I was wondering....do eastern catholics?

[Cyrillic]

Welcome again to the CAF!

Thank you. I missed talking to you.

Sometimes “simple” is just fine - focus on the mysteries involved, knowing that we are not yet fully able to comprehend everything about these mysteries just yet.

Wisdom! Let us be attentive!

or perhaps the rest of us are generally delusional, as was suggested

Ah, I’ve always been a bit on the crazy side. Glad to see some of my colleagues in madness.

 

[Stephentlig]

Marian Apparitions are not dogma. All Catholics, Latins or otherwise, are free to ignore them if they wish.

Ah I see, so we shall ignore Our Lady, an approved apparition to suit our own theological fancies? That is odd.

It is odd that when a revelation is given to us from heaven, and does not suit our conveinence we say ‘‘oh the Church says we don’t have to believe in it.’’ and when a revelation comes also from a non-approved apparition we instead say ‘‘it is not approved of by the Church’’ in order not to believe. All simplicity gets thrown out the window for the sake of our own desires.

Anyway, with Byzcantors pointing out of Bl.Pope John Paul II, why is it a problem that we believe in purgatory? Its part of our faith and morals.

 

[Zekariya]

Welcome again to the CAF!

BTW - some didn’t “get the memo” (from + Blessed Pope JPII):

Blessed Pope John Paul II wasn’t speaking ex cathedra.

“If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.” - The Council of Trent, On Justification, Canon 30
thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

Purgatory is considered to be part of the next world in the above canon of that Ecumenical Council. It hasn’t been defined infallibly as “a condition of existence”. We are not required to accept Blessed Pope John Paul’s understanding of it as part of the deposit of Faith. It is one understanding among others. That is all.

 

[malphono]

Ah I see, so we shall ignore Our Lady, an approved apparition to suit our own theological fancies? That is odd.

It is odd that when a revelation is given to us from heaven, and does not suit our conveinence we say ‘‘oh the Church says we don’t have to believe in it.’’ and when a revelation comes also from a non-approved apparition we instead say ‘‘it is not approved of by the Church’’ in order not to believe. All simplicity gets thrown out the window for the sake of our own desires.

I generally don’t involve myself in this type of discussion, but I will make a comment here.

It seems to me this is an unfair barb at the East/Orient. It’s not a matter of “simplicity” or anything of the sort. The various apparitions approved by the Church are all considered “private” (at least as far I can recall … can’t think of one that is otherwise – someone please correct me if I’ve had a memory lapse here) and as such none have ever been elevated to “dogma” (or even the lower standard of “doctrine” for that matter). While most, Eastern/Oriental and Western alike, do accept them, no one, (Eastern, Oriental, or Western) is “required” to do so.

Those that are not approved are another matter entirely.

Anyway, with Byzcantors pointing out of Bl.Pope John Paul II, why is it a problem that we believe in purgatory? Its part of our faith and morals.

The concept of Purgatory as “hellfire and brimstone place of punishment” (or however one wants to describe it) is strictly a product of Schlastic thought, and is quite alien to the East and Orient which indeed does accept the principle of expiation, but without the Scholastic trappings. And (traditionally, at least), we most certainly do offers prayers for the Faithful Departed. More so, in fact, than the Latin Church does, even in the Usus Antiquior.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Blessed Pope John Paul II wasn’t speaking ex cathedra.

Yes, I forgot - it’s only in those instances that we are obliged to listen

 

[BVMFatima]

Marian Apparitions are not dogma. All Catholics, Latins or otherwise, are free to ignore them if they wish.

When you say Latins, you mean Catholics of the Roman Church right?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

It is one understanding among others. That is all.

BTW - odd pushback from a Melkite

 

[jimmy]

Praying for the dead would necessitate a belief in an intermediary place before one’s entrance into God’s presence. Once someone is in heaven or hell, the die has been cast so to speak. The Eastern Catholics may not call the intermediary place by the name, purgatory. They may not teach the same scholastic process that the Western Catholics teach. But, they certainly believe that the souls that are in the intermediary place are helped by our prayers.

Not necessarily. Some saints, east and west, have believed that people can be prayed out of hell so to speak. Purgatory and hell were one and the same thing. So to make an intermediary place a necessary conclusion of prayers for the dead is false.

 

[Zekariya]

Not necessarily. Some saints, east and west, have believed that people can be prayed out of hell so to speak. Purgatory and hell were one and the same thing. So to make an intermediary place a necessary conclusion of prayers for the dead is false.

Why didn’t the Fathers teach that infants can be prayed out of limbo (theorized as the highest, painless level of hell) or hell (for those that didn’t teach limbo)? You might find some people on the fringe that teach what you have said but, that is far and few in between. Read the councils that dealt with Purgatory.

ByzCathCantor:

Yes, I forgot - it’s only in those instances that we are obliged to listen

What about the fact that Pope St Pius X taught that we cannot as Catholics teach that Man is a product of evolution? Yet, the more recent popes (Pope Pius XII for example) have said that man can be a product of evolution as long as we still all descend from Adam and Eve alone.

Whatever should we do? You seem to teach that we must cling to every word of every pope. You know very well that I can produce many contradictory teachings from popes. That is why they are only infallible as long as they speak ex cathedra or speak that which the Magisterium has always taught.

Theologians, popes or not, often differ with each other on the non-essentials. East versus West for example.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You seem to teach that we must cling to every word of every pope.

I teach nothing - absolutely nothing. And I certainly try not to lecture to others.

Your responses infer I am rather ignorant. You’ve gone out of your way to do so. I’ll try not to return the favor.

BTW - I find it ironic that a Melkite choses to attack another Eastern Catholic for pointing to a specific teaching of a Pope that is consistent with Eastern theology, tied to the subject at hand.

For the record, this singular reference was intended only to make a point about belief in Purgatory. Yet, it has been now extended to a treatise on levels of Catholic teaching, most probably to beat a presumed ignorant into submission.

 

[Zekariya]

I teach nothing - absolutely nothing. And I certainly try not to lecture to others.

Your responses infer I am rather ignorant. You’ve gone out of your way to do so. I’ll try not to return the favor.

BTW - I find it ironic that a Melkite choses to attack another Eastern Catholic for pointing to a specific teaching of a Pope that is consistent with Eastern theology, tied to the subject at hand.

For the record, this singular reference was intended only to make a point about belief in Purgatory. Yet, it has been now extended to a treatise on levels of Catholic teaching, most probably to beat a presumed ignorant into submission.

Please forgive my appearance of inferring you to be rather ignorant. I only mean that the Blessed Pope’s teaching on Purgatory is not a definitive doctrinal statement that the entire Church is required to believe. I misunderstood you as saying that we must accept the Blessed Pope’s understanding as the correct understanding on the matter.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Please forgive …

Forgiven, as we hope to be forgiven. Peace!

 

[Zekariya]

Forgiven, as we hope to be forgiven. Peace!

Thanks, peace!

 

[Ghosty]

For those who are curious, Purgatory was considered part of Hell in the Catechism of Trent. Not the Hell of the Damned, but Hell none the less.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zekariya]

For those who are curious, Purgatory was considered part of Hell in the Catechism of Trent. Not the Hell of the Damned, but Hell none the less.

Peace and God bless!

Gehenna, Hades, and Purgatory have been translated into English as Hell. However, they are not all Hell in the correct understanding of the term according to the Catechism of Trent:

These abodes are not all of the same nature, for among them is that most loathsome and dark prison in which the souls of the damned are tormented with the unclean spirits in eternal and inextinguishable fire. This place is called gehenna, the bottomless pit, and is hell strictly so called.

Among them is also the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth. The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare,’ on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Lastly, the third kind of abode is that into which the souls of the just before the coming of Christ the Lord, were received, and where, without experiencing any sort of pain, but supported by the blessed hope of redemption, they enjoyed peaceful repose. To liberate these holy souls, who, in the bosom of Abraham [Hades] were expecting the Saviour, Christ the Lord descended into hell.

Source: cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/trent/tcreed05.htm

1. Gehenna is the lake of fire and bottomless pit.
2. Hades is the abode of the dead which is divided into to halves with a gulf in between them: the wicked half and the righteous half. The righteous dwelled in Hades before Christ died and freed them; the wicked remain in Hades until the resurrection when they shall be thrown into the lake of fire (Gehenna).
3. Purgatory, which is being discussed in this thread.

 

[Crescentinus]

Latin teachings and canons. Wwweeeeeee

Why not?

 

[mardukm]

Comment on the idea that Purgatory is a “place.”

There is not a single dogmatic statement in the history of the Catholic Church (nor the Latin Catholic Church) that explicitly asserts that Purgatory is a “place.”

HH JP2’s statement discussed earlier that Purgatory is a “condition of existence” has not been infallibly defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, but it is in accordance with what has been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church throughout history.

From my studies, there are three dogmatic options in “the next world” - there is the Vision of God, there is purgation, and there is eternal separation from God. The Fathers refer to these three options as “Heaven,” “Purgatory,” or “Hell.” The more scholastic minded (such as Latins, generally, not exclusively) will probably conceive of these terms as places with boundaries, but those less inclined (such as Orientals and Easterns, generally, not exclusively) will conceive of them as conditions of existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zekariya]

Comment on the idea that Purgatory is a “place.”

There is not a single dogmatic statement in the history of the Catholic Church (nor the Latin Catholic Church) that explicitly asserts that Purgatory is a “place.”

HH JP2’s statement discussed earlier that Purgatory is a “condition of existence” has not been infallibly defined by the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church, but it is in accordance with what has been infallibly taught by the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church throughout history.

From my studies, there are three dogmatic options in “the next world” - there is the Vision of God, there is purgation, and there is eternal separation from God. The Fathers refer to these three options as “Heaven,” “Purgatory,” or “Hell.” The more scholastic minded (such as Latins, generally, not exclusively) will probably conceive of these terms as places with boundaries, but those less inclined (such as Orientals and Easterns, generally, not exclusively) will conceive of them as conditions of existence.

Blessings,
Marduk

My understanding of “place” is that a created soul is always at a “place”. Even “conditions of existence” must exist in a “place” even if they overlap (such as an Eastern notion that Heaven is the fire of God’s love for some and the fire of punishment for others - both occurring at the same “place”). This life on the “place” called Earth is a “condition of existence”. Only God Himself can exist outside of a “place”.

That is what I mean when I say that Purgatory is a “place”.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

My understanding of “place” is that a created soul is always at a “place”. Even “conditions of existence” must exist in a “place” even if they overlap (such as an Eastern notion that Heaven is the fire of God’s love for some and the fire of punishment for others - both occurring at the same “place”). This life on the “place” called Earth is a “condition of existence”. Only God Himself can exist outside of a “place”.

That is what I mean when I say that Purgatory is a “place”.

I’ve read some Eastern philosophers refer to the concepts of Aeternitas and Aeveternitas.

Aeternitas is a state properly belonging to God alone (eternal), while Aeveternitas is the state of created spiritual beings (immortal). In Aeternitas, there is no boundary of time or space. In Aeveternitas, there is no boundary of space, but there is the boundary of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zekariya]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I’ve read some Eastern philosophers refer to the concepts of Aeternitas and Aeveternitas.

Aeternitas is a state properly belonging to God alone (eternal), while Aeveternitas is the state of created spiritual beings (immortal). In Aeternitas, there is no boundary of time or space. In Aeveternitas, there is no boundary of space, but there is the boundary of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.