Question Regarding the 'Purgatory'

From Wikipedia regarding Constantinople and the patriarchate there.

Early history

The (arch)bishopric of Constantinople has had a continuous history since the founding of the city in 330 AD by Constantine the Great. After Constantine the Great had enlarged Byzantium to make it into a new capital city in 330, it was thought appropriate that its bishop, once a suffragan of Heraclea Pontica and traditionally a successor of Saint Andrew the Apostle, should become second only to the Bishop of Old Rome. Soon after the transfer of the Roman capital, the bishopric was elevated to an archbishopric.[14] For many decades the heads of the church of Rome opposed this ambition, not because anyone thought of disputing their first place, but because they defended the 'Petrine principle' by which all Patriarchates were derived from Saint Peter and were unwilling to violate the old order of the hierarchy for political reasons.

Throne room inside the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Gospel is enthroned on the dais; the Patriarch sits on the lower throne in front.

In 381, the First Council of Constantinople declared that "The Bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honour after the Bishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (canon iii). The Patriarchs refused to confirm this canon. Nonetheless, the prestige of the office continued to grow not only because of the obvious patronage of the Byzantine Emperor but because of its overwhelming physical and geographical importance. In practice, the Bishop of Rome eventually acknowledged this situation.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 established Constantinople as a patriarchate with ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Asia Minor (the dioceses of Asiane and Pontus) and Thrace as well as over the barbaric territories, non-converted lands outside the defined area of the Western Patriarchate (Old Rome) and the other three patriarchates, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, gave it appellate jurisdiction extraterritorially over canon law decisions by the other patriarchs and granted it honours equal to those belonging to the first Christian see, Rome, in terms of primacy, Rome retaining however its seniority (canon xxviii). Leo I refused to accept this canon, basing himself on the fact that it was made in the absence of his legates. In the 6th century, the official title became that of "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch."[14]

The current Patriarch (since 1991) is Bartholomew I who has become better-known than any of his predecessors in modern times as a result of his numerous pastoral and other visits to numerous countries in five continents and his setting up of a permanent bureau at the EU headquarters, in addition to enhancing the long-established Patriarchal Centre in Pregny-Chambésy, Switzerland and also his ecological pursuits which have won him the epithet of "the Green Patriarch."

Protestant writers George MacDonald and C.S. Lewis were open to the idea of a purgatory. But their purgatory was not necessarily the Catholic version where one is purified through suffering. They envisioned a state where a sinner could make restitution for his misdeeds in this life by doing loving acts in the next. Much like Zaccheus, who, upon being forgiven by Jesus, determined to make restitution to the people he had previously wronged.

Mediaeval said:

Protestant writers George MacDonald and C.S. Lewis were open to the idea of a purgatory. But their purgatory was not necessarily the Catholic version where one is purified through suffering.

Click to expand...

Then it is not actually "Purgatory." It would be another theoretical state in the afterlife for which the word "Purgatory" was borrowed from the Roman Catholic usage.

They envisioned a state where a sinner could make restitution for his misdeeds in this life by doing loving acts in the next. Much like Zaccheus, who, upon being forgiven by Jesus, determined to make restitution to the people he had previously wronged.

Click to expand...

which would be quite a different concept from Purgatory.

smachen said:

Some Christians say the 'Purgatory' does exist. Others say it doesn't. But what does the Holy Bible say? Does it even mention a 'Purgatory'? (I haven't finsihed reading the entire Holy Bible so I wouldn't know whether it ever mentions such a place or not).

Click to expand...

the bible does not teach such a thing, in as much as it also doesn't teach that after you die, that money and prayer can change where you go either to heaven or to hell..........to be sure it was a false teaching used to fleece early Christians out of their money and fill the coffers of the church

Albion said:

Then it is not actually "Purgatory." It would be another theoretical state in the afterlife for which the word "Purgatory" was borrowed from the Roman Catholic usage.



which would be quite a different concept from Purgatory.

Click to expand...

Correct, but lets not forget that there were many different concepts of purgatory within Roman Catholicism before the church settled on the Dante-like image. It's still within the historical umbrella of "theories of purgation."

That said, if you want to call it something else, feel free to come up with an idea. Too bad Augustine didn't leave us a name for his hinted ideas at just such a purging, which is very similar to what I have said and what mediaeval is describing (if memory serves).

Mediaeval, i would recomend you re-read what Lewis wrote on Purgatory

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Correct, but lets not forget that there were many different concepts of purgatory within Roman Catholicism before the church settled on the Dante-like image. It's still within the historical umbrella of "theories of purgation."

Click to expand...

I recognize that, in theory, a lot of answers are possible, but I tend to feel that once the church has determined that X is its belief, it's not the case that all other theories are on the table for adoption, at least not as "the" Purgatory that the RCC supposedly believes in. If this were a church that prided itself on diversity of beliefs, perhaps it would be different, but not when it's made an official decision and claims that it is the church that never changes.

That said, if you want to call it something else, feel free to come up with an idea.

Click to expand...

I believe that the Bible rules out all of these theories, but for folks who may want to entertain different notions of what such a place might be, I'm OK with almost anything you call each of them so long as it's not the name of something that already has a definition.

I don't know why that's asking too much; such people wouldn't approve if I started calling the head of my church "the Pope," explaining that there are many "similar" ideas about church leadership but, after all, they all refer to the head administrator.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Exactly. Trying to pin purgatory on the deuterocanon is a cheep trick to get Protestants out of actually having to engage the argument.

Catholics use 2 Maccabees 12 as evidence for the practice of praying for the dead and making expiation for their sins. However, this doesn't necessary mean there is a realm called purgatory, but merely that commending the dead to God's care (through prayer) and hoping that sins they retained on earth will be loosed upon entering heaven (through prayer) is a proper funerary practice.

More often, 1 Corinthians 3:15 is used to show that there is a postmortum fire that purges sin, and I think we all agree on the canonicity of 1 Corinthians.

In any case, there is a simple logic to purging (though not necessarily "purgatory") that Protestants often miss. Catholic theology makes a distinction between the eternal and the temporal punishment for sin. Thus, if you commit a crime (say theft), Christ certainly died so that you would not go to hell for the theft, but that doesn't mean to don't go to jail in the meantime. The same is true of all sins- all sins merit damnation, but all sins also come with negative consequences in the temporal realm.

Purgatory is simply a way to deal with the temporal consequences. All sins are burnt away in that purging fire, not so that you can get to heaven on your own merits, but so that when you do get to heaven you are free not only of eternal damnation but of all the penalties and consequences that go along with sin.

Once you accept the logic that A. there is a distinction between the eternal and temporal consequences of sin, and B. that Christ's death covers the former while only his merits (and the merits of the saints, and indulgences, and masses for the dead, etc.) cover the latter, then the need for some sort of purging because rather obvious.

I don't entirely buy into the Catholic interpretation of B. I think distinction A is necessary and that B is important for all systems of law enforcement (imagine if thieves, murderers, and rapists could just say "but I'm forgiven, officer!"), but I can't buy into the logic that Christ's merits, indulgence, masses for the dead, etc., are the way to push someone along through purgatory.

I'm not sure where I end up, then- Is there purgatory? Is there an instantaneous purging upon death? Is 2 Maccabees 12 a good model for a Christian funeral?- but the issue is far more complex than throwing competing biblical canons at one another.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've ever read a more even-handed analysis of the Catholic doctrine of purgatory and by a Lutheran no less! Bien hecho.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

This is fair point, and is exactly the reason the Oxford Study Bible includes 3 and 4 Maccabees, 2 Esdras, and several other texts so as to include the broadest possible canon in one binding. And thank God, because 2 Esdras and 4 Maccabees are absolutely fascinating texts that provide immediate context to New Testament studies.

Click to expand...

I have a copy of the OSB and 4 Maccabees is not there, though the others you mention are. There is a copy of 4 Maccabees in the Oxford ESV Bible. Yes, they are fascinating, I fell in love with them the first time I read them in 2007. Imagine all those decades where I never read them because I was told they were no good. But perhaps it was better I'd not read them when my prejudices were soured toward them before I'd ever picked them up.

Rhamiel said:

Mediaeval, i would recomend you re-read what Lewis wrote on Purgatory

Click to expand...

Unless I misremember, Lewis spoke of 'embracing the pains' of purgatory in A Grief Observed, which accords more with the Roman Catholic concept. However, Lewis' view in The Great Divorce was more like the concept that George MacDonald envisioned, and is the concept that I had in mind above.

SummaScriptura said:

I have a copy of the OSB and 4 Maccabees is not there, though the others you mention are. There is a copy of 4 Maccabees in the Oxford ESV Bible. Yes, they are fascinating, I fell in love with them the first time I read them in 2007. Imagine all those decades where I never read them because I was told they were no good. But perhaps it was better I'd not read them when my prejudices were soured toward them before I'd ever picked them up.

Click to expand...

Which edition is it? I just know it's in the new fourth edition.

GratiaCorpusChristi said:

Which edition is it? I just know it's in the new fourth edition.

Click to expand...

For shame! I just checked and it appears it is probably the first edition, it says 2008. We have two of them in the house, I guess I'll be selling them online and getting the upgrade. Are you aware of what other changes were rolled in?

What's the ISBN ... mine is 978-0718003593

MoreCoffee said:

What's the ISBN ... mine is 978-0718003593

Click to expand...

Yep. 978-0718003593. And I just checked on Amazon, the 2008 edition is the most recent, so I'm a bit perplexed.

SummaScriptura said:

Yep. 978-0718003593. And I just checked on Amazon, the 2008 edition is the most recent, so I'm a bit perplexed.

Click to expand...

When he said OSB maybe he meant Oxford Study Bible rather than Orthodox Study Bible ... the Oxford Study Bible has 4 macc and stuff.


I think he does mean the Oxford Study Bible ... see here Oxford University Press: The New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocrypha:

MoreCoffee said:

What's the ISBN ... mine is 978-0718003593

Click to expand...

SummaScriptura said:

Yep. 978-0718003593. And I just checked on Amazon, the 2008 edition is the most recent, so I'm a bit perplexed.

Click to expand...

http://www.amazon.com/New-Oxford-An...1350297899&sr=1-2&keywords=oxford+study+bible

That's mine. ISBN-10 0195289552/ISBN-13 978-0195289558

978-0718003593 is the Orthodox Study Bible. And now I see the confusion.