Let me commend N. T. Wright’s brief little book For All the Saints. The occasion for his writing was the “mixed message” he believed the Anglican church to be sending by its observance of All Souls Day after All Saints Day. But along the way, Bishop Wright addresses the question of the intermediate state for departed believers and in so doing takes a critical look at (among other things) the doctrine of purgatory and the practice of invoking the saints. Here are a couple of important observations on these two topics:
On the doctrine of purgatory: “The arguments regularly advanced in support of some kind of purgatory, however modernized, do not come from the Bible. They come from the common perception that all of us up to the time of death are still sinful, and from the proper assumption that something needs to be done about this if we are (to put it crudely) to be at ease in the presence of the holy and sovereign God. The medieval doctrine of purgatory, as we saw, imagined that the ‘something’ that needed to be done could be divided into two aspects: punishment on the one hand, and purging or cleansing on the other. It is vital that we understand the biblical response to both of these.
I cannot stress sufficiently that if we raise the question of punishment for sin, this is something that has already been dealt with on the cross of Jesus. . . . The idea that Christians need to suffer punishment for their sins in a post-mortem purgatory, or anywhere else, reveals a straightforward failure to grasp the very heart of what was achieved on the cross. . . .
. . . for the New Testament, bodily death itself actually puts sin to an end. There may well be all kinds of sins still lingering on within us, infecting us and dragging us down. But part of the biblical understanding of death, bodily death, is that it finishes all that off at a single go. . . .
Think about one of Paul’s best-known chapters, often rightly read at funerals. ‘There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ,’ he writes (Romans 8.1). The last great paragraph of the chapter leaves no room to imagine any such thing as the doctrine of purgatory, in any of its forms. ‘Who shall lay any charge against us? . . . Who shall condemn us? . . . Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? . . . Neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor the present nor the future, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, shall be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord!’ And if you think that Paul might have added ‘though of course you’ll probably have to go through purgatory first’, I think with great respect you ought to see, not a theologian, but a therapist.
in fact, Paul makes clear here and elsewhere that it’s the present life that is meant to function as a purgatory. The sufferings of the present time, not of some post-mortem state, are the valley we have to pass through in order to reach the glorious future. . . The myth of purgatory is an allegory, a projection, from the present on to the future. This is why purgatory appeals to the imagination. It is our story. It is where we are now. If we are Christians, if we believe in the risen Jesus as Lord, if we are baptized members of his body, then we are passing right now through the sufferings which form the gateway to life. Of course, this means that for millions of our theological and spiritual ancestors death will have brought a pleasant surprise. They had been gearing themselves up for a long struggle ahead, only to find it was already over.” (pp. 28-35)
On invocation of the saints: “The practice seems to me to undermine, or actually to deny by implication, something which is promised again and again in the New Testament: immediacy of access to God through Jesus Christ and in the Spirit. When we read some of the greatest passages in the New Testament — the Farewell Discourses in John 13-17, for instance, or the great central section (chapters 5-8) of Paul’s letter to the Romans — we find over and over the clear message that, because of Christ and the Spirit, every single Christian is welcome at any time to come before the Father. If, then, a royal welcome awaits you in the throne room itself, for whatever may be on your heart and mind, great or small, why bother hanging around the outer lobby trying to persuade someone there, however distinguished, to go in and ask on your behalf? ‘Through Christ we have access to the Father in the one Spirit’ (Ephesians 2.18). If Paul could say that to newly converted Gentiles, he can certainly say it to us today. To deny this, even by implication, is to call in question one of the central blessings and privileges of the gospel. The whole point of the letter to the Hebrews is that Jesus Christ himself is ‘our man at court’, ‘our man in heaven’. He, says Paul in Romans 8, is interceding for us; why should we need anyone else?
When we step off such firm biblical ground, no matter what later traditions may suggest, we are always taking a risk. Explicit invocation of saints may in fact be — I do not say always is, but may be — a step towards that semi-paganism of which the Reformers were rightly afraid.” (pp. 40-41)
Amen.
I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me that there is more subtlety needed on both points.
Regarding Purgatory: Even though I may not be actively sinning right now, my brokenness is not a function of certain individual “points” of sin, but rather of certain points of sin which manifest a underlying lack of faith in Christ and of love for Christ. And I need to be made into someone who gives all to God without any reservation. So it seems to me that it is at least plausible that after we die we shall have to be raised up into Christ’s image.
Or again, the gospel does not allow halfhearted following of Christ. We must follow Christ and let the dead bury their own dead. Any compromise with halfhearted discipleship is cheap grace. And the gospel is also clear, indeed N. T. Wright is strong on this point, that the gospel indeed demands something of us. But if the gospel demands something of us, it demands everything of us. And the bar is always too high. We are just like the Jews in Romans who rob temples. We are just like the Pharisees.
And Purgatory is then the hopeful doctrine that just as God does not throw us from his table now because of our ignorance, so too then Christ shall not throw us out, but that though our righteousness does not even on death surpass that of the scribes and pharisees, yet he shall not give up, and it shall.
This position might be wrong, but Wright’s criticism seems to miss this aspect.
Regarding Prayers to the Saints:
It is true that often Catholic devotion treats Christ as remote and aloof, and the saints as friendly. We can’t get to Christ, but we can get to the saints, and they can get to Christ.
Likewise many Catholic apologists seem to assume that God is aloof and the saints present and accessible.
But I’m not convinced that is the only reason for prayers to the saints. I noticed several years ago, that for Evan Wilson, and Anabaptists like him, “priesthood of all believers” actually means “priesthood of no believers.” What order of priests are the believers? On whose behalf do they offer sacrifices? And who can go to them for their priestly function? If we all have immediate access to the Father, in a manner that excludes access to Him through other Christians, then Christians are not made priests of God at all. Christ is, but we are not.
But I think the Reformers rightly do not believe that we are not priests. We in community together are the Gospel present for each other. The inner throne room is not empty from everyone but me and Jesus, the whole company of the Church is present in the inner throne room. We are all seated in heavenly places with Christ, and so a pastor can speak the Word of God to me. Or a friend can himself be the word or welcome of God. Rivers of water flow from our bellies, and we Comfort others by sending the Spirit (II Corinthians 1).
And it seems to me that Wright’s argument against prayers to the saints assumes the Anabaptist understanding of priesthood of all believers which amounts to priesthood of no believers. Just as every living breathing Christian is the presence of Christ, and it is not leaving Christ to look to any of them, even to look for Comfort from them, for they are the Body of Christ, so too the Church in heaven is the Body of Christ, and are priests who can communicate Christ to others.
The real question has to be whether they are like the saints in China–able to be the presence of Christ for me, were I in China–or like the saints physically near us, saints who are the presence of Christ for us.
It may well be that they are like the saints in China, that they cannot hear us, nor be present before us. I’m not arguing they can hear us, and be present for us; nor that we should presume they can be and are. But if we knew they were able to hear and to (somehow) be present for us, it would not be wrong to go to them, and indeed it would be wrong to refuse to–just as it would be wrong to refuse to fellowship with other living Christians.
Matthew, you state:
“it seems to me that it is at least plausible that after we die we shall have to be raised up into Christ’s image.”
of course, but that is what happens because of our union with Christ, no? We are being conformed to His image and shall be fully conformed to Him at death . . . without the necessity of purgatory.
“. . . But if the gospel demands something of us, it demands everything of us. And the bar is always too high. We are just like the Jews in Romans who rob temples. We are just like the Pharisees.”
well, I disagree. We are precisely NOT like the Pharisees. Not that we are sinless, but in that we confess our sins (contra the Pharisees) in accordance with the gospel demand.
“And Purgatory is then the hopeful doctrine that just as God does not throw us from his table now because of our ignorance, so too then Christ shall not throw us out, but that though our righteousness does not even on death surpass that of the scribes and pharisees, yet he shall not give up, and it shall.”
I think this is (in part) exactly the problem Bishop Wright is pointing out — i.e. the implication that Jesus somehow is inclined to “throw us out” and “give up on us.” He has suffered fully for our sins and *is* our sanctification and by His resurrection secured our glorification . . . it is His delight to bring many sons to glory . . . without the need of any further suffering. We have not only died but risen with Him. In Him we *are* holy and aceptable in God’s sight.
of course, but that is what happens because of our union with Christ, no? We are being conformed to His image and shall be fully conformed to Him at death . . . without the necessity of purgatory.
Yes, of course it’s because of our union with Christ. As it is now. We strive after holiness by receiving the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist. But without holiness we cannot see God.
I think that perhaps the definition of Purgatory is part of the difficulty here. If we mean it as “the place where Christ schlacks us for the kinda bad stuff we’ve done.” Yes, of course Purgatory is a very wrong, and very evil doctrine.
But what if we see it along the following lines: Look at Bonhoeffer’s Discipleship. If we set the bar anywhere below absolute unquestioning discipleship of Christ, we set the bar too low, and offer cheap grace. And really, introducing confession doesn’t help. Cheap grace precisely is, according to Bonhoeffer, the Eucharist without Confession. And so for the grace to not be cheap, confession must be perfect.
At the same time, if the bar is anywhere, it is too high. Jesus came to save sinners, and if we set the bar at all high, we say that Jesus only saves sinners who are not really or fully sinners. But no, Jesus came to save sinners. Who qualifies? Anyone who sins.
At least one way of reconciling these is as follows:
Christ is the Word of God to us. But what mood is He in? I think it would be wrong to limit Christ by saying He is only imperative–he is an icon of the Father–but surely he is also not merely indicative. He Himself is God’s imperative to us. Christ is God’s effective command that we love as perfectly as Christ does. This command is effected when God says “yes, I shall unite you to my beloved Son by sending my Spirit on you, and I shall invite to feed on heavenly manna with me.” But God has chosen that His Word’s effectiveness would be temporal. We are not instantly perfect Christians, we must strive after holiness, without which no one shall see God. We do not just receive the Eucharist once, we must receive the blood of Christ repeatedly. The one sacrifice is applied to us over and over, that by the one Word, we might, through time, be brought to perfection.
It may not in fact be, but it seems plausible that the temporal aspect of God’s Word to us shall continue even after we die.
And on that score, Purgatory would indeed be hopeful. “I know God wants to make me perfect, and is indeed making me perfect. But some people shall die, and be told “depart from me, I never knew you.” Some people will die, and God will say “you deceived yourself and the truth was not in you.” And honestly, if I look at myself now I deceive myself. I cast out demons in his name, but does He really know me? More often than confessing my sins, I make excuses. I hate this about me, but yet it is true. Lord willing I shall live and come to confess better. But what if I die now? Do I not deceive myself and the truth is not in me?” “No. Christ has accepted you. Even if you die, he shall not give up on you, but as He continues with you, though you are a stubborn and stiff-necked person, yet he loves you, and shall not fail you.”
Purgatory is often preached differently, and there may be other reasons for hope, but this answer I just sketched at the very least, seems to avoid Wright’s criticism.
Steve, is this an expansion of what is found in Surprised by Hope?
David, I’m not sure. I don’t have Surprised by Hope and thus, haven’t read it.
“The medieval doctrine of Purgatory”…
“Medieval” being the days of Augustine, Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nyssa, and for that matter those earliest rank and file Christians whose prayers for the departed are found in the Catacombs (not to mention the Old Testament Jews).
The doctrine of Purgatory (if not the name) and the practice of praying to the Saints and praying for the departed was accepted and unchallenged among God’s people from before the birth of Christ up until the Reformation, at which time it was cast off, and as a result the doctrine of the Communion of the Saints was also trampled underfoot.
What a great disconnect with the historical Church!
Why don’t we take the Early Church Fathers teaching and the historical belief of the Church, where it differs from our system and belief, as a clue that maybe we need to reconsider our system, our belief, and our understanding of Scripture.
“But we have grown beyond the understanding of those baby Christians”.
Those pathetic pea-brained idiots who were taught by the Apostles, and then by their successors, who were also quite Biblical, by the way. It’s a wonder we can extract anything worthy of “our” endorsement from the vast volumes they left us.
It is one thing for the Church to grow in understanding of a doctrine, to develop it, to formally state it and refine it over the centuries.
It is quite another to entirely throw off a doctrine (truth be told, alot of doctrines held since the beginning of the Church) in one fell swoop at one point in history, when those very doctrine(s) had been held by the Church since its beginning. Even including Purgatory.
We like to talk about being blessed with a greater understanding of the Faith by standing on the shoulders of those great Saints who went before us. As I have said before, though, what we do is more akin to standing on the backs of their heads.
Oh well, I guess that sometimes collateral damage is unavoidable. Sorry old dead guys. But thanks for your blood, sweat and tears anyway.
Augustine:
“There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended” (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
“But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead; but for such of them as lived before their death in a way that makes it possible for these things to be useful to them after death” (ibid., 172:2).
“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment” (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
“That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
“The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death” (ibid., 29:109).
well, Kevin, you know how careless and ignorant N. T. Wright is — not nearly as thoughtful or as respectful (not to mention, knowledgeable) of the Fathers as the rest of us. Just tramples on them right and left all the time, doesn’t he? I’m surprised you even bother to notice him.
So Augustine had it all wrong? And Tertullian, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyprian of Carthage, Gregory of Nyssa…I’m just asking.
[...] I did comment at The Avenue on a post regarding N.T. Wright’s book “For all the Saints?: Remembering the Christian [...]
Kevin,
Here is the modern Roman doctrine of purgatory: “a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.” (taken from New Advent). If anyone, past or present believes this, they are in error and implicitly denying the efficacy and full sufficiency of Christ’s suffering in the place of His people on the cross.
I think it’s questionable that Augustine believed this, but if he did, he was dead wrong at that point. Ditto for Tertullian, Cyril, John, Cyprian, etc. The Bible is very plain on this point and the Church at large has never affirmed the doctrine of purgatory (as the Romanists have now defined it)–the Pope himself wrote contrary to this view when he was Vatican theologian — so, unless he’s changed his mind, he doesn’t even agree with this teaching!
Catholics have no problem saying the Fathers were wrong at this point or that — simply because Catholics believe in the doctrine of sanctification by the Spirit (continuing reformation) and final glorification. It’s only Romanists who get the vapors over acknowledging errors by popes or fathers. And that’s another reason why Romanists need to become Catholics again.
Maybe part of the difficulty is in that definition of Purgatory. Yeah, if you define it that way, it’s clearly wrong. But, as you pointed out, not even the Pope does anymore. So though that was perhaps the modern doctrine a hundred years ago (though the Catholic Encyclopedia is a questionable source), it isn’t anymore.
Here’s Trent on Purgatory:
I can’t find anything about it in the Forth Lateran Council, the Council of Florence-Ferrara, or the Council of Constance.
Steve,
Augustine, by his own words quoted above, is very clearly professing his belief in a “certain purgatorial fire”, the propriety of prayers for the dead, and prayers to the Saints. I don’t see as how anyone can wonder what Augustine believed when he speaks for himself. He’s pretty “out there”.
And since nobody (that I know) believes the Fathers and Popes have never made mistakes (that is not what the doctrine of Papal Infallibility states or even implies), that’s not an issue with me or reasonable Catholics.
But, it is fair to say that modern Christian belief has seen fit to depart (rightly or wrongly) from much of what the earliest Church Fathers believed and wrote about, and on way more than just this doctrine of Purgatory.
The average modern Christian just doesn’t realize the great theological gaps between the Protestant system of belief and the earliest Church Fathers (not very far removed from the Apostles, in some cases directly acquainted with the Apostles). And while doctrine certainly develops and grows, anytime there are radical departures from the earliest doctrines of the Church, one has to wonder…why?
And if we are going to maintain that the ancients were just “dead wrong” at certain points as compared to where Protestantism has planted its flag, then we have to wonder why? And I understand that when you say Augustine is dead wrong on Purgatory, you say that it is because you don’t believe Purgatory to be Biblical.
So, were these Early Fathers in the first few hundred years of the Church just not Biblical when it comes to doctrines where Protestantism differs from their theology? And if they weren’t Biblical, why not? Or did they just understand the Scriptures differently, way differently in some instances, than Protestantism does? That would seem to be the most gracious assumption for us to make.
In fairness then, where there are found to be conflicts between some modern Protestant doctrines (based on its interpretation of Scripture) vs the earliest theological understanding of the Church (as evidenced by the Early Fathers writings), those significant conflicts ought to be openly discussed. I just don’t see that being done, in general, in the Christian community.
I realize it opens up a can of worms, but there it is…a can of worms.
“Inquiring minds want to know”.
Kevin
You act as though discussing this is some new “can of worms” that desperately needs opening — but of course, this “can of worms” has been opened for over 500 years now and the Church has discussed it pretty thoroughly. None of this is new.
The reality is that the Romanists at this point have chosen without a single shred of clear Biblical teaching to embrace the pagan teaching of self-atonement. I see no biblical grounds for it, nor did the Church for almost 1500 years.
There is no Biblical defense for this teaching. It’s not a matter of interpreting the Bible differently. It’s a matter of believing something that is not there.
Pr. Wilkins,
Wait a minute: It’s one thing to claim that the Protestants rightly threw out the doctrine of Purgatory. It’s quite another to say that the Protestants didn’t throw it out because no one had ever believed it–especially in the face of numerous quotes from the fathers. And it’s still another to claim that the Roman Church believes we atone for ourselves. Read Dante, and then tell me you think he thinks we atone for ourselves. Then read The Great Divorce and tell me that if that picture were real we would atone for ourselves. Then read Letters to Malcolm and tell me Lewis believes we atone for ourselves.
Matthew,
I didn’t say no one ever believed it. I said the Church saw no Biblical grounds for it and thus, didn’t recognize it as an official teaching for almost 1500 years. This is why the Reformers, acting as good catholic churchmen, threw it out.
But I don’t see how you can really say that. Can you claim that no one was Trinitarian till Nicea–or perhaps Constantinople–when the Trinity became official doctrine? People saw good scriptural reasons for it, and some–like say C. S. Lewis or George MacDonald, or that Weslian guy who wrote an article in First Things on it–still do.
Also, Justification by Faith alone wasn’t officially doctrine till about 1500, and yet that doesn’t count against it.
Steve said: “I see no biblical grounds for it, nor did the Church for almost 1500 years.”
Steve,
I don’t know everything that you have read from (and I say “from”, not “about”) the early Church’s history, but I do know what is available to be read, and I know what I have read (which isn’t nearly enough), and I’m thinking you’ve surely read everything I have, and probably alot that I haven’t. In other words, I fully believe that you have to know more about the actual belief and practice of the early Church than I do.
But I do know what is true, historically, about the early Church’s practice and beliefs as regards this subject.
So when you say things like “that”, my reaction is to blink my eyes and read it over again.
“Yep, he said what I thought he said”.
Do you really believe that the Old Testament faithful Jews didn’t (and Orthodox Jews today still) believe in a final purification and pray for their dead?
Do you really believe that since its beginning the Church, taking their cue from the Jewish faithful, did not regularly pray for the departed because they believed their prayers would be of benefit to these souls? It’s not even debatable! Surely you know that.
Do you really believe that at the Councils of Florence and Trent the Church whipped up the idea of Purgatory as a novelty, with no precedence of 1500 years of practice and belief of the Church preceding the formal actions of these Councils?
If you want to argue against the Catholic Church’s teaching on the afterlife (Purgatory, prayers for the departed and prayers to the Saints) on the basis that it is not Biblical (and the Catholic Church says otherwise), well, you can argue from that position based on your interpretation of Scripture.
But to argue against the Catholic Church’s teaching on Purgatory on the basis that it was not practiced in the life and worship of the Church historically, since it’s very beginning, well, historically speaking, that is simply wrong,
I limited my earlier quotes to just those of Augustine. There is more. Alot more. It isn’t difficult to put your hands on it. It is so obviously “out there” that it’s odd that I am actually typing this.
You can say Saint Augustine was “dead wrong”, unbiblical, in what he believed and taught if you are convinced your interpretation of Scripture warrants you calling one of the Church’s greatest saints “dead wrong”, but Augustine’s and other early works, as well as archealogy, leave no doubt as to what the Church was actually doing for about 1500 years prior to the time you claim the Church invented Purgatory.
For the first 1500 years of her life (and still today) the Catholic Church was praying for the faithful deceased, based on the teaching, the belief that those prayers would benefit their souls.
There is nothing to interpret about these historical facts. Whether or not the Church was right as regards her practices and beliefs regarding the afterlife, history shows what she actually did, based on what she believed, from the very beginning. Communion of the Saints.
I’ll deal with the Catholic Church’s Scriptural basis for the doctrine of Purgatory on my site later. I’m guessing you couldn’t care less, but anyway…
Kevin,
First, let me correct you, I’m quite sure you’ve done far more reading on this topic than I have. As I mentioned to you, this issue was thoroughly discussed during the Reformation (and before — AND, for that matter, afterwards as well). Whatever the shortcomings of the major Reformers, one of their strengths was their knowledge of the Fathers and of the history of the Church. I’m willing to trust their judgment and so, I’ve never felt the need to study a teaching that has no clear Biblical support.
In regard to the Church’s belief and practice — commonly it doesn’t take the Church 1500 years to affirm something that has been universally embraced, believed, and practiced. So, yeah, I disagree with your view of history and count it passing strange.
If you want to talk Bible, however, I’m all ears.
Steve,
I must apologize, or I guess the better way to say it is, I must retract something I said in my last comment post, and I said it in all sincerity and out of respect for your position, your knowledge of history, and your years of service in the ministry.
Because having read your response, I now realize that I was wrong when I said:
“I fully believe that you have to know more about the actual belief and practice of the early Church than I do”.
KB
hey, you’re absolutely right and there’s no question about it! I do need to do a lot more reading. It’s easy to ignore me, but I really am amazed that you can discount N.T. Wright, John Murray, Dabney, Hodge, Nevin, Schaff, the greatest of the Puritans, Calvin, Luther, and Bucer, without blinking an eye. They *have* done the reading.
But beyond this, what is most amazing of all is to watch you defend teachings that have no Biblical support — and, apparently, not be all that bothered by it.
The Orthodox do not believe in Purgatory. The church split after 1000 years of Christianity- why does Roman West believe and the Orthodox East not believe?
Ron,
Martin Chemnitz (Examination of the Council of Trent, vol. III) says that Origen picked up the idea of purgatory from Plato. Chemnitz summarizes his (Origen’s) characteristically odd view and notes that Jerome and Ambrose repeated Origen’s teaching, introducing it to the Church. Origen’s teaching on purgatory was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553 A.D.) as contrary to Scripture and so, consequently, the Orthodox Church did not embrace this strange teaching.
Yes- exactly. Rome is in error- as the church catholic demonstrates!
I don’t know if Chemnitz is saying that the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned Purgatory, or if you are, but whoever the source is, it’s false. Here’s the condemnation of Origen (scroll down to it) and it makes no mention of Purgatory, or any such thing.
Also, I don’t know if Ron is Orthodox, but: It is true that the Orthodox object to the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, but it is not at all true that they have anything like the Protestant view. Their objection is to the vengeance of God, to the fact that Catholics believe it, and to the explication of the mystery, and to the idea that Purgatory is separation from Christ, rather than fiery union with Him (for them even the idea that Hell is separation from Christ is nearly anathema). What most Orthodox believe would sound, to Protestants, significantly like Purgatory, if not identical. Though the theology is controversial Fr. Seraphim Rose taught that there are “toll houses” that we must pass through when we die. Similar things can be found in numerous hagiographical writings that mention the state of the departed. The Orthodox don’t believe the Roman doctrine of Purgatory, but they do believe in Purgatory, loosely defined. It’s only the Protestants who don’t.
I was just having a bit of fun.
The point I was making is that there was no consensus on purgatory in the church, early or late. The Protestant and Orthodox both reject the merit system of Rome that requires something like a purgatory.
I am not Orthodox (big O), but protestant.
Matthew, I get what you are saying in 5/14 3:30, but from my knowledge of Orthodoxy (OCA) they would not see it as “significantly like purgatory” but a denial of purgatory. I do know that Orthodoxy is a big tent, just as Protestantism, so I cannot deny that what you said is true for some or many.
Ron,
Orthodox really really dislike looking Catholic. So, no, they wouldn’t in a million years say it’s anything like that damn Roman doctrine of Purgatory. And if by Purgatory we mean that God decides not to beat us up eternally because of Christ, but still has to beat us up some, yeah they deny that. But if by Purgatory we mean something along the lines of “We do not necessarily enter blessedness immediately upon our death.” Or “Even after we die, Christ will continue to make us perfect (in a different way than there is always progress in heaven)” (both of which would be rejected by Protestants as Purgatory) they do believe in Purgatory.
I mean Orthodox will object to the Catholic practice of using graven images. Though there is perhaps an important distinction between statues and icons, it wouldn’t be quite fair for Protestants to appeal to Orthodox in defense of their iconoclasism.
For what it is worth:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Purgatory
I don’t think either you nor I can come up with THE orthodox view.
Well, yes, of course. But still, all those various Orthodox understandings would sound to Protestants like purgatory. They disagree with the Catholic doctrine, but they generally don’t believe that all Christians go to heaven when they die either.
Actually, here’s the link to the Council.
Matthew, I just looked over the judgments of the council quickly but I think this (at least) is what Chimnitz is talking about:
“If anyone says or thinks that the punishment of demons and of impious men is only temporary, and will one day have an end, and that a restoration (apokatastasis) will take place of demons and of impious men, let him be anathema.” (IX of the Anathemas of the Emperor against Origen)
According to Chemnitz, Origen taught that all men went through a puratorial cleansing, including the unbelieving who died. Origen held that even the most ungodly, even the devil himself, could be purged and freed from punishments by tortures endured for a very long time.
It was a very strange view, but that’s Origen. It seems that purgatory takes a number of different shapes depending upon who is speaking about it. Since there is no biblical teaching on this, men were free to go with where they pleased with it.
PS. I like that Reformed folks read Chemnitz!
[...] “trees” blocking the view of so many non-Catholics. In previous discussions, here and elsewhere, I have said that I will deal with the matter of Purgatory, and the Biblical basis for the [...]
[...] (Getting back with you again like you asked me to.) [...]
I was reminded of this thread tonight when I checked in at Canterbury Tales.
After I quoted Augustine on Purgatory earlier in this comment thread, and referenced other proofs of the Jew’s and the early Church’s practice of praying for the faithful departed, Pastor Wilkins wrote: “So, yeah, I disagree with your view of history and count it passing strange.”
Not that it matters, but Taylor Marshall at Canterburry Tales also has a view of history “passing strange”, as evidenced by his post “Saint Augustine on Purgatory”. Just call us a couple of wild and crazy guys, ‘ceptin he’s a whole bunch more smarter than me.
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/08/saint-augustine-on-purgatory.html
Blessings and peace.
KB