Theology in 5 minutes or less

[choirfiend]

Well, show me first suffering, and in many Church father texts, and in accepted Orthodox teaching and books by many priests, and being taught, understood, and believed by many Orthodox laity. We don't teach suffering.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

But that's not really the question at hand. The fact is we don't have a set belief on it. So in the mean time my question to you or anyone here is where it CONTRADICTS Orthodox offcial teaching. Have we ever stated previously that a soul cannot experience suffering after death in order to be purified. I mean, I'm not saying it's not possible, but is this impossible? If not, why not according these "books by many priests, and being taught, understood, and believed by many Orthodox laity"?

 

[choirfiend]

But the RCC doctrine of Purgatory confirms suffering, does it not? In my discussion with the RCC fellow (I forget his name or if that was this thread and I'm too lazy to go look it up) we were right on line, til he started talking about suffering as part of any natural purgation (which we Orthodox only theorize upon).

Give me some Orthodox context on happenings after death, first. If no Orthodox person (or even considerable minority) is teaching suffering, over the span of Orthodoxy, I'd say it is without the Faith and not according to right teaching. We say we are led into all truth, after all, not just some of it. So where we dont teach, we dont speak, and we dont claim, someone else claiming it definitively is in error. Show how suffering is consistent with Orthodox teaching, even in the realm of speculatory ideas concerning the progression and nature of things after death.

Its the same reason we're talking about in the universal salvation thread. Only I think you will find it more difficult to find church fathers and interpretations of church fathers (not by RCC influenced sources, especially) that support suffering as doctrinalized in the RCC dogma of Purgatory.

 

[choirfiend]

I think this also comes from the Orthodox viewpoint that the RCC has spent a millenia separated from the Church and the grace of the Holy Spirit. Doctrinal things that have arisen there in years since the Schism are to be looked at with a modicum of hesitancy. Things that are not part of the "faith once delivered to the Apostles" and that have never found a place in the Church led by the Holy Spirit are especially questionable. Once you're outside the Church, all sorts of things can happen.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

But the RCC doctrine of Purgatory confirms suffering, does it not? In my discussion with the RCC fellow (I forget his name or if that was this thread and I'm too lazy to go look it up) we were right on line, til he started talking about suffering as part of any natural purgation (which we Orthodox only theorize upon).

Well, this too is my beef with the Vatican Church because they insist that a follower MUST believe this. But that's not my point. Does the Orthdoox Church say you CANNOT believe this? I have never read that anywhere. I am im\nclined to believe that this will not be a comfortable experiecne for I am parting with my old self. I have purging the old self. from me. that's not fun stuff. But, it IS good.

So, I do share you concern with the fact (as I understand it) that the RCC insists on this belief (even if I agree with it), but I only want to know how the belief (as theologuma) is CONTRARY to Orthodoxy.

Give me some Orthodox context on happenings after death, first. If no Orthodox person (or even considerable minority) is teaching suffering, over the span of Orthodoxy, I'd say it is without the Faith and not according to right teaching. We say we are led into all truth, after all, not just some of it. So where we dont teach, we dont speak, and we dont claim, someone else claiming it definitively is in error. Show how suffering is consistent with Orthodox teaching, even in the realm of speculatory ideas concerning the progression and nature of things after death.

But that's the thing. The Fathers certainly teach about a purgation. Now, it is true from what i have seen that they do not insist on any kind of suffering. It doesn't seem to be an important point to them. But logic would tell one that purgation is not a comfortable or fun thing to go through. So to some it might seem implied. To you it might not...a nd that's fine. But I would like to see is where any saint has spoken of purgation and seemed to at least imply that there is surely not suffering during this process. We all know that Heaven is a place where there is not suffering or sorrow. But from the quotes I gaveoffered above, it seems obvious to me that some saints believed that this process was separate from heaven. it was like heaven's waiting room. Is there anything from the Fathers that teaches that this is most certainly NOT a painful process? On earth it certainly is... although it is also joyous.

Its the same reason we're talking about in the universal salvation thread. Only I think you will find it more difficult to find church fathers and interpretations of church fathers (not by RCC influenced sources, especially) that support suffering as doctrinalized in the RCC dogma of Purgatory.

Again, I ask, but how is this Contrary. What does this go against? Saying Jesus ate some chicken can not be proven through the Scriptures, but it can't be disproven either. Certainly it is popssible he never ate chicken, but no one would offer the lack of evidence in the Scriptures as proof that he never ate poultry unless the Scriptures said "Jesus never ate chicken." Is it absurd for someone to believe that He probably at chicken even though the Scriptures don't talk about it? Of course not. Coudl they be wrong? Of course. But this really can't be proven. Obviously this is a non-essential and is written only to serve as an analogy to what I think is going on here.

I honestly offer these as real questions.. not as rhetorical responses. I would be interested to see where the Church refutes any kind of suffering during the supposed process of purgation after death.

 

[choirfiend]

An argument from silence means nothing? In a Church where we believe we have the fulness of truth and all, it seems rather important to examine what is NOT claimed as much as what IS claimed. If Church fathers were expounding upon what may happen after death, wouldn't the nature of said action be important? The only long-winded theologumen we seem to have on that idea is that of tollhouses--which doesn't include suffering, as far I understand that theory.

You say Church fathers "imply" things. Can that not be attributed to your interpretation, especially having been educated on the RCC belief and having that as a backdrop against which to understand the fathers? This might be circular--but where the Church doesn't speak, there is a range of acceptable belief--but I want to be shown where in Orthodoxy that range includes a suffering purgation. I contend that the spectrum of non-heretical theologuma throughout Orthodox tradition doesn't really include it, or if it exists, it is a tiny sliver. I would therefore claim that it is not a very Orthodox idea, and is much more attributable to Catholicism, and the increeping of such ideas, while not directly heretical when applied as theory in private belief, are foreign to internal Orthodoxy. And where you have ideas coming into Orthodoxy that are not present in the Church from outside the Church, especially from groups that have dallied from Orthodox teaching on so many other areas, it's not something to embrace.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

ok

 

[David65]

This may be off-base, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

If it fair to say that after the schism, the RCC developed the following doctrines?

* Purgatory as a place of suffering to pay the temporal penalty for sin (after it is forgiven).
* The individual's meritorious acts remove some or all the penalty due for sin.
* The Roman Catholic Church has a "storehouse of merit", which dispensed to the deceased, can knock years off their sentence.
* The Pope has the authority to dispense merit from the storehouse in exchange for the sale of indulgences. OK, not the sale, but in return for the giving of alms to support things like building projects, which is kinda like a sale.

This was pretty much the content of Luther's 95 theses and the trigger for Protestantism. The RCC officially stopped financial transactions at the council of Trent, but the post schism doctrine which supports it stands.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

I think so... although I think that is a question that is more appropriate for OBOB.

My guess is that they might say two things: 1) Luther's 95 theses made some good points but many of them were in reaction to understandings/practices/abuses of that time but not necessarily of the doctrine itself (although he certainly did have disputes with the doctrines) and 2) I don't know that they would say "take years off off their sentence" since I believe they fully recognize that when one dies they are outside of time. They would rather just say that somehow and some way it lessens it but our minds are only able to understand life in terms of time... we have limits in our understanding.

But, again, OBOB would be able to better and more responsibly respond to this question.

John

 

[David65]

I think so... although I think that is a question that is more appropriate for OBOB.

You're right, and it probably was a violation of the rules for me to post that here. I'm sorry.

 

[Fish and Bread]

This may be off-base, and please correct me if I'm wrong.

If it fair to say that after the schism, the RCC developed the following doctrines?

* Purgatory as a place of suffering to pay the temporal penalty for sin (after it is forgiven).

That suffering occurs during purgatory is not Roman Catholic doctrine. It has been commonly believed by many bishops, priests, and lay people through the years; but it's not an officially defined doctrine or dogma of the RCC. Father Benedict Groschel on the EWTN network, who is considered a conservative voice, has openly and repeatedly stated on his show that he does not believe that there is any suffering in purgatory and that he looks forward to his time there. The faithful are free to believe what they wish on the subject of whether or not pain is involved.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

You're right, and it probably was a violation of the rules for me to post that here. I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to say that in order to chastise you at all. I can see how it might have come across that way. I suppose I was just being blunt. It was a good question, it just wasn't one we could responsibly handle.

Also... how did you violate the rules? Am I missing something?

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

That suffering occurs during purgatory is not Roman Catholic doctrine. It has been commonly believed by many bishops, priests, and lay people through the years; but it's not an officially defined doctrine or dogma of the RCC. Father Benedict Groschel on the EWTN network, who is considered a conservative voice, has openly and repeatedly stated on his show that he does not believe that there is any suffering in purgatory and that he looks forward to his time there. The faithful are free to believe what they wish on the subject of whether or not pain is involved.

That's not what I have learned recently. When I specifically asked in OBOB if Purgatory necessarily implied some kind of pain or suffering, I was told that that was correct by two very knowledgeable OBOBers. But, if you heard differently, that might be a good question to bring up in OBOB again. I was not aware that this was being denied. I would be interested in what others in OBOB have to say.

John

 

[Fish and Bread]

That's not what I have learned recently. When I specifically asked in OBOB if Purgatory necessarily implied some kind of pain or suffering, I was told that that was correct by two very knowledgeable OBOBers. But, if you heard differently, that might be a good question to bring up in OBOB again. I was not aware that this was being denied. I would be interested in what others in OBOB have to say.

My understand is that those two posters were simply expressing a pius opinion that is popular in the west and well within the realm of orthodox (small "o") RCC thought. It's not the official doctrine of the RCC in regard to purgatory, though, which leaves the question of whether or not there is suffering to personal opinion at this point in time. Father Groschel feels that purgatory is not a place of suffering and would not say that if it went against RCC teaching -- he's very obedient to his church. His opinion is a minority one, but it's perfectly acceptable per the Vatican and the councils. I think OBOB will back that up, though I'm moving today and thus probably won't be able to drop by and see it if you start a thread.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Good luck with the move!

 

[David65]

I didn't mean to say that in order to chastise you at all. I can see how it might have come across that way. I suppose I was just being blunt. It was a good question, it just wasn't one we could responsibly handle.

Also... how did you violate the rules? Am I missing something?

John

I'm not sure I violated the letter, but I'm pretty sure I violated the spirit. I was asking about what seemed to me to be an ugliness in post-schism Roman doctrinal development. In my heart, I don't think I was really asking a question, but taking a cheap swipe.

Guests are reminded that they are to post only fellowship posts or ernest questions.

(from the Required Reading thread)

I'm a guest here. I haven't even visited an Orthodox church yet (but expect to drop by St. John Chrysostom very soon...), and as such don't even meet the description of "serious inquirer". I just have no business discussing non-orthodox things here. It's a trespass, and even if you didn't mean to chastise me, my guilty conscience informs me of my need. Thank you.