toldailytopic: Purgatory and limbo. Does such a place exist?

[Arthur Brain]

It is not about blindly swallowing anything. It is not even about the truth or rationality of the notion of eternal suffering. The issue is that chrysostom claims to be a Catholic, yet denies a dogmatic teaching that he is well aware The Church teaches. By asking "And why not if that is what The Church teaches?", I assume that he, as the Catholic he claims he is, would give that some importance.

All I have done is ask him why does he claims to be a Catholic when he explicitly rejects Church doctrine? I would be asking him the same thing if he were denying the Real Presence, Purgatory, Original Sin or any other doctrine.


Evo

Well that's fair enough but I actually don't see the Catholic church as united on this topic as it was in times past. Chrys is hardly the only catholic to question the doctrine to be fair. Is it your opinion that a catholic should only identify as such if they accept everything as per the original church's teachings?

Most churches have their share of differing attitudes to certain aspects of theology yet members still identify as methodist, pentecostal, baptist etc.

 

[Evoken]

Well that's fair enough but I actually don't see the Catholic church as united on this topic as it was in times past. Chrys is hardly the only catholic to question the doctrine to be fair. Is it your opinion that a catholic should only identify as such if they accept everything as per the original church's teachings?

That there is a lot of confusion and discord around The Catholic Church today is very much granted. However, the disunity, specially in matters like these, does not comes from The Church herself. That is, it is not something that flows from her teaching. Even the most recent Catechism professes the Church's traditional belief in the reality of eternal punishment. There is really only one defined Catholic position on this issue: the punishment of Hell is eternal. The problem comes from dissenting bishops, priest and laity who not being content with what The Church teaches, go about to impart and seek to diffuse their own individual views (even ones which have been condemned before) under the guise of "Catholic" teaching.

There are areas in which The Church allows differing views and you'll see various labels (such as Thomist, Molinists, for example) which Catholics apply to themselves. But this doesn't happen when it comes to defined doctrines. It is only on some areas where The Church has not defined one way or the other.

I know chrys is not the only one and my act of questioning him is done wholly in a benevolent spirit. But he is rejecting a clear teaching of The Church and he knows it, he is not doing it simply out of ignorance (something many of the laity do). It is not my opinion, but The Church's, that a Catholic's obstinate denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith constitutes heresy. The eternal punishment of the damned is one such truth.

A Catholic is one who is in faithful submission to the Roman Pontiff and accepts the entire doctrinal corpus defined and proposed for belief by The Church throughout the centuries in councils, bulls and other ecclesial documents.

Of course, this doesn't means that before you can be a Catholic you have to know everything there is to know about Catholicism. In fact, a lot of Catholics are quite faithful while not knowing a lot of things about their faith (flawed as I am, I include myself among those).

What is important is that the person has the right disposition and the virtue of faith. Faith in this context means to believe something on the authority of him who reveals. For the Catholic, he who reveals is God, working instrumentally through The Catholic Church, which Catholics believe he established on earth for the purpose of saving souls and preserving and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith till the end of time. A Catholic understands and accepts this arrangement and in so far as he is a Catholic, he faithfully accepts that which God, through his Church, proposes for belief.


Evo

 

[Dark Radiance]

I think that while Scripture may not explicitly name Purgatory, it makes sound theological sense. And it is a concept which I thinks makes for a far more loving God than would otherwise be the case.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That there is a lot of confusion and discord around The Catholic Church today is very much granted. However, the disunity, specially in matters like these, does not comes from The Church herself. That is, it is not something that flows from her teaching. Even the most recent Catechism professes the Church's traditional belief in the reality of eternal punishment. There is really only one defined Catholic position on this issue: the punishment of Hell is eternal. The problem comes from dissenting bishops, priest and laity who not being content with what The Church teaches, go about to impart and seek to diffuse their own individual views (even ones which have been condemned before) under the guise of "Catholic" teaching.

There are areas in which The Church allows differing views and you'll see various labels (such as Thomist, Molinists, for example) which Catholics apply to themselves. But this doesn't happen when it comes to defined doctrines. It is only on some areas where The Church has not defined one way or the other.

I know chrys is not the only one and my act of questioning him is done wholly in a benevolent spirit. But he is rejecting a clear teaching of The Church and he knows it, he is not doing it simply out of ignorance (something many of the laity do). It is not my opinion, but The Church's, that a Catholic's obstinate denial of a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith constitutes heresy. The eternal punishment of the damned is one such truth.

A Catholic is one who is in faithful submission to the Roman Pontiff and accepts the entire doctrinal corpus defined and proposed for belief by The Church throughout the centuries in councils, bulls and other ecclesial documents.

Of course, this doesn't means that before you can be a Catholic you have to know everything there is to know about Catholicism. In fact, a lot of Catholics are quite faithful while not knowing a lot of things about their faith (flawed as I am, I include myself among those).

What is important is that the person has the right disposition and the virtue of faith. Faith in this context means to believe something on the authority of him who reveals. For the Catholic, he who reveals is God, working instrumentally through The Catholic Church, which Catholics believe he established on earth for the purpose of saving souls and preserving and faithfully expounding the deposit of faith till the end of time. A Catholic understands and accepts this arrangement and in so far as he is a Catholic, he faithfully accepts that which God, through his Church, proposes for belief.


Evo

Then I guess this is the rougher edge of the sword where it comes to a strict dogmatic belief system. As much as I don't find any 'truth' in the doctrine of eternal suffering I can see your point. That being said however, it's arguable that what is taught regarding a certain issue (Especially one of such magnitude) is not necessarily correct and any 'church' is prone to human fallibility and "tradition" means nought in itself in regards to truth. I can see why plenty of catholics don't ascribe to it and there's a bit more to that than 'dissenting bishops' I would wager.

It would seem that you have faith that whatever the catholic catechism promotes is immune from any error, is that correct?

This is one reason why I don't align myself with any particular denomination in regards as to what *has* to be accepted as part of its system. Been there and done that so to speak.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I think that while Scripture may not explicitly name Purgatory, it makes sound theological sense. And it is a concept which I thinks makes for a far more loving God than would otherwise be the case.

Would you not also think that eternal torments and suffering are the complete antithesis of a loving God though? :think:

 

[Dark Radiance]

Would you not also think that eternal torments and suffering are the complete antithesis of a loving God though? :think:

One can argue that is a necessity in order to maintain a just as well as a loving God.
I also think that it is quite difficult to be eternally damned.

 

[Arthur Brain]

One can argue that is a necessity in order to maintain a just as well as a loving God.
I also think that it is quite difficult to be eternally damned.

Well, how would you go about arguing that it could be a 'necessity' for justice? Have you ever suffered any agonising pain before? How would it be 'just' to have people in such a horrific state of pain with no respite, and for ever? Why would a *loving* God create life with these parameters? It makes no sense.

Your second point bemuses me though in regards to your first. What do you mean it would be 'quite difficult to be eternally damned'? And isn't there a bit of a contradiction between the two? :think:

 

[Dark Radiance]

Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

 

[Evoken]

It would seem that you have faith that whatever the catholic catechism promotes is immune from any error, is that correct?

Not necessarily, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document (although some of it's statements and sources it cites may be). The Catechism is not seen on the same footing as say, the Scriptures, which we believe to be inspired by God and immune from any error in all their parts. This doesn't means, however, that just because of this it contains actual error.

The present Catechism underwent several changes with it's second edition. The changes made were mainly in the wording of the explanations given on some points of doctrine, which are not necessarily the best solely from the fact that the Catechism was promulgated by The Church.

Also, not everything the Catechism says is equally binding. That is, everything that is expressed therein does not carry the same doctrinal weight. It teaches about doctrines that have been previously defined and which all Catholics must fully embrace (like the Real Presence), but it also teaches about matters of practice and doctrines where differing views are permitted (like the subject of capital punishment).


Evo

 

[Sealeaf]

An understanding of relativity theory sheds some light on the question of Purgatory and Eternal punishment.

First the "eternal" thing. Strickly speaking nothing involving humans can be "eternal", since eternal means without begining or end. We all had beginings so we can't do "eternal' anything.

So assuming that when people say "eternal" what they really mean is "without end", what about that?

Relativity, which demands that we see time as a dimension not as a series of events, indicates that everything that comes into existence has a permanent location on the dimension of time. Nothing will ever erase them. We are used to thinking of past events as no longer being real. This is illusion caused by our 3 dimensional experience of the 4 dimensional reality.

More over, change is a characteristic only of the state called "now". If "now" has passed beyound the portion of reality which you inhabit, you can't change. You are locked into being what you are. Thus if you are a joyous, loving, open, hopeful person that is what you are-permanently. If on the other hand you are a meanspirited, angry, cold, hard, and bitter person that is what you are stuck with being-permanently. Being stuck with being what you have made yourself is the essence of both heaven and hell. So "everlasting" is a characteristic of both.

The above is just what we should know from "natural philosophy". The light shed on this by Scipture, the Incarnation and the whole of God's interaction with humanity is the subject for another post.