Roman vs Greek

[Nine_Two]

Well I am not sure of your point anymore. I think that it is often the case that Orthodox, while to a large extent eschewing Catholic terminolgy, actually hold much the same ideas. And some even use the Catholic words. In such cases, I think it misleading to suggest that there is a real distinction between the Catholic and Orthodox.

Yes, that is the official position of the Catholic Church. I know that. We’re all just making the differences up.colonist
The fact that what you hold as doctrine what we hold as not is already a difference.

As to purgatory, it’s all in the official catechism of the catholic church.

It’s also in the Catholic Encyclopedia and that seems to disagree with you, if the two documents disagree then perhaps you should find out why two documents that are both guaranteed to be free of doctrinal error by the Church contradict each other.

 

[Nine_Two]

Actually the specific issues here that we are talking about aren’t ones I see as something which hinder us - at least from the Orthodox side, since our position is that you can believe it if you want, my earlier argument is that it just isn’t church teaching or doctrine. However as you say there are some very real issues that we can’t just pretend don’t exist.

 

[dvdjs]

Fair enough as a general rule. However, I write as a Byzantine Catholic who has spent many years with an Orthodox parish. My comments aren’t related to some “broader” view, but are more concerned that readers get a faithful representation of Eastern Christianity that is far more nuanced than comments of the zealous but inexperienced Orthodox who tend to post here. And further, to dispel misconceptions about Catholic teaching that seem inevitably to be part of the expression of our differences by Orthodox.

If one wants to talk about differences, one might be tempted to point to the idea of “mortal” sin, but the reticence of some Orthodox about the term - notwithstanding the functional equivalence of grave sins unto death and grave sins that necessitate confession before communion - gives an indication that this difference is a superficial one. Certainly the use of the term in catechisms written by Orthodox priests and saints should make one reconsider the idea that this is a difference of any significance.

Discussions of the Catholic concept of purgatory (like Original Sin) are pretty much pointless, unless there is an agreement on what that concept is. The CC is quite clear in publishing authoritative documents that should but oddly often aren’t sufficient.

Nine_Two, what specifically do you see as a conflict between what is wiritten on Purgatory in THe CE versus the CCC?

 

[aspirant]

Both. It is not doctrine and therefore belief in it is not necessary.

I am aware it is not a dogma of Orthodox faith, though the faithful are free to believe it; I just wanted clarification what you meant by the term.

 

[dvdjs]

Actually the specific issues here that we are talking about aren’t ones I see as something which hinder us - at least from the Orthodox side, since our position is that you can believe it if you want, my earlier argument is that it just isn’t church teaching or doctrine. However as you say there are some very real issues that we can’t just pretend don’t exist.

I agree with this.

 

[aspirant]

It’s also in the Catholic Encyclopedia and that seems to disagree with you, if the two documents disagree then perhaps you should find out why two documents that are both guaranteed to be free of doctrinal error by the Church contradict each other.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not free of doctrinal error, not inerrant.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not free of doctrinal error, not inerrant.

From the Front page of the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Encyclopedia bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Archbishop under whose jurisdiction it is published.

Disclaimer following the imprimatur in most works that I’ve come across:

The “Nihil Obstat” and “Imprimatur” are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error.

 

[aspirant]

Your interpretation involves a misunderstanding of imprimatur. Here’s a helpful article. The Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly not inerrant.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

From the Front page of the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Disclaimer following the imprimatur in most works that I’ve come across:

Being “free from doctrinal or moral error” does not mean its contents are dogmatic. There are many things in them that are only theologoumena, or have no bearing on doctrine or morals, or have never had the benefit of an inquiry from the Church upon which the censor liborum could make a decision.

In any case, could you please respond to brother dvdjs’ question: what specifically do you see as a conflict between what is wiritten on Purgatory in The Catholic Encyclopedia versus the Catechism? Thanks in advance.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[krash]

I would like to thank everyone who responded to my questions. The information was
quite informative.

 

[Nine_Two]

Your interpretation involves a misunderstanding of imprimatur. Here’s a helpful article. The Catholic Encyclopedia is certainly not inerrant.

Yes, under specific circumstances there may be doctrinal errors, as stated “A book may contain doctrinal or moral errors that the censor(s) did not notice.”

The problem is the Catholic Encyclopedia was and is such a resource that these errors should be noticed. Recently the Vatican even removed an imprimatur which had previously been granted, thus they can be revoked. I find it unlikely that in the 100 year history of the encyclopedia I’m the first to come across this.

I have never claimed that the imprimatur guarantees it to be fully the Catholic Churches opinion, only that its stated doctrine is considered to not be at error.

 

[Nine_Two]

Dear brother Nine_Two,

Being “free from doctrinal or moral error” does not mean its contents are dogmatic. There are many things in them that are only theologoumena, or have no bearing on doctrine or morals, or have never had the benefit of an inquiry from the Church upon which the censor liborum could make a decision.

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.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nine_Two, what specifically do you see as a conflict between what is wiritten on Purgatory in THe CE versus the CCC?

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.

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.

 

[mardukm]

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.

But what if the teaching being discussed in the encyclopedia is simply theologoumenon that does not contradict Church teaching, but is not required to be believed nevertheless. Just because it is in the encyclopedia does not mean it is actual Church doctrine. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings

 

[Nine_Two]

But what if the teaching being discussed in the encyclopedia is simply theologoumenon that does not contradict Church teaching, but is not required to be believed nevertheless. Just because it is in the encyclopedia does not mean it is actual Church doctrine. Wouldn’t you agree?

Blessings

In this specific case it was defining Purgatory, and stated that purgatory is doctrine. Theoretical situations do not enter into it.

 

[mardukm]

In this specific case it was defining Purgatory, and stated that purgatory is doctrine. Theoretical situations do not enter into it.

But there are several points about the general teaching on Purgatory that are mere theologoumena, and, really, only two points that can be considered the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e., dogma). These are:
(1) That there is a state or “place” after death that is not heaven or hell where souls can undergo further perfection or cleansing/purification.
(2) That the prayers and suffrages of the Church – especially the Sacrifice of the Church in Mass/DL/HQ — are beneficial to these souls in this third state.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[aspirant]

The problem is the Catholic Encyclopedia was and is such a resource that these errors should be noticed.

I’m sure Remy Lafort did his best, but none of us has ever considered him infallible.

 

[aspirant]

its stated doctrine is considered to not be at error.

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.

whatever the Catholic Encyclopedia says on doctrine, is Catholic doctrine.

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.

I haven’t seen what the CCC says since I don’t have a copy

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

But there are several points about the general teaching on Purgatory that are mere theologoumena, and, really, only two points that can be considered the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e., dogma). These are:
(1) That there is a state or “place” after death that is not heaven or hell where souls can undergo further perfection or cleansing/purification.
(2) That the prayers and suffrages of the Church – especially the Sacrifice of the Church in Mass/DL/HQ — are beneficial to these souls in this third state.

Yes. A dogmatic formulation of the Catholic Church: “If truly penitent people die in the love of God before they have made satisfaction for acts and omissions by worthy fruits of repentance, their souls are cleansed after death by cleansing pains; and the suffrages of the living faithful avail them in giving relief from such pains, that is, sacrifices of masses, prayers, almsgiving and other acts of devotion which have been customarily performed by some of the faithful for others of the faithful in accordance with the church’s ordinances.”

From a Catholic perspective, much the same thing that Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus believed: “But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which-- even though they have repented over them-- they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins.” And as a good Orthodox Christian, of course, he believed that our prayers aid this. He just refused to call that “purgatory.”

 

[Nine_Two]

But there are several points about the general teaching on Purgatory that are mere theologoumena, and, really, only two points that can be considered the teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e., dogma). These are:
(1) That there is a state or “place” after death that is not heaven or hell where souls can undergo further perfection or cleansing/purification.
(2) That the prayers and suffrages of the Church – especially the Sacrifice of the Church in Mass/DL/HQ — are beneficial to these souls in this third state.

Blessings,
Marduk

And that first is as far as the Catholic Encyclopedia goes in its definition. So clearly it is correct on the doctrine, which means that the definition dvdjs gave me was incorrect, insofar as I understood what he was saying (and asking for correction).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother (sister?) Aspirant,

From a Catholic perspective, much the same thing that Orthodox St. Mark of Ephesus believed: “But if souls have departed this life in faith and love, while nevertheless carrying away with themselves certain faults, whether small ones over which they have not repented at all, or greater ones for which-- even though they have repented over them-- they did not undertake to show fruits of repentance: such souls, we believe, must be cleansed from this kind of sins.” And as a good Orthodox Christian, of course, he believed that our prayers aid this. He just refused to call that “purgatory.”

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