He referred to purgatory as a suburb of heaven, as opposed to a suburb of hell, the way it was supposedly looked at before. And, if I'm going to be honest about it, I never felt attached to or detached from the concept of purgatory. It didn't stick, because it didn't take. I do have to say, though, that contrary to what I used to think, I was not properly catechized at all, so I may be missing some or all of what is required to understand, and consequently hold close, the concept.
Seeing all of you in this discussion though, naturally led me to my catechism, and here's what it says:
'Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
'The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God's justice has been fully satisfied.'
Next, the following Scripture is cited:
'The fire will assay the quality of everyone's work: if his work abides which he has built thereon, he will receive reward; if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:13-15). My catechism is a Baltimore, 1952 edition.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that during that EWTN program, the person providing the answers went on to state that sin, while forgiven, carried with it a fixed cost. This was in response to a caller who questioned him about justice.
The priest went on to state that while everyone who ascends to heaven experiences perfect joy, those who were more righteous, sinned less and kept the Lord's word and commandments more diligently in this life, enjoyed a more perfect vision or experience of God in the next.
I'm curious to know if the Orthodox posit something similar to this, or how they would view this question of justice and the beatific vision.
Let me ask you a question. If Christ pays the debt of your sin, what is left to pay?
Let's think of a bill at the grocery. Your bill is 232.87.
Jesus steps in and hands them cash (no checks or IOU's from the big guy). You're covered. Everytime you sin and repent, he steps in and pays the bill. If there's nothing on the register, how can you owe anything? If you walk out of the store with your paid for groceries, are you stealing? Is the food less nutritious because he paid for it? More?
I mean I could ask you a lot of things here, these are pretty obvious. If purgatory was necessary to our faith and
the covenant was sealed by Christ, why do you suppose there isn't a single entry in the entire new testament mentioning it by name? Not one. Why do you suppose Orthodoxy never heard of it. If orthodoxy is part of the church and never taught this or unum sanctum, etc, who do you think was in error for teaching or not teaching these things. Does God arbitrarily just change the covenant? No. Somewhere in there is an answer for you - which you seem already to instinctively know. It isn't scriptural.
"God is good, dispassionate, and immutable. Now someone who thinks it reasonable and true to affirm that God does not change, may well ask how, in that case, it is possible to speak of God as rejoicing over those who are good and showing mercy to those who honor Him, and as turning away from the wicked and being angry with sinners. To this it must be answered that God neither rejoices nor grows angry, for to rejoice and to be offended are passions; nor is He won over by the gifts of those who honor Him, for that would mean He is swayed by pleasure. It is not right that the Divinity feel pleasure or displeasure from human conditions. He is good, and He only bestows blessings and never does harm, remaining always the same. We men, on the other hand, if we remain good through resembling God, are united to Him, but if we become evil through not resembling God, we are separated from Him. By living in holiness we cleave to God; but by becoming wicked we make Him our enemy. It is not that He grows angry with us in an arbitrary way, but it is our own sins that prevent God from shining within us and expose us to demons who torture us. And if through prayer and acts of compassion we gain release from our sins, this does not mean that we have won God over and made Him to change, but that through our actions and our turning to the Divinity, we have cured our wickedness and so once more have enjoyment of God's goodness. Thus to say that God turns away from the wicked is like saying that the sun hides itself from the blind."
The concept of satisfying God's justice by temporal, or even post death "punishment" to some Orthodox theologians seems particularly anthropomorphic and vaguely pagan. It ascribes to God purely human emotions. This is not to say that we are not "punished" in this life. We are. Some of the Fathers have called this "pedagogical punishment". St. Isaac the Syrian writes:
"He who applies pedagogical punishments in order to give health, is punishing with love, but he who is looking for vengeance, is devoid of love. God punishes with love, not defending Himself — far be it — but He wants to heal His image, and He does not keep His wrath for long. This way of love is the way of uprightness, and it does not change with passion to a defense. A man who is just and wise is like God because he never chastises a man in revenge for wickedness, but only in order to correct him or that others be afraid (Homily 73)" This is not "atonement for sin", not a "satisfaction of God's justice". It is loving correction. After death, though, the suffering of the evil people is not something God contrives. St. Basil the Great says:
"The evils in hell do not have God as their cause, but ourselves."
So in the end I think its fair to say that many Orthodox do not believe that God is somehow inflamed by a sort of righteous indignation that one of us miss the mark (which is what the Greek word amartia, Eng=sin means) and wants to whack us unless we grovel some, that He feels offended that we commit some act of lese majeste and so He's going to get us, make an example of us or whatever. That amartia cuts us off from God. God doesn't cut us off and He doesn't demand that we placate Him or satisfy His justice. His love shines on the good and the evil equally, which, by the way, is a better definition of God's justice, a sort of divine equity, than what we usually think. If I fail to become like God, if I choose to sin and cut myself off from God's love, I create the evil and I create my own damnation. In such a belief there is no need for the Baltimore Catechism theory.
I am interested in what the priest on EWTN said, however because what he said sounds like theosis in a way. Certainly the "works" he speaks of would seem to tend to advance one in theosis and that theosis is what would be measured, not the acts themselves at the Final Judgment. I may be reading too much Orthodoxy into what a Roman priest said, however.