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

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