www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Dogmas

Dear John,

You didn't, no need to apologise.

Dr. Otto's statement is something I agree with wholeheartedly!

Alex

Alright.
One issue that has troubled me is the intermediary state after death. I was raised a Latin Catholic. Obviously. So here's how I used to understand the issue: At the moment of death there is a particular judgement of your soul which immediately goes to one of three places: Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory. Heaven and Hell are eternal and unchangeable states. Purgatory is temporal (in time) and will pass away. Those who go to Purgatory will assuredly go to Heaven in time. Purgatory is a place of purifying suffering.

Since studying the Eastern Churches I have encountered at least THREE other models for this intermediary state after death.

One: Final Theosis. This seems to be very similar to the idea of Purgatory except without all that inconvienient suffering.

Two: At the moment of death the soul goes to one of two temporal states: either a foretaste of heaven (Abraham's bosom) or a foretaste of hell. These are both in time and we there await the Second Coming and Final Judgement. Those who are experiencing the foretaste of heaven are the Saints. Those who are experiencing the foretaste of hell are not necessarily damned but may be helped by the intercessory prayer of the living (they can no longer repent for themselves). These people may go to heaven, they may go to hell.

Three: Toll Houses. I understand this one least. But the idea is that as the soul ascends to heaven, the demons sort of get one last go at you in an attempt to pull you down to hell or at least hurt you as much as they can on the way to heaven. Passing through these toll houses of demons has a purgative effect. Or something. As I say, I understand this one least.

Alright, so we have four different ideas - completely different and contradictory ideas all taught by Catholics. What to believe?

Do you agree with all his statements? Why or why not?

Dear John,

Alas, I have yet to read Dr. Otto in full . . .

If he is a Catholic, which I'm sure he is ( ), I agree with everything he says.

His statement on Original Sin reflects accurately the view of the Eastern Fathers and Church on the matter.

Is there something that I've said here that could have given the impression I'm a schismatic-here . . . I mean, that I might disagree with Dr. Otto?

Alex

No. I am just curious if he gets your seal of approval, the Imprimatur of Alex Roman.

But after all, would disagreeing with Dr. Ott (Otto?) make one a schismatic? Maybe he's the schismatic? I really wouldn't know. I don't trust anyone anymore.

Dear John,

As for the afterlife - at the Council of Florence, the Greeks accepted "purgatory" but were not required to accept the idea of fire in it.

That people in the next life suffer as a consequence of their sins - this everyone agrees with.

And that the Church offers the Divine Liturgy for them and prays for them that their sins may be loosed - everyone agrees with this.

I"m not quite sure myself what the Latin Church believes about the afterlife as I was very interested in this subject in my high school and early university years.

I've read about a purgatory described by some RC's as being the "vision of Christ in His glorious All-Holiness and the purgative suffering we experience when we then realize we didn't live as we should have."

The toll-houses are hardly dogma in the Eastern Church, but, to me at least, they make sense as an experience that involves both purgation, struggle and the experience of the Divine Mercy.

But hardly dogma - I met an OCA priest the other week at a conference here who told me he spent the entire day avoiding another cleric who could ONLY talk to him about the toll-houses . . . .

So what we all believe is that after death, those who need purification or who have received forgiveness of their sins but who didn't have time to produce the "fruits of repentance," don't go to heaven but endure a period of purification, and are especially helped by the Church's prayers.

Heaven and hell, once one manages to get into either one of them, are eternal.

As for the rest of the items, who can really know?

Alex

Dear John,

If Dr. Otto is all right by the Bishops who gave him their Imprimatur, I concur!

I don't think he is a schismatic, but I'll go out this aft to get a copy of his book and will let you know later . . .

There will always be a tension between 'The Faith' as taught by the Church (and the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by Pope John Paul II is the most updated statement of that Faith or so Rome tells me ) and theological views and opinions of others.

I don't see how Dr. Otto could contradict the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

He represents a Latin Church view that could differ in non-essentials (and does differ, especially with respect to Theosis), but that is quite legitimate, as I know you agree.

So what's the problem?

Alex

I'm not sure there is a problem. You identify Theosis as a non-essential. Is this correct? And, are the different understandings of the intermediary state after death also non-essentials? In short, I suppose all disagreements between Eastern and Western Catholics are about non-essentials? Who decides what is essential and what is not?

I'll get back to taking it one issue at a time shortly.

Dear John,

Sorry!

Theosis is an essential (understood as the process of sanctification which both East and West admit).

I'm not familiar with "Theosis" in connection to eschatology as you've described.

In terms of who decides what is essential - the Church does, of course and in Catholicism, the Pope is the final arbiter for doctrine and dogma.

The Popes of recent years have been trying to get us EC's to "go back" to our Eastern traditions.

But some of us, when we get our claws into Latin theology and practices, just hang on for dear life!

With respect to the Immaculate Conception, we believe the same thing about the Mother of God, namely, that She was conceived in holiness, but arrive at it from different angles.

We travel to that view on different trains, but get off at the stop that says, "the Most Holy Ever-Virgin Mother of God!"

See you at the next station!

Alex

We must all pray fervently, beseeching the Sainted Molly Maguires for enlightenment.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I'm currently translating the Slavonic Akathist to the "Saint whose name Christians receive in Baptism."

Perhaps then we'll finally learn what your first name truly is!

Thanks, as always, for all your serious posts!

Alex

John Russell:

I don't think the Eastern Churches (Orthodox and Catholic)officially subscribe any of the three models you mentioned, except maybe, the first one re: continued theosis.

The "toll booths" model is not generally taught by the Eastern Churches. The pre-hell or pre-heaven model is also not generally held.

Here is one thing that is universal: We may pray for the departed. And since the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, does indeed pray for the dead, these prayers must be efficacious for those the Lord's wills to be helped by our prayers.


2 Maccabees 12: (Accepted as canonical scripture by Catholics and Orthodox)
44 For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Dear Lazareno,

Yes, John was referring to Theosis as part of the state of cleansing after death - in fact, Theosis is properly a continued state of those who are in heaven, according to Eastern theology.

This is where East and West contrast - heaven is seen more as a "static" state in the West where holiness is a precondition for being there.

The East sees the dynamic experience of continued Theosis even AFTER one is in heaven.

Alex

So, whether Heaven is a static state or a dynamic experience is a non-essential issue - otherwise, the East and West would need to agree on the matter. As it is, we are free to disagree because we don't or can't know. Is this correct?

Are you further saying that the precondition of holiness for entry into Heaven is a Western teaching? Surely not? Surely both East and West agree on this issue, even if the East does see that holiness as ever-increasing?

I believe it would be profitable to develop a theology that is neither Eastern nor Western (which is to offer no criticisms of either Eastern or Western theology as they already are) or, to put it another way, a theology that is BOTH Eastern and Western � a theology that breathes with BOTH lungs.

A valuable first step in this direction would be the identification of essentials vs. non-essentials.