Are there any official sources of Orthodox teaching?

[samir]

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

They were corrected. "At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory)."

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

No they wouldn't as I showed in the last post.

"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. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Infallibility)"

The catechism may have came from the council but it wasn't part of it so I don't see how it could be considered infallible, definitive teaching. If you have evidence the Roman church taught that the catechism of Trent was infallible, I'd like to see it.

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.

Ecumenical councils issue definitive judgments which are covered by infallibility. Catechisms are meant to provide a summary of Catholic teaching which does not fall under the definition of infallibility.

first centuries, Rome talking about Purgatory

Purgatory is taught in scripture so there was no reason for Rome to talk about it in the first century. Councils aren't summoned unless the faith is challenged by heresy and needs to be clarified.

I am asking for you to show some evidence for saying what you are saying that defends the Roman position

All I remember saying is was what Rome said at the councils of Florence and Trent which can be found in scripture. If you have something specific in mind, I'll be happy to explain it.

and that you are reading the Roman position correctly.

I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia above which says Rome said it never taught a literal purgatorial fire. The fact that the Council of Florence referred to the punishment of purgatory instead of the fire of purgatory confirms it.

"their souls, after death, are cleansed by the punishment of Purgatory (Council of Florence)"

 

[ArmyMatt]

They were corrected. "At the Council of Florence, Bessarion argued against the existence of real purgatorial fire, and the Greeks were assured that the Roman Church had never issued any dogmatic decree on this subject. (Catholic Encyclopedia, Purgatory)."

if it was really that clear, that particular issue would have been trounced, what from the council at the time actually shows official Catholic teaching rejecting a literal fire? as in, from Florence and not from new Advent.

No they wouldn't as I showed in the last post.

see above

Ecumenical councils issue definitive judgments which are covered by infallibility. Catechisms are meant to provide a summary of Catholic teaching which does not fall under the definition of infallibility.

evidence that this is how the early Church viewed the difference between the councils and the catechisms that came from them?

Purgatory is taught in scripture so there was no reason for Rome to talk about it in the first century. Councils aren't summoned unless the faith is challenged by heresy and needs to be clarified.

yes, and those heresies are known to be heresies because of the clear teaching from before. we know Nicaea is true because of the teachings of Scripture, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch. so you should find Purgatory clearly in the early centuries as well.

All I remember saying is was what Rome said at the councils of Florence and Trent which can be found in scripture. If you have something specific in mind, I'll be happy to explain it.

well, Mormons look to Scripture, so showing some verse is not enough. you have to show that has always been the understanding. which you have yet to do.

I quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia above which says Rome said it never taught a literal purgatorial fire. The fact that the Council of Florence referred to the punishment of purgatory instead of the fire of purgatory confirms it.

why trust the Catholic Encyclopedia over the catechisms that came from the very councils in question? you seem to be very pro choice as to what contains legit Roman teaching.

"their souls, after death, are cleansed by the punishment of Purgatory (Council of Florence)"

since, as you pointed out, that does not say either way, that does not help your case. that may be what Rome says now, but if it ain't their consistent message, it does not help your position either

 

[samir]

if it was really that clear, that particular issue would have been trounced

The Orthodox representatives accepted the council of Florence and agreed to reconcile with Rome. If Rome had taught a literal fire, that wouldn't have happened.

what from the council at the time actually shows official Catholic teaching rejecting a literal fire? as in, from Florence and not from new Advent.

There's a difference between not teaching a literal fire and rejecting a literal fire.
If it's rejected, RCs are not permitted to believe it.
If it's not rejected but not taught, RCs are allowed to believe it or reject it.

Based on my research, I'd say the RCC has never rejected a literal fire in purgatory but they've never taught it either. The fact that Florence didn't mention fire at all is sufficient evidence Rome didn't teach a literal fire. Since they were well aware the Orthodox objected to literal fire they would have mentioned it if they considered it divinely revealed truth. Since Florence and Trent only taught a purification after death without going into details, RCs are permitted to hold their own opinions regarding that purification.

evidence that this is how the early Church viewed the difference between the councils and the catechisms that came from them?

Which of the seven ecumenical councils approved a catechism during their council?

yes, and those heresies are known to be heresies because of the clear teaching from before. we know Nicaea is true because of the teachings of Scripture, Justin Martyr, Ignatius of Antioch. so you should find Purgatory clearly in the early centuries as well.

I found it but since you admitted the Orthodox accept purification after death and recognize the benefit of prayer which is all the RCC taught I don't see any reason to list them.

well, Mormons look to Scripture, so showing some verse is not enough. you have to show that has always been the understanding. which you have yet to do.

What does the RCC teach about purgatory that Orthodoxy rejects? Your only objections as I recall is a literal fire yet you offered no evidence that was ever taught. Even if I accept your catechism quotes, they still don't say literal fire.

why trust the Catholic Encyclopedia over the catechisms that came from the very councils in question? you seem to be very pro choice as to what contains legit Roman teaching.

How exactly can I quote a council to show what that council never taught? It's like asking for proof that an Orthodox council never taught that Santa Claus was real.

since, as you pointed out, that does not say either way, that does not help your case.

It doesn't say either way because Rome didn't teach either way. They never taught a literal fire nor have they ever taught there wasn't a literal fire.

that may be what Rome says now, but if it ain't their consistent message, it does not help your position either

If Rome never taught a literal fire, then no one is bound to believe it. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence they taught it and you haven't provided any.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Orthodox representatives accepted the council of Florence and agreed to reconcile with Rome. If Rome had taught a literal fire, that wouldn't have happened.

we didn't

There's a difference between not teaching a literal fire and rejecting a literal fire.
If it's rejected, RCs are not permitted to believe it.
If it's not rejected but not taught, RCs are allowed to believe it or reject it.

Based on my research, I'd say the RCC has never rejected a literal fire in purgatory but they've never taught it either. The fact that Florence didn't mention fire at all is sufficient evidence Rome didn't teach a literal fire. Since they were well aware the Orthodox objected to literal fire they would have mentioned it if they considered it divinely revealed truth. Since Florence and Trent only taught a purification after death without going into details, RCs are permitted to hold their own opinions regarding that purification.

but Trent did

Which of the seven ecumenical councils approved a catechism during their council?

none, but they did approve letters and synodal statements, and they are infallible. what I can say is that what comes from the council is affirmed by it, and therefore infallible

I found it but since you admitted the Orthodox accept purification after death and recognize the benefit of prayer which is all the RCC taught I don't see any reason to list them.



What does the RCC teach about purgatory that Orthodoxy rejects? Your only objections as I recall is a literal fire yet you offered no evidence that was ever taught. Even if I accept your catechism quotes, they still don't say literal fire.

and as I also said, we reject the idea of a third state, place, condition, etc. there is nothing that states that the souls of the righteous who still have sins are punished before entering into heaven. it only mentions two, one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. plus this all ties into indulgences, created grace, and the treasury of merits, all of which we find heretical.

How exactly can I quote a council to show what that council never taught? It's like asking for proof that an Orthodox council never taught that Santa Claus was real.

exactly, this was never taught. you see it in no council, in any of the saints' experiences, etc.

It doesn't say either way because Rome didn't teach either way. They never taught a literal fire nor have they ever taught there wasn't a literal fire.


If Rome never taught a literal fire, then no one is bound to believe it. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence they taught it and you haven't provided any.

the burden of proof does not rest on me. for one, this is the Orthodox forum so I must prove nothing. two, you are using this to justify why you have not found anything to back up what you are saying. there was no teaching on purgatory because none of the early Fathers believed it. the burden of proof, since you are making the claim that purgatory is true, rests with you not me.

 

[samir]

but Trent did

This is getting old and I doubt it's going anywhere. None of the quotes you posted from the Council or the Catechism of Trent mention a literal fire but if you can show me where the council or catechism of Trent taught it, I'll be happy to discuss it. Until then, there's nothing to say.

none, but they did approve letters and synodal statements, and they are infallible. what I can say is that what comes from the council is affirmed by it, and therefore infallible

That may be true in the Orthodox church but that's not how it works in the RCC. The RCC has defined what they consider infallible and catechisms don't meet the criteria. The actual words of the Council of Trent aren't even considered infallible other than their definitive pronouncements.

As I said before, it's not really all that relevant as I have no problem accepting the catechism of Trent as an accurate summary of RC teaching.

and as I also said, we reject the idea of a third state, place, condition, etc. there is nothing that states that the souls of the righteous who still have sins are punished before entering into heaven. it only mentions two, one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. plus this all ties into indulgences, created grace, and the treasury of merits, all of which we find heretical.

I didn't see any mention of a third place in anything you quoted and to be honest I really don't care if they did as I don't think it's worth dividing the church over something so trivial and unimportant.

the burden of proof does not rest on me.

The burden of proof always rests on the one making the claim. It is impossible, as I have shown, to prove that something was never taught.

for one, this is the Orthodox forum so I must prove nothing.

Understood. You aren't going to prove anything.

two, you are using this to justify why you have not found anything to back up what you are saying.

No, I am not. I have provided plenty of evidence to support everything I claimed.

there was no teaching on purgatory because none of the early Fathers believed it.

I read several ECFs who clearly taught purgatory so that is not true either. I won't quote them because I feel it would be a waste of time.

the burden of proof, since you are making the claim that purgatory is true, rests with you not me.

I already showed purgatory is true.

You claimed Rome taught a literal fire and the burden of proof is on you to prove it but if you are unable or unwilling to do so I understand. It won't bother me at all.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This is getting old and I doubt it's going anywhere. None of the quotes you posted from the Council or the Catechism of Trent mention a literal fire but if you can show me where the council or catechism of Trent taught it, I'll be happy to discuss it. Until then, there's nothing to say.

it's because you, as a non Catholic, are setting your opinion above those of folks that have studied this stuff. you also have yet to show how anyone affirming that it is not a literal fire from those councils. anyone who agrees that it is fire, you simply say that they were just fallible folks who made a boo boo, as if you are reading it correctly. getting old indeed.

That may be true in the Orthodox church but that's not how it works in the RCC. The RCC has defined what they consider infallible and catechisms don't meet the criteria. The actual words of the Council of Trent aren't even considered infallible other than their definitive pronouncements.

As I said before, it's not really all that relevant as I have no problem accepting the catechism of Trent as an accurate summary of RC teaching.

yet again, please show the pre schism historical evidence to support the Roman distinction of what is fallible and what is not coming from a council.

I didn't see any mention of a third place in anything you quoted and to be honest I really don't care if they did as I don't think it's worth dividing the church over something so trivial and unimportant.

again, your opinion not backed by history. it is a difference in soteriology which is a big deal. the very fact that there is Purgatory mentioned (which is a noun, and Purgatory is neither a person or thing, ergo a place or state) shows that there is a third something. nowhere does it mention anything after this life aside from heaven for the saved, and hell for the damned.

The burden of proof always rests on the one making the claim. It is impossible, as I have shown, to prove that something was never taught.

which proves my point that this is an innovation. you are just evading that you have not found anything. something not taught and then taught later, is an innovation and we reject it.

Understood. You aren't going to prove anything.

no, I don't have to. there is nothing to prove for me since you have 1000 years of East and West together and have yet to show a single thing prior to the schism that supports Purgatory. the only proof would be if this was actually believed since the beginning, which you cannot find prior to the middle ages.

No, I am not. I have provided plenty of evidence to support everything I claimed.

aside from a lot of opinion and post Schism stuff clarified only by said opinion, no you have not.

I read several ECFs who clearly taught purgatory so that is not true either. I won't quote them because I feel it would be a waste of time.

no you haven't, or else you would because that would be something to consider that actually backs your point.

I already showed purgatory is true.

only if I accept your presuppositions, which I don't. so, no you didn't.

You claimed Rome taught a literal fire and the burden of proof is on you to prove it but if you are unable or unwilling to do so I understand. It won't bother me at all.

I quoted people who said it was literal (actual Roman Catholics) which you brushed off as them being in error (you not being a Roman Catholic) as if I should listen to you over them. doesn't bother me at all either.

 

[samir]

it's because you, as a non Catholic, are setting your opinion above those of folks that have studied this stuff.

Completely false.

you also have yet to show how anyone affirming that it is not a literal fire from those councils.

I've already explained it's completely irrelevant.

anyone who agrees that it is fire, you simply say that they were just fallible folks who made a boo boo, as if you are reading it correctly.

I've already stated I having no problem accepting the RCC teaches a purgatorial fire. They teach it in the current catechism as well and I don't reject it:

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.

yet again, please show the pre schism historical evidence to support the Roman distinction of what is fallible and what is not coming from a council.

New topic and not relevant to this discussion about purgatory.

again, your opinion not backed by history. it is a difference in soteriology which is a big deal. the very fact that there is Purgatory mentioned (which is a noun, and Purgatory is neither a person or thing, ergo a place or state) shows that there is a third something. nowhere does it mention anything after this life aside from heaven for the saved, and hell for the damned.

Your opinion is noted. It may be a big deal for you but it makes no difference to me.

which proves my point that this is an innovation. you are just evading that you have not found anything.

Completely untrue.

something not taught and then taught later, is an innovation

Not true. The bodily assumption was not taught by the apostles and was taught later yet the Orthodox accept it.

no, I don't have to. there is nothing to prove for me since you have 1000 years of East and West together and have yet to show a single thing prior to the schism that supports Purgatory. the only proof would be if this was actually believed since the beginning, which you cannot find prior to the middle ages.

Purgatory is based on an interpretation of scripture. I don't care if the Church didn't officially interpret those passages that refer to purgatory because it wouldn't make it any less true.

I quoted people who said it was literal (actual Roman Catholics)

I must have missed it. What post was it?

which you brushed off as them being in error (you not being a Roman Catholic) as if I should listen to you over them.

Where did I ever say anyone was in error?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Completely false.

you said yourself that the Catholic theologians who support a literal fire were just fallible men making a mistake

I've already explained it's completely irrelevant.

no you haven't and no it's not

I've already stated I having no problem accepting the RCC teaches a purgatorial fire. They teach it in the current catechism as well and I don't reject it:

fine, and that is the innovation and where we differ. there is no purgatory or purgatorial fire for the pre-Schism Church

New topic and not relevant to this discussion about purgatory.

not a new topic, you are the one that made the distinction between the Council of Trent and the catechism, offering nothing to back up that distinction

Your opinion is noted. It may be a big deal for you but it makes no difference to me.

not an opinion, unless you can actually show I have given an opinion

Completely untrue.

whatever you say

Not true. The bodily assumption was not taught by the apostles and was taught later yet the Orthodox accept it.

incorrect, read the Protoevangelion of James. not in the Scripture because that is not the point of Scripture, but it is in the early writings, and the Synaxarion

Purgatory is based on an interpretation of scripture. I don't care if the Church didn't officially interpret those passages that refer to purgatory because it wouldn't make it any less true.

I know. Mormons base their 3 levels of heaven off of Scripture. I know the Biblical verses that Rome uses, but you don't see that interpretation anywhere. it's not true because it's not true. Nicaea was not when the Church realized Christ is God, they always believed it, the saints wrote about it and it was in the services. you do not see the same with purgatory. if it was there, you probably would have posted something by now that was clear. but you haven't

I must have missed it. What post was it?

twas a while ago, this discussion is tiresome enough without me having to go back and look at earlier posts. I suggest rather that you find something concrete from the early centuries that backs up what you are saying.

Where did I ever say anyone was in error?

see above, it was one of your first posts about the catechism of Trent being fallible, and the theologians who commented saying that there was a purgatorial fire were fallible men and such.

I suggest you find something clear from the early days that supports purgatory, or stop this thread. or at least pause until you have something.

 

[samir]

you said yourself that the Catholic theologians who support a literal fire were just fallible men making a mistake

Completely false. I said catechisms are meant to be summaries of RC teaching that may contain errors so it's best to look at the official definitive pronouncements upon which they are based. I did not claim the catechism was in error nor did I claim there wasn't a literal fire in purgatory.

Catholic theologians don't always agree. They are free to hold a variety of opinions as long as they aren't in opposition to Catholic teaching. The fact that a Catholic theologian believed something is not evidence the RCC taught what he believed. The fact that theologians believed in a literal fire and other things like limbo for unbaptized infants only shows those beliefs weren't opposed to Catholic teaching.

fine, and that is the innovation and where we differ. there is no purgatory or purgatorial fire for the pre-Schism Church

Orthodoxy refers to the purgatorial fire as the presence of God whereas the RCC hasn't yet defined the nature of the purgatorial fire or whether it's literal or metaphorical. I don't see a contradiction.

not an opinion, unless you can actually show I have given an opinion

Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing whether purgatory is a third state. It's not particularly important to me because if I can't find any evidence to support papal supremacy, I'm probably going to join the Orthodox Church and if I find solid evidence papal supremacy is true then this isn't something that would prevent me from joining the RCC (unlike God creating a literal fire to burn believers which would be a big problem for me if the RCC ever taught it).

incorrect, read the Protoevangelion of James. not in the Scripture because that is not the point of Scripture, but it is in the early writings, and the Synaxarion

I think the Protoevangelion of James taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, not her bodily assumption. The earliest evidence I found was around the 4th century yet I don't consider it an innovation.

twas a while ago, this discussion is tiresome enough without me having to go back and look at earlier posts. I suggest rather that you find something concrete from the early centuries that backs up what you are saying.

The only claims I made were the following:
1. Rome teaches a purification after death which the Orthodox accept
2. Rome teaches that prayers for those undergoing purification are beneficial to them which the Orthodox also accept

As I've already proven my claims, I don't know what else I can say.

You claimed Rome taught the purification after death involves a literal fire yet you could not show where Rome ever taught it. All you provided was a catechism that used the phrase "purgatorial fire" to refer to the purification after death without defining the nature of that fire. I made no claims about it either. All I did was ask for evidence to support your claim that it was a literal fire and pointed out the evidence you offered did not say it was a literal fire.

see above, it was one of your first posts about the catechism of Trent being fallible, and the theologians who commented saying that there was a purgatorial fire were fallible men and such.

When I said the catechism was fallible, I didn't mean I disagreed with it or thought it was wrong. I just meant it was best to refer to the official teachings upon which they are based to understand RC teaching more precisely.

I suggest you find something clear from the early days that supports purgatory, or stop this thread. or at least pause until you have something.

I've proven all my claims and you already agreed with it so I don't see what else I can provide.

I actually agree with you that the purification after death (which the catechism refers to as purgatorial fire) is probably the presence of God and not a literal fire God created to burn believers to punish them for their sins. I dislike that idea enough that I would be very hesitant to join the RCC if I found evidence they ever taught that God created a literal fire to burn believers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Completely false. I said catechisms are meant to be summaries of RC teaching that may contain errors so it's best to look at the official definitive pronouncements upon which they are based. I did not claim the catechism was in error nor did I claim there wasn't a literal fire in purgatory.

Catholic theologians don't always agree. They are free to hold a variety of opinions as long as they aren't in opposition to Catholic teaching. The fact that a Catholic theologian believed something is not evidence the RCC taught what he believed. The fact that theologians believed in a literal fire and other things like limbo for unbaptized infants only shows those beliefs weren't opposed to Catholic teaching.

then show that you know that those that interpreted it as literal fire were false. because that is not an option for us. and I am pretty sure you did say that saying the fire is literal was untrue, and based on them being fallible.

Orthodoxy refers to the purgatorial fire as the presence of God whereas the RCC hasn't yet defined the nature of the purgatorial fire or whether it's literal or metaphorical. I don't see a contradiction.

yes, the presence of God for the saint and the sinner, not the punishment for the saint that still must atone for sins.

Regardless, I'm not interested in discussing whether purgatory is a third state. It's not particularly important to me because if I can't find any evidence to support papal supremacy, I'm probably going to join the Orthodox Church and if I find solid evidence papal supremacy is true then this isn't something that would prevent me from joining the RCC (unlike God creating a literal fire to burn believers which would be a big problem for me if the RCC ever taught it).

well, for the sake of this discussion you might want to. it is a major thing when talking about purgatory

I think the Protoevangelion of James taught the perpetual virginity of Mary, not her bodily assumption. The earliest evidence I found was around the 4th century yet I don't consider it an innovation.

pretty sure it has her life, and either way, I also said the Synaxarion.

The only claims I made were the following:
1. Rome teaches a purification after death which the Orthodox accept
2. Rome teaches that prayers for those undergoing purification are beneficial to them which the Orthodox also accept

As I've already proven my claims, I don't know what else I can say.

we both know that is not the issue, nor is it how Rome defines purgatory. if you want to reduce it to bare bones, then yeah, we agree. but that is not the issue.

You claimed Rome taught the purification after death involves a literal fire yet you could not show where Rome ever taught it. All you provided was a catechism that used the phrase "purgatorial fire" to refer to the purification after death without defining the nature of that fire. I made no claims about it either. All I did was ask for evidence to support your claim that it was a literal fire and pointed out the evidence you offered did not say it was a literal fire.

and I said, St Mark of Ephesus would not have apologies against a literal fire, unless Rome was actually teaching a literal fire.

When I said the catechism was fallible, I didn't mean I disagreed with it or thought it was wrong. I just meant it was best to refer to the official teachings upon which they are based to understand RC teaching more precisely.

then the catechism is not fallible. vague or imprecise does not mean fallible.

I've proven all my claims and you already agreed with it so I don't see what else I can provide.

I actually agree with you that the purification after death (which the catechism refers to as purgatorial fire) is probably the presence of God and not a literal fire God created to burn believers to punish them for their sins. I dislike that idea enough that I would be very hesitant to join the RCC if I found evidence they ever taught that God created a literal fire to burn believers.

if you whittle purgatory down to the absolute minimum, and ignore what Rome has said about it over the more than 500 years of the teaching which does have literal fire and punishment (Dante's Purgatorio was not made in a vacuum, and before anyone says anything I know that is poetic and not their dogma, just saying the inspiration for what he wrote is very problematic).

 

[samir]

then show that you know that those that interpreted it as literal fire were false.

I'm not aware of any RC teaching that specifies whether the purgatorial fire is literal or not literal.

I am pretty sure you did say that saying the fire is literal was untrue, and based on them being fallible.

I did not say that. I may have said the representatives at the pseudo-council you mentioned believed the fire was literal and may have even (incorrectly) believed the RCC taught a literal fire. Although they certainly understood RC teaching, it's not uncommon, even for bishops, to come to an incorrect conclusion about some trivial detail.

yes, the presence of God for the saint and the sinner, not the punishment for the saint that still must atone for sins.

I've seen no evidence the RCC taught anything that disagrees with that.

well, for the sake of this discussion you might want to. it is a major thing when talking about purgatory

I'm not sure it's a good idea to discuss it because the RC position is very easy to prove and I didn't want to insult you but I can discuss it anyway.The RCC is easily proven based on simple logic. Since scripture says nothing impure can enter heaven, we know the purification believers must undergo after death to enter heaven is not in heaven. If the Orthodox believe it is not in hell then it is in a third place or state since it's not in heaven or hell.

pretty sure it has her life, and either way, I also said the Synaxarion.

I couldn't find much on the Synaxarion. Wikipedia mentioned 10th century and I couldn't find anything useful about it on other websites. The earliest sources RC apologists quote to defend Mary's assumption are condemned writings from the 4th or 5th century so if the Synaxarion was written earlier I would expect RC apologists to quote it.

we both know that is not the issue, nor is it how Rome defines purgatory. if you want to reduce it to bare bones, then yeah, we agree. but that is not the issue.

You seem to have a double standard when it comes to RC teaching. When a RC theologian said something that disagrees with current RC teaching you say RC teaching has changed. When an Orthodox theologian or even the EP said something that disagrees with current Orthodox teaching you say he was in error and not expressing Orthodox teaching.

If you want to be fair and use the same standard you would have to acknowledge that even if the pope said purgatory was a literal fire it wouldn't mean the RCC taught it anymore than the Patriarch of Constantinople saying icons were idolatry would make it Orthodox Church teaching.

and I said, St Mark of Ephesus would not have apologies against a literal fire, unless Rome was actually teaching a literal fire.

Using the same logic, I could say RC theologians would not have apologies against iconoclasm, unless the Orthodox Church was actually teaching that icons were idolatry.

then the catechism is not fallible. vague or imprecise does not mean fallible.

It's clear from how the RCC has defined infallibility that catechisms are fallible. However, my reason for mentioning that the catechism was fallible wasn't because I disagreed with it or thought it was wrong (even though I believe that could be the case). I just meant it was best to refer to the official teachings upon which they are based because infallible statements are worded more precisely than catechisms.

Although catechisms are fallible, the teaching in the catechism about purgatorial fire may be infallible (which is why I didn't want to dispute what the catechism taught) if it is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I'm not interested in debating the RCC's teaching on infallibility because you would be better served learning about it from official sources instead of relying on me especially since I'm not even RC.

if you whittle purgatory down to the absolute minimum, and ignore what Rome has said about it over the more than 500 years of the teaching which does have literal fire and punishment (Dante's Purgatorio was not made in a vacuum, and before anyone says anything I know that is poetic and not their dogma, just saying the inspiration for what he wrote is very problematic).

I'm not whittling it down. The RCC has taught very little about purgatory. If you quoted those 500 years of teaching a literal fire and punishment you'd see they are the opinions of theologians and not RCC teaching. Limbo is similar. RCs have believed it for hundreds of years. Theologians believe it. It was taught in schools. But it was never taught by the RCC.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not aware of any RC teaching that specifies whether the purgatorial fire is literal or not literal.

might be something to find out, because that was a huge point.

I did not say that. I may have said the representatives at the pseudo-council you mentioned believed the fire was literal and may have even (incorrectly) believed the RCC taught a literal fire. Although they certainly understood RC teaching, it's not uncommon, even for bishops, to come to an incorrect conclusion about some trivial detail.

and you have yet to show how they are incorrect if they were, and how that was a pseudo council.

I've seen no evidence the RCC taught anything that disagrees with that.

we have both posted things that Rome says the purgatorial fire is for punishment.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to discuss it because the RC position is very easy to prove and I didn't want to insult you but I can discuss it anyway.The RCC is easily proven based on simple logic. Since scripture says nothing impure can enter heaven, we know the purification believers must undergo after death to enter heaven is not in heaven. If the Orthodox believe it is not in hell then it is in a third place or state since it's not in heaven or hell.

that is logic based on assumption. you are making it sound like heaven and hell are places as well, and that purgatory is either a third place or a place within hell or whatever. since Scripture mentions heaven, hell, and nothing on purgatory, your simple logic ain't so simple.

You seem to have a double standard when it comes to RC teaching. When a RC theologian said something that disagrees with current RC teaching you say RC teaching has changed. When an Orthodox theologian or even the EP said something that disagrees with current Orthodox teaching you say he was in error and not expressing Orthodox teaching.

If you want to be fair and use the same standard you would have to acknowledge that even if the pope said purgatory was a literal fire it wouldn't mean the RCC taught it anymore than the Patriarch of Constantinople saying icons were idolatry would make it Orthodox Church teaching.

no I don't, we define how the Truth has been preserved differently, therefore we cannot have the same standard.

Using the same logic, I could say RC theologians would not have apologies against iconoclasm, unless the Orthodox Church was actually teaching that icons were idolatry.

well, seeing as how neither of us view icons as idols, this is a silly point that does not help your case. Rome does have apologies against iconoclasts, because they, like us, are iconodules.

It's clear from how the RCC has defined infallibility that catechisms are fallible. However, my reason for mentioning that the catechism was fallible wasn't because I disagreed with it or thought it was wrong (even though I believe that could be the case). I just meant it was best to refer to the official teachings upon which they are based because infallible statements are worded more precisely than catechisms.

Although catechisms are fallible, the teaching in the catechism about purgatorial fire may be infallible (which is why I didn't want to dispute what the catechism taught) if it is the teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium.

I'm not interested in debating the RCC's teaching on infallibility because you would be better served learning about it from official sources instead of relying on me especially since I'm not even RC.

since you are not RC, it would be best if you stopped saying what is or is not infallible in the RC, especially if it contradicts what actual RC theologians have said.

I'm not whittling it down. The RCC has taught very little about purgatory. If you quoted those 500 years of teaching a literal fire and punishment you'd see they are the opinions of theologians and not RCC teaching. Limbo is similar. RCs have believed it for hundreds of years. Theologians believe it. It was taught in schools. But it was never taught by the RCC.

see above, you keep talking as if you are an authority on this, and when actual RC authorities have said something contrary to what you are arguing, you just say that is not RC teaching. sorry, I am gonna believe an RC over you any day of the week.

 

[samir]

might be something to find out, because that was a huge point.

I looked but was unable to find any evidence anywhere that says Rome taught a literal fire which convinces me Rome never taught it. As it's impossible to prove that someone never taught something, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that Rome taught something. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims, you might want to stop insisting you are right.

and you have yet to show how they are incorrect if they were

The only way to show they were incorrect would be to show that Rome didn't teach a literal fire. It's impossible to prove a church never taught something.

and how that was a pseudo council.

I was relying on the link you sent me from an Orthodox website that was titled
"The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory
Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence"

that is logic based on assumption. you are making it sound like heaven and hell are places as well, and that purgatory is either a third place or a place within hell or whatever. since Scripture mentions heaven, hell, and nothing on purgatory, your simple logic ain't so simple.

Heaven and hell exist some place. I assume you don't believe the righteous will live together with the wicked so that would mean they live in separate places, correct? If purification is necessary to enter heaven and it doesn't take place in hell, then it must be somewhere else.

no I don't, we define how the Truth has been preserved differently, therefore we cannot have the same standard.

The RCC doesn't preserve the truth through every bishop and theologian so if a bishop or theologian says something that doesn't make it RC teaching.

well, seeing as how neither of us view icons as idols, this is a silly point that does not help your case. Rome does have apologies against iconoclasts, because they, like us, are iconodules.

My point was that quoting bishops and theologians doesn't prove their church taught what they taught. I'm glad you see that quoting a RC theologian who believed in literal fire is silly and does not help your case since Rome does not teach a literal fire.

since you are not RC, it would be best if you stopped saying what is or is not infallible in the RC, especially if it contradicts what actual RC theologians have said.

What RC theologians said catechisms were infallible?

Not being RC is irrelevant because anyone can learn what the RCC teaches about infallibility and some RCs might not know what their church teaches.

see above, you keep talking as if you are an authority on this, and when actual RC authorities have said something contrary to what you are arguing, you just say that is not RC teaching. sorry, I am gonna believe an RC over you any day of the week.

I made no claims so I'm not sure why you think I'm talking with authority. All I did was point out that fallible men are sometimes wrong so it's best to quote actual RC teaching. Quoting a theologian's opinion as proof of RC teaching is just as silly as quoting an Orthodox theologian's opinion as proof of Orthodox teaching.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I looked but was unable to find any evidence anywhere that says Rome taught a literal fire which convinces me Rome never taught it. As it's impossible to prove that someone never taught something, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim that Rome taught something. If you don't have any evidence to support your claims, you might want to stop insisting you are right.

and again, if that is not what they taught, it would not have been brought up by St Mark of Ephesus

The only way to show they were incorrect would be to show that Rome didn't teach a literal fire. It's impossible to prove a church never taught something.

no it's not, if Rome never taught it prior to the middle ages, it is not an Apostolic belief

Heaven and hell exist some place. I assume you don't believe the righteous will live together with the wicked so that would mean they live in separate places, correct? If purification is necessary to enter heaven and it doesn't take place in hell, then it must be somewhere else.

not necessarily

The RCC doesn't preserve the truth through every bishop and theologian so if a bishop or theologian says something that doesn't make it RC teaching.

right, but you have yet to show that what has been posted is not RC teaching.

My point was that quoting bishops and theologians doesn't prove their church taught what they taught. I'm glad you see that quoting a RC theologian who believed in literal fire is silly and does not help your case since Rome does not teach a literal fire.

again, you are not backing up that Rome did not teach a literal fire, you are just saying they didn't.

What RC theologians said catechisms were infallible?

what one said that the catechisms from those specific councils were not?

Not being RC is irrelevant because anyone can learn what the RCC teaches about infallibility and some RCs might not know what their church teaches.

not when your comments come into conflict with what they have said. if an RC Cardinal says literal fire, but you say it isn't, I am gonna go with the Cardinal. your opinion is irrelevant since you are not RC.

I made no claims so I'm not sure why you think I'm talking with authority. All I did was point out that fallible men are sometimes wrong so it's best to quote actual RC teaching. Quoting a theologian's opinion as proof of RC teaching is just as silly as quoting an Orthodox theologian's opinion as proof of Orthodox teaching.

it's because you are not RC, so not only are you not infallible, but you are not even in the Roman confession. you have said the catechisms that have come from infallible councils, are somehow true and yet not infallible themselves. you say that purgatory has always been taught, but then fall behind the burden of proof being on me to show that it is an innovation, since it was never taught in the early centuries.

 

[samir]

and again, if that is not what they taught, it would not have been brought up by St Mark of Ephesus



no it's not, if Rome never taught it prior to the middle ages, it is not an Apostolic belief



not necessarily



right, but you have yet to show that what has been posted is not RC teaching.



again, you are not backing up that Rome did not teach a literal fire, you are just saying they didn't.



what one said that the catechisms from those specific councils were not?



not when your comments come into conflict with what they have said. if an RC Cardinal says literal fire, but you say it isn't, I am gonna go with the Cardinal. your opinion is irrelevant since you are not RC.



it's because you are not RC, so not only are you not infallible, but you are not even in the Roman confession. you have said the catechisms that have come from infallible councils, are somehow true and yet not infallible themselves. you say that purgatory has always been taught, but then fall behind the burden of proof being on me to show that it is an innovation, since it was never taught in the early centuries.

You haven't offered any evidence to support your claims and your questions have already been answered so I can't think of anything else I can say. If you ever find any evidence to support your position, I will be happy to discuss it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You haven't offered any evidence to support your claims and your questions have already been answered so I can't think of anything else I can say. If you ever find any evidence to support your position, I will be happy to discuss it.

again, if it was not a literal fire then St Mark would not have debated that point. if purgatory was the teaching from the beginning, you would see it all over the place like every other Church teaching. the very fact that you admit that it cannot be found early on, is evidence of my point that it is an innovation.

 

[samir]

again, if it was not a literal fire then St Mark would not have debated that point.

If everything a theologian or bishop said was church teaching, then the Orthodox church changed it's teaching too. All you have is an assumption without any evidence. If the RCC taught a literal fire they would have said so at the council of Florence or somewhere else and you'd be able to quote that teaching. The fact that you can't find any evidence the RCC ever taught a literal fire is enough to convince me they never taught it. If you think I'm just expressing my opinion, ask any RC bishop, cardinal, or priest and they will tell you the RCC never taught a literal fire.

if purgatory was the teaching from the beginning, you would see it all over the place like every other Church teaching. the very fact that you admit that it cannot be found early on, is evidence of my point that it is an innovation.

Purgatory was taught in the 1st century and has remained the teaching of the Church ever since. I have plenty of evidence I can quote to prove it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

If everything a theologian or bishop said was church teaching, then the Orthodox church changed it's teaching too. All you have is an assumption without any evidence. If the RCC taught a literal fire they would have said so at the council of Florence or somewhere else and you'd be able to quote that teaching.

St Mark of Ephesus has works entitled against the purgatorial fire. he would not have wrote that if Rome was not teaching it.

The fact that you can't find any evidence the RCC ever taught a literal fire is enough to convince me they never taught it.

or maybe because in the early days, they never taught purgatory at all. but earlier I did quote folks, and you just chalked it up to them being mistaken.

If you think I'm just expressing my opinion, ask any RC bishop, cardinal, or priest and they will tell you the RCC never taught a literal fire.

why should I trust them over those that wrote the catechism that does affirm a literal fire?

Purgatory was taught in the 1st century and has remained the teaching of the Church ever since. I have plenty of evidence I can quote to prove it.

if you did, you would have posted them by now

 

[ArmyMatt]

and then you have visions and experiences which confirm the belief in a literal fire

http://aleteia.org/2013/11/01/3-sobering-visions-of-purgatory-from-the-saints/

 

[samir]

St Mark of Ephesus has works entitled against the purgatorial fire. he would not have wrote that if Rome was not teaching it.

Other saints have works entitled against the teachings of Orthodox bishops that contradict current Orthodox teaching. According to your logic, that proves the Orthodox Church changed its teaching.

or maybe because in the early days, they never taught purgatory at all. but earlier I did quote folks, and you just chalked it up to them being mistaken.

Since the Orthodox believe in purgatory as you admitted earlier, I don't see how that proves anything.

why should I trust them over those that wrote the catechism that does affirm a literal fire?

What catechism teaches a literal fire? Why should I trust you over the cardinals and bishops of the RCC when you're not even RC?

if you did, you would have posted them by now

It's clear you won't listen so I'm not gonna waste my time.