Ecumenical Councils and Eastern Catholics

[TrentCath]

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t give an explanation of this statement from the decree because of something you said.

You know what I mean

Did you read and understand the explanation I gave on the difference between the terms "bishop of the universal Church" and “head bishop of the universal Church”? Did you read and comprehend the entire quote I gave from Archbishop Rauscher?

I suppose that I would side more towards ‘Bishop of the Universal Church’ than 'Head Bishop of The Universal Church’

Ummm… you missed a whole portion of the quote I gave from Archbishop Rauscher. That’s why I asked if you read and comprehended the entire quote, because the little snippet you cited indicates otherwise. The Council accepted Archbishop Rauscher’s modification (adding the word “pre-eminence”) based on his explanation. His main point was not about the bishops being mere vicars of Christ. His main point (which you obviously missed) was that the Pope cannot normatively intervene in the affairs of a local Church, but only in extraodinary circumstances.
The statement that the Pope’s jurisdiction over other dioceses is “ordinary” is liable to be misunderstood, because such intervention would be, in common parlance, “extraordinary.” I propose that in place of the opening words…

**I can see why you want to seperate his statement in two but I’m afraid that the statement must be taken as a whole. If the pope were to ordinarily intervene in the affairs of other bishops and dioceses, if he were to micromanage, then Bishops would be nothing more than vicars of the Pope, that is the point the Archbishop is trying to make. By the use of the word of the word ‘extrordinary’ he means nothing more than that the Popes interference in such a way is likely to be extraordinary i.e uncommon, for that is what the word means in common parlance, not that it is ‘extrordinary’ and he needs a special reason for doing so **

As stated, Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and Low Petrine detractors misinterpret the clause “pre-eminence of ordinary power” to mean that the Pope has absolute power and can normatively intervene in the affairs of local Churches. But the intention of adding it was to insist that the Pope in fact does not have a normative authority to intervene in the affairs of the local Churches.

I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree here

 

[TrentCath]

Although he could change the laws, in keeping within the current law (pastor bonus, CIC, CCEO, etc.), he has all the normal powers of a bishop in the Sea of Rome as its bishop.
(Latin Church) CIC Can. 377 §1 The Supreme Pontiff freely appoints Bishops or confirms those lawfully elected.
He has additional jurisdiction in the exercise of his universal office in the Roman Curia and in the churches sui iuris, but because of the established eastern canon laws some functions belong to the patriarchs or major archbishops and synods, in electing bishops and other matters.

CCEO shows that the patriarchial and major archepiscopal churches elect their head and it is confirmed by the Holy See. They also establish an eparchy within their own territory. They elect their bishops within their territory (confirmed by Holy See). They elect candidates outside their territory (approved by Holy See). They have legislative power (must notify Holy See), establish liturgical Laws applicable everywhere and exercise discipline inside their territory only, also judicial power.

I’m going to be frank I still don’t see the difference. As I said I think it best we just leave it be

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother TrentCath,

I state that this passage states that the Pope’s authority is absolute inasmuch as the Pope ‘religiously guard’s and faithfully expound’s the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles’…in principle the Pope can do so but if in so doing he was to ‘make known some new doctrine’ or fail in his duties to ‘religiously guard and faithfully expound the …deposit of faith’ his absolute powers would be temporarily suspended in this matter so to speak

That’s what is illogical to me. The moment you concede that the Pope has the possibility to be corrected (which is true), then one can no longer assign the term “absolute authority” in any sense of the word. An absolute authority cannot be corrected, by definition. By definition, whatever the absolute authority says goes. No two ways about it.

I would say it can best be summed up as an overemphasis on the idea that the Pope forms part of the college of bishops, that he exercises his authority and/or that his authority derives from being head of this college and that he cannot exercise it seperately from the college and that he cannot ‘over ride’ the college so to speak. In an ‘Orthodox’ sense it can best be summed up as the idea that all bishops are equal. It stands in contrast to the clear teaching of Vatican I.

No it doesn’t, because collegiality necessitates the participation of the head bishop. As far as infallibility is concerned, according to the doctrine of collegiality, the head bishop is not merely a tie-breaker, nor is the head bishop subject to the whims of the majority. The consent of the head bishop (as enshrined by the ancient Apostolic Canon 34) is a necessity. That is not the same as the Low Petrine error proposed by some Eastern Orthodox. So you are misunderstanding what collegiality means as far as infallibility is concerned. As far as primacy is concerned, it means that the Pope’s authority is not absolute, that he cannot act without taking into consideration the authority and concerns of his brother bishops, and that he can be corrected by his brother bishops. You already concede that, so we seem to be on agreement as far as collegiality in primacy is concerned.

Btw, do you accept the Vatican 2 as an Ecumenical Council?

Now guilt is not given a definition by the council BUT if it as you say ‘reus’ and you interpret this to mean ‘You yourself are not to blame for your father’s act , but it had certain consequences which you inherited by inheriting your fathers’ estate. In other words, you did not inherit your father’s culpa, but you inherited his reus.’ I have an issue with it. Now you say that these consequences are ‘the pre-disposition to sin, but also death, both spiritual (i.e, spiritual separation from God) and physical, and corruptibility.’

I never said what you state here. All I said was that reus refers to the consequence of the first sin, not the blame of the first sin. There are many elements of that consequence, but I never identified any of those elements as reus itself. I simply said that reus refers to consequence, not blame.

Now whilst it is clear that Baptism brings us to new life and thus annuls our spiritual death it does not take away our pre-disposition to sin, physical death or corruptability. How then can the council say that ‘If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema’ ? We still die, have a pre-disposition to sin and are corruptible, therefore if that be the definition of Guilt the guilt would NOT have been remitted. But we know this cannot be true as the council declares anathema those who believe this.

Baptism does not take away the reus of concupiscence, physical death, and corruptibility, but it does take away the reus of spiritual separation from God. Case closed.

Further the council says ‘For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death;…’ Now if it was just a matter of us inheriting the consequences of sin why would be condemned? It is unjust to be condemned for inheriting something which you had no choice about, however it is clearly perfectly just to be condemned for participating in that original sin that is to say 'Through Adam all mankind participated in Original Sin’

Your opinion (highlighted in red) is, forgive me for saying, an aberration of Catholic teaching on Original Sin. We are in “a state of condemnation” not because we participated in the Original Sin through Adam, but because of the inherited consequence (i.e. reus) of spiritual separation from God.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

Lastly the Council of Trent does not speak of Original Sin as a ‘disease’ rather it states regarding the pre-disposition to sin ‘But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.’

Oh please! don’t start arguing over words (see my signature line below). Trent does not explicitly call it a disease, but it nevertheless taught that the merits of Christ is the REMEDY for it. So the imagery of OS as something that needs to be healed is very well acknowledged by Trent.

The early Church Fathers also disagreed about the canon of scriptures with St Jerome’s rejecting of virtually the whole Deutrocanon being the most famous example, now that in retrospect may well be called illogical while in no way intending to insult the Church Fathers.

What are you talking about? There were no disagreements about the Canon in the early Church. Each local Church had their own canons, different from others’, and no one was going around anathemizing each other for it. Further, I am utterly surprised to hear you propose the usual Protestant polemic that St. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanon. That is such a lie. St. Jerome did not reject the Deuterocanon, but simply asserted that he should do his translation of the OT from the original Herbrew PRIMARILY, and thereafter supplement it with the Septuagint. He had always intended to translate the Deuterocanon for the Vulgate, but several of the the Deuterocanonical books were not among the Herbrew Scriptures.

Self-govering implicitly means to have full authority over onself, that in turn implies
an exclusion of all other authorities.

Nope. It means only that we govern ourselves without interference from outside authorities, unless an emergency arises that causes appeal to a higher authority.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[TrentCath]

Dear brother TrentCath,

That’s what is illogical to me. The moment you concede that the Pope has the possibility to be corrected (which is true), then one can no longer assign the term “absolute authority” in any sense of the word. An absolute authority cannot be corrected, by definition. By definition, whatever the absolute authority says goes. No two ways about it.

I don’t see whats illogical to this, the Pope has absolute authority within the limits set out by God, namely that he 'religiously guard and faithfully expound the deposit of faith’

No it doesn’t, because collegiality necessitates the participation of the head bishop. As far as infallibility is concerned, according to the doctrine of collegiality, the head bishop is not merely a tie-breaker, nor is the head bishop subject to the whims of the majority. The consent of the head bishop (as enshrined by the ancient Apostolic Canon 34) is a necessity. That is not the same as the Low Petrine error proposed by some Eastern Orthodox.

Ahem proposed by ALL Eastern orthodox So you are misunderstanding what collegiality means as far as infallibility is concerned. As far as primacy is concerned, it means that the Pope’s authority is not absolute, that he cannot act without taking into consideration the authority and concerns of his brother bishops, and that he can be corrected by his brother bishops.

But I believe that he can, as does Vatican I, it may not be wise for him to do so but he may do so if he wantsYou already concede that, so we seem to be on agreement as far as collegiality in primacy is concerned.

Btw, do you accept the Vatican 2 as an Ecumenical Council?

I accept it as ecumenical within the limits it set itself '“Taking conciliar custom into consideration and also the pastoral purpose of the present Council, the sacred Council defines as binding on the Church only those things in matters of faith and morals which it shall openly declare to be binding. The rest of the things which the sacred Council sets forth, inasmuch as they are the teaching of the Church’s supreme magisterium, ought. to be accepted and embraced by each and every one of Christ’s faithful according to the mind of the sacred Council. The mind of the Council becomes known either from the matter treated or from its manner of speaking, in accordance with the norms of theological interpretation.”'

I never said what you state here. All I said was that reus refers to the consequence of the first sin, not the blame of the first sin. There are many elements of that consequence, but I never identified any of those elements as reus itself. I simply said that reus refers to consequence, not blame.

Baptism does not take away the reus of concupiscence, physical death, and corruptibility, but it does take away the reus of spiritual separation from God. Case closed.

Your opinion (highlighted in red) is, forgive me for saying, an aberration of Catholic teaching on Original Sin. We are in “a state of condemnation” not because we participated in the Original Sin through Adam, but because of the inherited consequence (i.e. reus) of spiritual separation from God.

I’m afraid we’re just going to have to disagree on this

 

[TrentCath]

Oh please! don’t start arguing over words (see my signature line below).

Words tend to be important

Trent does not explicitly call it a disease, but it nevertheless taught that the merits of Christ is the REMEDY for it. So the imagery of OS as something that needs to be healed is very well acknowledged by Trent.

What are you talking about? There were no disagreements about the Canon in the early Church.

Exactly my point

Each local Church had their own canons, different from others’, and no one was going around anathemizing each other for it. Further, I am utterly surprised to hear you propose the usual Protestant polemic that St. Jerome rejected the Deuterocanon. That is such a lie. St. Jerome did not reject the Deuterocanon, but simply asserted that he should do his translation of the OT from the original Herbrew PRIMARILY, and thereafter supplement it with the Septuagint. He had always intended to translate the Deuterocanon for the Vulgate, but several of the the Deuterocanonical books were not among the Herbrew Scriptures.

’ I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” …] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. ’ From 'Against Rufinis’

Nope. It means only that we govern ourselves without interference from outside authorities, unless an emergency arises that causes appeal to a higher authority.

Thats not the ordinary english meaning of the phrase, enough said

 

[mardukm]

”Now this website (Orthodox Catholic Faith) states 'Orthodoxy teaches that, after the soul leaves the body, it journeys to the abode of the dead (Hades). There are exceptions, such as the Theotokos, who was borne by the angels directly into heaven. As for the rest, we must remain in this condition of waiting. Because some have a prevision of the glory to come and others foretaste their suffering, the state of waiting is called “Particular Judgment.”’ I trust that will suffice to show that in fact my citations do show that they allege there is a ‘state of waiting’

OK, thanks for pointing that out. However, it does not prove your point, because Purgatory itself is a state of waiting. And since Purgatory is outside time, you can’t actually make any comparisons on that level (i.e., you can’t say, there’s less waiting time in Purgatory than in Hades).

And yet the church states in the New Catechism’‘I. The Particular Judgment
1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification592 or immediately,593-or immediate and everlasting damnation.594’ There is NO foretaste, rather we either immediately go to hell, immediately to heaven or go to heaven via purgatory

But the Easterns haven’t defined what they mean by Hades. So how can you dogmatically make a statement for them on the matter? It could very well be that the foretaste of the damn is indeed part of Hell, and the foretase of the righteous is indeed part of Heaven. You can’t know, and the Easterns certainly don’t claim to definitely know, so you have no basis to make your statement here.

It does but it is still NOT the actual Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, which requires cleansing pains in a particular place, to which is given the name ‘Purgatory’

There are enough infallible magisterial Catholic sources that do not demand “cleansing pains” as part of the dogma of Purgatory, but merely purification. Two of them are Pope Benedict XII’s Benedictus Deus, and the Decree on Purgatory of the Council of Trent. So I cannot agree with the dogmatism of your point here on the issue of pain. There are also no Magisterial sources of which I’m aware that dicates that Purgatory is a place. I know for a fact, at least, that Trent nor Vatican 1 makes that assertion.

I am afraid that that is not all obvious. Rather the author disagrees with the idea that the souls in purgatory can make satisfaction for their sins through suffering and yet this is what The Church teaches.

Yet the author assigns to this satisfaction SACRAMENTAL efficacy. And THAT is not what the Church teaches. So, again, you cannot claim that this author is actually disagreeing with the actual teaching of the Church.

I’m not sure whats worse having a clearly defined wrong teaching or as you allege is the case having no clear teaching so that several clearly contrary to church teaching co-exist with more Orthodox doctrines

The second is the actual case, and the concern you express appears to be a prejudicial ignorance against the Eastern principle of apophatism.

Blessings,
Marduk

P.S. I need to go, so I’ll respond to the rest of your posts later.

 

[mardukm]

I’ll respond to this before I go since it is a quickie.

Words tend to be important

Not if they’re meaningless. I see you didn’t offer a response to my statement that Trent’s language is not averse to the imagery of disease. I guess you admit that your point was meaningless?

Exactly my point

Well, no. You stated that there were disagreements on the issue of the canon. But there were none. Your citation from St. Jerome proves my point, since St. Jerome was simply pointing out that his detractors misunderstood him - that he was never intending to deny the Deuteros. In fact he calls the one who misrespresented him “a fool and a slanderer.” So there was no actual disagreement over the Canon as far as St. Jerome is concerned.

’ I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” …] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. ’ From 'Against Rufinis’

Thats not the ordinary english meaning of the phrase, enough said.

The Church has its own language, and we often use secular terms with a different ecclsiological meaning. You can appeal to secular sources if you like. I prefer to go by what the Church understands, and the Church uses “autonomous” in the way I have stated. As noted earlier, and it has become obvious, you are confusing “autonomous” with “autocephalous.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Actually the Church only has jurisdiction over the “Church Militant” - indulgences are offered up to the souls in Purgatory in a supplicatory fashion, the same way prayers are.

None of this changes the fact that indulgences simply are not a part of our practice or soteriology and that nobody is making them into a source of disagreement. You use them, we don’t. We have just as many saints as you do, so we’re just as capable of getting to Heaven with our spirituality as yours is.

I also am starting to take offense at your insistence that we reject the Church’s teaching on the Papacy after we have clearly and repeatedly told you that we don’t. If I say I accept the dogma of papal infallibility and supremacy, then take my word for it. Would you rather think I am a heretic?

My actions speak the loudest in this regard. I am in communion with the Pope of Rome, though I’d rather be in communion with Christians of my same rite, because I believe it is the right and obligatory thing to do. You who trumpet your exaggerated papalism so loudly aren’t even in communion with the Pope; the Church has repeated time and time again the irregular status of the SSPX. At some point you need to practice what you preach.

Excellent points all! (TrentCath is a member of the SSPX?)

Alex

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

More concisely:

Patriarchs are not confirmed. Patriarchs are accepted through an acknowledgement of communion with and by the Pope. Major archbishops are confirmed.

The Pope does not confirm Eastern and Oriental bishops. It is the head bishop of those bishops who does the confirmation. The Pope gives what is called his “assent” which is a different canonical animal than a confirmation.

Candidates require papal approval only if they are not yet bishops. If the candidate is already a bishop (i.e., will be transferred or promoted), the Holy See is merely informed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Thank you, assent not confirmation. Yet bishops are appointed outside territory.

Per Vatican II, OE 9: the Supreme Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, knows and assents to the bishops. Per CCEO, in every case there is assent to be a bishop, which is a pre-condition to becoming a Metropolitan, Major Archbishop, or Patriarch.

CCEO 156: Roman Pontiff appoints a Metropolitan
CCEO 156: Metroplitan cannot convoke a council of hierarchs before reception of the pallium from the Roman Pontiff
CCEO 153: a non-bishop elected as Major Archbishop, must receive episcopal ordination first *
CCEO 153: Roman Pontiff confirms a Major Archbishop after election
CCEO 75: a non-bishop elected as Patriarch, must receive episcopal ordination first *
CCEO 76-77: communion with Roman Pontiff, before Patriarchal synod may occur

• CCEO 181-182: Roman Pontiff assents to bishop candidates before episcopal ordination
  CCEO 147, 152: outside the Patriarchial [or Maj. Arch.] territory, elected bishops require appointment by the Roman Pontiff

 

[Vico]

TrentCath, you wrote to Mardukm:
Actually I am afraid you are mistaken here, the Council of Trent teaches that there are two elements to Original sin 1) The first is Guilt 2) The second is concupiscence.

Now guilt is not given a definition by the council BUT if it as you say ‘reus’ and you interpret this to mean ‘You yourself are not to blame for your father’s act , but it had certain consequences which you inherited by inheriting your fathers’ estate. In other words, you did not inherit your father’s culpa, but you inherited his reus.’ I have an issue with it. Now you say that these consequences are ‘the pre-disposition to sin, but also death, both spiritual (i.e, spiritual separation from God) and physical, and corruptibility.’
Roman law reatus means liable to or indicted or a sentence, and that Culpa means actual act of wrongdoing. Reatus means state that accrues as a consequence of a culpa.

The Justinian terms taken by the Church are used this way:
Reatus poena is punishment for sin (removed by penance)
Reatus culpa is guilt-debt of culpability (removed by absolution)

Original sin inherited is reatus poena but without reatus culpa; we inherit the sentence not the culpability. The reatus poena is culpa contracta: contracted fault. It is Latin culpa, which is guilt in the moral sense, i.e. blameworthiness or ill desert, ailpa, and the Latin reatus, guilt in the legal sense, i.e. liability or obligation to punishment.

Ineffiable Deus used the phrase “originalis culpa labe”, which is “original fault stain” for the stain of original sin, which is the culpa contracta.

Latin reus (from res) originally meant a party in a cause, but changed later to defendant or accused, then even later it meant one condemned, liable to suffer the penalty of the law. So Reatus means liability to punishment on account of sin. The imputation of guilt to others than the sinner himself, does not use culpa (the moral sense) but reatus (the legal sense).

See The Biblican Doctrine of Sin by James S. Candlish, D.D., 1893.

Related Latin nouns:

reus (genitive reī); m, second declension

1. 
   *]defendant, accused
   *](archaic) plaintiff
   
   reātum
   1. 
      *]*accusative singular of *reātus
      
      reātus (genitive reātūs); m, *fourth declension
      1. 
         *]accusation, charge
         
         *rea (genitive reae); f, first declension
         1. 
            *]defendant, accused
            *](archaic) plaintiff
            *]*vocative singular of *rea
            
            reā f.
            1. 
               *]*ablative singular of *rea

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I tried looking this issue up. All I found was

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apostolic_Canons

I’m curious, you mention apostolic canon 69. This article starts out with "Canons, APOSTOLIC, a collection of ancient ecclesiastical decrees (eighty-five in the Eastern, fifty in the Western Church) …[snip]

I guess I’m curious. There seems to be some controversy here as to what’s accepted by each… From your perspective, maybe you could fill in some blanks on this.

I think the article was clear from then Cardinal Ratzinger, as to who he was refering to.

I disagree with your characterization but that’s for another thread.

I’m referring to the Quinisext Council of Trullo in 692 that was not ratified by Rome as it condemned a string of Western practices (and if they were small “t” traditions by your reckoning, then this does not mean they were unimportant).

The pope of the day refused to ratify them and they could therefore not be applicable to the universal church (i.e. the West) because the patriarch of the West would not receive them. The pope’s authority itself was not required to ratify those canons for the Eastern Churches at a time when they were in full union with Rome.

That Rome bore apostolic authority and the Petrine Primacy is something no one in the first millennium questioned. But that did not mean that Rome could not be upbraided, including Pope Honorius, and it did not mean the papal ratification was needed for canons to be applicable for other parts of the Church.

Alex

 

[TrentCath]

OK, thanks for pointing that out. However, it does not prove your point, because Purgatory itself is a state of waiting. And since Purgatory is outside time, you can’t actually make any comparisons on that level (i.e., you can’t say, there’s less waiting time in Purgatory than in Hades).

Purgatory isnt a state of waiting, its a state of purification, therein lies the difference

you

dogmatically make a statement for them on the matter? I’m simply pointing out that several influential sources espouse views incompatible with Catholic Doctrine

It could very well be that the foretaste of the damn is indeed part of Hell, and the foretase of the righteous is indeed part of Heaven.

This direcly contradicts the Catechism and Catholic teaching on this matter

do not

demand “cleansing pains” as part of the dogma of Purgatory, but merely purification. Two of them are Pope Benedict XII’s Benedictus Deus, and the Decree on Purgatory of the Council of Trent. So I cannot agree with the dogmatism of your point here on the issue of pain. This is rather simple to clear up. We know truth cannot contradict truth, therefore if some infallible documents omit something but do not deny it and later infallible documents include this something then it is clear that the earlier proclamations of the Magisterium are to be read in the light of the later proclamations. Your finding infallible magisterial catholic sources that do not mention ‘cleansing pains’ is therefore irrelevant, the fact that the Council of Florence teaches that there are cleansing pains suffices to show that it is De Fide.

There are also no Magisterial sources of which I’m aware that dicates that Purgatory is a place. I know for a fact, at least, that Trent nor Vatican 1 makes that assertion.

I really cannot see how it could be anything else, the souls arent in heaven OR hell, so where else are they going to be?

Yet the author assigns to this satisfaction SACRAMENTAL efficacy. And THAT is not what the Church teaches. So, again, you cannot claim that this author is actually disagreeing with the actual teaching of the Church.

B]No the author makes the claim that only through holy penance can the soul make satisfaction for its sins ‘Also, the soul can receive no sacraments after death; and if it were then to make satisfaction for its sins, it would have to perform a part of the sacrament of holy Penance, which would be contrary to the orthodox teaching. Therefore, the Church rightly performs for them the unbloody sacrifice and prayers, but they do not cleanse themselves by suffering something’

The second is the actual case, and the concern you express appears to be a prejudicial ignorance against the Eastern principle of apophatism.

No its merely a valid philosphical point

 

[TrentCath]

I’ll respond to this before I go since it is a quickie.

Not if they’re meaningless. I see you didn’t offer a response to my statement that Trent’s language is not averse to the imagery of disease. I guess you admit that your point was meaningless?

Well, no. You stated that there were disagreements on the issue of the canon. But there were none. Your citation from St. Jerome proves my point, since St. Jerome was simply pointing out that his detractors misunderstood him - that he was never intending to deny the Deuteros. In fact he calls the one who misrespresented him “a fool and a slanderer.” So there was no actual disagreement over the Canon as far as St. Jerome is concerned.

’ I also told the reader that the version read in the Christian churches was not that of the Septuagint translators but that of Theodotion. It is true, I said that the Septuagint version was in this book very different from the original, and that it was condemned by the right judgment of the churches of Christ; but the fault was not mine who only stated the fact, but that of those who read the version. We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us. I did not reply to their opinion in the Preface, because I was studying brevity, and feared that I should seem to he writing not a Preface but a book. I said therefore, “As to which this is not the time to enter into discussion.” …] Still, I wonder that a man should read the version of Theodotion the heretic and judaizer, and should scorn that of a Christian, simple and sinful though he may be. ’ From ‘Against Rufinis’

The Church has its own language, and we often use secular terms with a different ecclsiological meaning. You can appeal to secular sources if you like. I prefer to go by what the Church understands, and the Church uses “autonomous” in the way I have stated. As noted earlier, and it has become obvious, you are confusing “autonomous” with “autocephalous.”

Blessings,
Marduk

To be short:

1. No I dont think Trent thinks of sin as a disease
2. No, I pointed out that there wasnt a decided canon and disagreement over what was and wasn’t canonical
   3)Self-governing doesn’t mean that, I really am not going to belabour point

 

[TrentCath]

Excellent points all! (TrentCath is a member of the SSPX?)

Alex

Not a member as the only ‘members’ (and I use the term loosely are the priests), an adherent, mostly, yes.

 

[Cecilianus]

Two points:

(1) I would question whether the Orthodox mispresentation of “particular judgment” as a “waiting period” that was given by TrentCath is a universal or even common Orthodox view - I’ve never heard it before. Orthodox in general do not speak of particular judgment at all. What happens immediately after death is usually not discussed, and if so only as private speculation rather than public teaching. Those Orthodox that accept the mytarstva or “toll houses” do not regard judgment as a waiting period, but rather as a process (extending over no more than about ten days) by which one is condemned or justified by his own sins and works performed out of grace.

(2) I was taught as a Roman Catholic that Purgatory is no more a place than Heaven and Hell are. Heaven and Hell will be places when there are bodies in them; until them, what meaning does the term “place” even have, since place is an accident of a body? Purgatory is a state of purification. It can happen without any connection to any physical place (which we can imagine as some sort of “place” separate from the physical world, though the term is being used analogically), or we can imagine it as having a connection to physical places on earth, for example the soul that was doing his purgatory in a block of ice that one saint sat on in the Golden Legend, or the soul that St. Pio of Pietrelcina saw sweeping the attic of a church.

 

[steve_b]

I’m referring to the Quinisext Council of Trullo in 692 that was not ratified by Rome as it condemned a string of Western practices (and if they were small “t” traditions by your reckoning, then this does not mean they were unimportant).

Thanks for the clarification on what council you refered to. It would have been better that you gave that name upfront

You mentioned apostolic canon 69 and the issue of fasting… you made a big deal about that. I can also see why when checking for a canon #69 on fasting which you made such a point on, nothing came up. Go to canon 69 in the 1st link attached. Fast/Fasting is mentioned ~25 times, in many canons, but NOT canon 69.

The second link gives the background of this council for the West. Therefore, I don’t think this council is one we’re going to get much traction on for purposes of this conversation



2nd source for the canons fordham.edu/halsall/basis/trullo.html
A:

The pope of the day refused to ratify them and they could therefore not be applicable to the universal church (i.e. the West) because the patriarch of the West would not receive them.

So why did you make the following accusation?

:
Originally Posted by Alexander Roman forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Dear Steve,

*The rule of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays was laid down in the ***69th Apostolic Canon ****- to change it was to defy the authority of the Apostles, so, no, it wasn’t a small “t” tradition. (It became a small “t” in the contemporary RC Church, however . . .).

And so Rome was upbraided for daring to change it - the point is Rome, for all its authority, wasn’t above the laws and canons that bound all the Churches.

As you can see, from the links provided, the reality of this issue, is NOT how you state it…true?
A:

The pope’s authority itself was not required to ratify those canons for the Eastern Churches at a time when they were in full union with Rome.

All it means is that Trullo is a local council for Eastern churches. Don’t read more into this than there is.
A:

That Rome bore apostolic authority and the Petrine Primacy is something no one in the first millennium questioned. But that did not mean that Rome could not be upbraided, including Pope Honorius, and it did not mean the papal ratification was needed for canons to be applicable for other parts of the Church.

Alex

You brought this up not me. I never said Eastern councils can’t make rules and regulations for themselves sans the pope. And I never said the pope had to ratify them for applicability in the East. As far as Honorius, I’ll just say, He didn’t teach heresy, he was condemned NOT for teaching heresy, but for NOT stopping heresy. He asked Surgius not to talk about what they were discussing. Surgius didn’t comply. No body even knew what Honorius thought because he kept it between he and Surgius. 50 years after Honorius died, we find out what he and Surgius were talking about via correspondence between the 2. But all that is for another thread,.

 

[TrentCath]

Two points:

(1) I would question whether the Orthodox mispresentation of “particular judgment” as a “waiting period” that was given by TrentCath is a universal or even common Orthodox view - I’ve never heard it before. Orthodox in general do not speak of particular judgment at all. What happens immediately after death is usually not discussed, and if so only as private speculation rather than public teaching.

I have shown two fairly authoritative sources which claim this and I don’t doubt that I could probably dig up more if need be, whether it is common view or not I don’t know

Those Orthodox that accept the mytarstva or “toll houses” do not regard judgment as a waiting period, but rather as a process (extending over no more than about ten days) by which one is condemned or justified by his own sins and works performed out of grace.

I would point out that there are other views of a ‘Waiting Period’ except those of ‘toll houses’, as for that I would say that it is in opposition to catholic teaching which says that we either go immediately to heaven or hell or purgatory.

(2) I was taught as a Roman Catholic that Purgatory is no more a place than Heaven and Hell are. Heaven and Hell will be places when there are bodies in them; until them, what meaning does the term “place” even have, since place is an accident of a body?

**For this It suffices to say only that both the Catechism of the Council of Trent saw fit to use the word place ‘How many places are there, in which Souls, placed out of the enjoyment of Bliss, are detained after Death’ Chapter VI, of the Fifth Article, Question III and for that matter so did The Angelic Doctor where in the Summa it says ‘Article 1. Whether places are appointed to receive souls after death?’ Question 69, Article I

Also I am confused as to what you mean by ‘Heaven and Hell will be places when there bodies in them…’, Christ (who we all agree has a body) and the Saints are in heaven whilst the Damned are in hell and the rest are in purgatory, so I’m not entirely sure what you are saying here.
**

 

[Vico]

Two points:

(1) I would question whether the Orthodox mispresentation of “particular judgment” as a “waiting period” that was given by TrentCath is a universal or even common Orthodox view - I’ve never heard it before. Orthodox in general do not speak of particular judgment at all. What happens immediately after death is usually not discussed, and if so only as private speculation rather than public teaching. Those Orthodox that accept the mytarstva or “toll houses” do not regard judgment as a waiting period, but rather as a process (extending over no more than about ten days) by which one is condemned or justified by his own sins and works performed out of grace.

(2) I was taught as a Roman Catholic that Purgatory is no more a place than Heaven and Hell are. Heaven and Hell will be places when there are bodies in them; until them, what meaning does the term “place” even have, since place is an accident of a body? Purgatory is a state of purification. It can happen without any connection to any physical place (which we can imagine as some sort of “place” separate from the physical world, though the term is being used analogically), or we can imagine it as having a connection to physical places on earth, for example the soul that was doing his purgatory in a block of ice that one saint sat on in the Golden Legend, or the soul that St. Pio of Pietrelcina saw sweeping the attic of a church.

Me too. That purgatory is a state, is what I learned from Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (1894), and also about particular and general judgment.

Q. 1371. When will Christ judge us?
A. Christ will judge us immediately after our death, and on the last day.
Q. 1372. What is the judgment called which we have to undergo immediately after death?
A. The judgment we have to undergo immediately after death is called the Particular Judgment.
Q. 1373. Where will the particular judgment be held?
A. The particular judgment will be held in the place where each person dies, and the soul will go immediately to its reward or punishment.
Q. 1374. What is the judgment called which all men have to undergo on the last day?
A. The judgment which all men have to undergo on the last day is called the General Judgment.
Q. 1375. Will the sentence given at the particular judgment be changed at the general judgment?
A. The sentence given at the particular judgment will not be changed at the general judgment, but it will be repeated and made public to all.
Q. 1376. Why does Christ judge men immediately after death?
A. Christ judges men immediately after death to reward or punish them according to their deeds.

Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.
Q. 1382. Why is this state called Purgatory?
A. This state is called Purgatory because in it the souls are purged or purified from all their stains; and it is not, therefore, a permanent or lasting state for the soul.
Q. 1383. Are the souls in Purgatory sure of their salvation?
A. The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision.
Q. 1384. Do we know what souls are in Purgatory, and how long they have to remain there?
A. We do not know what souls are in Purgatory nor how long they have to remain there; hence we continue to pray for all persons who have died apparently in the true faith and free from mortal sin. They are called the faithful departed.
Q. 1385. Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?
A. The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms, deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them.
Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?
A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.
Q. 1387. If every one is judged immediately after death, what need is there of a general judgment?
A. There is need of a general judgment, though every one is judged immediately after death, that the providence of God, which, on earth, often permits the good to suffer and the wicked to prosper, may in the end appear just before all men.

 

[Cecilianus]

“Place” is used analogously here. In the ordinary sense of the term place is an accident of body. Yes, Christ and the Theotokos have bodies, but the saints in Heaven don’t until after the General Judgement.