Are there any official sources of Orthodox teaching?

[samir]

But if you didn't already have some intuition as to what it is, you would not desire it. So what do you already know?

I believe in Jesus and that he founded a visible church. that is either the RCC or the OC. The only way I can think of to determine which church is it is to compare the official teachings of each and study history to see what the evidence supports.

How do you think I should go about trying to determine which church is the one Jesus founded or are you saying it doesn't matter and I shouldn't care whether I'm following Jesus' church or a man-made church that teaches false doctrines about God?

 

[samir]

The above 2nd point would still be rejected using an Orthodox understanding. Orthodoxy teaches all may benefit from the prayers of the Church in various ways not just 'some' people which roman dogma categorize as those in the purgatorial fire.

Believing that prayer benefits everyone is not a rejection that prayer benefits those in purgatory so the Orthodox are still in agreement with RCC teaching on purgatory.

Much of the doctrine of purgatory was being formulated at Florence during the debates. The Orthodox party didnt arrive having any precise teaching on the life beyond the grave as they weren't expecting anything out of the ordinary over this subject. In fact purgatory seems to have become a sticking point by accident when Cardinal Julian Caesarian suggested they forego starting the discussion with papal primacy and talk about the purifying fire, "so that we too might be purified by the words about it". The Orthodox after listening to the latin doctrine held a private conference on how to respond to these latin traditions which they were unaware of.
Remember that apophatic reasoning will tell you if something is not, it wont clarify what is, so The Orthodox put together a hasty response outlining certain objections. The Latin party did indeed speak of a temporal fire clarifying it was a fire of 'the present age'. Now the purgatorial fire is a critical aspect of purgatory 1 Cor 3.11-15 is the primary scriptural evidence they point to as fire being the central theme of those verses. Here is what Rome taught about purgatory:

• 
  
  
  • "If they have died repentant for their sins and having love of God, but have not made satisfaction for things they have done or omitted by fruits worthy of penance, then their souls, after death, are cleansed by the punishment of Purgatory; also . . . the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief from such punishment, namely the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers and almsgiving and other works of piety which, in accordance with the designation of the Church, are customarily offered by the faithful for each other." Council of Florence (1438-1443)

• 
  
  • "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." Catechism of Council of Trent, The Creed - Article V, Different Abodes Called Hell Catholic Essentials - Purgatory

You can find the same (but more sanitized wording) of this doctrine in pt 3, this is from the vatican's website, note this purifying fire exists before the final judgement making it a temporal fire apart from gehenna:

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.606 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:607
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.608
Catechism of the Catholic Church - I believe in life everlasting

Now in the council of Trent held in the mid 16th century (session 25), affirmed the previous decrees on purgatory as taught in those previous councils (florence) only mentioning the prayers and alms and commemorations help to purify but no more punishments, it declares that any difficult discourse and any deep explanation of purgatory should be avoided and the topic of purgatory has many "uncertain" aspects which should not be made public:

DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.
Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, [Page 233] but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ. But let the more difficult and subtle questions, and which tend not to edification, and from which for the most part there is no increase of piety, be excluded from popular discourses before the uneducated multitude. In like manner, such things as are uncertain, or which labour under an appearance of error, let them not allow to be made public and treated of. While those things which tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or which savour of filthy lucre, let them prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks of the faithful. But let the bishops take care, that the suffrages of the faithful who are living, to wit the sacrifices of masses, prayers, alms, and other works of piety, which have been wont to be performed by the faithful for the other faithful departed, be piously and devoutly performed, in accordance with the institutes of the church; and that whatsoever is due on their behalf, from the endowments of testators, or in other way, be discharged, not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately, by the priests and ministers of the church, and others who are bound to render this (service).
CT25

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct25.html

You quote the catechism that the doctrine of faith on Purgatory was formulated at the Councils of Florence and Trent yet neither of your quotes from those councils mentions fire. That's probably because the RCC never officially taught that there is fire in purgatory which means I don't have to believe in a purgatorial fire to join the RCC and neither do the Orthodox so it's really not an issue or a difference between Orthodoxy and RCism.

The catechism says the tradition of the Church speaks of a cleansing fire by reference to certain texts of Scripture. Scripture also speaks of a fire of hell as well as darkness yet fire is a source of light so they can't occur together which means the fire is likely metaphorical and not referring to a literal fire. Regardless of whether the fire is literal or metaphorical, RCs can believe either so it's not a problem.

Here is an Orthodox response to purgatory and what actually occured in this pseodo-council:
The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory

The main objection seems to be regarding a literal temporal fire in purgatory. Although the RCs may have believed the fire was literal and insisted upon it, that is no longer the case now.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Believing that prayer benefits everyone is not a rejection that prayer benefits those in purgatory so the Orthodox are still in agreement with RCC teaching on purgatory.

no, we agree that prayer helps, we disagree on why it helps and what prayer does for a departed soul.

You quote the catechism that the doctrine of faith on Purgatory was formulated at the Councils of Florence and Trent yet neither of your quotes from those councils mentions fire. That's probably because the RCC never officially taught that there is fire in purgatory which means I don't have to believe in a purgatorial fire to join the RCC and neither do the Orthodox so it's really not an issue or a difference between Orthodoxy and RCism.

actually, one of his sentences mentions the fire

The main objection seems to be regarding a literal temporal fire in purgatory. Although the RCs may have believed the fire was literal and insisted upon it, that is no longer the case now.

so they changed their belief (not surprising, Rome tends to do that), and the other issue is the idea of a third place for souls to go.

 

[samir]

no, we agree that prayer helps, we disagree on why it helps and what prayer does for a departed soul.

The RCC's official teaching on purgatory simply says prayer helps. It does not say why it helps or what it specifically does for a departed soul. If the OC knows more details than the RCC about purgatory, that's great but it does not mean the OC disagrees with RCC teaching on purgatory.

Florence - "the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief"

Trent - "the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful"

If you agree with the above, you agree with the RCC.

actually, one of his sentences mentions the fire

Yes, but that sentence was not an official RCC teaching. It was merely the opinion of the authors of a catechism which BTW never specified whether the fire was literal or metaphorical.

so they changed their belief (not surprising, Rome tends to do that), and the other issue is the idea of a third place for souls to go.

No, Rome did not change its teachings as they've never officially taught a literal fire in purgatory. It's just that some individual RCs today have a different opinion than some of the individual RCs in the past which isn't unlike the early Christians having opinions that differ from what many Christians believe today or the changing opinions of Orthodox Christians. If changing opinions of individual RCs refutes Rome's claims then changing opinions of the Orthodox regarding toll houses refutes the OC's claim to be Christ's church too.

 

[buzuxi02]

Believing that prayer benefits everyone is not a rejection that prayer benefits those in purgatory so the Orthodox are still in agreement with RCC teaching on purgatory.


You quote the catechism that the doctrine of faith on Purgatory was formulated at the Councils of Florence and Trent yet neither of your quotes from those councils mentions fire. That's probably because the RCC never officially taught that there is fire in purgatory which means I don't have to believe in a purgatorial fire to join the RCC and neither do the Orthodox so it's really not an issue or a difference between Orthodoxy and RCism.

The catechism says the tradition of the Church speaks of a cleansing fire by reference to certain texts of Scripture. Scripture also speaks of a fire of hell as well as darkness yet fire is a source of light so they can't occur together which means the fire is likely metaphorical and not referring to a literal fire. Regardless of whether the fire is literal or metaphorical, RCs can believe either so it's not a problem.



The main objection seems to be regarding a literal temporal fire in purgatory. Although the RCs may have believed the fire was literal and insisted upon it, that is no longer the case now.

Originally purgatory was meant for the cleansing of small minor faults , note how all the statements make clear that all in purgatory are already assured of their salvation. Prayers for the dead in Latin theology are of no benefit neither too the damned nor to those already saved having entered into full bliss in the beatific vision.
This is in contrast to the Orthodox explanation of the third, ninth and 40th day memorials which does not categorise souls. Also the writings of the Father's such as St Macarius who found the skull of a pagan priest and decided to pray for the person and bury it. St Macarius then had a vision of the pagan skull lamenting his hell under horrible fiery conditions, thanking the saint for his prayers as the prayers bring him relief and is able to see the faces of his fellow cohorts. The fire was eternal but he too benefitted from our prayers.
Now if Latin theology claims they no longer believe in a temporal fire of punishment, then take it with a grain of salt as the primary text they cite for scriptural evidence is in 1 Cor 3 where Paul speaks of "that day" where all will be tested in fire.
That one link which does speak of fire is directly from the Vatican's website click on it and see the Web address. Furthermore within the actual practise of the church , prayers for the dead in the Latin tradition truly is tied to purgatory, while in the Eastern tradition no one equates them as such. The memorial services are therapeutic for the living just as they are beneficial for the dead assuring the living family members there is no death and no separation exists between the church triumphant and church militant.

 

[samir]

Originally purgatory was meant for the cleansing of small minor faults , note how all the statements make clear that all in purgatory are already assured of their salvation.

That hasn't changed.

Prayers for the dead in Latin theology are of no benefit neither too the damned nor to those already saved having entered into full bliss in the beatific vision.

That is a separate issue that has nothing to do with purgatory.

This is in contrast to the Orthodox explanation of the third, ninth and 40th day memorials which does not categorise souls. Also the writings of the Father's such as St Macarius who found the skull of a pagan priest and decided to pray for the person and bury it. St Macarius then had a vision of the pagan skull lamenting his hell under horrible fiery conditions, thanking the saint for his prayers as the prayers bring him relief and is able to see the faces of his fellow cohorts. The fire was eternal but he too benefitted from our prayers.

Interesting. I think our prayers may help in that way but I'd say they won't ever change a person's fate which is what I think people who said prayer can't help those in hell may have meant.

Now if Latin theology claims they no longer believe in a temporal fire of punishment, then take it with a grain of salt as the primary text they cite for scriptural evidence is in 1 Cor 3 where Paul speaks of "that day" where all will be tested in fire.

The fire mentioned in 1 Cor 3 may be a metaphor. You'd have to show where the RCC officially taught that passage refers to a literal fire to claim their teaching has changed.

That one link which does speak of fire is directly from the Vatican's website click on it and see the Web address.

Just because it's on the Vatican website doesn't mean it's official RCC teaching. The link is to the current catechism and catechisms have contained incorrect information in the past. When it says Catholics must believe in a "purifying fire" it doesn't specify they must believe in a literal fire. Catholics are free to believe the fire is a metaphor.

Furthermore within the actual practise of the church , prayers for the dead in the Latin tradition truly is tied to purgatory, while in the Eastern tradition no one equates them as such.

Understood. While praying only for the dead in purgatory versus praying for all the dead is a difference, it is not a disagreement with the RCC teaching on purgatory.

The memorial services are therapeutic for the living just as they are beneficial for the dead assuring the living family members there is no death and no separation exists between the church triumphant and church militant.

I agree. I'd be surprised if RCs didn't agree.

 

[Cappadocious]

How do you think I should go about trying to determine which church is the one Jesus founded

Historical studies will not allow you to determine this. The apologetics battle lines are long set, and the arguments can go on forever. If you're old enough you might remember a movie called WarGames, where a computer runs simulations to determine who would win a nuclear war: It comes out to a draw, there is no winner, only losers.

What you might do instead is this: Practice the faith of the Orthodox Church and of the Catholic Church. Whichever is real and works, embrace. The modern empiricist mind asks: But how will I know for sure? The sureness you speak of is unattainable in this life or the next, thank God. But how will I come to see the truth at all, you might ask? By direct perception.

Here is a list of concrete, meaningful things you can do:

https://frjamescoles.wordpress.com/...god’s-truth-and-finding-life-by-fr-tom-hopko/

And you can pray this prayer that a poster here shared:

Dear God, please force me and as many people as possible to salvation. Give to me and to as many people as possible the knowing of all religions and denominations the way you know them and please send me and as many people as possible to the best religion and denomination in your eyes. Please give to me and to as many people as possible what you know we need for all eternities. Amen.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The RCC's official teaching on purgatory simply says prayer helps. It does not say why it helps or what it specifically does for a departed soul. If the OC knows more details than the RCC about purgatory, that's great but it does not mean the OC disagrees with RCC teaching on purgatory.

Florence - "the suffrages of the faithful still living are efficacious in bringing them relief"

Trent - "the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful"

If you agree with the above, you agree with the RCC.

even if that is your angle, there is that whole purgatory is a third place which we reject.

Yes, but that sentence was not an official RCC teaching. It was merely the opinion of the authors of a catechism which BTW never specified whether the fire was literal or metaphorical.

well, the site gives no evidence that it is merely opinion.

No, Rome did not change its teachings as they've never officially taught a literal fire in purgatory. It's just that some individual RCs today have a different opinion than some of the individual RCs in the past which isn't unlike the early Christians having opinions that differ from what many Christians believe today or the changing opinions of Orthodox Christians. If changing opinions of individual RCs refutes Rome's claims then changing opinions of the Orthodox regarding toll houses refutes the OC's claim to be Christ's church too.

if that was the case, there would not have been the spat between Rome and St Mark of Ephesus. much of which dealt with the purgatorial fire.

your toll house comment is silly, because that has not changed. there is a difference between an official change, and folks who deny what has always been taught. Rome has done both. Orthodoxy has not. the problem is you cannot show that your opinion on Purgatory is actually what Rome has always officially taught. and you are ignoring the history that surrounds it.

 

[samir]

even if that is your angle, there is that whole purgatory is a third place which we reject.

I never heard of a third place. The catechism just says purgatory is a state where believers are purified.

CCC 1472 "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."

well, the site gives no evidence that it is merely opinion.

It's the nature of catechisms. I recommend you read the introduction of the catechism and study the different levels of Catholic teaching if you'd like to learn more. The following is an example of a mistake made in a catechism which shows catechisms are not official teaching:

The 1860 edition of Keenan's Catechism:

Q: Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the Church.

The 1895 edition of Keenan's Catechism:

(Q.) But some Catholics before the Vatican Council denied the Infallibility of the Pope, which was also formerly impugned in this very Catechism.

(A.) Yes; but they did so under the usual reservation – 'in so far as they could then grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions', thus implicitly accepting the dogma.

It would be silly to claim Rome's teaching had changed simply because the author of a catechism made a mistake explaining it.

if that was the case, there would not have been the spat between Rome and St Mark of Ephesus. much of which dealt with the purgatorial fire.

Like I said before, the papal representatives may have misunderstood Catholic teaching. The teaching is clear today so it's no longer a problem.

your toll house comment is silly, because that has not changed.

I read that few Orthodox today believe in literal toll houses but I don't know much about it so I can't say more.

there is a difference between an official change, and folks who deny what has always been taught. Rome has done both. Orthodoxy has not.

I have yet to see one example of Rome's teaching ever changing. If you're aware of Rome changing it's teaching on anything, please let me know because I don't want to join a church that contradicts what it previously taught.

the problem is you cannot show that your opinion on Purgatory is actually what Rome has always officially taught. and you are ignoring the history that surrounds it.

I didn't post an opinion. I simply pointed out the quotes from the official teaching of Florence and Trent did not mention anything about a fire in purgatory. If it's your opinion that Rome taught a literal purgatorial fire, it's up to you to provide evidence of it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I never heard of a third place. The catechism just says purgatory is a state where believers are purified.

CCC 1472 "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."

fine, a third state. the fact that it is a third state is an issue

It's the nature of catechisms. I recommend you read the introduction of the catechism and study the different levels of Catholic teaching if you'd like to learn more. The following is an example of a mistake made in a catechism which shows catechisms are not official teaching:

one of those was before Vatican I, one was after. it seems that the change in dogma caused the change in the catechism. again, not seeing any opinion.

Like I said before, the papal representatives may have misunderstood Catholic teaching. The teaching is clear today so it's no longer a problem.

so, any evidence that contradicts your position, you just chalk up to papal folk, who are probably more well versed then either of us in this, as them misunderstanding?

I read that few Orthodox today believe in literal toll houses but I don't know much about it so I can't say more.

you probably should not comment on what you don't know much about. either way, that's still silly thing to bring up, and has nothing to do with Roman contradictions

I have yet to see one example of Rome's teaching ever changing. If you're aware of Rome changing it's teaching on anything, please let me know because I don't want to join a church that contradicts what it previously taught.

filioque. Rome initially supported Constantinople IV which anathematized it's use. Pope John X excommunicated anyone who added it to the Creed. Popes have supported Ephesus which says the Creed cannot be altered.

I didn't post an opinion. I simply pointed out the quotes from the official teaching of Florence and Trent did not mention anything about a fire in purgatory. If it's your opinion that Rome taught a literal purgatorial fire, it's up to you to provide evidence of it.

hence St Mark of Ephesus, whose apologies were against the fires of purgatory. had that not been the teaching, he would not have had any ammo for his homilies. the history around it shows it was the teaching.

 

[samir]

fine, a third state. the fact that it is a third state is an issue

I'm not sure what you mean by a third state. Rome says some believers are purified after death before they enter heaven. Do the Orthodox object? How would the Orthodox explain it?

one of those was before Vatican I, one was after. it seems that the change in dogma caused the change in the catechism. again, not seeing any opinion.

If you study the Church's position on catechisms you will find they are not on the same level as official Catholic dogma. Although I'm sure the authors try to represent the true Catholic teaching to the best of their ability, sometimes their opinion of what is Catholic teaching may be deficient, unclear, or misleading because they are not infallible.

so, any evidence that contradicts your position, you just chalk up to papal folk, who are probably more well versed then either of us in this, as them misunderstanding?

That is certainly NOT the case. Claiming Catholic teaching has changed because someone's fallible understanding of it 500 years ago doesn't agree with the current official teaching is not logical. You'd have to quote the actual teaching (which on purgatory is found in the councils of Florence and Trent) if you want to show there has been a change.

you probably should not comment on what you don't know much about. either way, that's still silly thing to bring up, and has nothing to do with Roman contradictions

I assumed you would agree but since you don't I'll take your advice and not make any further comments on it.

filioque. Rome initially supported Constantinople IV which anathematized it's use. Pope John X excommunicated anyone who added it to the Creed. Popes have supported Ephesus which says the Creed cannot be altered.

I think it would be best to discuss the filioque on a separate where I can go into more detail.

hence St Mark of Ephesus, whose apologies were against the fires of purgatory. had that not been the teaching, he would not have had any ammo for his homilies. the history around it shows it was the teaching.

If I quoted bishops in the Orthodox Church who taught Arianism and iconoclasm would you accept that as evidence the teaching of the Orthodox Church has changed?

I agree with you that the papal representatives probably believed and taught a literal purgatorial fire based on their understanding of RCC teaching. However, since they were fallible men just like the bishops who taught Arianism and iconoclasm, I don't see why I should rely on their interpretation of RCC teaching (which no one is bound to believe) instead of the official teaching which can be found in the councils of Florence and Trent.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not sure what you mean by a third state. Rome says some believers are purified after death before they enter heaven. Do the Orthodox object? How would the Orthodox explain it?

people in purgatory are neither in heaven yet nor are they in hell.

If you study the Church's position on catechisms you will find they are not on the same level as official Catholic dogma. Although I'm sure the authors try to represent the true Catholic teaching to the best of their ability, sometimes their opinion of what is Catholic teaching may be deficient, unclear, or misleading because they are not infallible.

uh huh, and your credentials to speak on Catholic matters as opposed to those guys are what exactly?

That is certainly NOT the case. Claiming Catholic teaching has changed because someone's fallible understanding of it 500 years ago doesn't agree with the current official teaching is not logical. You'd have to quote the actual teaching (which on purgatory is found in the councils of Florence and Trent) if you want to show there has been a change.

the only thing you are giving is your opinion that it is there fallibility coming through, why should I trust fallible you over them?

I assumed you would agree but since you don't I'll take your advice and not make any further comments on it.

good, because we don't and that is a silly thing to bring up

I think it would be best to discuss the filioque on a separate where I can go into more detail.

just answering your question with historic fact

If I quoted bishops in the Orthodox Church who taught Arianism and iconoclasm would you accept that as evidence the teaching of the Orthodox Church has changed?

nope, any one bishop can have heretical leanings. those bishops changed, not Orthodox teaching.

I agree with you that the papal representatives probably believed and taught a literal purgatorial fire based on their understanding of RCC teaching. However, since they were fallible men just like the bishops who taught Arianism and iconoclasm, I don't see why I should rely on their interpretation of RCC teaching (which no one is bound to believe) instead of the official teaching which can be found in the councils of Florence and Trent.

again, you give no reason why anyone should listen to you as opposed to actual Roman theologians that studied this stuff.

 

[samir]

people in purgatory are neither in heaven yet nor are they in hell.

Where does Rome teach that?

Does Orthodoxy teach that believers undergo purification in hell?

uh huh, and your credentials to speak on Catholic matters as opposed to those guys are what exactly?

If I'm going to make a serious claim like the RCC's teaching had changed in an attempt to refute the RCC's claim of being the church Jesus founded, I certainly am not going to rely on my own credentials nor those of fallible men who aren't the Magisterium but would rely upon the actual, official teaching of the RCC to show their teaching has changed. If I am unable to show that current RCC teaching on purgatory is any different than they defined it at the councils of Florence and Trent, I am certainly not going to risk bearing false witness by claiming the teaching changed.

the only thing you are giving is your opinion that it is there fallibility coming through, why should I trust fallible you over them?

When making serious claims about a change of teaching, you shouldn't trust me or them but should rely upon the official teaching at the councils of Florence and Trent.

nope, any one bishop can have heretical leanings. those bishops changed, not Orthodox teaching.

I agree. You've just proven my point that you can't rely on those present at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence because they could be in error and not in agreement with Catholic teaching and therefore you haven't shown that Catholic teaching has changed.

again, you give no reason why anyone should listen to you as opposed to actual Roman theologians that studied this stuff.

I don't want you to listen to me. You're trying to convince me that RCC on purgatory has changed. I'm simply asking you to show me by quoting the actual teaching instead of quoting people who may have had heretical leanings or who may have erred in explaining Catholic teaching because that doesn't prove anything.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Where does Rome teach that?

you quoted it above.

Does Orthodoxy teach that believers undergo purification in hell?

believers are not in hell, only sinners are in hell. that's what makes it hell.

If I'm going to make a serious claim like the RCC's teaching had changed in an attempt to refute the RCC's claim of being the church Jesus founded, I certainly am not going to rely on my own credentials nor those of fallible men who aren't the Magisterium but would rely upon the actual, official teaching of the RCC to show their teaching has changed. If I am unable to show that current RCC teaching on purgatory is any different than they defined it at the councils of Florence and Trent, I am certainly not going to risk bearing false witness by claiming the teaching changed.

When making serious claims about a change of teaching, you shouldn't trust me or them but should rely upon the official teaching at the councils of Florence and Trent.

I agree. You've just proven my point that you can't rely on those present at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence because they could be in error and not in agreement with Catholic teaching and therefore you haven't shown that Catholic teaching has changed.

I don't want you to listen to me. You're trying to convince me that RCC on purgatory has changed. I'm simply asking you to show me by quoting the actual teaching instead of quoting people who may have had heretical leanings or who may have erred in explaining Catholic teaching because that doesn't prove anything.

the change in purgatory is that there was never the belief that a third state existed to purify souls. the fact that there was no purgatory until the middle ages is the change. but, to say there is no fire....

"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." Council of Trent, the Creed Article V

"Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching" Trent's catechism on Prayer

"We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated." Council of Trent on the Lord's Prayer

aside from you saying there is no fire, and giving nothing that actually backs up that claim

 

[samir]

you quoted it above.

I never quoted anything about a third state. I quoted:

"CCC 1472 "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."

No where does it say purgatory is separate from heaven or hell. Catholic theologian Aquinas wrote:

"the holy fathers; before the coming of Christ, were in a more worthy place than that wherein souls are now cleansed after death, since there was no pain of sense there. Yet that place was joined to hell, or the same as hell: otherwise Christ when descending into Limbo would not be said to have descended into hell. Therefore Purgatory is either close to, or the same place as, hell. (ST, Appendix 2, Purgatory)"

So if you want to argue they teach a third place or state you'd have to show where the RCC taught purgatory is not in hell.

believers are not in hell, only sinners are in hell. that's what makes it hell.

Purgatory is based on the verse that nothing impure shall enter heaven. You said Orthdoxy believes in a purification after death. If it's not in heaven or hell, then where is it? How is it not a third place or state?

the change in purgatory is that there was never the belief that a third state existed to purify souls. the fact that there was no purgatory until the middle ages is the change.

Purgatory refers to purification after death and is based on scripture. I thought you said Orthodoxy believes in purification and that it doesn't add new teachings over time so I don't understand your objection.

but, to say there is no fire....

"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." Council of Trent, the Creed Article V

"Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching" Trent's catechism on Prayer

"We also beg of God that we be not cut off by a sudden death; that we provoke not His anger against us; that we be not condemned to suffer the punishments reserved for the wicked; that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated." Council of Trent on the Lord's Prayer

Those three quotes are from the Catechism of Trent, not the Council of Trent. The RCC considers the Council of Trent to be its official infallible teaching but not the catechism which was not part of that council. Catechisms are considered fallible and they occasionally misrepresent Catholic teaching.

For an example of how that could happen, suppose a pope taught that the souls of those who depart this life in mortal sin or original sin alone go straightaway to hell. The authors of a catechism might misinterpret that and say unbaptized infants go to hell without considering that God may save them from original sin in a way unknown to the church.

aside from you saying there is no fire, and giving nothing that actually backs up that claim

I never said there is no fire. A claim was made that RCC teaching had changed. All I said is the quotes posted from Florence and Trent did not mention a fire.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative, it is impossible to prove the RCC never taught something. The burden proof would be on the one making the claim that their teaching had changed.

Although I'd like to see official teaching to see precisely what was taught, I mentioned I'm not disputing that the RCC taught a purgatorial fire in the past. As I pointed out previously, that would still not show the teaching had changed because the current Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches a purgatorial fire just like the catechism of Trent and neither one of them ever said the fire was literal.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I never quoted anything about a third state. I quoted:

No where does it say purgatory is separate from heaven or hell. Catholic theologian Aquinas wrote:

So if you want to argue they teach a third place or state you'd have to show where the RCC taught purgatory is not in hell.

well, those in Purgatory are saved but need purification, so you would have to show how the saved end up in hell

Purgatory is based on the verse that nothing impure shall enter heaven. You said Orthdoxy believes in a purification after death. If it's not in heaven or hell, then where is it? How is it not a third place or state?

because it's not a where. read the desert Fathers, the fire is the Presence of God, which is not a "where"

Purgatory refers to purification after death and is based on scripture. I thought you said Orthodoxy believes in purification and that it doesn't add new teachings over time so I don't understand your objection.

we don't take issue with purifying, it's the how that is the issue

Those three quotes are from the Catechism of Trent, not the Council of Trent. The RCC considers the Council of Trent to be its official infallible teaching but not the catechism which was not part of that council. Catechisms are considered fallible and they occasionally misrepresent Catholic teaching.

please show evidence for this

For an example of how that could happen, suppose a pope taught that the souls of those who depart this life in mortal sin or original sin alone go straightaway to hell. The authors of a catechism might misinterpret that and say unbaptized infants go to hell without considering that God may save them from original sin in a way unknown to the church.

and evidence for this

I never said there is no fire. A claim was made that RCC teaching had changed. All I said is the quotes posted from Florence and Trent did not mention a fire.

except that they did mention fire

Since it is impossible to prove a negative, it is impossible to prove the RCC never taught something. The burden proof would be on the one making the claim that their teaching had changed.

sure it is, we are not talking philosophy here. historic evidence is that Rome never taught this. the burden of proof is on you to show where this was taught, since all truth was given to the Apostles according to Scripture.

Although I'd like to see official teaching to see precisely what was taught, I mentioned I'm not disputing that the RCC taught a purgatorial fire in the past. As I pointed out previously, that would still not show the teaching had changed because the current Catechism of the Catholic Church also teaches a purgatorial fire just like the catechism of Trent and neither one of them ever said the fire was literal.

well, if you can explain how this is fire but not literal fire, and actually back it up with evidence and not just your opinion, I would love to see it

 

[samir]

well, those in Purgatory are saved but need purification, so you would have to show how the saved end up in hell

The quote I gave from Aquinas explains it but the RCC never taught where purgatory is located as far as I know so it could be that the presence of God purifies them or whatever the Orthodox believe.

because it's not a where. read the desert Fathers, the fire is the Presence of God, which is not a "where"

I don't understand. Are you saying God's presence instantly purifies believers after death?

please show evidence for this

and evidence for this

Here's an explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

What teaching is infallible?

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching...

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

From Fundamentals of Catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott quoted from Wikipedia, "Dogma in the Catholic Church":

Theological certainty Description
1. de fide Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered Divine revelation (and infallibly asserted)
2. fides ecclesiastica Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium in an infallible manner
3. sententia fidei proxima Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4. sententia certa Church teachings which the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility
5. sententia communis Teachings which are popular but within the (filtered) range of theological research
6. sententia probabilis Teachings with low degree of certainty
7. sententia bene fundata A well-reasoned teaching which does, however, not arise to being called probable
8. opinio tolerata Opinions tolerated, but discouraged, within the Catholic Church

except that they did mention fire

They may have but I haven't seen it.

sure it is, we are not talking philosophy here. historic evidence is that Rome never taught this. the burden of proof is on you to show where this was taught, since all truth was given to the Apostles according to Scripture.

How can I prove Rome didn't teach something? I'd have to provide documents of everything they taught and there would be no way to prove I had all of them so it's impossible. If Rome believed a purgatorial fire was part of divine revelation and knew the Orthodox objected to it, then why didn't they mention any fire at the council of Florence? That's where I'd expect it to be found.

If you want evidence Rome taught there wasn't a fire in purgatory, I don't think Rome ever taught that.

well, if you can explain how this is fire but not literal fire, and actually back it up with evidence and not just your opinion, I would love to see it

I'm not sure what you're asking. It sounds like you're asking how words can be understood non-literally but since you already know that as evidenced by you saying fire is the Presence of God I don't know what it is you want to see.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The quote I gave from Aquinas explains it but the RCC never taught where purgatory is located as far as I know so it could be that the presence of God purifies them or whatever the Orthodox believe.

if that was the case, there never would have been a debate to begin with.

I don't understand. Are you saying God's presence instantly purifies believers after death?

yep and continues to do so since God is infinite, we can always be more pure

Here's an explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

What teaching is infallible?

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching...

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences — unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

From Fundamentals of Catholic dogma by Ludwig Ott quoted from Wikipedia, "Dogma in the Catholic Church":

Theological certainty Description
1. de fide Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered Divine revelation (and infallibly asserted)
2. fides ecclesiastica Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium in an infallible manner
3. sententia fidei proxima Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the magisterium
4. sententia certa Church teachings which the Magisterium clearly decided for, albeit without claiming infallibility
5. sententia communis Teachings which are popular but within the (filtered) range of theological research
6. sententia probabilis Teachings with low degree of certainty
7. sententia bene fundata A well-reasoned teaching which does, however, not arise to being called probable
8. opinio tolerata Opinions tolerated, but discouraged, within the Catholic Church

yeah aside from this not mentioning Trent or Florence at all.

They may have but I haven't seen it.

I quoted them

How can I prove Rome didn't teach something? I'd have to provide documents of everything they taught and there would be no way to prove I had all of them so it's impossible. If Rome believed a purgatorial fire was part of divine revelation and knew the Orthodox objected to it, then why didn't they mention any fire at the council of Florence? That's where I'd expect it to be found.

If you want evidence Rome taught there wasn't a fire in purgatory, I don't think Rome ever taught that.

no, you would have to show where Rome did teach it. should be somewhere, especially if this is the true teaching of the Church.

I'm not sure what you're asking. It sounds like you're asking how words can be understood non-literally but since you already know that as evidenced by you saying fire is the Presence of God I don't know what it is you want to see.

I am asking you to back up with evidence what you are saying. and if you knew about the Roman definition about God's grace and energies, you would know that Rome cannot see that fire as God's presence

 

[samir]

if that was the case, there never would have been a debate to begin with.

Not necessarily. If the Roman bishops at the pseudo council believed in a literal material purgatorial fire and incorrectly thought it was Catholic teaching that would explain what happened.

yep and continues to do so since God is infinite, we can always be more pure

Understood.

yeah aside from this not mentioning Trent or Florence at all.

I don't understand what you are asking. I thought you wanted evidence the councils of Trent and Florence were infallible but not catechisms.

I quoted them

You quoted catechisms, not the councils of Trent or Florence (unless I missed it - I saw where you listed the Council of Trent as a source for two quotes but neither of those were from the Council of Trent. Both were quotes from the Catechism of Trent).

no, you would have to show where Rome did teach it. should be somewhere, especially if this is the true teaching of the Church.

Teach what exactly? Be specific.

am asking you to back up with evidence what you are saying. and if you knew about the Roman definition about God's grace and energies, you would know that Rome cannot see that fire as God's presence

I thought I did that so I think you might have misunderstood what I said. What do you think I am saying? Same goes for previous the question. I'd like to respond but I'm lost.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Not necessarily. If the Roman bishops at the pseudo council believed in a literal material purgatorial fire and incorrectly thought it was Catholic teaching that would explain what happened.

if that were the case, I am sure other bishops, especially the Pope would have corrected them. quite openly.

I don't understand what you are asking. I thought you wanted evidence the councils of Trent and Florence were infallible but not catechisms.

the catechisms accepted at Trent and Florence would also be infallible, since they came from the council.

You quoted catechisms, not the councils of Trent or Florence (unless I missed it - I saw where you listed the Council of Trent as a source for two quotes but neither of those were from the Council of Trent. Both were quotes from the Catechism of Trent).

it came from a Roman Catholic site. you seem to be dividing the catechism from the council, which you cannot do. unless you can show the catechism was something made that was at a different time that was unrelated to the Council.

Teach what exactly? Be specific.

first centuries, Rome talking about Purgatory

I thought I did that so I think you might have misunderstood what I said. What do you think I am saying? Same goes for previous the question. I'd like to respond but I'm lost.

I am asking for you to show some evidence for saying what you are saying that defends the Roman position, and that you are reading the Roman position correctly.