Roman vs Greek

[Nine_Two]

Emphasis added. It was not considered to be in error by Remy Lafort and John Cardinal Farley, so it was printed in good faith that it would do good rather than harm.

To the best of Remy Lafort’s knowledge, there was nothing objectionable, so John Cardinal Farley said “let it be printed.” I have no reason to believe that they were not very knowledgeable about the faith, no reason to doubt that they were very good men, no reason to question their intentions in any way, but they were not and are not the Magisterium, and certainly not infallible.

While I agree, the fact remains that the Vatican has established the precedent that it can rescind the imprimatur. That the Catholic Encyclopedia has been around as long as it has, any doctrinal issues should have caused such a revokation long ago. After just under 100 years, if there are any doctrinal errors present we have only two conclusions, 1) Doctrine has changed, or 2) the Vatican has been negligent in making sure its publications are free from error. It is for this reason that I shall continue to use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source on Catholic doctrine (although much of what it says on practice is outdated). However:

Here’s a free one if you want it in the future.

Thank you for the link, I have bookmarked it, and shall endevour to make use of it.

 

[aspirant]

EXCELLENT!!!

Please keep in mind that when Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus said that, he was at that very moment insisting that there is no such thing as purgatory. But though he considered it disagreement, I find substantial agreement.

And I agree about brother Nine_Two. Good guy.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother (sister?) Aspirant,

EXCELLENT!!! One often encounters EO who are so busy trying to “not be Catholic” that they can’t see the forest for the trees. I’m not saying this about brother Nine_Two, whose comments I think show him to be a genuine friend of Truth.

Blessings,
Marduk

As I’ve stated, on this issue my biggest problem is the very fact that it is defined. I don’t particularly care what the beliefs of those whom I share Communion with are on this matter, I simply agree with the Orthodox teaching that it is not something that was revealed to us, so any opinion on the matter is speculation at best.

 

[aspirant]

While I agree, the fact remains that the Vatican has established the precedent that it can rescind the imprimatur.

Vatican involvement in this sort of thing is extremely rare and generally limited to recent and especially egregious problems. They do not even attempt to review all Catholic books bearing an imprimatur, much less old dusty ones like this.

 

[dvdjs]

Nothing, because I haven’t seen what the CCC says since I don’t have a copy and even if I did you didn’t say wherein the issue is dealt with, however you sited it as backing up the view you stated, and I took that in good faith.

The CCC is on line so if you are interested you can have a look. But is what it says on Purgatory:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609

What do I see in the Catholic Encyclopedia that contradicts what you said? Well the very first line describes it as a “place or condition of temporal punishment” This is contrary to what I understood from what you were saying (which I asked if it was correct and you made no attempt to correct) that purgatory is simply the concept that our prayers can assist the dead.

The key first point is that we don’t just pray for the dead, and believe, as you say, that our prayers assist them. I think that we would agree that our prayers do not change the immutable God, and there for this assistance means a change in the person for whom we pray. I think that both East and West might talk of purification. An Easterner would specifically pray for the forgiveness of the sins of the deceased, for their blessed repose, and so forth, An Westerner might talk of this purification in the language of expiation of temporal punishments.

To understand the connection, it necessary to understand precisely what is meant by “temporal punishment”. I’ve this quoted from the CCC on two other threads.

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the “temporal punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.83

1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the “old man” and to put on the "new man."84

The CCC goes on to say that we make extend this idea to faithful applying the same actions to advance the purification and alleviate the temporal punishments of the departed.

On the other threads, it was interesting to see a misinformed rejection of the concept of temporal punishment followed by a discussion of Eastern ideas that were scarcely distinguishable from the above - ie discussions that highlight the salutary value of prayer, works of mercy and charity, rejects the idea of a vengeful God, and focuses on advancing a God-centered rather than creature-attached orientation. All points touched on in the CCC. In short, we advance the theosis of the departed through prayer and sacrifice. The Western language is and the imagery that it evokes are different, even sometimes radically different from the East, but the essential truth is not.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

As I’ve stated, on this issue my biggest problem is the very fact that it is defined. I don’t particularly care what the beliefs of those whom I share Communion with are on this matter, I simply agree with the Orthodox teaching that it is not something that was revealed to us, so any opinion on the matter is speculation at best.

I fully appreciate and love you as a brother for your statements. Sadly, however, you might have noticed that though the teaching is actually not dogmatized in the EOC, you will find many EO who use the teaching as a basis for disunity. Basically saying, "this is what we definitely teach, there is no room for agreement with you Latins. In effect, though it is not dogmatized, many EO act as if your own teaching is dogmatized.

Again, I do appreciate your own views, and it is EO like you who give me hope for unity in the future between the EO and CC.

I might also ask, is it really that bad to define something if the whole Church basically agrees on the teaching? Take for instance, the dogma of the Assumption. It is not dogmatized in the EOC, but can you really say that an EO can legitimately claim that the Assumption is a false teaching without facing the censure of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dvdjs]

You’re correct, but an article on doctrine in a publication guaranteed free from doctrinal error, should be expected to be the official word of the Catholic Church. Therefore whatever the Catholic Encyclopedia says on doctrine, is Catholic doctrine.

I think you would find it easy to consider any number of Orthodox theologoumena and pious opinions that are free from doctrinal error, but not dogma and even not doctrine of the OC. Why is it so difficult to understand in CC? How much the following, posted earlier today as Orthodox tradition, is “revealed” and how much is sheer speculation?

The soul for 2 days after physical death can visit places on earth (Fr. Seraphim, St. Archbishop John Maximovich, St. Theophan the Recluse and St. Macarius of Alexandria of the 4th century)

The soul on the 3rd day after physical death passes through evil spirits to be tested different sins commonly referred to as ATH which is a Particular Judgement. If they make it through the ATH without being taken by the demons, then they proceed as listed below. (St. John Maximovich, St. Theophan the Recluse, Fr. Seraphim, Bishop Ignatius, St. Athanasius the Great, St. Anthony the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Macarius the Great, St. Isaiah the Recluse of the 6th century, St. Hesychius of the 5th century, St. Gregory the Dialogist, St. Ephraim the Syrian, St. John Damascene, the Icon of and Tradition of the Falling Asleep of the Mother of God aka the Dormition and even the Divine Services of the Orthodox Church Tone 4, Friday, 8th Canticle of the Canon of Matins)

The soul after the 3rd and prior the 40th day after physical death still does not know the final outcome and is taken to visit places in heaven and hell. (St. Macarius of Alexandria, St.John Maximovich, Fr. Seraphim Rose and the Life of Theodora)

The soul between the 40th day after physical death and up to the Resurrection and Last Judgement are receiving a foretaste of either eternal torchures or eternal joy. It is possible during this time for those receiving a foretaste of hell to have changes in their soul as the Final Judgement has not yet taken place. (St. John Maximovich, Fr. Seraphim Rose, Life of Martyr Perpetua and the Life of the Nun Athanasia)

 

[mardukm]

While I agree, the fact remains that the Vatican has established the precedent that it can rescind the imprimatur. That the Catholic Encyclopedia has been around as long as it has, any doctrinal issues should have caused such a revokation long ago.

Actually, brother Nine_Two, the NEW Catholic Encyclopedia was intended for just that purpose, the Old CE having been considered outdated. I think it was published in the 1970’s and can generally be found at your local public library (complete with nihil obstat and imprimatur ). Are you familiar with it?

The resurgence of the Old CE is due to objections by traditional Catholics to what are deemed as liberalisms in the New CE. There is no new nihil obstat and imprimatur for any new reprintings of the Old CE (there are in fact no new reprintings, come to think of it).

I personally use the Old CE to research the constancy of Latin Catholic teaching, since it comes way before V2. A lot of people say V2 changed this or that or here or there, and the Old CE gives relatively new Catholics like me an easy reference for the teaching of the Church before V2 - if only to prove to naysayers (non-Catholics and some Trad Catholics) that the Catholic Church has not changed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[aspirant]

The resurgence of the Old CE is due to objections by traditional Catholics to what are deemed as liberalisms in the New CE.

To be fair, its increased use is also based on the fact that it’s so old and long out of print that it’s in the public domain. No one holds the copyright. So New Advent used volunteers to recreate it online, article by article, as a free reference tool.

 

[Nine_Two]

I might also ask, is it really that bad to define something if the whole Church basically agrees on the teaching? Take for instance, the dogma of the Assumption. It is not dogmatized in the EOC, but can you really say that an EO can legitimately claim that the Assumption is a false teaching without facing the censure of the Eastern Orthodox Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

In a case like that I simply question why, if everyone agrees, there is a need to declare it doctrine? Doctrine applies only to those things that are necessary to believe.
Most Orthodox Christians seem to accept the Assumption of Mary, however it is not doctrine simply because whether or not one believes it has no impact on salvation.
I personally do believe in the assumption of Mary.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think you would find it easy to consider any number of Orthodox theologoumena and pious opinions that are free from doctrinal error, but not dogma and even not doctrine of the OC. Why is it so difficult to understand in CC? How much the following, posted earlier today as Orthodox tradition, is “revealed” and how much is sheer speculation?

Yes, I consider the Aerial Toll House concept in the same category as Purgatory. It has not been accepted as doctrine, and thus must be seen in the realm of speculation. That many holy men have accepted it does nothing to alter that.

 

[aspirant]

Great book on the Dormition and Assumption for both Catholic and Orthodox Christians!

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually, brother Nine_Two, the NEW Catholic Encyclopedia was intended for just that purpose, the Old CE having been considered outdated. I think it was published in the 1970’s and can generally be found at your local public library (complete with nihil obstat and imprimatur ). Are you familiar with it?

The resurgence of the Old CE is due to objections by traditional Catholics to what are deemed as liberalisms in the New CE. There is no new nihil obstat and imprimatur for any new reprintings of the Old CE (there are in fact no new reprintings, come to think of it).

I personally use the Old CE to research the constancy of Latin Catholic teaching, since it comes way before V2. A lot of people say V2 changed this or that or here or there, and the Old CE gives relatively new Catholics like me an easy reference for the teaching of the Church before V2 - if only to prove to naysayers (non-Catholics and some Trad Catholics) that the Catholic Church has not changed.

Blessings,
Marduk

But as we have concluded it was correct on the doctrine we were discussing. Consistency was exactly why I went to it in this case, since dvdjs seemed (according to my interpretation) to be suggesting purgatory was something other than what I believed it to be, I went for a more traditional source which had at one point been declared free of doctrinal error. Obviously in this case that is correct.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

In a case like that I simply question why, if everyone agrees, there is a need to declare it doctrine? Doctrine applies only to those things that are necessary to believe.
Most Orthodox Christians seem to accept the Assumption of Mary, however it is not doctrine simply because whether or not one believes it has no impact on salvation.
I personally do believe in the assumption of Mary.

I see what you mean. But, to be concise, there is an explicit hierarchy of doctrines in the Catholic Church, the Christological doctrines holding primary place, wherein one’s salvation is not necessarily contingent on belief in certain doctrines. That is why, it might interest you to know, the Marian dogmas do not contain anathemas (declarations that call one’s salvation into question), though they do contain excommunications. I think, hope and pray that eventually the Churches can work something out based on that distinction.

Blessings,
Marduk