1 or 2 judgements?

[mardukm]

My Catholic brethren,

I read the original transcript from Mark Bonocore, and I must say that his purpose seems a bit different your own intentions here. Mark Bonocore wrote his essay for the purpose of demonstrating that the Latin theological perspective is orthodox and patristic, fully recognizing the distinction between Latin and Greek formulations of the same dogma.

My Catholic brethren, forgive me if this seems insulting, but I get the impression that your purpose here is to impose the Latin perspective on brother Mickey.

If you want to dialogue on the matter with an EO, may I first suggest divesting yourself of the term “Purgatory,” and discuss specific concepts instead. The word is fraught with implications that are rather caustic to the EO sensibility (and the quotes from Origen and St. Cyprian likely did not help your cause much ).

Second, I note that you could not help but give a somewhat Absolutist Petrine slant to Mark Bonocore’s statements on Pope St. Callixtus. You embellish Mark Bonocore’s account with terms like “Petrine authority over the others” and the Eastern Patriachs “yield to the authority of Rome.” But Mark never used such terms. Instead, he writes that the Pope was “in accord with the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch” and that the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch “accepted his decree.”

You won’t get anywhere in dialogue with our Eastern (and Oriental) Orthodox brethren if you keep using such Absolutist Petrine expressions.

Third, I have to agree with brother Mickey, insofar as the quotes given do not really get to the heart of the Latin teaching on indulgences.

Personally, as an Oriental, I wholeheartedly accept the concept of indulgences to reduce temporal canonical penalties in the early Church as explained by Marc Bonocore. However, I have to admit that the application of indulgences to the dead is a later development that initiated in the Latin Church. I do accept, as a Catholic, the principle that indulgences can benefit the dead, but there are a lot more specifics to the doctrine of indulgences (and Purgatory for that matter) that I regard as peculiar to Latin theology that I don’t accept as an Oriental.

Finally, I do notice that in your zeal to defend the Catholic Faith, you sometimes disparage the common Faith we have with the Eastern Orthodox. For example, brother Mickey was pointedly asked: “If none in hell or heaven can benefit from out prayers why pray for he dead???”

Can you really believe that the EO deny this? May I suggest that if the dialogue devolves to such rhetoric, then perhaps another approach is advisable.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[crazzeto]

@Mardukm,

I appeciate what you’re trying to say, but I think there’s a certain disconnect between what you’re posting and the tone of the Purgatory discussion. It was Mickey who went on the offencive about Purgatory, with aboslutly no prompting from anyone else on this thread.

When he got called on the aboslutist statements he was making, he cried fowl. When the doctrine was further described he him self started making certain specific accusations he accused others of making “you know very well there was never a purgatory before 1,000AD”. Further rather than post factual information, he has chosen instaed to belittle, dismiss and deny.

What he does instead rely upon, was poor catechisis. He makes it clear (not just here, but all over the place) that all eastern rite catholics must be as anti-rome as he is, a claim others certainly have made in other threads (for instance mine about the Canon of scripture as it pretains to the Eastern Church) only to be shot down.

In short, we “latins” are defending the dogmatic teaching of the Church (which all Catholics must accept in so much as the dogmatic teaching, I can’t speak to flexability in understanding) the best we can against a hostile poster.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother (sister?) bona fides,

But the early church fathers all believed in a place between heaven and hell and invited prayers for the dead.

Please be more accurate. Purgatory is not a “place”; nor is it “between” heaven and hell. Rather, it is a state of being that is not heaven or hell. I think such sloppy (forgive the terminology) explanation of Catholic doctrine just adds fuel to the fires of rejection.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister crazzeto,

I appeciate what you’re trying to say, but I think there’s a certain disconnect between what you’re posting and the tone of the Purgatory discussion. It was Mickey who went on the offencive about Purgatory, with aboslutly no prompting from anyone else on this thread.

When he got called on the aboslutist statements he was making, he cried fowl. When the doctrine was further described he him self started making certain specific accusations he accused others of making “you know very well there was never a purgatory before 1,000AD”. Further rather than post factual information, he has chosen instaed to belittle, dismiss and deny.

What he does instead rely upon, was poor catechisis. He makes it clear (not just here, but all over the place) that all eastern rite catholics must be as anti-rome as he is, a claim others certainly have made in other threads (for instance mine about the Canon of scripture as it pretains to the Eastern Church) only to be shot down.

In short, we “latins” are defending the dogmatic teaching of the Church (which all Catholics must accept in so much as the dogmatic teaching, I can’t speak to flexability in understanding) the best we can against a hostile poster.

I seriously never perceived what you are saying here about brother Mickey. To be honest, I did experience the same feelings you have now up until mid-last year. I guess I’ve finally gotten used to his style of debate, which is terse and concise, and may easily come off as sarcasm.

Having said that, I do thank you for pointing out his “no purgatory before 1000 A.D.” comment. I did not notice that. That is indeed a fallacious statement.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[crazzeto]

Dear sister crazzeto,

I seriously never perceived what you are saying here about brother Mickey. To be honest, I did experience the same feelings you have now up until mid-last year. I guess I’ve finally gotten used to his style of debate, which is terse and concise, and may easily come off as sarcasm.

Having said that, I do thank you for pointing out his “no purgatory before 1000 A.D.” comment. I did not notice that. That is indeed a fallacious statement.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s brother!

 

[crazzeto]

BTW Mardukm, perhaps you also missed this post of Mickey’s

Quick question for you Mark. When I was in the Byzantine Catholic Church, many monastics and clergy would tell me that they either rejected the doctrine of purgatory and the idea of indulgences completely (holding to the Orthodox view)—or they claimed a very different understanding of these issues (not much in line with a Latin understanding).

As a member of the Coptic Catholic Church—do you hold a Latin understanding of these things—or something else?

You can put this in a new thread if you wish.

This is what I’m talking about, taking a position that basically anyone not in the Latin Rite is essentially not in communion with Rome. Whether or not they actually are in communion with Rome. He’s doing his best to try and drive a wedge between any non-roman rite Catholic and the roman rite ones.

Then there’s the whole post of how we picked up this subject to begin with:

I do not subscribe to purgatory, (and neither did your Church for the first 1000 years or so), but we can be sure of the exsistence of hell. And it is no laughing matter

That was post #4 (of the thread),

Then as I said there were a succession of posts on his part making accusations of “false charges”, and frankly his reliance on the fathers, scriptures and such has been well somewhat lacking compared to the rest of us.

I appriciate what you’re saying about his style. I too can be quite blunt, perhaps that why we bump heads and perhaps why he put me on ignore list. I’m not sure about him, but personally I don’t mind blunt, direct etc… As long as you’re actually backing up your opinions with something, and not making sweeping (and false) statements.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Dear brother (sister?) bona fides,

Please be more accurate. Purgatory is not a “place”; nor is it “between” heaven and hell. Rather, it is a state of being that is not heaven or hell. I think such sloppy (forgive the terminology) explanation of Catholic doctrine just adds fuel to the fires of rejection.

Blessings

Mardukum - you seem to be very sensitive to the Orthodox “perspective” and full of (helpful?) criticism today. I don’t think that it is productive for Catholics to have to Chip and Dale ourselves and walk about as if on egg shells and use exact and precise politically correct language everytime we speak to the Orthodox on any topic at a Catholic apologetic site. They are visiting here - not the other way around. As you know Catholics do not accept Orthodox as the true church - we hold them to be substantially of the same faith but in schism to the true church. I used language that was reflective of what the Catholic Church believes - that the true Church is the one seated in Rome and under the direction of the Pope.

As for “sloppy” terminology - I think you are just more comfortable with the newer modern theology. The truth is Purgatory was always thought of as a place until theologians have more recently speculated that it is a state.

From New Advent - Purgatory:
*Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is **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. *

In the past the saints have conveyed quite vividly the condition of purgatory in very graphic terms characterized by human physical terms and emotions that we can all relate to as human beings rather than as abstract disembodied spirits or abstract thinkers. I thought that the Orthodox where the ones who were loath for abstraction and academic concepts? The pains and suffering are described vividly by the saints in terns that we all can relate to as human beings - fire, even freezing, degrees of pain and suffering ranging from mild to equal in severity to the entry levels of hell (for those narrowly escaping hell) amidst the joy of knowledge of salvation. Enough said here.

I think criticism, albeit well intentioned, delivered from one’s own treasury of personal opinions and sensitivities/biases are just as likely to add more to the flames of rhetoric and confusion to one or more of the other parties in the dialog. In my experience what speaks best is facts. I have not made any factual errors to my knowledge but have given some facts. Can you point to a Catholic teaching that says it is “sloppy” to think of purgatory as a place? Do you think that heaven is state? If so where is Christ’s Body and where is Mary’s Body?

My prior comment about how does a soul in heaven or hell benefit by prayer was a perfectly valid theological point. We are explicitly commanded not to pray for those in hell and are told that those in heaven do not need our prayers. The obvious question that you preempted was why pray for those who are in places/states that can not benefit by prayer? The obvious logical answer is that there is another place where they can benefit or else scripture and the Early Church Father’s are in error about praying for the dead. Given that the latter is impossible the conclusion is clear - there is a 3rd place/state and it corresponds to the place/state that Catholics call purgatory since these souls are neither in heaven proper nor hell proper.

The logic and the Church history are irrefutable.

BF

 

[mardukm]

Dear Bona Fides,

Mardukum - you seem to be very sensitive to the Orthodox “perspective.”

Well, I do take pride in my Coptic Orthodox heritage while being in communion with Rome. Granted, I am Oriental, while brother Mickey is Eastern, but we nevertheless have a shared perspective on several points regarding the afterlife that distinguishes our Traditions from those of the West on the matter.

I don’t think that it is productive for Catholics to have to Chip and Dale ourselves and walk about as if on egg shells and use exact and precise politically correct language everytime we speak to the Orthodox on any topic at a Catholic apologetic site. They are visiting here - not the other way around.

It is precisely because this is an apologetics website that we need to be able to reach out effectively to non-Catholics. You don’t promote understanding by constantly speaking in a foreign language, do you?.

As you know Catholics do not accept Orthodox as the true church - we hold them to be substantially of the same faith but in schism to the true church. I used language that was reflective of what the Catholic Church believes - that the true Church is the one seated in Rome and under the direction of the Pope.

Actually, you have brought a perspective that is peculiarly Latin Catholic. There’s nothing wrong with that, certainly, but it shouldn’t be considered the only valid perspective in the Catholic Church. For instance, you as a Latin are obviously quite used to expressing your belief in the papacy in the manner of the last sentence of your excerpt above. In distinction, as an Oriental, I would have said, “the true Church is all those believers who express solidarity and communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

As for “sloppy” terminology - I think you are just more comfortable with the newer modern theology. The truth is Purgatory was always thought of as a place until theologians have more recently speculated that it is a state.

From New Advent - Purgatory:
*Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is **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.

In the past the saints have conveyed quite vividly the condition of purgatory in very graphic terms characterized by human physical terms and emotions that we can all relate to as human beings rather than as abstract disembodied spirits or abstract thinkers.

Very good. I’ll see your Catholic website and saints, and raise you four Catholic Councils - Lyons, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. None of the dogmatic declarations of these Councils claim that Purgatory is a “place.” To speak of Purgatory as a “state” is perfectly well within the Catholic Tradition, and not at all “modernist.”.

I thought that the Orthodox where the ones who were loath for abstraction…

Academically, yes. Philosophically, no.

… and academic concepts?

Eastern Orthodox, generally yes. Oriental Orthodox, generally no.

I think criticism, albeit well intentioned, delivered from one’s own treasury of personal opinions and sensitivities/biases are just as likely to add more to the flames of rhetoric and confusion to one or more of the other parties in the dialog. In my experience what speaks best is facts. I have not made any factual errors to my knowledge but have given some facts. Can you point to a Catholic teaching that says it is “sloppy” to think of purgatory as a place? Do you think that heaven is state? If so where is Christ’s Body and where is Mary’s Body?

I’m afraid your rhetorical question betrays a rather — unique — understanding of the matter. In fact, Christ and Mary’s bodies are glorified. These gloried bodies are not hampered by all the laws of physics, including space and time. It would be altogether incorrect to describe their mode of existence by a concept so mundane as “place.”

My prior comment about how does a soul in heaven or hell benefit by prayer was a perfectly valid theological point. We are explicitly commanded not to pray for those in hell and are told that those in heaven do not need our prayers.

Where is this explicit commandment given, and can you quote it? The Church does not claim to know who is going to Hell. Accordingly, EP 2 and EP 3 of the Latins contain a general supplication for all the dead, not just the righteous.

The obvious question that you preempted was why pray for those who are in places/states that can not benefit by prayer? The obvious logical answer is that there is another place where they can benefit or else scripture and the Early Church Father’s are in error about praying for the dead. Given that the latter is impossible the conclusion is clear - there is a 3rd place/state and it corresponds to the place/state that Catholics call purgatory since these souls are neither in heaven proper nor hell proper.

Nevertheless it is still the wrong question to ask, because it does not address the real issue. The issue is not whether there is a third state, but what I have highlighted above. As you were already advised, "Purgatory’ has connotations for the Orthodox mind that go beyond the mere concept of a third state. Though brother Mickey could have agreed to the concept of a third state, the very moment you introduce the term “Purgatory” into the discussion, he must in good conscience reject your proposition.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

You seem to have made a religion out of opposing Catholic belief and in believing whatever you want to irrespective of the evidence…

Ah yes–here comes the ad hominem. That will conclude my discussion with you.

:tiphat:

 

[Mickey]

Very good. I’ll see your Catholic website and saints, and raise you four Catholic Councils - Lyons, Florence, Trent, and Vatican I. None of the dogmatic declarations of these Councils claim that Purgatory is a “place.” To speak of Purgatory as a “state” is perfectly well within the Catholic Tradition, and not at all “modernist.”

You and I have debated purgatory often and I do not have the time or motivation to rehash it again. The discussion usually gets testy. But compared to a couple of posters on this thread, you and I are like long lost blood brothers!

But I must say, (in reference to your above statement), that purgatory used to be a place—and now—well—maybe not. Funny how things in Rome change over time. Perhaps in another 1000 years—Rome will return to Holy Orthodoxy.

My time here is done.

Over and out!

 

[bona_fides_1]

Ah yes–here comes the ad hominem. That will conclude my discussion with you.

:tiphat:

Hmmm, that was a tad over sensitive to run off over such a venial comment don’t you think? I’d have expected a more rigorous and stalwart defense of one’s faith and belief and less sensitivity from an Orthodox apologist (assuming you are not here to learn of the Catholic faith and considering converting). Pity.

I and others gave some real scriptural, ECF and historical support and actual catechetical teaching for the Catholic position. But you did not refute any of it with anything substantial to defend the Orthodox position - only attacking the syntax of the arguments. Without any contravening historical or scriptural points for Catholics to rebut the dialog rapidly comes to a terminus at what looks no different than “personal opinion” or “institutional opinion”.

I am sorry, but when it comes down to held personal opinion without anything to back it up then it does sound purely argumentative; and as if one’s opinions are formed around an organizing principal of “in opposition to” the other side. That’s what we normally call Protestantism - a religion formed around protest to a pre-existing established norm (which derives its identity from the conflict and is wholely dependent on the conflict for its existence). But I know that the Orthodox are substantially the same faith and have a valid apostolic succession so are in schism and not in protest. I’d still like to hear the theological basis or historical basis for your beliefs - which so far sound completly ambiguous. That is, you seem to acknowledge that there is another state of waiting for the 2nd judgement but don’t seem willing to expand on what the essential nature or character of this state is and if we can assist them.

But I must say, (in reference to [the] above statement), that purgatory used to be a place—and now—well—maybe not. Funny how things in Rome change over time. Perhaps in another 1000 years—Rome will return to Holy Orthodoxy.

My time here is done.

Over and out!

Correction - there has been no change in dogmatic teaching by Rome. We hold as de fide the principals of the Communion of the Saints and that there is a state or place of purgation where we can through this communion assist them through joint and shared sufferage - not too unlike the principal of vicarious atonement:

The Communion of Saints

• The members of the Kingdom of God on earth and in the other world sanctified by the redeeming grace of Christ are united in a common supernatural life with the Head of the Church and with one another. (Sent. certa.)
• By intercessory prayer the Faithful on earth can procure gifts from God for one another. (Sent. certa.)
• By good works performed in the state of grace the Faithful on earth can merit de congruo gifts from God. (Sent. probabilis.)
• **The faithful on earth can, by their good works performed in the state of grace, render atonement for one another. (Sent. cert.) **
• It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in Heaven, and to invoke their intercession. (De fide.)
• It is permissible and profitable to venerate the relics of the Saints. (De fide.)
• It is permissible and profitable to venerate images of the Saints. (De fide.)
• **The living Faithful can come to the assistance of the Souls in Purgatory by their intercessions (suffrages). (De fide.) **
• The Saints in Heaven also can come to the help of the Souls in Purgatory by their intercession. (Sent. communis.)
• The Souls in Purgatory can intercede for other members of the Mystical Body. (Sent. probabilis.)
• Suffrages are of no profit to the damned in Hell as they do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ. (Sent. communis.)

The Eschatology of the Individual Human Being

• In the present order of salvation death is a punishment for sin. (De fide.)
• All human beings subject to original sin are subject to the law of death. (De fide.) D789
• With death the possibility of merit or demerit or conversion ceases. (Sent. certa.)
• Immediately after death the particular judgment takes place, in which, by a Divine Sentence of Judgment, the eternal fate of the deceased person is decided. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
• The souls of the just which in the moment of death are free from all guilt of sin and punishment for sin, enter into Heaven. (De fide.)
• In addition to the essential bliss of Heaven which springs from the immediate Vision of God, there is also an accidental blessedness, which proceeds from the natural knowledge and love of created things. (Sent. communis.)
• The bliss of heaven lasts for all eternity. (De fide. )
• The degree of perfection of the beatific vision granted to the just is proportioned to each one’s merits. (De fide.)
• The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. (De fide. )
• The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (De fide.)
• The punishment of the damned is proportioned to each one’s guilt. (Sent. communis.)
• The souls of the just which, in the moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to sins, enter Purgatory. (De fide.)
• **The purifying fire will not continue after the General Judgment. (Sent. communis.) **

BF

 

[Mickey]

Hmmm, that was a tad over sensitive to run off over such a venial comment don’t you think?

Not really. I have been here long enough to know that when someone like yourself, begins to feel a bit frustrated—the anti-Catholic accusations start to fly. I don’t have time for that.

I and others gave some real scriptural, ECF and historical support and actual catechetical teaching for the Catholic position.

Oh for sure. I have seen that from Catholic sources many times. But I do not see the Scriptural or patristic support.

But you did not refute any of it with anything substantial to defend the Orthodox position -

How do I refute something from Scripture or patristics that is not there?

the dialog rapidly comes to a terminus

And this an appropriate ending. Because I did not come to this thread to debate purgatory (I got sucked in and it is partially my fault)–I have done that too many times in purgatory threads that cover hundreds of posts.

That’s what we normally call Protestantism

Ha, ha. Another ad hominem! Classic.

a religion formed around protest to a pre-existing established norm (which derives its identity from the conflict and is wholely dependent on the conflict for its existence).

The protestant reformation was borne of the Latin Catholic Church.

But I know that the Orthodox are substantially the same faith and have a valid apostolic succession so are in schism and not in protest.

We believe it is you who are in schism.

Correction - there has been no change in dogmatic teaching by Rome. We hold as de fide the principals of the Communion of the Saints and that there is a state or place of purgation

Correction. Mardukm says that it is no longer a place.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Not really. I have been here long enough to know that when someone like yourself, begins to feel a bit frustrated—the anti-Catholic accusations start to fly. I don’t have time for that.

Well we are getting far off the original OP now but since we are the principal participants I’ll make a few more comments along this current deviation…

OK, let me now put on the same sensitivity cilice (didn’t know this was Orthodox tradition).

**“Someone like yourself” **?

AHA! Another dirty below-the-belt Orthodox ad hominem! Or did you mean this to be a compliment?

“Classic”…

Oh for sure. I have seen that from Catholic sources many times. But I do not see the Scriptural or patristic support.

How do I refute something from Scripture or patristics that is not there?

I thought we shared a common 1,000 year old (roughly) heritage and held the ECF’s in common regard. Are you now saying you can’t trust the ECFs since they are too Catholic of a source? What’s left for source material other than Josephus and hostile anti-Catholic Roman and Jewish sources? Just when did the Orthodox get so persnickety and exclusive; and from whence did Orthodoxy come from if not from the same apostolic origins?

Go back and re-read the thread - there are a number of references to the ECFs & Councils (posts #15, #18, #31, #34 ) as well as the initial reference to the Catholic Catechism (post #1) and its foot note references. I didn’t pull forward the foot notes for you to spoon-feed but if you want to look them up they are all online.

And this an appropriate ending. Because I did not come to this thread to debate purgatory (I got sucked in and it is partially my fault)–I have done that too many times in purgatory threads that cover hundreds of posts.

Ha, ha. Another ad hominem! Classic.

Hoboy, “another ad hominem”?!
Just because we parse left to right and top to bottom when we read you shouldn’t stop reading at the first words that fit your pre-judged expectations unless you are looking for an opportunity to engineer a duck-out. It’s better to wait till you get to the end of the sentence or paragraph before you toss the red-flag or commit your own foul. Speaking of which…

The protestant reformation was borne of the Latin Catholic Church.

We believe it is you who are in schism.

Foul!

You know very well that the reformers approached the Orthodox on the same doctrinal errors they had with Catholics in an attempt to leverage their conflict with Catholics and draw the Orthodox to their side to garner numbers in an “enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine” theory. And Orthodox rejected them and sent them packing - ostensibly for reasons not satisfactory to Orthodox theology and belief. But in truth the reformers were rejected by Orthodox because you all agreed with the majority of the Catholic theological teachings (that we did not sway from under their pressure) and our refutation of the Protestants. And I like to imagine that the Orthodox felt a greater historical and brotherly affiliation with apostolic Catholics than with the secular Reformers. It may have been even a modest attempt to show apostolic unity to the one apostolic faith and brotherhood - to the credit of Orthodox. It was in retrospect a golden opportunity to re-unite the east and western lungs of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. What a shame the opportunity was not taken and regional parochialism prevailed. But in the day empires were entangled with both lungs of The Church and politics prevailed.

As for who is in schism - Catholics acknowledge that it takes 2 opposing sides in order for a condition of schism to exist. Are you attesting its all on Rome’s shoulders?

As an aside, I believe that the Holy See of Rome still invites the Orthodox Sees/Bishops (at least as observers) to important council meetings such as Vatican I and Vatican II. I could be wrong but I don’t think so. If Orthodox continue to hold to their newer tradition of not showing up to council meetings as a sort of machiavellian means of preserving ultra-conservatism (even apparently by boycotting some of their own pan-Orthodox council meetings) how can Orthodox justly point a finger at Catholics and say “aha, you are in schism”? Do Orthodox expect Rome to wait indefinitely (centuries) for tardy and no-show Orthodox bishops to arrive to councils when The Church has important ecclesial business to attend to? I know of no valid historical or scriptural principal of filibustering or holding hostage the affairs of Christ’s Church to AWOL ambassadors of Christ. Who speaks for Orthodoxy and who has the power to convene a council meeting? In the Catholic Church - there is only one person - The Holy See of Rome. Who in Orthodoxy has the authority to call a council meeting and decide the minimum number of attendees without inviting a charge of schism from the no shows? Is Orthodoxy currently in its own internal schism given the apparent lack of unity? Orthodoxy can’t blame Rome on what happens or does not happen between Russia and old Byzantine Sees can they?

Correction. Mardukm says that it is no longer a place.

I don’t think brother Mardukm has yet to receive his pallium from the Holy Father… wink

BF

 

[Mickey]

I thought we shared a common 1,000 year old (roughly) heritage and held the ECF’s in common regard. Are you now saying you can’t trust the ECFs since they are too Catholic of a source?

No. I am saying that you are reading something into their writings that are not there.

Just when did the Orthodox get such a persnickety and exclusive;

Persnickety?!?

You know very well that the reformers approached the Orthodox on the same doctrinal errors they had with Catholics in an attempt to leverage their conflict with Catholics and draw the Orthodox to their side to garner numbers in an “enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine” theory.

Really?

I don’t think brother Mardukm has yet to receive his pallium from the Holy Father… wink

Don’t underestimate him. He is very knowledgeable and he tries to be charitable most of the time. Hi Mark!

unless you are looking for an opportunity to engineer a duck-out.

Since this dialogue has descended to such a state of jabs and back biting, I am truly looking for a way to “duck-out”–and I have found just such a way. You will be the second person on my ignore list. :yup:

Please take no offense, I harbor no hard feelings toward you…I do not know you. It is merely the best way for me to “duck-out”.

However, in closing, I must say, in an era when people are thrilled to sit in a movie theatre for 2 plus hours, or at a football game for three hours, and then complain and whine when they have to sit in Church for one hour—it is refreshing to see people (like yourself) so interested in their faith journey. God bless you. Christ is Risen!

Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory**, **nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question.
Thomas Aquinas

 

[bona_fides_1]

No. I am saying that you are reading something into their writings that are not there.

Persnickety?!?

Really?
Don’t underestimate him. He is very knowledgeable and he tries to be charitable most of the time. Hi Mark!

Since this dialogue has descended to such a state of jabs and back biting, I am truly looking for a way to “duck-out”–and I have found just such a way. You will be the second person on my ignore list. :yup:

Please take no offense, I harbor no hard feelings toward you…I do not know you. It is merely the best way for me to “duck-out”.

However, in closing, I must say, in an era when people are thrilled to sit in a movie theatre for 2 plus hours, or at a football game for three hours, and then complain and whine when they have to sit in Church for one hour—it is refreshing to see people (like yourself) so interested in their faith journey. God bless you. Christ is Risen!

Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory**, **nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question.
Thomas Aquinas

Hmmmm… what a disappointment. You went from saying we had not given any ECF evidence to then saying it was improperly interpreted then abruptly left the argument and blocked me without giving any evidence of where the interpretation is improper. Gosh…

I don’t think the discussion has descended to back biting and jabs - seems pretty mild and well within the norms for debate, dialog and discussion to me…

I’ll just end it here and say that I feel the evidence is available for the Catholic position and I exhort those genuinely interested in learning the truth on these matters and who are not afraid of a little mental perspiration just read the catechism and cross check with the ECFs and the Church histories.

I guess that’s pretty much it then for this OP… sigh…

Bye Micky, I guess you will never see me again if you have ignored me…
:sad_bye: :bighanky:

BF

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

Correction. Mardukm says that it is no longer a place.

Forgive me for any imprecision in my statements.

Actually, my point was that the Church Catholic has never officially taught the notion that Purgatory is a place, as evinced by all the magisterial decrees on Purgatory from Lyons to V1.

At best it is a local theologoumenon of the Latin Catholic Church. But, to repeat, it has never been the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church as a whole.

So nothing has changed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

My Catholic brethren,

I read the original transcript from Mark Bonocore, and I must say that his purpose seems a bit different your own intentions here. Mark Bonocore wrote his essay for the purpose of demonstrating that the Latin theological perspective is orthodox and patristic, fully recognizing the distinction between Latin and Greek formulations of the same dogma.

My Catholic brethren, forgive me if this seems insulting, but I get the impression that your purpose here is to impose the Latin perspective on brother Mickey.

Marduk,

Do you think this adequately represents the EO understanding and teaching on the afterlife and judgement? http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx
M:

If you want to dialogue on the matter with an EO, may I first suggest divesting yourself of the term “Purgatory,” and discuss specific concepts instead.

Like “toll houses” perhaps?
M:

I have to agree with brother Mickey, insofar as the quotes given do not really get to the heart of the Latin teaching on indulgences.

Mickey as everyone can see, denies indulgences. Calls it an innovation by the Catholic Church.

Did you notice in the link provided
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

The following passage

(emphasis mine)
" The Greek Emperor Theophilus [15] lived carelessly and did not concern himself with the salvation of his soul. Death found this sovereign in the midst of his sinful life. The Empress St. Theodora, Theophilus’ consort, was horrified at the heavy lot that would befall her husband in eternity. At her behest, prayers were increased in the churches, alms were distributed, good works were performed. And what was the result? The prayers of the Church reached the Lord. Theophilus was forgiven, to the spiritual joy of his grieving spouse and to the consolation of the Church, which has so merciful and mighty a Lord, Who gives life to the dead and leads them forth from the abyss of hell, not only bodily, but spiritually. [16]" Year ~830

Marduk, what is THIS but the EO version of indulgence! Or maybe we could say, this is 200 years before the EO came to being. And it is only after that point in history, that the EO abandoned indulgences. What do you think?
M:

Personally, as an Oriental, I wholeheartedly accept the concept of indulgences to reduce temporal canonical penalties in the early Church as explained by Marc Bonocore. However, I have to admit that the application of indulgences to the dead is a later development that initiated in the Latin Church.

As you can see from the quote above, the Greeks were doing it in the 800’s. I suspect this wasn’t the 1st exercise of this .
M:

I do accept, as a Catholic, the principle that indulgences can benefit the dead, but there are a lot more specifics to the doctrine of indulgences (and Purgatory for that matter) that I regard as peculiar to Latin theology that I don’t accept as an Oriental.

Finally, I do notice that in your zeal to defend the Catholic Faith, you sometimes disparage the common Faith we have with the Eastern Orthodox. For example, brother Mickey was pointedly asked: “If none in hell or heaven can benefit from out prayers why pray for he dead???”

I think that question was probably intended to find out what Mickey really knows about EO. There’s plenty in that link also that could be viewed as a type of purgatory.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Long time since we’ve been on the same thread! Glad to see ya!

Do you think this adequately represents the EO understanding and teaching on the afterlife and judgement? http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

Yes and no. From what I understand, orthodoxinfo.com is a neo-traditionalist site. Though it promotes certain late (“late” with respect to the Church’s history, not “late” as in recent) developments in EO’xy, it also promotes very traditional beliefs, such as non-ecumenism and the beliefs contained in the link you provided. There is a debate within Eastern Orthodoxy on the beliefs contained in that link. One side extolls such things as toll-houses and the value of suffering, while the other side denies it. In another Orthodox site I know, they have a special restricted-access forum where more polemic discussions can be held without moderator intervention. Debates on the issue of toll-houses between the Orthodox are confined to that special forum – which is telling.

Like “toll houses” perhaps?

No. I was thinking even more primal. Purgatory and Toll Houses are not primal concepts. They are built on more elementary ideas such as the Communion of Saints, purification after death, intercession for the dead, etc. We need to find common ground through these elementary ideas, not the developments that flowed from them.

Mickey as everyone can see, denies indulgences. Calls it an innovation by the Catholic Church.

Did you notice in the link provided
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/death/prayer_dead.aspx

The following passage

(emphasis mine)
" The Greek Emperor Theophilus [15] lived carelessly and did not concern himself with the salvation of his soul. Death found this sovereign in the midst of his sinful life. The Empress St. Theodora, Theophilus’ consort, was horrified at the heavy lot that would befall her husband in eternity. At her behest, prayers were increased in the churches, alms were distributed, good works were performed. And what was the result? The prayers of the Church reached the Lord. Theophilus was forgiven, to the spiritual joy of his grieving spouse and to the consolation of the Church, which has so merciful and mighty a Lord, Who gives life to the dead and leads them forth from the abyss of hell, not only bodily, but spiritually. [16]" Year ~830

Marduk, what is THIS but the EO version of indulgence! Or maybe we could say, this is 200 years before the EO came to being. And it is only after that point in history, that the EO abandoned indulgences. What do you think?

Again, yes and no. There is much in what is described above that is similar to the doctrine of indulgences, but there are also elements that are not.
Similarities:

• the same ultimate effect, which is attainment of heaven.
• by release of the soul from the “third state”
• which is effected with the Church’s suffrage (i.e., intercession)
• through propitiation (i.e., appeasement through offerings, not just simple prayer)
• to relieve the suffering of the soul
• and the debt due to sin,
• not covered by repentance,
• the offerings being our own good works aside from the Holy Sacrifice.

Perceived differences (these are between EO and Latins):

• For EO, a soul is released through the mercy of God, while for the Latins, a soul is released through the Treasury of merits (though, of course, God’s application of the merits is motivated by His Mercy);
• For EO, the primary motive for the third state is God’s Love and Mercy, while for the Latins, it is God’s Justice;
• For EO, every soul in the afterlife can benefit; for the Latins, only souls bound for heaven can benefit (though this difference seems more academic than theological, since at Mass, Latins also pray generally for the dead, not just the righteous)

Having explained that, also remember that there are many EO who don’t agree with that essay from orthodoxinfo.com. Brother Mickey is apparently one of those (Father Ambrose, if you remember him, was also of the same opinion), which is perhaps the reason why he was not interested in debating the matter.

As you can see from the quote above, the Greeks were doing it in the 800’s. I suspect this wasn’t the 1st exercise of this .

Perhaps my explanation above will mitigate your understanding of the matter.

There’s plenty in that link also that could be viewed as a type of purgatory.

I wholeheartedly agree, as far as the dogma of Purgatory is concerned anyway, bereft of the theologoumena of the Latin Church.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

Actually, my point was that the Church Catholic has never officially taught the notion that Purgatory is a place

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical synod that there is a Purgatory,** and that the souls there detained **are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar;
Council of Trent

Seems like Trent taught that it was a place.

 

[crazzeto]

Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the Sacred Writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils, and very recently in this ecumenical synod that there is a Purgatory,** and that the souls there detained **are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar;
Council of Trent

Seems like Trent taught that it was a place.

‘There’ obviously must refer to a place, and can never refer to a state of course.