Author Topic: Purgatory, and the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Views on Sin and Forgiveness  (Read 74063 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 11:55:31 AM by Dave in McKinney »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.




  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:

Mary

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.

So in the Catholic teaching...  is purgatory for the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed... or does it include all sins that they have been forgiven and have even bore fruits of their repentance?

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Ah, Mary, the smell of red herring on the morning of a fast... no odor compares!   ;)


We've been through that one before, and none of it (especially as an isolated and late controversy with no official standing!) compares to the intellectual somersaults we've had to watch you endure to get through Infallibility, Filioque, Temporal Punishment, etc. and trying to figure out which statement and when is the 'most correct' or valid.

I know it is difficult for you to defend all this, but it is even more difficult to watch this dance as a bystander...  ;D



To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:

Mary
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

So which part do you feel is untrue?

That there has been any change in the formal teaching concerning purgation/purgatory.

That is the assertion that is not true or real.

M.

So in the Catholic teaching...  is purgatory for the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed... or does it include all sins that they have been forgiven and have even bore fruits of their repentance?

In the briefest possible form: Purgatory is for those who are not damned, but who have died leaving in the wake of their passing unresolved sins, habitual tendencies toward particular sins, and those unrestored consequences of sins that have been forgiven and absolved but which require the combined action of ourselves and Jesus to restore to their original goodness, ie., original justice...same thing as goodness.  

This is part of the teaching of the Church that we share in the redemptive actions of the Messiah.

It has been spoken of in the Church over time as Poena.  Poena in Latin is not restricted to one explanatory meanings with respect to purgation.  It most often translates as penalty, punishment and loss...with loss being the most powerful explanatory meaning, that to the ordinary eye speaks of pain, penalty and privation.  And so it has been catechized.

The very fact that Poena is complex in its nuance does not mean that one MUST emphasize one element of poena over any other.  

The saints of the Catholic Church...their writings....are replete with references to the punishing effects of being without the continuous presence of Jesus in union with the soul.   I am trained as a Carmelite secular and the saints of that order, the ancient and the reformed, speak often of the burning pain caused in the soul when the Indwelling is not immediately and constantly present.  

This is the burning punishment of Purgation.  The realization that the Beloved Lord is there but we cannot experience the sweetness and peace of his presence because our souls are not ready to receive him.

To do the kinds of things with these teachings that Father Ambrose does is a perversion of a very beautiful spiritual reality.  

Purgation, here and in the hereafter, is a direct act of grace in our souls.

Mary

Offline Dave in McKinney

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
Thank you Mary. 
So it sounds like the orthodox understanding pretty much (as far as I can tell):
Quote
In the Orthodox doctrine, ...which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
error
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 06:30:34 PM by stanley123 »

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2010, 06:35:07 PM by stanley123 »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Thank you Mary. 
So it sounds like the orthodox understanding pretty much (as far as I can tell):
Quote
In the Orthodox doctrine, ...which St. Mark teaches, the faithful who have died with small sins unconfessed, or who have not brought forth fruits of repentance for sins they have confessed, are cleansed of these sins either in the trial of death itself with its fear, or after death, when they are confined (but not permanently) in hell, by the prayers and Liturgies of the Church and good deeds performed for them by the faithful. Even sinners destined for eternal torment can be given a certain relief from their torment in hell by these means also.


I have heard Orthodox clergy say that there is a particular and a final judgment taught in Orthodoxy and I have heard it said here and other places that there is only a final judgment.  I have also been exposed to the teaching on Toll Houses.

I have never heard any Orthodox person talk about a period of purgation after death, in those terms, though I have heard some Orthodox talk about the need for the soul to be purified.

I have read the essay by Alexander Kalomiros called River of Fire and I find it to be a bit soft in terms of God's willingness to hold mankind accountable for their freely willed choices.  I have heard this essay represents Orthodox doctrine from some, while others say it is not precisely doctrine.  Some Catholics I know personally think the River of Fire is pretty close to Catholic teaching.  I am not so sure how I would understand "close."

M.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

  I don't really seek or need your approbation. 


I do not offer you my approbation. 

I simply ask that you distinguish clearly when you write to us between the opinions of yourself and your circle of Catholic/Orthodox teachers and the magisterial teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

Obiter dicens, I do find it very odd that while the Greek Catholics whom I know (bishops, priests and laity of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church) deny Purgatory and its underlying principles, you a Ruthenian Greek Catholic seem quite confused as to whether you adhere to Roman Catholic or Greek Catholic teaching.

Is Fr Kimel still contributing?   I remember he disagreed with you on some points of teaching in the past.

I adhere to the historic teaching of the Catholic Church, not its various and sundry perversions.


You do not substantiate what you adhere to with references to magisterial teaching.

Instead you appeal to anonymous Catholic and Orthodox clergy who are your spiritual mentors and to various courses of study you have undergone.  One would think that at least the courses of study would have familiarised you with the sources of magisterial teaching and provided you with references but ....

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
To be honest, Fr. Ambrose, I don't think there really is an answer to your question, because I don't think she perceives a differentiation.

I have found the whole debate unfathomable, mostly because I think the explanations are so complex as to confuse we average-intelligence folk and even the authors themselves at times.  Basically, I've given up on trying to figure out RC doctrine.  It is a very different faith in many respects from ours.

That does not mean I hate its adherents, but I think it has grown to the point that it can no longer be reconciled to us.



This particular teaching is one of he least complex, Father. 

Toll Houses are far more complex in their imagery and in their theology  :angel:


I am not a toller myself but I am a ladder man   The teaching of ladders strung between earth and heaven, each city having many of these ladder sites where dead souls collect to start their upward climb.  This is the older Catholic teaching found in, of course, Saint John of the Ladder in the sixth century.


Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary
I agree with Pope Paul VI. Do you say this is heresy  or not?
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here.  

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language?  

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
What I am espousing is simply the same exact thing that the Pope has said as mentioned by the good Father Ambrose. (BTW, I know that Father Ambrose does not agree with this teaching).
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html
I don't see how this can be heresy according to the RCC.


And you are more than willing to assert, as night follows day, that Jesus cannot lift that burden from one man and not another, regardless of how it may look to you?  Is that what you are telling me?

Also what does it mean to you when you see the words "God's holiness and justice inflict them"?

Does that mean to you that God inflicts evil upon his people? 

Are you familiar with the book of Job?

God's holiness and justice, with respect to creation and creatures,  is the universe in its original right order. Fully justified.  Adam and Eve released sin and death into the world and disrupted the original justice of creation.  This must must be redeemed and restored, God's holiness and justice demands it,  and we must participate in that redemption and restoration because we freely choose to continue to disrupt the right order of creatures and creation. 

If you think that means that he takes each one of us and kicks us in the seat of the pants into that River of Fire, then you have missed the message.  We swan dive in all by ourselves...and that River of Fire is grace that refines us in the Fires of God's justice and mercy.

Mary
I agree with Pope Paul VI. Do you say this is heresy  or not?
"The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   " Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul VI, 1967 

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

So until you are prepared to understand that God's holiness and justice do not equate to being the same thing as God, you are going to read something into this text that is not there.

Be my guest.

Mary

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 12:03:39 AM by stanley123 »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.

Instead you keep referring to an anonymous circle of Catholic and Orthodox priests who are your spiritual mentors.  For us who have not the slightest idea of your teachers and their personal quirks and preferences, this means nothing.  We would like to hear the teaching of the Catholic Magisterium since we have been told, at least a thousand times, that nothing but magisterial teaching has any real currency in Catholic theology.  Is that not the perennial assertion made by you and the Catholics who write here?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.


Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium. 

That should be obvious to anyone who has your training in Catholic matters.

Mary

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
if I am reading this right, then there appears to be some (if not nearly full) agreement between the latest RC doctrine and the Orthodox view on purification after death, i.e. "It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections".  We don't know the exact details but both call for purification before being raised from the dead and the final judgment.

Where there seems to be confusion is the "older" RC view that purgatory was a payment/punishments for sins that have already been repented of and forgiveness given in addition to the unrepented ones.  And this "older" RC view still seems to creep in with the latest doctrinal development and thus creates confusion.



This is what Father Ambrose is saying and it is not real or true.  It is his perennial assertion.  That is all.

M.

It is Father Ambrose's perennial assertion because it is true.  Do your research.  There are infallible statements about Purgatory from Popes and Councils, and from the most solid of Roman Catholic theologians.  But contemporary Catholics seem embarrassed by the teaching and insist that only one statement can be offered - "Purgatory exists."

That is really a slap in the face to the great Catholic theologians who worked on the understanding of Purgatory at such Councils as Florence, the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council, ratified by the Pope.

You are doing all the slapping here. 

I have provided catechetical texts that explain the raw text that you present.  I have provided teachings that I have been given.  If you don't explain the texts that you offer then of course it is going to look strange to people, especially Catholics who have not been well catechized.

Is that your purpose, Father?  To mislead Catholic?  Is it your purpose to impose your meaning on the texts rather than allow a Catholic to explain what the Catholic Church means by the use of certain language? 

Again you claim to have had in depth training in Catholic doctrine...in Latin.  So you should know all that I have said here.  It should be very familiar to you, since we are of the same age and since we've both had seminary courses in systematics...or I presume that you have.

Mary

I do not understand you.  You unfailingly fail to provide references to magisterial teaching.


Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium. 


Catechetical texts are no longer trustworthy.  For example, much dishonesty has taken place in the re-presentation of the Baltimore Catechism in its web versions.    What does not suit contemporary Catholic teaching has been removed.

That is why the only reliable source for Catholic teaching are the statements of the Magisterium.  Even those can contradict one another from century to century but they are more reliable than modern catechetical material.

My enormously wide circle of friends among the Catholic clergy agree with me. :laugh:

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

Since the Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church then the catechetical texts I offered here are part of the ordinary magisterium.  

That should be obvious to anyone who has your training in Catholic matters.

It means pretty much zilch.  Catholic training in the old ways is meaningless in the face of the modern insistence on revamping and of hiding inconvenient doctrines of the past.  In fact such training invites scorn and derision from much of the modern Catholic clergy and from the seminaries.

Every article in the Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ has the Imprimatur of some Archbishop.

But people keep telling us -- that's wrong and that's wrong and that's just a lot of hooey!

From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

-oOo-
Please go back to message 63 in this thread for further commentary

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28892.msg457168.html#msg457168
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 01:42:23 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline theistgal

  • Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,237
  • don't even go there!
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)
"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
Mary has confirmed it!!   Limbo is the formal teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  It is formal teaching, it is inalienable, it is truth.

Shultz wrote:

But for the vast majority of laity who were catechized prior to the 1960s, Limbo was de facto Catholic doctrine.


Mary repied:

You cannot have a de facto Catholic doctrine.  It is either formal teaching or it falls into some other category with the most benign being a pious belief or mistake.


Mary confirms that Limbo is formal teaching:


Limbo was always formally taught as a place in heaven where unbaptized innocents would rest in peace.


Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)

LOL....That has actually happened over the years on a variety of Listservs and it does not matter one wit.  What you see here is what he continues to repeat in the face of all kinds of people including my spiritual father, and a very traditional Latin rite Catholic,  and another friend who was a Trappist monk, telling him that he is wrong and my reading and explanations are correct...as well as other Orthodox participants who were in agreement.

There's no attempt to seek out meaning.   The focus is on form and black and white. 

At any rate...it's been done to no avail.

M.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


I have worked through meaning here and you can accept it or reject it as Catholic teaching.

As I have said before I commune with many Catholics who do not believe as I believe, who have not been taught and formed as I have been.

If you want to see God as the Divine Punisher and thereby Author of Evil...have it it.  If you want to believe that Jesus cannot sanctify who He chooses, when He chooses...have at it.

It is not Catholic.  But that is not the end of the world either and nothing new.

Mary

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


PS: The reformed and protestant world has always had trouble understanding the Catholic teaching on divine justice.  Divine justice for the reformers is a God with blood in his eye, and Old Testament God of vengeance and an eye for an eye.  It is not that way for Catholics.

Much of what I am talking about is the teaching of saints and doctors of the Church. 

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.

In Orthodoxy St. Symeon the New Theologian thought that only monks could understand certain parts of theology and only monks could achieve theosis.  That mentality was not lost in the west.  It carried through and rose its head strongly after Catholic monastic life all but died out after the Protesters and Protestant Reformers and the attendant wars.  Only this time it was secular clergy who treated the laity as though they were idiots and barbarians....maybe we were.... :angel:

Reading more than one doctrinal history always helps a good bit in sorting out what is truly Catholic and what passes in and out on shifting historical currents.

M.

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us
From among my many sources within the Catholic priesthood I am familiar with both sides of this modern divide.

Hmm, maybe we need to introduce your Catholic priest friends to Mary's Orthodox priest friends and see if they can work things out.  ;)

LOL....That has actually happened over the years on a variety of Listservs and it does not matter one wit.  What you see here is what he continues to repeat in the face of all kinds of people including my spiritual father,


Removed by Irish Hermit.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 08:57:14 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.


This is awfully unfair.  The Baltimore Catechism has glowing recommendations and Imprimaturs from literally dozens of Catholic bishops

See http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bapprob.htm

It was also officially in use in most of the United States from 1885 to 1970, almost a hundred years.  It cannot have been too foul!

You are very quick to denigrate whatever does not agree with your own faith agenda.    It is quite comical in this instance because you have just recommended that we look at the catechetical material and so we mention the longest running Catechism in the States and you are rubbishing it because you do not find it sympathetic.  These things should be marked with a Mary's Imprimatur or Non Licet Imprimari.   :laugh:
« Last Edit: August 07, 2010, 10:05:19 AM by Irish Hermit »

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

The Baltimore Catechism was written as a short-hand for those whose faith was child-like and has strong Jansenist influences and also is the product of clerical elitism that was prevalent in the 1800 and 1900's in America and Northern Europe...southern France as well.


This is awfully unfair.  The Baltimore Catechism has glowing recommendations and Imprimaturs from literally dozens of Catholic bishops

See http://www.cin.org/users/james/ebooks/master/baltimore/bapprob.htm

It was also officially in use in most of the United States from 1885 to 1970, almost a hundred years.  It cannot have been too foul!

You are very quick to denigrate whatever does not agree with your own faith agenda.    It is quite comical in this instance because you have just recommended that we look at the catechetical material and so we mention the longest running Catechism in the States and you are rubbishing it because you do not find it sympathetic.  These things should be marked with a Mary's Imprimatur or Non Licet Imprimari.   :laugh:

Well you can thank the Irish Jansenists in America for that marvelous publication...set for people who were not expected to read much and write even less.

Even my monsignor in grade school taught me its shortfalls very early in my life.

He was Irish too but not a Jansenist.  He, like my mother's family, came from Tyrone, green through and through,  and he'd always invite me for tea when I would get in trouble for asking too many questions in religion class and he'd teach me and then we'd look at pictures from his trips back home. I was always the tallest girl and taller than all the boys in my class so I did everything last for 10 years,  and when I graduated from that school to go to the public high school in my town...last in line again... he whispered in my ear as he gave me my diploma, "Don't fret, they always save the best for last."  I think it is what kept me from landing in the ditch and staying there later in life.

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.

M.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I think this article carries some interesting messages with respect to a loving God and purgation:

http://josephkarlpublishing.blogspot.com/2010/08/did-you-know-that-god-isnt-nice.html

Did you know that God isn’t nice?
Well, He’s not. And neither should you be.

So says Sister John Sheila Galligan, I.H.M, S.T.D., professor in theology at Immaculata University in Immaculata, PA.

“The young people that I’m meeting are coming from a culture that seems to promote religion and spirituality as ‘niceness’,” said Sr. Galligan. “…The commandment that’s out there today is, ‘Be nice,’ or [in] other language, ‘Be tolerant, never make a judgment,’ et cetera.”

The culture of niceness rejects anything that challenges the autonomy of the individual. It has bastardized the meanings of words such as “love”, “freedom” and “marriage”, confusing people and leaving them ignorant about God, the meaning of life, and the dignity of the human person. In fact, the origin of the word “nice” is the Latin word nescius, which means “ignorant”.

“That kind of culture activity of ‘being nice’ is destructive, and it’s not what Christianity is all about,” said Sr. Galligan. “God is not nice. God is good, and goodness is different from niceness.”

The culture of niceness also eschews the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

“We have a tradition that is [almost 2,000] years of the best of philosophical and theological minds, with the contemporary blessings of [Popes] John Paul II and Benedict [XVI], who are also very able to engage young people, old people—the culture,” said Sr. Galligan.

But “instead of looking at the world in light of the Church and its teachings,” she said, “we come from the world and make a judgment on the Church and its teachings.”

Niceness is the fruit of sloth, what Sr. Galligan calls “the most neglected capital sin,” and “the ultimate boredom.” Commonly regarded as laziness, sloth is a “poisoning of the will,” she said, a lack of the will for the good. Niceness is the symptom of a soul poisoned by sloth.

“Niceness [is the attitude], ‘I do not have the will for your good, [so] I’m just going to go with the flow and be pleasing’,” she said.

Sr. Galligan is trying to free her students from the shackles of the “go with the flow” mentality of niceness because “They haven’t been trained to think, to argue” she said. “They’ve only been trained to accept.”

So for all its destructiveness, why have we allowed ourselves to be hypnotized by niceness?

The reason is, said Sr. Galligan, “we don’t want to ever think about the existential questions: ‘Who or what am I? Where am I going? How do I get there?’ And, even more, ‘Whose am I?’”

To ask the existential questions is to open oneself up to the possibility there is an “other” toward whom one must center himself. In a culture of niceness that fosters self-centeredness, the tendency is to avoid pursuing the answers to those questions.

“We’re always into that self-protective mode,” said Sr. Galligan. “…Truth and goodness become a threat, because then I have to acknowledge my humanity, which is wounded and tends toward self.”

Self-centeredness, however, “makes for unhappiness, loneliness,” she said. “I’m enclosed within myself. I’m imprisoned, and I’m made to be looking at you.”

The other-centeredness that is at the heart of true Christian living reveals the answers to the existential questions. To be other-centered is to image Him Who is other-centeredness itself, the Trinitarian God. Only in the penetrating intimacy of other-centeredness can we be truly happy.

But in a futile attempt to find happiness and alleviate their “ultimate boredom”, those who have fallen into the quicksand of sloth pursue empty and fleeting passion, a pursuit Sr. Galligan described as “getting into bizarre things to excite [oneself] for a few minutes.” Yet fulfilling and lasting passion can come only from the other-centered, self-giving life of charity.

So don’t be nice. Instead, burn with love for God and neighbor, as God burns with love for you.

“God is fire,” said Sr. Galligan. “He’s not bland fogginess.”

Offline Irish Hermit

  • Kibernetski Kaludjer
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,980
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.


Either your forgettery or mine is faulty because soon after I came back onto your list and while the Orthodox priestmonk in question was not on it himself, you told us that he was your spiritual father.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox

BTW:  My spiritual father is a Catholic, so your somewhat sour private note to me fell a tad flat.


Either your forgettery or mine is faulty because soon after I came back onto your list and while the Orthodox priestmonk in question was not on it himself, you told us that he was your spiritual father.

It is also possible that you misunderstood.  But my spiritual father has always been Catholic and always nearby when I am writing publicly so as to guide should I err, though more and more he says that is no longer necessary.  He says he now reads because he likes what I write.

M.


Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
I do think this article deserves some comment since it does represent traditional Catholic teaching.  The nun commenting in the article would be about my age, and would have been taught out of the same Baltimore, with all of its shortcomings, but this woman seems to have found a more constant truth in the teaching of the Church, as have I been able also to discern a more adult and spiritually accurate way of understanding the ancient teaching of the Church.

Mary

I think this article carries some interesting messages with respect to a loving God and purgation:

http://josephkarlpublishing.blogspot.com/2010/08/did-you-know-that-god-isnt-nice.html

Did you know that God isn’t nice?
Well, He’s not. And neither should you be.

So says Sister John Sheila Galligan, I.H.M, S.T.D., professor in theology at Immaculata University in Immaculata, PA.

“The young people that I’m meeting are coming from a culture that seems to promote religion and spirituality as ‘niceness’,” said Sr. Galligan. “…The commandment that’s out there today is, ‘Be nice,’ or [in] other language, ‘Be tolerant, never make a judgment,’ et cetera.”

The culture of niceness rejects anything that challenges the autonomy of the individual. It has bastardized the meanings of words such as “love”, “freedom” and “marriage”, confusing people and leaving them ignorant about God, the meaning of life, and the dignity of the human person. In fact, the origin of the word “nice” is the Latin word nescius, which means “ignorant”.

“That kind of culture activity of ‘being nice’ is destructive, and it’s not what Christianity is all about,” said Sr. Galligan. “God is not nice. God is good, and goodness is different from niceness.”

The culture of niceness also eschews the rich intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church.

“We have a tradition that is [almost 2,000] years of the best of philosophical and theological minds, with the contemporary blessings of [Popes] John Paul II and Benedict [XVI], who are also very able to engage young people, old people—the culture,” said Sr. Galligan.

But “instead of looking at the world in light of the Church and its teachings,” she said, “we come from the world and make a judgment on the Church and its teachings.”

Niceness is the fruit of sloth, what Sr. Galligan calls “the most neglected capital sin,” and “the ultimate boredom.” Commonly regarded as laziness, sloth is a “poisoning of the will,” she said, a lack of the will for the good. Niceness is the symptom of a soul poisoned by sloth.

“Niceness [is the attitude], ‘I do not have the will for your good, [so] I’m just going to go with the flow and be pleasing’,” she said.

Sr. Galligan is trying to free her students from the shackles of the “go with the flow” mentality of niceness because “They haven’t been trained to think, to argue” she said. “They’ve only been trained to accept.”

So for all its destructiveness, why have we allowed ourselves to be hypnotized by niceness?

The reason is, said Sr. Galligan, “we don’t want to ever think about the existential questions: ‘Who or what am I? Where am I going? How do I get there?’ And, even more, ‘Whose am I?’”

To ask the existential questions is to open oneself up to the possibility there is an “other” toward whom one must center himself. In a culture of niceness that fosters self-centeredness, the tendency is to avoid pursuing the answers to those questions.

“We’re always into that self-protective mode,” said Sr. Galligan. “…Truth and goodness become a threat, because then I have to acknowledge my humanity, which is wounded and tends toward self.”

Self-centeredness, however, “makes for unhappiness, loneliness,” she said. “I’m enclosed within myself. I’m imprisoned, and I’m made to be looking at you.”

The other-centeredness that is at the heart of true Christian living reveals the answers to the existential questions. To be other-centered is to image Him Who is other-centeredness itself, the Trinitarian God. Only in the penetrating intimacy of other-centeredness can we be truly happy.

But in a futile attempt to find happiness and alleviate their “ultimate boredom”, those who have fallen into the quicksand of sloth pursue empty and fleeting passion, a pursuit Sr. Galligan described as “getting into bizarre things to excite [oneself] for a few minutes.” Yet fulfilling and lasting passion can come only from the other-centered, self-giving life of charity.

So don’t be nice. Instead, burn with love for God and neighbor, as God burns with love for you.

“God is fire,” said Sr. Galligan. “He’s not bland fogginess.”


Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812

I can tell you this much...again....This quote does NOT mean what you say or think it means. 

What does: "Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."   this mean?

I covered this in the explanation of the Latin poena that translates into English most commonly as punishment...but also means penalty and loss, with the first meaning being loss.

So if you read the Baltimore Catechism you will find the language of punishment.

If you read the saints it comes out as loss or pain.

If you read systematic theology books you get the full explanation.

Mary
Apparently you do not accept the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church as given in the Baltimore Catechism No. 3: Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
I am saying that what you are touting as justice is the heresy of works.
Is the Roman Catholic Baltimore catechism guilty of touting justice as the heresy of works?


I have worked through meaning here and you can accept it or reject it as Catholic teaching.

As I have said before I commune with many Catholics who do not believe as I believe, who have not been taught and formed as I have been.

If you want to see God as the Divine Punisher and thereby Author of Evil...have it it.  If you want to believe that Jesus cannot sanctify who He chooses, when He chooses...have at it.

It is not Catholic.  But that is not the end of the world either and nothing new.

Mary
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.

I tend to read professional theologians very selectively, Stanley.  I most often stay pretty close to the saints and doctors of the Church who did address doctrinal issues in their spiritual writings and who the Church recognize as being orthodox teachers of the faith.

Only after one is well grounded spiritually and doctrinally is it really possible to approach some of the other great teachers of the Church who have been acknowledged for the orthodoxy of their teaching and writing.

Takes a long time even for a cradle Catholic to really become imbued with insight.  Some day I hope to come close to increasing in wisdom.

M.

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.

Offline elijahmaria

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,515
    • Irenikin: The Skete
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.

The Church is pretty slow to claim something is heretical.  They may say that it is insufficient or that it comes close to an edge of some kind, or that an idea is not fully representative of the truth, but there's a great deal of leeway in secular documents and discussions.  It takes a great deal to have a book banned or an idea banned or a person banned. 

The freedom to think and express things of the faith, in a variety of ways, often makes some people very uncomfortable.  Some people need the security of a very straightforward, black and white pronouncement.  That is what makes a question and answer catechism so attractive for teaching the average layman.  There's real security in that format.  The trouble is that it often does not tell the whole story or explain things that really ought to be explained.

Mary

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, and replaced by the universal catechism and also by local catechisms.
I don't believe that the RCC has ever declared that anything in the Baltimore catechism was heretical. On the contrary it has been officially approved and has been the  standard Catholic school catechism on Catholic teaching in the USA from 1885 to 1965.

The Church is pretty slow to claim something is heretical.  They may say that it is insufficient or that it comes close to an edge of some kind, or that an idea is not fully representative of the truth, but there's a great deal of leeway in secular documents and discussions.  It takes a great deal to have a book banned or an idea banned or a person banned. 

The freedom to think and express things of the faith, in a variety of ways, often makes some people very uncomfortable.  Some people need the security of a very straightforward, black and white pronouncement.  That is what makes a question and answer catechism so attractive for teaching the average layman.  There's real security in that format.  The trouble is that it often does not tell the whole story or explain things that really ought to be explained.

Mary
It is a clear, unambiguous statement:
Q 184: Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
…(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as God’s justice has been fully satisfied.
.................
Purgatory has been officially taught in Catholic schools in the USA for more than eighty years from the Baltimore catechism. 
Now some dissenting Catholics are trying to change the Catholic teaching on it.
How many bishops were there who signed the documents of the third plenary Council of Baltimore held in 1884? Was it fourteen archbishops, sixty-one bishops, and six abbots?

Offline stanley123

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 3,812
The Baltimore catechism has been officially approved. Many theologians have not been.

The Baltimore catechism has also been recognized as an insufficient instrument, ....
If an RC does not believe the teaching of the Baltimore Catechism, perhaps that RC can take a look at the RC book Read me or Rue It;
According to the RC Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon: “We approve and recommend with all our heart the beautiful little book Read Me or Rue It by E. D. M. [These initials used by Fr. O'Sullivan stand for Engant de Marie, that is, "Child of Mary" Ed.]
Although small, it is destined to do great good among Catholics, many of whom are incredibly ignorant of the great doctrine of Purgatory.”
http://www.theworkofgod.org/Library/Purgatry/Readme.htm#PURGATORY
WHAT IS PURGATORY?
It is a prison of fire in which nearly all [saved] souls are plunged after death and in which they suffer the intensest pain. …..
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Prince of Theologians, says that the fire of Purgatory is equal in intensity to the fire of Hell, and that the slightest contact with it is more dreadful than all the possible sufferings of this Earth!
….
The existence of Purgatory is so certain that no Catholic has ever entertained a doubt of it. It was taught from the earliest days of the Church and was accepted with undoubting faith wherever the Gospel was preached.

1. The fire we see on Earth was made by the goodness of God for our comfort and well-being Still, when used as a torment, it is the most dreadful one we can imagine.
2. The fire of Purgatory, on the contrary, was made by the Justice of God to punish and purify us and is, therefore, incomparably more severe