Reference please.and that Limbo was a ‘place and state’
So you would have us believe that Dr. Ott wrote in a vacuum. I guess the fact that it was given Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur means nothing anymore?I will check my copy of Ott soon … for now, it’s important to point out that Ott is an individual theologian, who does not trump the proclamations of two Ecumenical Councils and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Again Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott. Go ahead and belittle him.Reference please.
Even the idea that it is a place is something that is not defined.Hay belgianwaffles9,
In regards to Dogma, the Roman Catholic Purgatory only really defines 1) There **is a place of transition/transformation **for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.
Yeah right. Do yourself a favor and pickup any book in the 1950’s teaching the Roman Catholic Faith…Dr. Ludwig Ott is precisely the kind of individual theologian I’m talking about. His work has absolutely no dogmatic weight, but rather is a compilation of his interpretations of Catholic teachings.
This isn’t about pre- and post- Vatican II, it’s about what the Conciliar documents actually taught. If this isn’t true, then by all means show us some documents with dogmatic weight that go into the details you’re speaking of.
Until then you’re just referencing the speculation of theologians, and depictions used to convey the dogma in terms that regular people could understand (much like the Toll-House depiction in the East).
Peace and God bless!
A Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur assure the faithful that nothing is heretical in a particular book. It does not dogmatize all of that book’s contents. No one here is trying to discredit Dr. Ott; rather, I think you’re investing him with a greater authority than he actually has.So you would have us believe that Dr. Ott wrote in a vacuum. I guess the fact that it was given Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur means nothing anymore?
Actually Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur assure the faithful that the book contains no ‘error’. All the books I pointed out in my above reply confirm the Catholic teaching of “Limbo”. All confirm the Catholic teaching of Purgatory as ‘a place’. No error? Post-Vatican II would have to say these books do contain error. In fact, I wonder if any of these could even get a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur by modern Bishops…A Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur assure the faithful that nothing is heretical in a particular book. It does not dogmatize all of that book’s contents. No one here is trying to discredit Dr. Ott; rather, I think you’re investing him with a greater authority than he actually has.
I wonder when you’ll get sick of hijacking my thread…Actually Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur assure the faithful that the book contains no ‘error’. All the books I pointed out in my above reply confirm the Catholic teaching of “Limbo”. All confirm the Catholic teaching of Purgatory as ‘a place’. No error? Post-Vatican II would have to say these books do contain error. In fact, I wonder if any of these could even get a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur by modern Bishops…
Pretty much… ISTR reference to that similarity in Schmemman’s For the Life of the World. But my dad’s got my copy, so I can’t check at the moment.Could it be that purgatory and toll houses are expressing the same truth under different images?
Nihil Obstat does not mean there is “no error.” It simply means there is nothing in it that will get in the way of the Faith of a Catholic Christian. At best, it can mean that it does NOT CONTRADICT the Faith. It is by NO means a positive statement on the inerrancy, infallibility, or dogmatic weight of a book.Actually Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur assure the faithful that the book contains no ‘error’. All the books I pointed out in my above reply confirm the Catholic teaching of “Limbo”. All confirm the Catholic teaching of Purgatory as ‘a place’. No error? Post-Vatican II would have to say these books do contain error. In fact, I wonder if any of these could even get a Nihil Obstat or an Imprimatur by modern Bishops…
“We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.” (The Confession of DositheusI guess the Orthodox really don’t give much weight to the Synod of Jerusalem, as I have posted about it many times (with regard to purgatory) with no real responses. Patriarch Dositheus, in his confessions, specifically decree XVIII, promotes what would be considered a very strict view of purgatory. To my knowledge neither he nor this synod have ever been condemned. Metropolitan Kallistos even mentions the decrees as the “chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787” .
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html
As for the whole issue of place vs. state, this is simply attempting to make an issue where there is none. The idea that purgatory is a place was never part of the dogma, merely an opinion which rendered the concept more easily comprehensible to a human mind which tends to think in more conrete terms. The fact that there has been a shift in describing purgatory as both a place and a state to a state only has no impact whatsoever on the teaching.
Since Orthodox believe that even those experiencing the foretaste of hell have a chance of entering heavenEven the next paragraph should not be seen as a form of purgatory. He is speaking about the foreshadow in the immediate state - those who will enter heaven experience a small glimpse of it before the time and those who will enter hades experience a glipse of it before the time. Don’t read too much into these confessions, it is often for Catholics to read Catholic language into Orthodox confessions. You need to put on your Eastern spectacles when reading Orthodox confessions.
But regardless. See my post above. None of this matters. The main thing is that we are purified after death as we need to be purified before entering heaven. How is a matter we can deal with when we experience it. Just as God told Athenasius the Great (which I have quoted too many times on this forum, and which I can not be bothered getting out the book now).
God bless you all.
That paragraph doesn’t look like purgatory. The next one which you didn’t quote does, depsite what you say:“We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to what each has done; — for when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy, or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation.” (The Confession of Dositheus
(Eastern Orthodox, 1672); decree XVIII)
I’m sorry but I must have missed where this sounds like purgatory? What Joy is there in being burned with the flames of purgatory?
Even the next paragraph should not be seen as a form of purgatory. He is speaking about the foreshadow in the immediate state - those who will enter heaven experience a small glimpse of it before the time and those who will enter hades experience a glipse of it before the time. Don’t read too much into these confessions, it is often for Catholics to read Catholic language into Orthodox confessions. You need to put on your Eastern spectacles when reading Orthodox confessions.
But regardless. See my post above. None of this matters. The main thing is that we are purified after death as we need to be purified before entering heaven. How is a matter we can deal with when we experience it. Just as God told Athenasius the Great (which I have quoted too many times on this forum, and which I can not be bothered getting out the book now).
God bless you all.
He is speaking about the foreshadow in the immediate state - those who will enter heaven experience a small glimpse of it before the time and those who will enter hades experience a glipse of it before the time. Don’t read too much into these confessions, it is often for Catholics to read Catholic language into Orthodox confessions. You need to put on your Eastern spectacles when reading Orthodox confessions.
But regardless. See my post above. None of this matters. The main thing is that we are purified after death as we need to be purified before entering heaven. How is a matter we can deal with when we experience it. Just as God told Athenasius the Great (which I have quoted too many times on this forum, and which I can not be bothered getting out the book now).
Does this mean that after death, a soul goes for a “foretaste”, and then, from that single place/state, it may go either to Eternal Bliss, or Eternal Damnation?Since Orthodox believe that even those experiencing the foretaste of hell have a chance of entering heaven
…
Well. I think you can see how easy it is for Latins to think that there is no qualitative difference between their belief in Purgatory and the Orthodox belief.
Now that is the foundation of an interesting new post/topic altogether!I guess the Orthodox really don’t give much weight to the Synod of Jerusalem,
The Synod of Jerusalem was a LOCAL council, not an Ecumenical one, and Orthodoxy has always been selective in how and how much of a LOCAL council is to be received.
Yes, that is a popular school of thought. I believe it is strictly spoken of as a “state” and never as a “place”. Orthodoxy speaks in terms of states in the afterlife - never places - Even heaven and hell are referred to as states.Does this mean that after death, a soul goes for a “foretaste”, and then, from that single place/state, it may go either to Eternal Bliss, or Eternal Damnation?