For the Church of the East and West in full communion with the Pope, it's never either/or but rather, both/and!
The fullness of the Church of the East and West resides in the Catholic Church headed by the Supreme Pontiff, the Pope. While the west describes certain dogmas in a more linear way, the east, in union with the pope, uses more mystical terms, less rigid or juridical than the west. But as with most things within true Catholicism, it isn’t either/or but, rather, both/and.
When it comes to purgatory, this is all the more important!
Below in blue is from a schismatic priest of the Eastern Church in Schism with Rome, commonly known as Eastern Orthodox and thus more rigid about the either/or rather than the both/and. For them it’s either the east or the highway. But not so for the Church of the East in union with the Successor of Saint Peter:
Why the East Never Defined Purgatory
In the medieval West, theology increasingly described salvation in legal categories: guilt, satisfaction, punishment, merit. Think of the influence of Anselm of Canterbury and the scholastic tradition. Within that framework, Purgatory became dogmatically defined, a necessary post-mortem satisfaction of remaining penalties.
But the Orthodox East began somewhere else.
The Fathers, like Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian, speak of salvation not as legal balancing, but as healing. Illumination. Deification, theosis, which means participation in the divine life (cf. 2 Peter 1:4).
The question was never:
“How much punishment remains?”
The question was:
“How healed is the soul?”
Orthodoxy absolutely affirms purification after death. We pray for the departed at every Divine Liturgy. Love does not cease at the grave.
But the East resisted defining the mechanics. At councils like Council of Florence and Council of Trent, the Latin Church articulated Purgatory in precise terms. The Orthodox Church responded with reverent restraint.
Why?
Because Scripture gives us images: fire, judgment, glory, but not diagrams.
And in our tradition, the “fire” is not a created torture chamber. It is the unmediated presence of God Himself. The same divine love is joy to the purified and torment to the hardened.
The difference is not location.
It is disposition.
This matters pastorally.
Many Christians today live with anxiety-driven spirituality. We imagine salvation as a transaction. A ledger. A cosmic courtroom.
But Orthodoxy proclaims something deeper: salvation is synergy, our cooperation with grace, and lifelong transformation into Christ. The focus is not mapping the afterlife. It is healing the heart now.
So the East never defined Purgatory, not because it denied purification, but because it refused to reduce salvation to penalty satisfaction.
The Church invites us to repentance, Eucharistic life, prayer for the departed, and trust in the mercy of God.
Not speculation.
Not fear.
But preparation.
The fire we will meet is Love.
The question is: are we learning to receive it?
But, the Church of the East in full communion with the Church of the West under the Supreme Pastor, the pope, holds basically what the Schismatic East holds but is not adverse to how the west has formulated the dogma of purgatory. They know that it isn’t either/or, but rather, both/and although the Eastern Church would prefer the east’s tradition as it regards purgatory:
This an an AI summary highlighted in papal gold:
- Core Dogma: They adhere to the same essential dogma as Rome: there is a state of purification for souls on their way to heaven, and prayers for the dead are efficacious.
- Difference in Terminology: Eastern Catholics, such as the Byzantine Church, often avoid the term "purgatory" because it holds specific Western medieval baggage.
- Theological Approach: Instead of a "place" of punishment, the East often views this state as a final journey, growth, or a process of, as some describe it, a "purifying ascent to the Father".
- Unity: As part of the Catholic Church, they fully accept the dogmatic teaching that those who die in God's grace but are not perfectly purified undergo purification.
- Prayers for the Dead: Eastern Catholics routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead and pray for their purification.
30 comments:
I feel that within this blog forum, we've explored this topic on more than one occasion.
Before I decide if I wish to wade in, again, I'm wondering what got into your Wheaties this morning, Father AJM, to bring this up now while battering the Orthodox from which Eastern Catholics of the Constantinopolitan tradition originated?
The Roman Catholic Church innovated the concept of purgatory around the 12th century. This is not a teaching found in the unified first millennium Church. So it stands to reason that the points of view are fairly divergent.
Off topic, just listened to this. Much wisdom. This doesn't strike me as AI as most videos claiming to be Fr. Chad Ripperger have become:
Padre Pio Saw One Sin That Makes Your Guardian Angel Weep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrUtO5Gu_nA
Fr, it's your blog, I don't wish to correct you, but, and to me, this reminder regarding the Mystery of Repentence/Reconciliation/Confession is by far more timely and important than waving papal AI gold during this second week of the Great Fast.
Byrus and Marc, the point of my post which borrows heavily from something I read on Facebook, in fact is a direct quote, from an Eastern Orthodox Church is important. The Catholic Church of the East and West even prior to the Great Schism, prayed for the dead and understood that there is a purgation or purification that takes place after death necessitating the need to pray for the faithful departed. Doctrinal development that has led to a definition of this purification/purgation took place after the schism which has led this doctrine to being defined as a dogma. The west tends to use the term purgatory and link it to not only God’s mercy but His justice too and within the context of penance. The Eastern Church, in union with the pope describes it as the Orthodox would do, which I find very appealing. But, let’s face it, our God is a God of mercy and justice. I like the justice oriented Western orientation too. But my point is that both are acceptable in the pope’s big tent.
The Church has always prayed for the dead. But the definition of purgatory is a relatively late innovation, arising some 1,200 years after the Incarnation. The liturgical texts and the attestation of the saints are the guiding principles for Orthodox understanding of what happens to the soul after death -- and the teaching is not consistent with the Western idea of Purgatory. There are many points of divergence that this specific Western doctrine highlights, all of which are innovations (the Beatific vision, the idea of states of grace and mortal sin, what repentance means, the purpose of Confession of sins and the nature of the sacrament, etc.).
The crux of the matter is that the Eastern Church rejects the Roman Catholic idea of doctrinal development, of which Purgatory is but one example. Although, it is illustrative of how the West over-emphasizes reason when innovating doctrines foreign to the Church fathers.
Most Catholics appreciate how our understanding of doctrine grows but never becoming something it wasn’t. You have not addressed the Roman Western branch of Catholicism accepts the purification of the dead who need it through as our Eastern Churches teach it. We have two lungs and the Orthodox don’t. And our Eastern Church’s liturgies are like the east and the theological significance of icons is the same in our Eastern rites as in orthodoxy. Neither has the west demanded that the east have the veneration of the Blessed Sacrament, adoration or Benediction as the West. We have two lungs, east and west. It is marvelous to behold.
With all due respect to Byz, my opinion is that the Eastern Catholic churches are in a difficult spot because they have to give lip service to the Latin innovations of the last 1,000 years, while they also want to be seen as Orthodox. In this instance, they have to find a via media to say that they accept the Latin innovations of Florence while actually holding to the Orthodox teaching that rejects those same innovations.
You have two lungs that don't breathe together. It is not marvelous to behold, actually. It is schizophrenic to be in a Church where divergent beliefs on doctrine are tolerated simply because of a unified acceptance of man-made authority.
Fr. AJM, despite your explanatory comment, I am still struggling to understand purpose.
Yes, the Catholic Church has two lungs, Western and Eastern. Orthodoxy, in its own way, does as well, Western Rite and Byzantine/Constantinopolitan. Icons, which are visual scripture, are part of both Eastern spirituality and liturgical praxis. Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament in the West developed in the 12th century, I believe. Benediction occurs at every Orthodox/Catholic Byzantine Divine Liturgy ("Save your people O Lord, and Bless your inheritance”). That's liturgical. As well, and, regarding Exposition, I suppose the West/Roman Church via the Supreme Pontiff could “demand” that the Eastern Catholic Churches, I’m not sure to what end, however.
The above aside as I’m not wholly following its correlation, what Fr. AJM, are you asking of us? My sense is you are seeking Eastern Catholic positive affirmation regarding Catholic dogma and papal supremacy? If you are, I’ll provide as it’s my obligation while noting that it’s not that simple without invalidating the 1,200 years that preceded that dogma.
East and West subscribe to a particular judgement after death. Additionally, East and West also subscribe to a final judgement at the end of time. In the East, we should be preparing for eternal life as we always have via Katharsis/purification; Theoria/Illumination; Theosis/Union. I believe the West believes similarly emphasizing the sacramental life as the principal means to this end. In the East and after death, purification and perfection of those who were repentant in life (metanoia) continues leading to lead them towards greater theosis/holiness/union with God. Dikaiosune/Divine justice "is not a cold, legalistic retribution, but rather God’s loving, healing energy that restores, balances, and saves creation." But then, and in the 12th century, the punitive/juridical notion of judgement/purification developed within the Roman Church having a separate space until the 1990s when St. John Paul clarified that purgatory was not a physical place, but a state of existence.
I suppose some will say this is a semantic debate.
AI:
The Orthodox Church does not hold the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory, which is defined as a specific intermediate place or state of temporal punishment (purifying fire) for souls needing to satisfy for sins. Instead, the Orthodox Church believes that souls in the "intermediate state" (between death and the Final Judgment) can be helped, comforted, and even freed from the darkness of Hades through the prayers, alms, and Divine Liturgies of the living, but this is not considered a cleansing fire in the Latin sense.
Key Aspects of the Orthodox Perspective
• No Purgatorial Fire: Orthodox theology generally rejects the idea of a "purgatorial fire" as a form of debt-repayment or punishment. Rather, it sees the purification process as a transformation through divine love.
• The "Middle State": After the Particular Judgment (roughly 40 days after death), souls go to a "middle state" where they experience a foretaste of either heaven or hell. It is not a final destination.
• Role of Prayer: Prayers for the dead are central. The Orthodox believe these prayers can move souls from a state of sorrow to joy, as nothing is completely final until the Final Judgment.
• Transformative Fire: Some Orthodox Fathers (e.g., St. Gregory of Nyssa) have spoken of a purifying process, but this is viewed as the soul being cleansed by the divine love and light of God, rather than a punitive, created fire.
• The "Toll Houses" (Aerial Toll Houses): A, not universally held, tradition in some, particularly Russian, Orthodox circles is that souls pass through "aerial toll houses" to face accusations from demons before reaching the intermediate state.
Differences with Catholicism
• Debt vs. Growth: The Catholic view often focuses on purifying the remaining "temporal punishment" or attachment to sin. The Orthodox focus is on the soul's growth, continued struggle for repentance, and, ultimately, liberation from the "prison" of Hades.
• No Indulgences: Orthodoxy rejects the Roman Catholic concept of a "treasury of merits" or indulgences.
In summary, the Orthodox Church teaches that prayer for the departed is effective, but it rejects the juridical, structural, and punitive definition of Purgatory.
Marc, the Eastern Orthodox Churches are in complete schism with the Successor of St. Peter, thus putting your nationalistic Churches in the same category as what the SSPX will soon be, what the Polish National Catholic Church is, what the Old Catholics are and what the Church of England was immediately after King Henry VIII made himself the head of the Church. When the Church of England’s Holy Orders were declared null and void by the pope, they became non sacramental Protestants. The Orthodox are in schism with Peter, not Peter in schism with each nationalistic Eastern Orthodox Church. The pope has made clear what purgatory is as well as indulgences. Case closed. But he allows the Eastern Rites to hold to earlier understandings that the Orthodox still hold, but our Eastern Rites do not defend their positions in contrast with Rome. The Eastern Orthodox as well as Protestants have as an apologetic the validity of their positions contrasted with Rome, meaning Rome is wrong, they are right, The Mormons have the same apologetic. They are wrong and clearly so.
After Rome unilaterally changed the Creed, for centuries they accused the other Churches of not accepting the change, even arguing that Rome had maintained the original Creed and the other Churches had abandoned it. That was obviously false historically, but it is the same sort of argument you’re making here: Rome invents a new doctrine foreign to the Fathers and then accuses the Orthodox of being wrong for not accepting the innovation. A ridiculous position!
It is Rome that departed from the faith of St. Peter. It is the Roman popes who have set themselves up in their pride as rulers of the world. Consequently, they walked away from the Church, and now you are all mired in delusion.
That is why a great 20th century saint rightly said that “Papism is the oldest Protestantism.”
And that is why many centuries ago St. Mark said, “The Latins are not only schismatics but heretics... we did not separate from them for any other reason other than the fact that they are heretics.”
And that is why this Sunday, the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy, as we pray the Synodikon at the end of Liturgy, we will shout “Anathema!” against those who seek to innovate away from the teachings of our beloved fathers, theologians, and ecumenical teachers of the true faith, which has established the universe.
yes, Marc, thank you for pointing out that the Orthodox are as fundamentalistic as the Protestant Fundamentalists and just as rabbid in their disdain for the true Church headed by the Pope. How could they not be and anathematizing the true Church headed by the Pope, is the only way to legitimize themselves. it is all so very sad and you Marc are smart enough to rise above this silliness.
That you equate adherence to the faith established by Christ on the Apostles with "fundamentalism" demonstrates that you ascribe more value to authority than to Truth. Believing what the Church Fathers taught is a good thing.
It is quite obvious that Papism is the first Protestantism as what popes did is precisely what Protestants would later do -- create some new doctrine foreign to Church teaching, explain the innovation on the basis of speculative reading of the Scriptures coupled with flawed human reasoning, and then boldly declare that anyone who doesn't go along with the novelty is in error! It's a truly astonishing level of hubris...
I don't think this is a semantic debate. Among other things of note, Purgatory comes with the idea that forgiven sins require temporal punishment in hell before one can be in the Beatific Vision. This is a very far cry from Orthodox teaching in several respects. Associated Roman Catholic doctrines, such as that of indulgences, multiply the divergence. One of the consequences of the error here is to diminish the reality of the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Judgment, which again demonstrates that starting from an erring premise leads to all sorts of problems that the West tries to resolve by piling on additional novelties based on flawed human reasoning.
That the neo-Protestants, and the Orthodox need an Orthodoxy Sunday with anathamas and the Protestants need a Reformation Sunday, implying anathamas to the true Church says it all—the height of insecurity to say the least. At least the true Church, headed by the pope, doesn’t have a Counter Great Schism Sunday or a Counter Reformation Sunday!
The Synodikon comes from the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which is the liturgically commemorated the first Sunday of Great Lent.
We commemorate all the councils throughout the liturgical year. Perhaps if celebrating adherence to doctrine had existed in the West as it has in the East, you all would care more about following the Ecumenical Councils!
Is there "time" after death. Is that "time" measured as we measure time - seconds, days, weeks, years...?
Is not time a subjective and man-made illusion?
Fr, I don't wish to sound schismatic, but at the same time, I don't think you hear yourself either. You sound blinded by authoritarianism, inclusive of your choice of font color. We watch as the Roman Church continues to rip itself apart by scandal, forced adherence to those devoted to tradition, putting in positions of authority those with questionable morals while beating the drum for unity on specific terms.
The Eastern Catholic Churches are loyal to the Pope while having latitude relative to the traditions they brought relative to the Deposit of Faith, the Apostles and the Church Fathers. That alone should be sufficient!
Again, I ask you, what's your point? Certainly not one that were going to solve here and certainly not one you are succeeding by any measure of convincing our Orthodox Brethren.
If you read all that I say, the popes have allowed the latitude you speak of for the Eastern Rites. I don’t hear Eastern rite Catholics bashing what is the patrimony of the West even after the Great Schism. And certainly those of us in the west shouldn’t force our patrimony on the Eastern Rites. We need both lungs as they are! The Orthodox are ossified in their clear break with Toman and any development in the west since their schism from Rome. They need the security of their position as the eastern rites have. It’s not either:or n tut, both/ and….,
The "ossification" is a feature, not a bug. You'd have to explain why there is a need to innovate doctrines, which you haven't even begun to attempt to do. Rather, your argument is merely one of authority. And the authority to which you're appealing is among those things that is unquestionably an innovation itself.
Tradition, especially the liturgical tradition, suggests that there is "time" after death in the sense that there is "movement" involved. But that time is almost certainly not the sort of time that we can conceptualize.
I, too, am interested to hear more. I keep getting back to the same place, we were given a living faith and all we need to move forward inclusive of Corinthians and Revelations. Doctrine, sure, they will be needed as man continually finds ways to benefit humankind that someone invariably perverts. As for Dogmas, Im more dubious. And to be clear, the West did force its patrimony on the East causing two schisms in this country in the last 130 years, both of which were driven by sinful wickedness (conjecture), both of which were completely unnecessary (fact).
To a fault, the Roman Church has imposed and continues to try and impose its medicine on the Eastern Catholic CHURCHES, not rites, we don't complain, as you suggested, as we continue to have all that we need. It amazes me how Romans try to explain the East to Easterners when they themselves are mostly laity relative to the history that is explanatory regarding what happened, when and how.
Marc, ByzRUs and Father,
As someone who has been involved with patristics, it is risable when the Orthodox say they do not innovate dogma. Dogma develops and theologians innovate when they articulate/explain an issue they may be determined to be dogma, all we have to do is look at Ephesus and Chalcedon. Or, for example, the whole Hesychast controversy, which is nothing but a development of the thought of Evagrius Ponticus. Things make not be fully articulated or developed, but over time they are, as the late Orthodox Bishop John Zizioulas discussed.
There is an Orthodox theologian who goes through some of the issues raised above and shows their development. That is A. Edward Siecienski who authored a great set of books:
The Filioque
The Orthodox and the Papacy
Beards, Azymes and Purgatory.
The third book is almost funny in the discussion over beards. The Catholic development of purgatory, missed by EVERYONE above, is fairly discussed how it has essentially adopted the Orthodox position at Florence. As an aside, Father Christiaan Kappes has discussed how Rome, in its liturgical reform subsequent to Vatican II, essentially adopted the Orthodox position on the epiclesis in his wonderful book The Epiclesis Debate at the Council of Florence. I recommend these books to all.
Of course, if we look at contemporary arguments and history, Rome always seems to be the bogeyman, but that was not always the case. A good book on Constantinople imposing Byzantinization on the Roman Church is Byzantine Rome, Greek Popes by Andrew J. Ekonmou. Another great example of Constantinople trying to force its will on Rome is the Council of Trullo. Rome rejected Trullo as an ecumenical Council and demanded that Constantinople respect the heritage of the (Roman) Church. OF course, Rome later forgot this and engaged in Latinization of the East (something not always forced as the late Robert Taft, SJ noted).
Taft, of course observed how the East was the source of most of the liturgical innovation in the Church between Constantine the Great and the advent of Islam. Liturgical innovation often reflected theological development. In his speeches reduced to writing in the book: Through Their Own Eyes: Liturgy as the Byzantines Saw it Taft discusses these topics.
Anyway, tomorrow is an All Souls Saturday and I will serve as the subdeacon at the Divine Liturgy. Peace be to all as the priest says.
There’s a distinction between identifying or clarifying a doctrine and doctrinal development. Roman Catholicism develops doctrine; Orthodoxy does not.
Changes in liturgical rites — or elaborations on liturgical rites — is a separate thing too.
I suspect we could have an interesting conversation about all of this, but I’ve got nothing left for that today!
We’re about to be off to the Presanctified Liturgy of St Gregory this evening.
Blessed Lent to all!
Great commentary or Orthodoxy’s incoherence, a Facebook link:
https://thecatholicherald.com/article/why-eastern-orthodoxy-remains-unconvincing?fbclid=IwdGRjcAQQ-ZdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA8xNzM4NDc2NDI2NzAzNzAAAR4IZhoPTCiam8PU0su2H_KQO_TMJZPlLHWgz1MCeb7alAfPmpma_sr0nROmKg_aem_kF0cGzpB0CM6fJRrvgw4eQ
The Vatican itself teaches that Orthodoxy’s understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium is correct and that that teaching is not consistent with Vatican I’s dogma.
The epistemological issue in Roman Catholicism is more specious than that in Orthodoxy. Roman Catholicism teaches the pope as the focal point of teaching and authority, but that teaching is itself based on its internal understanding of the role of the pope. The argument is circular.
As we’ve seen in this discussion, the argument against Orthodoxy is that it has maintained the teaching of the first millennium Church without change. It has done so without the need for a pope-like figure; whereas, you who have a pope figure are hopelessly entrenched in a cycle of change and reform, multiplying new doctrines that radically change your teaching and practice.
The pop apologists for Roman Catholicism rely on quotes that are easily shown to be unsupportive of their position. The simple fact is that no one in the first millennium thought the pope was infallible—that was hotly debated even among Roman Catholics at the time of Vatican I.
More could be said, but the article is so low-tier that it’s not worth engaging with at a very deep level.
One could argue that Orthodoxy's Synodality provides all that is needed despite disputes that do not pertain to dogma.
One could also argue that Orthodoxy is by no means ossified; rather it is very much a living faith that preserves it's traditions, develops organically based, oftentimes based upon practical necessity (e.g. the introduction of the gold spoon for communing the faithful.
Last, I would have to wonder what our Lord would think of the papacy in present form. Perhaps it became more authoritarian than anticipated in Matthew and John? On the heals of Enlightenment, did Vatican I perhaps go father having been influenced by popular thinking than was ever intended? Perhaps sacred scripture better defined the "What" leaving contemporary man to interpret and implement the "How?"
Of course our Lord is quite pleased with His organic development of the papacy and Magisterium. He makes no mistakes in the development of doctrine within the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church.
Interesting. So, our Lord would be pleased with what succeeded VII, FS, and TC, all magesterial? Not sure I would use organic to describe any.
With this comment, you’ve gotten to the crux of the matter… you’ve undone the idea that Roman CatholicIsm has an epistemic advantage and conceded that the papal dogma of Vatican I was totally foreign to the Church Fathers, thereby negating any resort to the usual papal quote mine to shore up the novelty of papal supremacy.
Ultimately , it comes down to whether one accepts this sort of development that allows the pope to declare himself to be infallible. We are content with what the Church fathers taught. And the Roman Catholic argument that we Orthodox are in error for failing to go along with these novel developments is shown to be absurd!
Post a Comment