief. In addition, he did not have a life long devotion to the Blessed Mother. In his last years Luther taught that all intercessory prayers should be made to Jesus alone, and not to Blessed Mary and the Saints. Like Calvin and Knox, he deserves to be remembered as a man who sought to replace the abuses of the day with in even greater evil.

Dear Lawrence,

I don't think Martin Luther would be a candidate for sainthood by Bollandist standards at all . . .

But it is time for Catholics and Lutherans to emphasize what they have in common and how they can build on each other's traditions while moving toward common unity. Lutheran theologians do not deny that unity will be based around the Bishop of Rome and some have suggested a "Lutheran Patriarchate" in union with Rome, much as St Anskar of Bremen had once suggested for Hamburg and all the North.

His personal failings, as you note, are hardly specific to him in the age he lived in.

His coarse language was something that Popes in his day were also prone to, especially in responding to him and his activities. And Tim Cuprisin should count himself lucky to be dealing with me and not Pope Julius II!

Eternal damnation for those who disagreed with Luther? He took that from his own Catholic religious environment.

As for tyranny, that tyranny was everywhere in his time, in the German principalities, the papal states etc.

The Orthodox in Greece and elsewhere preferred to be under Muslims than under Roman Catholic rule. They knew their religion wouldn't stand a chance of survival under the Crusaders.

St Cyril of Alexandria was himself implicated in the death of a pagan woman philosopher of some fame in his time. Let's also remember that some Ecumenical Councils ended in fisticuffs and swearing among the episcopal participants.

We even celebrate an icon of St Nicholas, with our Lord and our Lady on either side of him that marks the event at the First Council when Nicholas struck Arius in the face - for which he was ordered deposed by the Council for conduct unbecoming a bishop - at that point, the vision occurred and the Fathers reinstated Nicholas.

Luther was a product of his age and it wasn't a good age for either the Lutherans - or for the Papacy.

Alex

Dear Francis,

Yes, some sins are greater than others and the Eastern Church has a whole slew of penitential canons that can be applied to people when they repent of them.

For example, certain sexual sins can incur excommunication (not attending Holy Communion) for periods of years, including fasting and prayer and many prostrations.

There is a special prayer rule for priests who are to get up out of bed immediately and perform it should they experience a discharge at night etc.

Penance and the epitimia are all taken VERY seriously in Orthodoxy.

If anything, indulgences MAY appear to Eastern eyes to be a way to minimize the proper penances that one should be performing.

Suffering is truly transformative and the Eastern Churches asceticism is very strict, even to this day.

It is not uncommon for Eastern monks to wear the hair-shirt or heavy chains on their bodies. St Herman of Alaska's neck Cross that he wore at all times weighs 27 pounds and is on display as a relic at his Shrine there.

The Eastern Churches have NEVER given up or else relaxed the practice of fasting and self-denial for laity.

We fast strictly on all Wednesdays and Fridays and many other times. Roman Catholics are today obliged to fast only on the first day of Lent and on Good Friday.

For us, that is unthinkable.

So indulgences as a whole are an expression of Western spirituality - and relate to not one aspect of the Faith as the East understands it.

However, Latin Catholics think about indulgences today - I think as the Eastern Church thinks about them.

As for Purgatory, I really don't think there is all that much of a difference here, other than the name and some other minor points.

There was a time when Rome demanded that Eastern Churches accept the name "Purgatory." But it no longer does as it knows that we don't need that name and the theology behind it to pray for the dead.

We pray for the dead much more than the West does and it is a constant thing with us.

Alex

Dear Friends,

I would like to publicly apologise to Tim Cuprisin for perhaps overreacting to his post to me today.

That was not in keeping with Christian charity on my part.

I ask him to forgive me and to let by-gones be by-gones.

Alex