Talk:Purgatory/Archive 2

Removed section

I removed the section on "Secular View". I did so because its use of the sources was very inappropriate. I shall explain. The section cited this internet article by Richard Hooker to support the following sentence, "Historians of religion often portray purgatory as an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church". The article says nothing of the sort, making no statement about "Historians of religion" or "purgatory"! The only matter of relevance is that Hooker says that indulgences were originally created in the thirteenth century by the Church to collect money to pay for the social welfare and charity.

The next section talks about the Biblical view of the afterlife, especially the ancient Hebrew concept of Sheol. That seems rather irrelevant, since the article is about purgatory. How is it pertinent to mention what the earliest Jewish view of the afterlife was? Whatever the case, it cites, among others, Harry Emerson Fosdick, who was not a "secular" scholar but a Protestant clergyman. Furthermore, it sites an online article by James Tabor to support this statement, " According to J.D. Tabor, none of the various afterlife beliefs in the Bible, as seen by secular academics, match the Roman Catholic doctrines of particular judgment or purgatory in their current formulations." The article in question, however, makes no mention of purgatory or Catholic doctrines. Lastly, it notes the anecdote that a "humorist and freethinker" said that purgatory was invented by Pope Gregory because of its "commercial value", citing an article from infidels.org. All tolled, the section had to be omitted. I am not against some sort of section like this, but the sources here were wholly misused. Lostcaesar 08:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Now you really have got to be kidding me. Jonathan Tweet 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LC "The article says nothing of the sort, making no statement about "Historians of religion" or "purgatory"!" LC, how hard did you look for a statement about purgatory: "In fact, the entire concept of purgatory, which was invented in the late twelfth century, is as a place of temporal punishment." Please look again. Jonathan Tweet 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, please at least retrieve the deleted section and paste it here so that people can see exactly what you're talking about. Jonathan Tweet 21:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Hooker does say that, my apologies. I am not sure how we should take that, though, since it is so obviously mistaken, and since he gives no supporting arguments or even discussion. It is an article on the Reformation, however, so we ought not expect it to be a great source for information on the 12th century. And whatever the case, it doesn't support the claim, since it is only on author, whom we don't know to be a "historian of religion" (infact, who is he again?).

Here is the omitted section:

Historians of religion often portray purgatory as an innovation of the Roman Catholic Church[1]. They look at the Bible as revealing different ideas about the afterlife in different times and places. The earliest Biblical view, in secular estimation, is that of Sheol as the common grave from which there is no resurrection. Later parts of the Bible describe a belief in resurrection on Judgment Day, the bosom of Abraham where the righteous await Judgment Day in comfort (not in purifying punishment), and Gehenna where the wicked are punished.[2]. Even within the New Testament, scholars find an inconsistent mix of Jewish, Hellenistic, and original concepts of the afterlife. According to J.D. Tabor, none of the various afterlife beliefs in the Bible, as seen by secular academics, match the Roman Catholic doctrines of particular judgment or purgatory in their current formulations. (see his article here)

Freethinker and humorist Frank Hughes, the "Pope of the Badlands," depicted purgatory as a Persian invention copied by Pope Gregory because of its "commercial value."[]

Lostcaesar 08:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

On the unsourced sections

There are various unsourced sections that should be reviewed. The Mormon section has as its only sources scriptural passages referenced to affirm what appears to be a quick essay which makes claims about Mormon beliefs but without bothering to appeal to any source on Mormon doctrine. Moreover, the section does not talk about purgatory or related comments. Rather, it is an explanation (which isn't entirely understandable) about the Mormon view of the afterlife, or spirit world. This article is not about heaven, hell, limbo, or the like. The section does not mention purgation or prayers for the dead. The section on Jewish Eschatology, despite its name, does manage to at least mention purgation, but again it cites only scriptural (or other such) passages in support and there is little reason to see it as representative of Jewish views (and which Jewish view at that?). The same can be said about he Islamic and Zoroastrian sections. No sources, no clear relevance to the topic at hand, no basis for thinking they are representative of actual beliefs of the communities, etc. Now, I put in a request on both the Judaism and Islamic portals for help, with no response. As it stands, I think these sections are holding the article back from good status. They are hold-overs from a time when the entire article was simply an unsourced personal commentary. And they don't even seem to address the matters at hand directly. The entire idea that religions and doctrines can be compared in this way is OR without some secondary support. As it stands, I think the section should be removed. Lostcaesar 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

TEXT has been moved here:

---

[Mormon theology] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon or LDS) believes in a post-life “spirit world.” On the cross, Christ told one of the thieves that “today thou shalt be with me in Paradise.” Yet, upon his resurrection, Christ commanded Mary to touch him not, because Christ had “not yet ascended unto the Father.” Hence, LDS believe in an intermediate spirit world between this mortal life and the Father’s presence. Based on the Epistle of Peter and later revelation to LDS prophets, it is believed that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is taught in this spirit world: "For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit." (I Peter 4:6). "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (I Peter 3: 18,19). In this doctrine, spirits that are “in prison” are allowed to make the grace of Christ effective by accepting the Gospel and exercising faith. They are allowed to make this choice when someone on Earth does the vicarious work for them, such as baptism for the dead. This doctrine is partially based on revelations given to the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith and the verse from 1 Corinthians 15: 29 "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" Final judgment, however, will occur after the resurrection and be a necessity for all mankind.

[Jewish eschatology] The Jewish Talmud refers to temporary punishments, but these references do not match the current doctrine of purgatory. In Rosh HaShanah 16b-17a, those who are between the sinful and the righteous are thrown temporarily into gehenna, but this event takes place on Judgment Day, not after one's own death. Sabbath 33b, the wicked are said to suffer twelve months of punishment after death, rather than the eternal punishment of the Roman Catholic hell.

Rabbinic literature describes gehinom (gehenna) as a place or state of temporary suffering immediately after death. The Septuagint Scriptures do include the Maccabees which incorporate prayer for the dead (2 Mac 12:42-45), but not a state of suffering after death. Jewish theology is inconclusive about a counterpart to purgatory, as indeed it is about almost all life-after-death teachings. For instance, Maimonides believed that all punishment was temporal, and the worst punishment is nonexistence. Nachmanides, on the other hand, argued that eternal punishment does exist.

[Islamic view] The Islamic holy book, the Quran, details the concept of barzakh, that the dead await Judgment Day, either in bliss or in torment. Commonly the barzakh is a place near heaven, for babies and children who have died at a very young age. If damned on Judgment Day, the sinners will remain in hell forever. The Quran states: "Khaldeen fee al nari", which translated means, they live in the fire of hell forever.

There is also Araf, which is a borderland between Hell and Heaven. Those who escape Hell remain there until they are allowed into Heaven. Children and lunatics, who are neither good nor evil, also remain in Araf.

[Medieval Zoroastrian beliefs] Medieval Zoroastrians writing in Pahlavi described hamistagan, a place where the souls of those whose good and bad deeds are equal would await resurrection on Judgment Day[3]. Souls in hamistagan were said not to suffer or to suffer only moderately. The particular judgment of souls after death, and their disposition to a level of heaven, a level of hell, or to hamistagan is described in the 9th century Pahlavi text Dadestan-i Denig ("Religious Decisions").

---

Requested comment

Okay, first of all, let me state the fact of Purgatory as I understand them:

1. Modernly, the word "Purgatory" itself is a Roman Catholic thing . Whenever we talk about purgatory, people know we're talking about a part of Roman Catholic doctrine, and the RCC is final arbiter of what is and is not part of the doctrine of Purgatory.
2. RCs believe that purgatory exists, that it has biblical roots, that belief in it predates christianity. They don't think that belief in purgatory represented any kind of a "split" with earlier tradition, but rather see purgatory as the continuation of a long jewish and christian tradition.
3. Some other judeochristian religions don't explicitly have Purgatory, but they have views about the afterlife which have concepts that are similar to Purgatory, and RCs often argue that these other religions are talking about same concept as Purgatory, albeit with a different name and slightly different details (ala Greek Zeus/Roman Jupiter).
4. Some other judeochristian religons explicitly reject Purgatory and openly dispute its existence. They regard it as a RC invention that deviated from early Christianity.
5. Most secular historians believe purgatory is an innovation of the RC church of the middle ages. According to them, pre-christian Jews and early christians had an concept of the afterlife that was markedly different from the RC doctrine of Purgatory.

Based on all that, it seems to me that the focus of the article is getting somewhat lost here-- the article before me might best be titled "Other religions views of Purgatory" or something-- which is to say, most of the article is comparing the RC purgatory to other religion's views on the afterlife, and noting the similarities and differences. This comes out really clearly in the lead-- we devote 75% of the space to talking about Greek and Protestant views of the afterlife on a page that is about one aspect of RC views of the afterlife. This looks like a job for summary style. The relationship to Eastern Orthodox in particular could be cleaved off because EOC wasn't "defined by" a view toward purgatory-- rather, we're after the fact comparing EO afterlife views with RC afterlife views and noting the similiarities and differences. We could reasonably make a section this long about pretty much any two religions. The protestant will need a little more discussion, because they so explicitly rejected purgatory as part of their doctrinal definition, but it still seems like we try to re-center the article on RC theology and farm out the comparative religion to subarticles.

The deletion of the secular views section is hard to justify. It seems like that's a perspective lacking in the current text, and now it has been deleted outright. The old section certainly wasn't perfect-- the sentence about 'freethinking and humorist Frank Hughes' was particularly in need of been cut. But for it's faults, the secular historical POV, whatever it is, is clearly notable and worth discussing. If the section needs to be fixed and expanded, deletion is going in the wrong direction.

If it were me, I'd do the article this way:

1. What is Purgatory? Explain it really really well, do all the ins and outs of purgatory as seen by RC doctrine. Pretend the reader has never ever heard of it before, and it explain it like you would explain a Taoist concept to a western reader.
2. History of Purgatory. State the undisputed history of purgatory, when it is universally agreed to have entered RC doctrine, and how RC understanding of purgatory has grown or changed since that time. Then talk about the pre-RC antecedents, being sure to explicitly mention the controversy over equating Purgatory with the views of afterlife that were held by prechristians/biblical content/early christians. The dangerous thing about the current page is that the debate is never actually mentioned-- it's only vaguely alluded to.
3. Other religions and Purgatory. Using subpages as needed, briefly summarize what other religions have said about purgatory.

Lastly, somebody should go over the page with a fine-toothed comb to remove the "from an RC POV" stuff that will inevitable inadvertantly creep into an article like this, no matter how hard good-faith editors try to eliminate it in the first round. This aren't that big a deal-- they're sort of life typos-- when you view the world from a certain position, it's hard to notice that you define things based on that terminology and such. Try to replace jargon whenever possible. So, in no particular order:

• Not "soteriology", try "views of salvation"
• Not "the faithful", try "catholics" or "christians"
• With the "who's who" of the church fathers-- don't cite their primary sources, just find modern sources that connect those ideas to purgatory and then reference those modern scholars as they connect purgatory to the pateristic sources.
• It's OR to just rattle off bible verses which support Purgatory. Instead, find a source that talks about the biblical basis for Purgatory and summarize that source.
• The Protestant theology section is definite NPOV. There's a definite underlying hostility towars Protestantism evidence. It explicitly presents protestants as changing doctrine in their rejection of purgatory-- protestants of course would say they they "returned to the true apostolic and biblical doctrines".
• It's said Protestants don't see any purpose of praying for the dead. Obviously, there's a grain of truth to this-- they don't think it will affect the dead's salvation, but the text would make you think protestants don't pray for their dead, when in fact, they regularly do.
• Similarly, I seriously laughed out loud when I was in the middle of Protestant views of Purgatory and found an account of John Calvin having a woman whipped for praying at the grave of her poor dead! heheh. "Why did John Calvin hate America"? Usually, Wikipedia attempts to drag an opposed group through the mud are sort of subtle, but this one was like something out of a 1930s propaganda film heheh. Obviously, I don't have to tell you, Protestants usually pray at graveside, and even if the story about the graveside beating is univerally agreed to be true, it's clearly undo weight in a 5 paragraph summary of protestant views of Purgatory.
• Likewise, the whole mention of CS Lewis as a protestant who accepted purgatory is undue weight in a section this small. By and large, protestants criticize the catholic doctrine of purgatory, don't accept it, DO pray at gravesides, and don't beat helpless mothers. :). This section should be rewritten to honestly present Protestant views of Purgatory-- currently the section is better descripted as "Catholic views of Protestant Views of Purgatory" hehehe.
• Purgatory in art and culture should be expanded. We go from Dante to Piers Anthony in two sentences.

Hope all this helps! --Alecmconroy 00:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. As I await others, let me make a few observations. The division into Latin and Greek traditions is important because it embodies two elements of the Catholic Church, the Latin (traditionally RCC you might say) and the Eastern Catholic Church which are in full communion with Rome (hence by definition must agree with Rome on matters of dogma) but have their own presentation of the matter that does not use the word purgatory and is from the same source as the Eastern Orthodox. Hence, User:InfernoXV wrote, "I like the division into Latin and Greek views, it's far more accurate. I say, good work!" (above). As for the secular view, we have a difficulty concernins some details. You wrote, "Most secular historians believe purgatory is an innovation of the RC church of the middle ages." I do not believe this is true and I have seen no sources to support it (and my field of study is the Middle Ages). Sources are important for this section and they have been lacking (and I was very patient in waiting for them, and by this I mean I waited months before removing it). Purgatory did develop distinctive features in the Middle Ages but these are and never were part of the doctrine. Le Goff did take the position that purgatory was "born" in the middle ages, but he was heavily criticized for this (he was bound to make a few mistakes in a 500 page book), hence Alan E. Bernstein wrote that the concept of purgatory was fathered in the patristic age (see article). We must be careful to properly represent the RC doctrine, not a characterature of it. So, in sum, I appreciate all the comments. I do think it is a good idea to dedicate a section to the historical development of the doctrine, because it certainly did acquire increased definition and new elements in the middle ages. I await other comments but I will say that I think your concerns are important. I only listed to key points you may wish to consider in the future. Lostcaesar 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh oh--- I see! Well, that is an interesting wrinkle about the Eastern Rite Churches-- they find themselves being in the unique position of officially being "in full communion" with the rest of RCC on all matters of doctrine, but don't actually have purgatory, at least not explicitly? hmm.. that is a toughy. I'd say give the ECC a special (short) section that explains what ECC is a little more distinctly-- I get the vibe that they're sort of a "hybrid" between RCC and EO-- they don't have purgatory, but don't openly disagree with it either? I'd say merge the discussion of ECC with the similar material that's in "Subsequent History" so that you have one section that explains what ECC is, explains what its situation is, and explains what your typical ECC parishoner would say about purgatory. --Alecmconroy 02:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. I am trying to work in all the good advice so far, so we'll see how it shapes up. I took your advice about making a history section, I hope think its an improvement. Lostcaesar 07:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with Alecmconroy's points 1-4 about purgatory. However, I do take some issue with point 5. It's hardly "most" secular scholars who take this view, and a large portion of those who do write with a POV oppositional to the RCC. However, I think my disagreement with his assertion is more a failure to distinguish between various factors on his part. The rough idea of purgatory is well-established in Judaism around the time of Jesus and in early Christian history, in the sense of a cleansing or rectification of souls after death. Maccabees and numerous comments from a wide variety of early Christian theologians establishes this. The peculiar doctrine of purgatory as we know it today is commonly accepted to have been created/clarified (depending on one's POV) no later than the "Dark Ages", even by a majority of secular scholars. The medieval origin claims come about from a conflation of the interrelated but seperate doctrines of indulgences and purgatory. The claim itself has its origin in Protestant critiques of Catholic dogma and history.

I'd agree with him on the concerns about the lede. It spends a lot of time detailing outside views instead of introducing the topic and has begun to sprawl. WP:LEAD should be our guide in how it should be constructed.

The "Christian antiquity" section reads a bit too much like apologetics. It needs to be more reporting and less advocating of the early origin/continuous tradition POV. At the least, it needs to clearly attribute these claims, reporting on them, and should include some counterbalancing sources from those who criticize the early origin/continuous tradition claim.

"Latin theological tradition" could use some editing, helping the section flow better and the section fit together more tightly. Also, it could use more citations for its claims, for example in how Gregory's teaching is "significant in three respects".

"Greek theological tradition" is a pretty good section, decently written and well-sourced. It could use a little editing for style, but it is not significantly lacking. I will say that the parenthetical references, such as the see also and Virgin Mary, should be discussed in the text or relegated to a footnote.

The "Catholic and Orthodox" section is troubled by flirting with OR. Biblical verses shouldn't be cited unless they are the direct topic of discussion and even then very cautiously since they are a primary source and open to wide interpretation. It would be much better to find sources that make these claims for us. It's also a bit choppy and overall in need of citation and better writing.

I agree with Alecmconroy that there's definately a bit of anti-Protestant POV in the Protestant section. It needs to be well-sourced and rewritten in light of those sources. Things like the whipping of a woman praying at a grave should be removed entirely. I also agree the art and culture section needs some expansion.

Additionally, he is also correct the article suffers in its coverage by lacking a secular viewpoint section.

Of course, this is all just my own subjective view. You are welcome to some grains of salt with it. Vassyana 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, I suggest we rewrite the material to get across these keys points brought up by Alec:

# Modernly, the word "Purgatory" itself is a Roman Catholic thing . Whenever we talk about purgatory, people know we're talking about a part of Roman Catholic doctrine, and the RCC is final arbiter of what is and is not part of the doctrine of Purgatory.

1. RCs believe that purgatory exists, that it has biblical roots, that belief in it predates christianity. They don't think that belief in purgatory represented any kind of a "split" with earlier tradition, but rather see purgatory as the continuation of a long jewish and christian tradition.
2. Some other judeochristian religions don't explicitly have Purgatory, but they have views about the afterlife which have concepts that are similar to Purgatory, and RCs often argue that these other religions are talking about same concept as Purgatory, albeit with a different name and slightly different details (ala Greek Zeus/Roman Jupiter).
3. Some other judeochristian religons explicitly reject Purgatory and openly dispute its existence. They regard it as a RC invention that deviated from early Christianity.
4. Most secular historians believe purgatory is an innovation of the RC church of the middle ages. According to them, pre-christian Jews and early christians had an concept of the afterlife that was markedly different from the RC doctrine of Purgatory.

That doesn't mean only change the article if it flatly contradicts these points. It means see to it that these key points are easy for the reader to glean. They go in the lead and are supported in the text.

And I'd be happy to follow Alec's outline:

# What is Purgatory? Explain it really really well, do all the ins and outs of purgatory as seen by RC doctrine. Pretend the reader has never ever heard of it before, and it explain it like you would explain a Taoist concept to a western reader.

1. History of Purgatory. State the undisputed history of purgatory, when it is universally agreed to have entered RC doctrine, and how RC understanding of purgatory has grown or changed since that time. Then talk about the pre-RC antecedents, being sure to explicitly mention the controversy over equating Purgatory with the views of afterlife that were held by prechristians/biblical content/early christians. The dangerous thing about the current page is that the debate is never actually mentioned-- it's only vaguely alluded to.
2. Other religions and Purgatory. Using subpages as needed, briefly summarize what other religions have said about purgatory.

As to the lack of focus on this article, here's why it's so wandery. When I first found this article, it was pro-RC, and (thanks to a recent overhaul) it is again. The RC wants to blur the distinctions among beliefs about Purgatory to keep Purgatory dogma from standing out like a sore thumb. It's one of the few RC dogmas with little to no parallels outside the RCC. By blurring the distinction between EOC and RC beliefs, or even between Protestant and RC beliefs, the article makes purgatory seem part of the Christian tradition instead of a special RC doctrine. That's why the article was changed from distinguishing between RC/EOC beliefs (makes RC look distinct) to Latin/Greek, so that the material could be about "the Greek purgatory tradition." What exactly is purgatory? RC editors don't want to be too explicit. The more they can say "Purgatory just means prayer-boosted purification after death," the easier they can find "purgatory" in other traditions. So I like Alec's suggestion: 1. Here's Purgatory, RC style, the works, the dead in purgatory praying for the living (maybe), intolerable pain (maybe) and fire (maybe), punishments for forgiven sins, the Pope meting out Christ's infinite merit to spare souls time in purgatory, etc. 2. History, including secular viewpoint. 3. What other religions think, very brief. As for summary style, there should be a new "middle state" page that talks about purgatory, hamistigan, the Muslim concept that some in Hell get rescued, etc. That's a separate page for a general sort of afterlife, the middle state between torment and paradise. Jonathan Tweet 15:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Alec's comments have been incorporated. The lead says exactly what the Catholic teaching on purgatory is and is not by providing a full quote from the CCC. The history section explains the development of the doctrine from antique Christianity through the Middle Ages. I don't know what it would mean to talk about purgatory in other religions, and a page about a "middle state" comparing hamistigan and purgatory sounds like origianl research to me, but if you want to make a new page and if you could do it with proper sources, then best of luck. The reason for expressing Latin and Greek elements of the teaching is because it is held by the Latin Rite Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches which are both equally "[Roman] Catholic". You have confused things that are not part of the doctrine of purgatory as per the CCC (like intolerable pain, indulgences, etc) and you want the article to present your confused view of the doctrine. As for the "secular view", like all material it must be sourced. Lostcaesar 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

In light of the comment, I'm going to make one change that has yet to be made, that is, start with "What is Purgatory? Explain it really really well, do all the ins and outs of purgatory as seen by RC doctrine. Pretend the reader has never ever heard of it before, and it explain it like you would explain a Taoist concept to a western reader." In other words, start with a description of purgatory and let the history section come second. A reader comes to this page to find out about purgatory, so a description of purgatory comes first. Jonathan Tweet 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic and Orthodox Sprirituality

I find this section problematic. Afterall, since the Orthdox do not believe in the same idea of purgatory as Cathloics or even like the use of the word purgatory since it describes a belief that developed in the west separate from their own...well this section makes it sound like it does. I understand that it is trying to reference the notion that both the Catholic and Orthodox believe in spritual cleansing after death, but the use of the word purgatory in the section makes it sound like the both believe in the same ideas. I say the section needs a rewrite or that references to spritual cleansing be moved to their respective faiths in order to avoid confusion- especially considering the bulk of it is referencing a Catholic prayer.

In general, this article tries to blur the distinctions between RC and other Christian beliefs (early Christian, EOC, Protestant) in order to make purgatory more plausible. This section is an example of that slant. This page should be about purgatory, not about purification after death. Jonathan Tweet 15:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We could move the section to this talk page and work on it. Or, we could cut it. Most of the information is in other sections. Lostcaesar 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

update and pov

The article in its current state has made great improvements. It now gives a direct statement of the catholic doctrine, including title, as per its current presentation in the catechism. It also gives an overview of the historical development of the doctrine, both in the East and West and through the Reformation. Lastly, it gives the current articulation today of Latin Rite Catholics and Eastern Catholic Churches, observing Eastern Orthodox objections and concurrences. It should be added that the article features sixty nine sources for a mere 36kb of data, hence it is (near) 100% sourced. It seems that point of view concerns have now been resolved. Any previous need for a “secular views” section, to which sources have never been forthcoming, seems unnecessary, since this is not an article about comparative religion nor a statement of the veracity of the doctrine, but merely an overview of the teachings and beliefs of one faith, its historical development and current articulation. As such I shall remove the tag, pending further dialogue. Lostcaesar 09:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The folks that commented on the article specifically criticized the deletion of the "secular analysis" section. To remove it and keep it out is POV. You requested the comment. Live by it. If you want the POV tag removed, contact the people who commented on the page and ask them if it's NPOV yet. Jonathan Tweet 15:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Per the RfC, I've added a more thorough desription of purgatory to the lead. The article should also describe purgatory first and do the history business second, per the RfC. I haven't referenced this material yet because the last time I tried adding material to this page it was just deleted.

Two said the article needed a "secular views" section, but offered no sources, nor guide as to what that would be, and at any rate that was before the substantial changes to the article, especially the expansion of the histoty section, which I gather is what they were expecting. What should it say? People who do not believe in life after death (or at least that we have any knowledge of it) do not believe in purgatory? Sounds rather obvious. Do other encyclopedia's say as much? I expect not. What exactly is the "secular view" and whom do we invest to speak for it? If this article advocated purgatory it might be different, but it does not, rather it simply gives information on it. Lostcaesar 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

What do historians unfettered by doctrinal constraints conclude about the origin and nature of the doctrine? Seems like a reasonable question worthy of answer. Historians say baptism (e.g.) traces back to the historical Jesus but purgatory doesn't. That's a datum worthy of mention. Jonathan Tweet 18:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the sources I've read and given in the article, the notion of prayers for the dead and purification after death predate Christianity and Jesus, but that the two interwoven beliefs developed into a distinctive teaching over the course of Christian history. So, given that, I don't see the relevance of your question as formulated. Lostcaesar 19:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, If your changes met the instructions of those who commented, then please ask them to verify such and remove the POV tag. If this article isn't POV according to you, that's not news. Jonathan Tweet 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Pushing towards NPOV

Two said the article needed a "secular views" section, but offered no sources, nor guide as to what that would be, and at any rate that was before the substantial changes to the article, especially the expansion of the histoty section, which I gather is what they were expecting. What should it say? People who do not believe in life after death (or at least that we have any knowledge of it) do not believe in purgatory? Sounds rather obvious. Do other encyclopedia's say as much? I expect not. What exactly is the "secular view" and whom do we invest to speak for it? If this article advocated purgatory it might be different, but it does not, rather it simply gives information on it. Lostcaesar 17:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was unclear before. I can't speak for the other commenter, but when I talked about a secular views section, I wasn't suggesting that there be whole section on "Secular views of the afterlife"-- I don't think we have to go out of our way to say something like "people who don't believe in an afterlife don't believe in purgatory" for example.

What I was trying to get at is that there's a debate over the historical origins of Purgatory: Judaism claims it was never part of Judaism, EO might claim it was not part of early christianity, RCC claims it was part of 1st century christianity or early judaism, and protestants claim it was not part of early christianity but was part of middle ages christianity. The ECC, meanwhile, is somewhere in the middle, and I'm not totally clear on where they stand. So, we have a diverse debate on Purgatory, its origins, and when people believed what.

It's into this historical debate that I'd would expect to see a secular views section. We should state the major religions' current views, and also mention their views on history as part of that. Obviously, since all christian religious groups claim their denomination represents Jesus's true teachings, they will have, as a matter of faith, a belief about early christian teaching of purgatory.

If this is a perspective that is going to be included, there shouldn't be any trouble finding sources. There are of lots and lots of sources on 1st century views of the afterlife and earlier judaism views. Ehrman is a name that comes up a lot for this, but there are plenty of historical-critical scholars who've examined the journey from judaism to early christianity to roman catholicism who touch on this. I see that Jacques Le Goff has written an entire book just on the origins of Purgatory, for example.[4]

I _think_ you'll find the that consensus among historians of this persuasion is that purgatory became part of christian dogma beginning in the 12th century. I'm not familiar with evidence for that view, but of course, it stands to reason the it would have to be have been added at some point prior to the Great Schism-- otherwise it wouldn't be a point of dispute between RCC and EOC. (of course, actually read the book, don't actually listen my OR ramblings. heheh)

It _seems_ like the current version of history is sort of weighted towards the idea that Purgatory is ancient in origin. Reading the current article, one doesn't really get the feeling that the history is a huge debate. Protestants (and I think secularists) outright say it's a later addition which is completely alien to early christianity. The EOC seems to feel similarly, but I'm out of my area there. RCC meanwhile says that it goes back to the patristic age (and presumably to the extra-biblical teachings of Jesus?).

This debate isn't being held right now. We don't explicitly say that the history is a hotly-debated subject. We list the RCC evidence for their view, but we don't list the Protestant evidence, and we don't have any historical-critical perspective at all anymore. In essence, the RCC view is the "true view" found in the history section, and the protestant view is a "divergence from true", which is mentioned in the protestant section. The whole article currently points in that direction-- in one sentence we even say as much, when we present the RCC perspective as fact: "Thus, the concept of purgatory was fathered in the patristic age."

Of course, this isn't to say anyone trying to push a POV. It's really really hard to know the truth of something in your own mind, but present a subject as if you didn't-- treating notable but erroneous viewpoints on par with the views you hold. As a reviewer, I usually feel confident that an article is NPOV when I read and can't tell what side of a debate the authors were on. And so far, we're not there yet-- it's still clear that we, the authors, believe the RCCs are right and the Protestants are wrong about the history of Purgatory. So, we're not quite there yet. --Alecmconroy 20:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alec, thank you for the comments and suggested sources. I might point out that the article does cite Le Goff, and some who reviewed his work. As you know, sources are important to me, and I know from my experience with you on other pages that they are equally important for you and the additions you make. If there is debate, and exactly what that debate is, we would have to derrive it from sources. If you notice, the history section does have many, but if this seems insufficent or drawn from only one view, that may be revised. In my understanding it is a fair sample, but I offer my opinion as one of many. Lostcaesar 21:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Small world. Sorry I didn't recognize you-- I'm horrible with names. Yes, sources are a must, and people absolutely have to seek them out. The Le Goff book looks promising-- I'd suggest Johnathan, you, or anyone trying to get this article towards FA status pick up a copy and add its perspective the article. --Alecmconroy 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I can try and work it in better. Its 500 pages so it would take a while if one has not read it. Plus, I've read a couple reviews of it and can work that in more. Of course, please read the book if you wish, and reviews, for yourself. (Ps, there is an English translation avaliable). Lostcaesar 19:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See new txt, I have added a detailed sketch of his view and that of others, now representing, as best I can, comments from notable catholic and prot. scholars, as well as the agnostic Le Goff and two fellow historians who reviewed his work. I believe the article is throughly npov now, beyond doubt. Lostcaesar 23:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

editing purgatory again

I took a break from editing purgatory because a particular editor was defending a POV version of this article by deleting my edits. It wasn't worth my time to keep working on it. I have tried to get this editor to assure me that they will treat my work with the same deference that I show theirs, but to no avail. I have little choice but to forget about purgatory or to forge ahead. I'm going to forge ahead. On the issue of conduct, a key issue I have is that WP directs editors to improve unsatisfactory edits rather than deleting them. Help:revert. Jonathan Tweet 00:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a quick stab at improving the article. The writing is quick rather than meticulous. I'd be happy to take feedback on the work so far before continuing. Jonathan Tweet 01:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Latin v Greek, or Catholic v Orthodox?

An editor, in making a POV overwrite of this article, changed it from comparing "Catholic" and "Orthodox" to comparing "Latin" to "Greek." The problem is, the "Greek" category includes a 10% minority that is in communion with the Pope. Thus, information we write about the "Greek" tradition has to include a minority, Catholic viewpoint. The Greek position is overwhelmingly anti-purgatory. Yet that 10% minority makes it seem as though the Greek outlook accommodates purgatory. My solution would be to have Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Eastern Catholic be three distinct sections. That makes it clearer and easier for the reader to follow. The ECC are minorities within minorities. Their relation to prugatory is unique. Jonathan Tweet 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

May I direct you to the above:

"Lostcaesar - I like the division into Latin and Greek views, it's far more accurate. I say, good work! While I have your attention, I'd like to point out "Eastern Catholic Churches" - not "Eastern Rite Catholic Churches". Aside from that, top-notch! InfernoXV"

The Greek position is complex, but the ECC and GO positions are (to speak generally) basically the same, both stemming from the same tradition. Lostcaesar 06:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, you cannot divide RCC and ECC, as if they are two different groups. They are not. The Eastern Catholic Churches are just as Roman Catholic as all other particular Churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. They are not Latin Rite, but they are [Roman] Catholic. They are Eastern, basically Greek in tradition, and as fully Catholic as the Latin Rites. Lostcaesar 06:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

LC says, "Also, you cannot divide RCC and ECC, as if they are two different groups." That's a surprising thing for you to say, since it's you who divided them in the first place. So I agree with your newfound understanding that the RCC and ECC should not be divided. Let's put the ECC stuff where it belongs, in with the RCC section. Then the EOC can have its own section. Jonathan Tweet 22:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I never divided them. Lostcaesar 01:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is that you have confused "Latin" with RCC. The Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church contains many particular churches with their own rites and traditions, some Eastern (and Greek) and some Western (and Latin). To equate "Latin" with RCC is a mistake. Lostcaesar 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As it happens, we Eastern Catholics consider ourselves part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Note absence of 'Roman'. Whereas at one time, Romans enjoyed referring to the Catholic Church as Roman, this is severely out of date, and calling us 'Roman Catholics' is no longer done. InfernoXV 07:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The Orthodox not in communion with Rome also consider themselves part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which accounts for some of the terminological glitches.

Apropos of the article, I think a source of confusion is that purgatory is a dogma for Latin Catholics, so it may be unclear how the Eastern Catholics can apparently not take it into account in their own spirituality. I'm thinking it may be the case that by the terms of the various Unions they're not required to teach it, but they may also not contradict it. But I could be mistaken, so it would be good if this could be cleared up by someone better-informed on the issue. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

XB, podiakon! You're right - the terms of the various Unions state quite specifically that Purgatory was not to be debated and we were to be left alone on that issue. Those of us more faithful to Eastern Tradition will consider the Latin dogma of Purgatory to be a mere Theologoumenon, and a Western attempt at explaining and rationalising a more mystical idea of post-death purification that is common to both East and West. InfernoXV 08:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with these points. First, the name "Roman Catholic Church" is largely a foreign word not used by the Church. Rarely, the term has been used, and when it is used it is exactly the same as "the Church", "the Catholic Church", and "the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church". The point is, Latin particular churches and Eastern particulars churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome are in the same Church - if you call one group "Roman Catholics" (admittedly impercise and rather foreign), then the other is "Roman Catholic" also since they are co-equal particular churches in the One Church. As for Greek Orthodox, the terminology isn't as much of an issue since they recognize that there are issues with communion with the Bishop of Rome, though, obviously, they see the issue differently. The point, however, is that the divide is not between "Roman Catholics" and everyone else, if by "Roman Catholics" you mean the Latin Rite Particular Churches, since the Eastern Catholic are in an undivided union with the Latin Rite Particular Churches.

Second, The dogmatic element of purgatory is stated upfront. It is also called a "final purification". As stated (without even requiring the use of the word purgatory) there is no dogmatic difference between Latin and Greek traditions. The problem I have with what JT wants to do is that, not understanding the current articulation of the dogma, he wants to add all sorts of theological ideas (traditions) - ideas that were never part of the dogma but which developed in the West - to what the final purification (as the CCC puts it) is, thus intensifying the supposed doctrinal divide. I know that many Greek Orthodox understand that purgatory is simply not a problem anymore, evidenced by the ECCs, and they do not see this as a obstacle to full communion - since, after all, the current articulation of the dogma by the CCC is in conformity with the Greek tradition. Other Greek Orthodox may still consider purgatory a problem, and we should give this view and state why that is so. But we shouldn't take that point of view, or the other, as fact - we should present both (as the article does), in the proper historical context (which is helped by the Latin-Greek divide, rather than a foreign, or at least West-centric phraseology and viewpoint of a "RCC" which completly alienates the ECC and, frankly, pretends that they don't exist). Lostcaesar 11:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

LC, you say "I never divided them." [5] Here's the record of you removing the ECC from the section they shared with the RCC in general an putting them instead with the EOC. When I say you divided them, I mean this particular act of dividing them. But now you say "Also, you cannot divide RCC and ECC, as if they are two different groups." You now say you can't do the very thing you did. So we agree. ECC should be with RCC, not with EOC. Jonathan Tweet 02:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I never divided the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Catholic Churches. I did divide the Latin tradition from the Greek Tradition. Latin Tradition does not mean Roman Catholic Church. Putting the Eastern Orthodox Churches under a "Latin Tradition" is an error, and renaming this and "Roman Catholic..." simply adds obscurity to something our reader should be presented with clearly. You still have not got your head around that fact that Latin Tradition is not the same as Roman Catholic Church, hence you can be confused as you are with my statements. The Eastern Catholic Churches are non-Latin but fully Roman Catholic (though the latter is an admittedly unusual way to speak, in the sense you mean the term - churches in full communion with the see of Rome - it is correct). There are two traditions, Latin and Greek, and they should be represented primarily. The Eastern Catholic Churches, theologically, fit in the Greek tradition. Its a fact. They are also in fully communion with Rome - another fact. Dividing the section into "Roman Catholic" vs "Greek Orthodox" completly ignores the actual historical situation, which is based on cultural and linguistic traditions (evidenced by the example of the ECCs), and applies terminology to the ECCs that is foreign to them and, frankly, treats them as if they do not exist. What you have yet to say, amist all this talk, is what the problem (the inaccuracy) is with the current presentation. We need to know that before we can go forward. Lostcaesar 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LC, first you say, "I never divided the Roman Catholic Church from the Eastern Catholic Churches." Then you explain why you did that very thing. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

interpretations

Why is there a section in "Interpretations," other than to take an opinion that is unfriendly to purgatory (Le Goff's) and stick it in a corner when one can pummel it with criticism? Why isn't Le Goff's commentary incorporated into the medieval section? The RfC gave us the direction of incorporating historical analysis into the work itself rather than segregating it. Jonathan Tweet 13:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Le Goff was in the medieval section, and you complained, so he was given more of a place in a dedicated interpretations section, at the top of the page, which you promptly moved to the bottom and then accused it of being "stuck in a corner". Lostcaesar 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, my recollection differs. But it sounds as though we both agree that Le Goff goes in the medieval section. Jonathan Tweet 15:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

antiquity

This section is POV, and was worse before I got to it.

There's scant mention of the Bible. Is the Bible relevant to understanding the beliefs of antique Christians? I think so. And it's not as though no one's thought of anything to say. Instead, information about the Bible in this section has been repeatedly deleted as beside the point. Why? Because purgatory isn't in the Bible.

The section portrays the ancient doctrine of purgation as in line with purgatory. Fair enough, but we know that the EOC thinks their own doctrines match those of the church fathers, and that they contradict the Latins on this very point in particular. Where is the EOC viewpoint, explaining how the church fathers described all souls going to the same place, where the wicked suffer and the righteous rest in light until the resurrection?

Authors are cherry-picked and wordsmithed to achieve a close fit to Catholic doctrine. The text, for example, helpfully points out that Origen said souls go to paradise without having to await the resurrection (contradicting Hippolytus and Tertullian). Does the author also point out that Origen didn't believe in the resurrection? No. Cherry-picking is better than nothing, but when I cherry-picked some contrary fathers, those references were deleted. Hippolytus has a clear description of the afterlife between death and resurrection. Referred to here? Not any more. Sentences are crafted not to state the basic case basically but to protect purgatory. It refers to a vague "realm of the dead." Why is this realm neither described nor named? Because a bunch of church fathers saying that souls are kept in hades makes purgatory look bad.

In contradiction to purgatory, early references to purgation involve one's fate on judgment day, not one's condition while awaiting judgment day. No reference is made of the church fathers' emphasis on judgment day rather than on current torments of the dead.

References have become harder to follow. Direct links to the church fathers' own words have, to some extent, been replaced with references to a secondary work that one can't double-check online. A minor point, but I'm on a rant.

Referenced work that I had added to this section was deleted single-handedly, in defense of a pro-purgatory POV.

If someone agrees with me and feels like tagging the section, I'd appreciate it. I've already tagged this page twice, maybe three times. Jonathan Tweet 02:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, and this section treats prayer for the dead (massively documented) as virtually equivalent to purgatory (hotly contested). EOC has prayer for the dead but not purgatory, so they must be different. Jonathan Tweet 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

JT, the point of secondary sources is to avoid OR. Your above comments are your own opinions based on your own research. There were no "cherry-pickings", just citing secondary (rather than primary) sources. These are not "impossible to check", only impossible for someone who cannot be bothered to do proper research (an internet scan of a selection from Tertullian is not sufficent research). Lostcaesar 01:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

By cherry-picking, I mean citing things from a source that agree with purgatory while not citing things from the same source that disagree. For example, Harnack finds the concept of purgatory widespread. He also defines it as differences of afterlife reward and identifies it as Hellenistic. But only the fact that he finds the concept widespread is found here. That's cherry-picking. Also, deleting sources that just contradict purgatory (e.g., Hippolytus). In any event, I think that reasonable editors would agree that this section would be improved by a summary of early Christian beliefs about the afterlife. And you have left my other POV accusations (above)unanswered. Jonathan Tweet 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup 1

Well, I made some improvements to the format and accuracy of recent edits, though I tried to incorporate them. There are still some problems, but first the change. Let me say how important it is to be sure of the accuracy of a statement, and to have researched it, before adding material. This is the importance of having good sources. For example, it was said that venial sins are “forgivable”, whilst mortal sins were “deadly”. Mortal sins are just as forgivable as venial ones. Similarly, the section on Indulgences had a blurb that stated indulgences “could be obtained from the pope”. While certainly true, it clearly misrepresented (or overlooked) the fact that an indulgence can be obtained in a number of ways - from apostolic indulgences granted by any bishop, to individual and private devotions. To correct this, I added much information, all sourced, to both sections. Next, I moved a good bit of text around. For example, an entry on “Jesus Christ” was in the “Latin Tradition” - I’m sure the Greek Tradition has something to do with Jesus Christ also!

I changed the name of “what is purgatory” to “overview”, since the style guide says that titles should not be questions. I think we should consider merging the introductory text with this section. After all, the intro is supposed to be an overview. The section has some problems, however, especially in that is seems to simply present material already stated in the article in a less precise way, and is unsourced. Other remaining problems include the sentence, “In purgatory, the soul of a faithful Christian remits the punishment for venial sins...”. Souls don’t “remit” - sins are remitted, etc. This is another example of imprecision resulting in unsourced text added, presumably based on a personal reading and summary of the body text of the article.

The “nature of purgatory” section has some problems, mostly insofar as it is poorly sourced, with no secondary sources. Also, I think the material about the “anima sola” is quite odd, and the picture is hardly attractive or edifying. The article on the “anima sola” cites a website called “luckymojo.com” as its authority! The whole thing just seems odd, and I think we need an actual source explaining the matter before we can just talk about it etc.

All that said, I like the addition of a section on indulgences (problems aside), and some of the other additions have promise, if properly shaped by sources. Lostcaesar 17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A picky point about your comment above and I think you were just writing quickly rather than incorrectly. It's true that "souls don't remit sins" but I'm not sure that "sins are remitted" in purgatory either. I am not an expert in this area but my sense of it is that the sins have been remitted/forgiven by God (in some cases via personal prayer to God for forgiveness and in other cases via the Sacrament of Penance which ultimate involves personal prayer to God for forgiveness but with the assistance of a priest etc etc) but the penance/punishment for those sins is remitted by God through the soul's "time in purgatory". There was an earlier discussion about the nature of sin and I don't have time to go re-read all of it. But, in a nutshell, the "wages of sin are death". Sin is forgiven by God else we could not hope for eternal life. So purgatory is not about forgiveness or "remission" of sins but about purification.

So, I think that even "remission of sins" is perhaps an imprecise shorthand for what the doctrine really states unless I'm just confused about what "remission" means. --Richard 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Unforgiven venial sins are remitted via the purification, as well as the temporal punishment. Remission is simlpy a legal term (the Bible often uses legal language as an image of man's relation with God) - it means "forgiven", "loosed", etc. Lostcaesar 19:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, allow me to apologize for the hasty (sometimes sloppy) nature of my edits. I've learned not to put too much work into an edit until I can tell whether it's going to get deleted for threatening someone's POV. I restored a reference to what the word venial means. I didn't know etymology was such a touchy subject. I restored a reference to purgatory in the sin subsection. Please be patient as I address other concerns. Jonathan Tweet 05:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The etymology is confusing because it implies that venial are forgivable whilst mortal are not, which is inaccurate. The word "cretin" (idiot) etymologically means "christian" (from latin: Chrīstiānus - see this article). "Car" etymologically was a celtic type of wagon, "pagan" means farmer, "marshal" means stableboy, "bulter" means bottle, "mistress" means female-teacher, etc. When someone calls another a "cretin", he doesn't mean Christian, when he calls something a "car" he doesnt mean a gallic wagon, when he calls someone "pagan" he doesnt mean farmer, when he says "marshal" he doesnt mean stableboy, etc - and when one says "venial" he doesnt exclude other sins from being forgivable. Hence, this is confusing. Lostcaesar 11:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, you're right that purgatory isn't about forgiveness. The sins you suffer for in purgatory have been forgiven. It's just that you still need to be punished for them. Some people find that odd. Am I getting it wrong? Jonathan Tweet 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are getting it wrong. Here are the very first words from an article that you have cited before (do you read the things you cite??):

Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions. (Catholic Encyclopedia)

Like I said, venial sins that are unforgiven upon death are a matter for purgatory. Lostcaesar 11:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This may seem a bit off-topic but let's look at what Protestants think. Making a gross oversimplification, the basic Protestant view is that you are saved when you accept Jesus as your Savior. Can you then "lose" your salvation? There are different opinions but, for the most part, the answer is "No". I think many Protestants would concede that apostates lose their salvation but they don't have a concept of unremitted mortal sin leading to eternal damnation as Catholics do.

How do Catholics view this? They assert that you can lose your salvation by being in a state of unrepented mortal sin. What about unrepented venial sin? Presumably God wipes the slate clean of unrepented venial sin when you die. How exactly is this slate cleaning done? Maybe it's done in purgatory. I'm not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion on the precise mechanism.

The reason that I mentioned the Protestants at the beginning is that we have to ask "When does God forgive our sins?" Does he forgive them all when we accept Christ? Is our acceptance of Christ a "Get out of Jail free" card that forgives all our sins past, present and future? (a view that some Protestants might believe in) Or do we still need to repent of our sins and ask God's forgiveness in order to receive it (the Catholic view as I understand it).

Why is this important? Because, if God forgives all our venial sins in advance, then purgatory has nothing to do with forgiveness. However, if he forgives them only when we repent or when we die without an opportunity to repent of them, then perhaps purgatory does involve remission of unrepented venial sin as Lostcaesar argues.

--Richard 07:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If you have unrepented (and thus unforgiven) venial sins, then those are forgiven in the afterlife through the process of purification (purgatory), as well as the temporal punishment due to sins (even if sins are forgiven, the temporal punishment may still remain, i.e. the “satisfaction” is still normally due). Sins are forgiven when one is baptized (baptism also remits all punishment due unto sin), when one receives absolution in the sacrament of confession, or when one makes a perfect act of contrition. I believe that, for venial sins, personal contrition and penitential acts are enough, but sacramental forgiveness is nevertheless encouraged. As for other ways that sins might be forgiven, this is left to the mercy of God, and those who are unable to avail themselves to the sacraments are prayed for continuously by the Church, who seeks that all men might be saved. Notice, Richard, that while the authority and power to forgive sins originates in God, Jesus Christ gave the power and authority to forgive (or not to forgive) sins to his Holy Church. Hence, the Church has the authority (by drawing on the infinite merits of Christ won on the cross) both to forgive sins and to forgive temporal punishment due to sin. Lostcaesar 12:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong. Thanks for correcting me. It would seem that it's not forgiven venial sins that you burn for, it's forgiven mortal sins. That's a distinction I had missed before. "In Roman Catholic doctrine, the condition of those who have died in a state of grace but have not been purged of sin. These remaining sins include unforgiven venial sins or forgiven mortal sins." [6] So purgatory is about forgiveness of venial sins and about punishment for forgiven venial sins. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

LC, I'm afraid I must ask that my edits not be deleted, especially my referenced edits. I don't treat your work with such disrespect, and it's bad form. It's almost as if you're defending an indefensible position and can only hope to maintain control by excluding facts not to your liking. Jonathan Tweet 13:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edits contained errors and were unsourced, with the exception of the matter of etymology which I explained. Do not accuse me of any motive other than accuracy. Lostcaesar 14:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Btw, your last edits are gramatically unintelligible: "Punishment for venial sins and for forgiven mortal sins but the punishment must still be remitted..." and "Catholic distinguish between...". Lostcaesar 14:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You deleted a sentence on a topic you introduced (1 John), the sentence was sourced, and the source was Catholic. That's accuracy? Jonathan Tweet 15:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A little help?

If you're reading this and you could spare a hand, I'd appreciate it. There's a lot of ground to cover already, and there are still sections that I haven't touched. You can help by Googling up references. The external links are also informative, and a lot of my unsourced information comes from them. You can also return to the page from before it was given its pro-purgatory overhaul. There's a fair bit of good, referenced material there that got deleted. If you like it, rescue it. Here's what the article looked like on February 20. I would appreciate the help. Jonathan Tweet 05:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"You can help by Googling up references" - I think probably the greatest challenge I will face, if I accomplish my goal to be a professor, is trying to convince students in this age that "googling" is not proper research. Sure, a website is ok, but research means sitting in a library reading a book or a journal. Its interesting that you have gone so far elsewhere as to accuse the sources from journals and books as faulty research! Why? Because you said they "could not be checked" - because they cannot be googled?!?! - amazing. Lostcaesar 11:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If editors want to use the Internet to find information, that's better than not finding information. Jonathan Tweet 15:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I'll go one better. A reference that any editor can check on their own by clicking a link is superior to one that requires access to a particular, physical book. This page has been marred by cherry-picked and slanted references. Links that readers can verify independently are more likely to be accurate (or at least to include their own remedy). References that readers can't verify independently are more likely to be incomplete, taken out of context, or slanted. For a page noted for its POV and creative interpretation of references, Googling for a verifiable reference has this advantage over consulting a physical book. Jonathan Tweet 17:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A general comment about quality of edits

Jonathan Tweet has begged indulgence for the sloppiness of his edits on the grounds that he has learned not to invest too much time in his edits for fear that they will get deleted anyway.

Without having looked at his edits, I wish to make a general comment: no indulgence should be given to native speakers of English for sloppy edits. I have had to spend a lot of time correcting the English of non-native speakers and I generally grant them indulgence because I know that English is not their native language. However, it is a laborious task.

Native English speakers should be expected to write reasonably well. I don't mind improving diction but sloppiness on the part of a native English speaker is unacceptable and degrades the quality of Wikipedia unnecessarily.

Jonathan, if you are afraid that your edit will be deleted, then post it here first and let's discuss it.

Sorry for the lecture but you pushed one of my "hot buttons".

--Richard 16:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the two that LC pointed out. If there are others, I'm happy to fix them myself. I knew I was being hasty, but I didn't realize I was being incomprehensible. Jonathan Tweet 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

how about a truce?

Lostcaesar, how about we lay down our arms on purgatory for two weeks? We have been fighting over this page since I started on WP. Let's take a break. Let's stick to the talk page. If we can convince other editors to make edits that we want to see made, super. If we can't, we live with it. But we keep our contentious hands off the page for two weeks.

If I'm right, others will step into the vacuum, and the page won't be about our ongoing conflict any more. And wouldn't that be a better page? One that represents various voices instead of our constant arguing?

This heated struggle is an unpleasant distraction. We go back and forth, and it's a waste of time. You delete the holy card. I add it back in. You delete it. I add it back in. You bracket it so it's invisible. (Thanks for not deleting it. That means a lot to me.) I unbracket it. That's not how WP is supposed to work.

You've taught me a lot since our paths first crossed. Thanks to you, I've got a much better understanding of early Christian afterlife beliefs and Catholic doctrine. (Remember when I thought the early Christians believed in soul sleep?) I'd rather think of you as the reasonable guy who isn't afraid to say that the gospels portray Jesus as damning the unrepentant than as the zealous defender of purgatory. I don't want to keep damaging our ability to work together on other pages by generating ill will here.

Currently, the article contains material of yours that I think violates POV, and it contains material of mine that you think violates NOR. Let's call that even. I contributed significantly to the article that existed in January. You've basically maintained control of the page since Feb 21 or so. Let's call that even, too.

Maybe in 2 weeks we'll see that it's up to us to make sure that this page is good and right, and we'll have to go toe-to-toe again. Let's find out. Jonathan Tweet 17:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that each of you list here the material that is currently in the article and that you consider to be POV or OR. In addition, list any points that you think should be made that are not currently in the article. Let us hash it out here and avoid disruptive edit warring. --Richard 17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We could really use a fresh start, and I'd love for others to contribute. So I'll agree. Btw, JT, I have to give my hats off to you for being a good sport through it all. Cheers, Lostcaesar 22:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Richard, while I see the value in my listing all my issues with the article, they are legion. I've already given substantial critiques of the antiquity section and the lead, to little effect. As this page represents a lot of lost work and frustration on my part (my stuff being summarily deleted), I'm not enthused about putting more work into it without seeing some hope of result. Let's see how the community handles my objections to the lead and to the antiquity section. (I'd rather like to hear your opinion.) Those are my biggest sticking points anyway. Jonathan Tweet 19:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Lostcaesar, you just edited the article. Jonathan Tweet 02:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to a statement that was wrong added by an anon user (and not you). It should have just been deleted. Anyway, I didn't think mistaken opinions added by anon users counted, since this was a new addition made after we decided to leave the article as is. In other words, I didn't edit anything we agreed to leave alone, I edited a new sentence added on top of what we agreed to leave. I guess we just saw the above differently. Lostcaesar 12:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

LC, you said, "I didn't edit anything we agreed to leave alone" Please re-read my proposal. Or maybe just this part: "we keep our contentious hands off the page for two weeks." Let me know if you still agree to it, that we should leave the page alone. Jonathan Tweet 13:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So you can log on as an anon ip and change the article, thereby avoiding the agreement, then complain when I tag the addition? I won't change the old text. I'd rather not edit anything, but I don't like seeing a loophole abused. Whatever the case, it was just a tag, so relax. Lostcaesar 14:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

After all the patience I've shown you, and all the attempts I've made to cooperate with you, you accuse me of scheming. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? Jonathan Tweet 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

addition versus deletion

Richard has asked that we list all our issues here. That's going to take some time. I plan to do it in pieces so I can focus on each piece. Before I start listing concerns, I'd like to help editors understand where I'm coming from and what my concerns are going to have in common. Here's my framework for understanding this bitter struggle.

I've noticed a pattern in the edits of people defending their POV: they like to delete.

Someone promoting a POV (as I promote the historical-critical method and its results) wants to increase the amount of information easily accessible to the reader. We think, "If we can just lay out the facts, we're happy to let the reader decide." So we add.

In February, for example, this page got a POV overhaul from which it has not fully recovered. My response was not to revert it as POV. If it had been an unknown editor, I would have. Instead, I tried to add balancing information so the article would be more complete.

While someone promoting a POV wants to add, someone defending a POV wants to restrict. There are apparently lots of facts that they do not want a reader to happen across. They want to restrict information. They like deleting. They give lots of reasons for deleting things (POV, OR, poor writing), but they apply these standards aggressively on text that they do not want the reader ever to read.

Sometimes, they want to delete but can't. The 95 theses have been nailed to the wall, and there's an unwelcome fact that must be acknowledged. Some Googling jerk layman has found a reference that really can't be denied.

The bad defenders of POV delete anyway. The good ones go to Plan B.

Plan B is obfuscation. Write in nuances. Bury information in a bucketload of other information. Use vague terms instead of simple names. Treat two different things as one thing. Exaggerate dissent to give the appearance of uncertainty. If you can't eliminate an unwelcome fact, you can make it hard to find. If that fact must be allowed, it is allowed on the defender's terms.

The material I have added has repeatedly been deleted and obfuscated by a single editor. My concerns will reflect my attempt to get the reader more and clearer information. Jonathan Tweet 15:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Catechism

Can someone add this to external links? It's already referenced, but it should be easy to find. * [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a12.htm#III THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY] in the Catholic Catechism Jonathan Tweet 15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

lead is POV

Let's start with the lead. There's no mention of punishment. It's all about purification.

Punishment of the elect is the Latin tradition's special emphasis. Greeks say that purification is theosis, following the trail that Jesus blazed and ascending to godliness. Protestants say purification is instant and painless glorification. It's Latins that emphasize punishment, flames, indulgences, penance, etc. A distinguishing feature of Latin purgatory is flames causing intolerable pain.

The lead is POV because it's a slant toward the modern Catholic view.

To suit this slant, there's no real historical information, such as when the word purgatory was coined.

If you're reading this and you think that the page is biased, copy and paste this template into first line of the article. {{POV}} Jonathan Tweet 15:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Belief in intolerable pain via flames is not part of the dogma, but it is something that theologians are free to speculate on, and some have speculated in favour of it. If you would like to work something into the lead, then that, in essence, sounds fine to me, so long as the lead stays brief. What would you propose? Lostcaesar 12:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the lead looked like before you overhauled it. I'll bold the things you cut.

Purgatory is a doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, which posits that those who die in a state of grace undergo a purification in order to achieve the holiness necessary to enter heaven. This purification of the elect, while traditionally seen a fiery punishment for sins, is declared to be entirely different from the punishment of the damned in hell. The Catholic doctrine holds that the souls in purgatory undergo temporal punishment due to venial sins or as satisfaction due to their transgressions, and that they can be aided by the prayer and sufferings of the faithful and the Sacrifice of the Mass. Hence central to the Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is prayer for the dead. The Eastern Orthodox believe not in purgatory but in hades, the abode of the dead where the saved have a prevision of glory and the damned a foretaste of eternal punishment. The main Protestant belief is of an instantaneous and painless event, glorification, by which the Holy Spirit regenerates those whose sins have been forgiven through faith in Jesus Christ. Certain Islamic and Jewish beliefs are sometimes interpreted to be similar or equivalent to purgatory.

Your theosis is better than my hades, I'll admit that. Let's drop my reference to hades and replace it with your reference to theosis. Let's restore fiery punishment, glorification, and fiery temporal punishment in other religions. Let's add that the Latin purgatory tradition has been controversial. That's what I propose. Jonathan Tweet 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Another virtue of your work is the differentiation between universal dogma and the Latin tradition. If anything, this differentiation should be far stronger. The vast majority of teachings about Purgatory over the centuries is fallible tradition rather than infallible dogma. (Is that right, or have I once again failed to grasp the subtle nuances of RCC teaching?) Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

spiritual state or place?

"Purgatory fubar," thanks for your edit on the nature of purgatory. Here's a reference for the modern concept that souls aren't in places, in case someone wants to provide it. (I can't.) [7]. Jonathan Tweet 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hades

Oreo Priest created a wikilink to Hades. Unfortunately, that page is primarily devoted to the Greek deity and his realm. Would someone please change the link to [[Hades in Christianity|Hades]]. That's more like what a reader is going to be looking for. I'd do it myself, but the truce and all. Jonathan Tweet 13:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

universal dogma and Latin tradition

Can someone point us to the official, dogmatic statements about purgatory? I found this page [8], but I'm having trouble finding verbatim dogmatic statements about purgatory. I'd like to see the original statements myself rather than reading what someone else says about them. The difference between dogma and church teaching is a little hazy to us outsiders. Jonathan Tweet 17:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

POV overhaul

For a detailed account of how his page is still POV after LC's overhaul (starting Feb 20), see the mediation page. Jonathan Tweet 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Per this Mediation Cabal case, I've tagged the article as totally disputed. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 17:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

An attempt

Sorry to see that you guys have had trouble to get things worked out. I'll take a stab at pushing the article towards where I would say it should go. Real life is intervening for me a lot lately, so I won't have the time to polish it, but maybe it can be a step towards something people like.

Let me also say, however, everyone should please, please Assume Good Faith. We're all on the same side here-- trying to write the best article. Sure, we all have our biases, and they're very hard for us to detect, but at the end of the day, it doesn't look to me that anyone is knowingly and intentionally trying to write a bad article. This stuff is hard. It's hard to see the bias in your own eyes, but easy to see the bias others have. --Alecmconroy 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

"Purgatory is a place or state of afterlife purification which is found in the Latin Rite". Not even Dante pictured Purgatory as a place found in the Latin Rite, whatever that means (if it means anything at all). He and others pictured Purgatory as a place down within this planet we live on (which for them was not a planet circling the sun but a great sphere circled by sun moon, planets, stars). On the other hand, Pope John Paul II stated that Purgatory is not a place. I think Pope John Paul II is the better source for the teaching of the Latin Rite and the Catholic Church as a whole.

There is much more in Alecmconroy's attempt that is more than questionable, and I don't think he was right to alter the whole article so radically, especially at a time when it is tagged with "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed." I trust I have support in reverting the article to how it was before his attempt and in asking him to show some patience and edit one section at a time. Lima 04:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert it wholesale just because of minor objections! Just say what's wrong, and fix it. There's lots of tiny things wrong with it, but lots I can't see anyone objecting to. Please, revert only what you actually disagree with.

In writing it, I went to look at a lot of entry level, ultra-introductory sources to see how they teach about purgatory. "place or state" is, for example how the catholic encyclopedia describes it [9]-- I'm sure most theologians regard it as a "place", but many people do still talk about it that way, including the catholic encyclopedia. But there's plenty of room to expound on place/state in the "Nature of Purgatory" section. You'll note I also took the time to recreate a free version of a diagram I found on a catholic education website, etc-- I hope it won't all be wholesale reverted, in the long run, as has been done at the moment.. --Alecmconroy 05:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Okay, so in a nut shell, I made the "Latin Rite" section into a more default section about "What Purgatory Is", and tried to create an ultra-simple "grade-school-esque" intro to RCC afterlife scheme. Lot of polishing needed, but since Wikipedia is such a global thing, it seems reasonable to just go over the very basics, as if on a chalkboard. The downside of this is that simplicity is bought at the cost of accuracy: even the phrase "go to purgatory" all but implies purgatory is a place, which modern conceptions reject that.

I listed ECC under "Other views about Purgatory", and split ECC and EOC. Although ECC and EOC have very similar views, I think it's important to mention them separately, because it seems like, to me, while EOC and ECC both disagree with Latin, EOC and ECC differ on how important that is. ECC definitely has the "full communion" message going, and tend to describe differences as more of 'tradition and terminology' rather than actual doctrinal disagreements. But if you search around, EOC are liable to outrightly denounce purgatory as somehow fundamentally wrong. Let's take them seperately, noting the similiarities with a "See also".

The elephant in the room, in terms of balance, is the absence of a protestant section. The article can't be NPOV until there is a strong section here. There needs to be strong presentation of the case that a protestant would make when he says: "Purgatory is utter nonsense, and I'll tell you why". When writing this, of course, attribution will be essential-- convey the argument without having Wikipedia make it. The current absence of this section is somewhat deafening-- a little bit like having an article on abortion, and finding the "pro-life" views section is just a stub.

In general though, it looks like the article has had a LOT of really really excellent work put into it. It's come a long way from where it was the last time I looked at it. The history section in particular really really impresses me as conveying a good flair for the evolution of Purgatory from a vagueness idea to an explicit doctrine. I won't rule out the possibility that it has some bias in it, but it's now well within the ballpark of NPOV. It's obvious a huge of amount of really hard work has gone into the article, and everybody should be really proud of themselves. --Alecmconroy 05:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Posted to user_talk:Alecmconroy

Alec, there are a couple things I would like to point out about your edits upfront. First, Eastern Catholic Churches are "Roman Catholic", and should not be listed as another "denomination". They are in full communion with Rome just like the Latin Rite. "Roman Catholic" is not equivalent with "Latin Rite" — its a larger term that encompasses many rites, etc., and may be used in reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The adj. "Roman" is foreign to these groups, for the most part, and is in the least ackward, but if it is used then it cannot exclude Eastern Catholics. Second, the word "denomination" should not be used since it is an ecclesiology rejected by the Eastern Catholics, the Latin Rite Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox groups, alike. Best to use another word. Cheers. Lostcaesar 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-- demoniation is bad-- I just sorta needed some section title that said "Here's some people who aren't Latin Rite: ECC, EOC, Prostestant, and whoever else. The section title I used definitely bad for the reasons you say, though I'm not sure what should replace it. I'm sure there's other problems like this in what I wrote--- it's very very rough, very quick and dirty. My "sunday school intro to purgatory for someone who doesn't know about christainity" is particularyl in need of work. --Alecmconroy 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy has himself expressed the idea behind my request: "Don't (alter) it wholesale just because of minor objections! Just say what's wrong (quoting sources, of course), and fix it (one section at a time)." Lima 07:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy was good enough to answer a request for comment. He may have gotten more than he bargained for, as this is at least the second time he's been called back to this page to see his directives not yet fully carried out. He's now trying to do what, as part of the RfC, he directed us to do weeks ago. Let's give him some extra space and leeway, out of respect for the time he's put in and for the process that LC asked him to contribute to. We should at least see the RfC process through and then see where it gets us. Jonathan Tweet 00:51, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy's objection to returning the article completely to how it was before he disturbed it holds more strongly against his wholesale alteration of the article with so many unsourced statements of his own. He has all the leeway and space anyone needs to put forward his ideas, but, please, just a few at a time, so that the rest of us can comment on his proposals without having to say that his questionable alterations are so numerous that we can only conclude, quite sincerely, that the previous version is better. What keeps him from doing just that? Lima 04:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in essence, that's what I was trying to do-- I explained the changes I thought should be made. I made changes that are examples of the direction I thought things needed to go. So-- if you're going to revert it all, that's fine if you really sincerely feel every single change was for the worse. But it's not cool to just revert it wholesale because it's easy, and you have a vague notion that the the net effect of all a users changes were negative. Instead, please take the time to actually sort through each of the changes, and if you absolutely feel they're totalyl wrong, then revert them. On the other hand, if you think they're just imperfect and in need of polishing-- I agree. Leave the edits in place so they can be polished by the usual process.

Or, let's look at it another way. The only objection I've heard so far is about the phrase "place or condition", which since it's a quote from the catholic encyclopedia, I would assume has be met. However, if that phrase is really controversion, just delete the word "place" from the sentence! --Alecmconroy 04:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It's all right to put in unsourced statements. People do it all the time. If there's an issue, tag the statement and we'll find you a cite or change the statement. Just because an edit includes unsourced comments is no reason to revert a good faith edit. Jonathan Tweet 04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To Tweet: People do it all the time. And people, all the time, or at least very frequently, revert such actions.

To Alec: Why not start with any of your changes that you choose? Then we can at last go ahead. Lima 06:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, let's take the creation of a "ultra-simple overview" for an audience totally unfamiliar with Roman Catholicism-- roughly approximated by this diff [10]. Now, I can seen dozens of places that need fixing, polishing, and citing. There may be inaccuracies that need to be fixed, and I'd certainly want LC and others give it a good going over it. But however much that "rough draft edit" needs to be fixed, I can't imagine the creation of a "simple overview" is actually controversial itself. --Alecmconroy 07:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to Alec. He has started by putting forward for consideration a complex change or set of changes. The basic problem with these changes is that, instead of presenting Purgatory "according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church", his text presents a popular view of purgatory. (This popular view has coloured and still colours the presentation by Catholic preachers and writers, since it is so much more concrete and pictureque than the actual doctrine, but it is not the doctrine.)

The proposed text sees Purgatory as "punishment". CCC 1031 explains Purgatory as final purification, not final punishment. The Catholic Church sees purification from the estrangement from God involved in attachment to creatures as necessary even for those whose sins are all forgiven (cf. CCC 1472).

Only after the actual teaching on Purgatory has been presented unadulterated with other ideas would it be appropriate to enlarge on popular notions of Purgatory.

I could enter into details connected with this basic fault of the proposed text, but it is enough to give the following example. Pope John Paul II's statement that Purgatory is not really a place is put at the end, long after statements about Purgatory as "A 'Third Place'", and "As stated above, purgatory was pictured as a place within space and time." In other words, a Pope's teaching is in practice ignored when presenting what the section heading calls "Purgatory in Roman Catholic Doctrine".

I am confident that, in view of these observations, Alec would like to change his proposal. Lima 08:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey-- if it misses some of the nuances, that's fine-- lots of tweaking needed-- but the point is, we need a simplified overview to start. The subject heading "a third place" can certainly go if it offends-- it's a common name for Purgatory, but if you wanted to change the heading to "third state" (or something else) that's fine with me.

Place of punishment? Where in the simplified intro do I describe purgatory as a place of punishment? I quote it as being purification.

As for "Place or condition"-- I'm inclined to agree that virtually all learned modern theologians are in agreement that purgatory isn't a place. Conversely, in a more 'folk religion' sort of way-- purgatory is often referred to a "place", but I wonder if any modern peoples, if pressed, still think it as a physical, spatial "place" anymore. I suspect few in the industrialize world seriously believe "place", although linguistically it's almost impossible not to speak of it using the words we have for places(any cites on this would be really good for the "Nature of Purgatory" ).

The long and the short: the criterion for admission is Verifiablity, not Truth. Some people do and have describe it as a Place, reliable sources mention the existence of this view, we should mention it somewhere in the text. But we can certainly mention that the bulk of theologians are opposed to this view. I think we do all this in the Nature of section, but we can beef that section up.

So, these cosmetic nuances aside, is there any objection the basic idea of having a short section for an audience unfamiliar with RCC and Christianity? --Alecmconroy 09:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I referred only to the proposed changes, not to the introduction. The proposed text included this: "In order to enter heaven, a soul must be free of sin-- all sins must have been 'paid for' or cleansed from the soul. "Paid for" seemed to me (wrongly?) to be equivalent to "punished"? If this was a mistake on my part, should I perhaps be made to "pay for" it?

What is the article about? Even in Alec's version, the article explains what it is about by saying: "Purgatory, or final purification, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, is the process by which ..." Is it to become instead an article that explains what it is about by saying: "Purgatory, according to popular imagination, is a place where souls not good enough to go to heaven but not bad enough to be sent to hell are confined until such time as either their sins are burnt away or someone else's intervention gets them out ahead of time"? In the context of popular imagination, all of this can be easily verified. But not in the context of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is no cosmetic difference. Lima 10:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To Lima: "To Tweet: People do it all the time. And people, all the time, or at least very frequently, revert such actions." People are especially likely to revert when they haven't read help:revert, which says to improve (not revert) unsatisfactory edits. Or when they're defending a POV that can't bear the presence of contrary information. Jonathan Tweet 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory is about punishment. "Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." [11] If you want to say, "Up until the 20th century, purgatory has been about punishment, but it isn't any more," I'd be thrilled. Jonathan Tweet 14:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima-- What I'm hearing is that you are on one side of a intra-faith debate about the nature of Purgatory. Many (most) catholics may have one view of Purgatory, as a place of punishment. Other catholics, particularly those who are theologians, leaders of the church, or modern, tend to have a slightly difference version of Purgatory, seeing it more as a state of purification. Along the way, there's a debate about the nature of the fire-- is it a painful punishing fire or a metaphorical purifying fire. This is a fine debate to have. Both views are notable. If you wish to expand upon this debate about the nature of Purgatory, there could be a whole subarticle on the subject.

I'm not, however, hearing any objection to the basic idea that we should have a very simple introduction and overview, for an audience which might be unfamiliar with the basic RCC scheme of the afterlife. Jonathan seems to agree such a thing is a good idea. As such, I'll go ahead and reinstate that part of the change-- keeping in mind, everyone should have a free hand to try to improve that overview-- keeping it as simple as possible, but without favoring either side in the debate about the nature of purgatory. If you ahve objections, improve it, don't delete it.

As for my next issue, it has already been mentioned by a third party, so I'll discuss it below. --Alecmconroy 22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

external link

I'd add this external link myself if not for the 2-week truce. 1911 encyclopedia. Somebody else care to add it? Jonathan Tweet 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

dogma

Purgatory was given dogmatic definition in 1254. Is this the dogmatic definition of purgatory? Are there dogmatic expansions to this statement? Or is this all that the church says dogmatically about purgatory?

"Since the Truth asserts in the Gospel that, if anyone blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, this sin will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next: by which we are given to understand that certain faults are pardoned in the present time, and others in the other life; since the Apostle also declares that the work of each man, whatever it may be, shall be tried by fire and that if it burns the worker will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved, yet as by fire; since the Greeks themselves, it is said, believe and profess truly and without hesitation that the souls of those who die after receiving penance but without having had the time to complete it, or who die without mortal sin but guilty of venial (sins) or minor faults, are purged after death and may be helped by the suffrages of the Church; we, considering that the Greeks assert that they cannot find in the works of their doctors any certain and proper name to designate the place of this purgation, and that, moreover, according to the traditions and authority of the Holy Fathers, this name is purgatory, we wish that in the future this expression be also accepted by them. For, in this temporary fire, sins, not of course crimes or capital errors, which could not previously have been forgiven through penance, but slight or minor sins, are purged; if they have not been forgiven through existence, they weigh down the soul after death."

Purgatory is a place of fire. Jonathan Tweet 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I really think it's a bit of a stretch to call this a dogmatic definition. The power of the Pope of Rome is not so absolute that he can make dogma just by writing a letter. (The quote is from a letter by Pope Innocent IV to the Cypriot Orthodox.) I know there are various sources that give this date, but if this letter is what they rely on, they're wrong.

I've looked around and I can't find any mention of fire in any of the actual definitions issued by any of the Roman councils. Purgatory didn't receive dogmatic definition until 2 Lyons, in these terms:

But those who have died in a state of charity, truly repentant [for their sins] but before they have brought forth fruit worthy of repentance, their souls are purified after death by cleansing pains. The petitions of the living, the sacrifices of Masses [for example], prayers, almsdeeds and other pious services, such as the faithful are accustomed to do for one another according to the established custom of the Church, [these] are profitable to them, [i.e., the dead persons mentioned] for the lifting of these pains. [12]

It was repeated in essentially the same form at Florence.[13] No fire is mentioned in either definition.

Trent mentions purgatory in two places. Canon 30 in the Decree on Justification from Session 6 says:

If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.[14]

The Decree on Purgatory from the 25th session goes into more detail:

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people. Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed. But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.[15]

No fire is mentioned here either, unless it's subsumed under the "difficult and subtle questions" as the CE suggests.[16]

Yet, purgatorial fire is unquestionably part of the purgatory tradition. Not only is there the letter you quoted, but Aquinas (among many others who have written on it) appears to simply assume its existence in his Summa. [17] The Catechism speaks of a "cleansing fire" (CCC.1031) citing St. Gregory Dialogos. [18] The CCC doesn't explicate its "cleansing fire" in terms that would allow us to think of it as anything but literal anywhere that I can find.

So as I see it, although "purgatorial fire" has never been given dogmatic definition, it would be unfair to downplay it since every other source indicative of the tradition on the subject says it exists. I see no way of getting around that. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

TCC, the Pope's letter from 1254 sounds like dogma. He calls on the recipient to believe something on authority of the church. That's what dogma is. In any event, the councils you quote do show that "pain" at least is dogmatic. And, as you said, we shouldn't de-emphasize fire just because it's not dogma; most of what the RCC has taught about purgatory over the years isn't dogma. Jonathan Tweet 14:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sounds like" dogma doesn't mean it is dogma. The Catholics have set criterion for the formulation of dogma just as the Orthodox do, and it's not the Pope writing a letter. There are two methods: Either the conciliar, as we're used to, or by an "infallible" ex cathedra declaration from the Pope. In the latter case the nature of the declaration is made very clear, so nothing else can be mistaken for it.

The Pope here is expounding on the tradition of the Church of Rome, one that at that point had not yet been given dogmatic definition. It's similar to the way the Orthodox believe the events surrounding the Dormition, but have never made it dogma. That doesn't mean it's not held to be true; just that the Church has never made any statements about it in dogmatic form. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Catholic Churches should not be confounded with Eastern Orthodox Churches

What is the "Eastern Rite" view doing under the vague "Greek tradition" heading? The "Eastern Rite", "Uniate", or "Eastern Catholic" churches (nomenclature depending on who you ask) are in union and communion with the Roman Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Erasing the "Eastern Orthodox views" section, in order to replace with a "Greek tradition" section that dubiously incorporates "Eastern Rite" (that is, Roman Catholic!) views is like incorporating Eastern Orthodox views under a "Catholic" heading because, hey, the Eastern Orthodox Church calls itself Catholic as well! Personally, I am an agnostic (ie, the issues at hand are solely of academial interest to me) but this kind of doublespeak still manages to disturb me. What a pathetic attempt to muddle the waters by use of semantics. Porfyrios 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

"What is the "Eastern Rite" view doing under the vague "Greek tradition" heading?" . . . "What a pathetic attempt to muddle the waters by use of semantics." You seem to have answered your own question. Jonathan Tweet 20:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My second concern

This was my second concern. Lumping ECC and EOC together is extremely confusing for the average reader, who won't know what the ECC is. THe logical conclusion is that ECC is part of the EOC-- which is dead wrong. We never really explain the situation directly. Therefore, I created a new section for ECC which explains what the ECC is, and clarifies its views on Purgatory, and mentions its relationship to the EOC. Roughly represented by this diff. [19] Are their any objects to the general idea of creating a subsection which explains ot the readers what ECC is and what it's unique role is? --Alecmconroy 22:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, only now have I looked the matter up. Isn't the proposed text full of questionable unreferenced statements? Isn't the inference that a decision not to enter into a particular question meant there were substantive differences about that question questonable? The only citation given suggests rather the opposite, expressly saying that it meant that "both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls 'Purgatory'", and mentioning in particular the name (a matter of terminology like Confirmation/Chrismation?). Why suppose that those "specifics" are more serious than the specifics that are objects of discussion within the West itself? The proposed text as a whole POV-ly suggests that the Latin and the Eastern Catholic Churches have different beliefs on the matter. It also supposes that all the Eastern Catholic Churches are a single bloc, something not only unverified but almost certainly false: the Byzantine ones represent the same tradition as the Eastern Orthodox Church; the Alexandrian and Syrian ones represent the same tradition as Oriental Orthodoxy, the Chaldaean and Syro-Malabar ones represent the tradition that in Europe, East as well as West, used to be called Nestorian. These traditions broke apart as far back as the fifth century, when there was still accord between the Byzantine and the Latin traditions. Lima 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see now that Alecmconroy actually treats the ECC (Eastern Catholic Churches) as a grammatically singular subject governing a singular verb: "what the ECC is". A reference to Eastern Catholic Churches is all that is needed in this article to explain what they are (not what it is). Lima 15:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima, you're right about the ECC. First, only most of the ECC derives from the EOC. (Most, probably, but not all.) Second, the ECC regards their beliefs as essentially coherent with the dogma of purgatory (just different in the details, wording, tradition, imagery, and emphasis). The RCC has kept the dogma of purgatory vague, while the Latin tradition developed a highly detailed set of nondogmatic teachings on the topic. That shows you how messy (and, I'd say, arbitrary) this whole issue is. The ECC can say that they follow the Greek tradition on one hand (like the EOC) and RCC dogma on the other hand. The EOC says these two traditions are incompatible and the ECC (as a condition of communion with the Pope) says that these very same two traditions are essentially compatible. When you're talking about things that don't remotely exist, you can say whatever you want. Jonathan Tweet 15:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima-- you're digging deep when you start objecting based upon my subject verb agreement in informal talk page. (and for what it's worth-- In English, acronyms are oftened treated as singular-- just one of those oddities).

As far as your concern that "The proposed text as a whole POV-ly suggests that the Latin and the Eastern Catholic Churches have different beliefs on the matter."-- I'm afraid it's a verifiable fact that they do have different beliefs. There's degrees of gray when it comes to deciding "how different" their stances are. There's degrees of debate for "how important" those differences are. But it's a verifiable fact that they do have different believes on the subject: so, if you're confused about that, then I certainly can see why you initially objected to the text. Rest assured, Purgatory is a point of contention-- read up on the places like here and [20].

It seems like there's a pretty good agreement amongst the four that have commneted that ECC and EOC should be addressed seperately. I'll reinstate those changes, with the understanding that people should feel free to improve parts of the text they find objectionably . --Alecmconroy 22:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Eastern Catholic Churches" here means those sui juris local churches in communion with Rome, so Orthodox sources are off-point. As a condition of the unions under which most of them were brought under the Pope's ombrellino (so to speak) Purgatory is officially a non-issue between them. That is, the Eastern Catholic Churches need not teach it. Whether or not it's something actually believed by them is a different question, to which I do not know the answer. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the ECC doesn't teach purgatory, but they accept it without debate and they consider the vague Catholic dogma of purgatory to be essentially the same (albeit spoken of differently). There used to be a good ECC quote about how, in the ECC opinion, there's no essential difference between Greek and Latin traditions. Is it still on the page? Jonathan Tweet 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Alec, you must do better in looking for a source for your claim that the ECCs have a common belief on the question of Purgatory divergent from that of the Latin Church. Would you consider a Catholic site a good source to cite on Lutheran theology? Do you really think that an EOC site is a good site to cite (unintended pun!) on what Churches in full communion with Rome believe? The site you cite does not even address the question directly and concerns instead discussions centuries ago between Latins and Orthodox Byzantines; and so it has absolutely nothing to do, even indirectly, with, for instance, the Syro-Malabar Church. As for your other "source", you know surely that Wikipedia cannot be cited as a source, especially in Wikipedia! Lima 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima-- you have a sort of adversarial attitude about this that's hard to understand. People advertised that they were looking for help in improving this page on RFCs, MedCab, and my talk page . it seems like you think it's my job to improve the page DESPITE your best efforts to impede me-- the reality is that is that you should be working to improve the sections yourself also, utilizing what help and advice I can offer.

Case in point: Your widespread demand for citation. It's good for things to be cited, but there comes a point where it seems like you're just trying to be disruptive. You demanded a citation for the fact that the Latin Rite was the more wide-spread. Normally you should look yourself before requesting a citation, but just in case it was a legitimate inability to find a cite, I put the wikipedia reference to give you a pointer of where to look. Now, if you really think there needs to be a cite there, thats fine: go find one. And if you really have problems finding a cite, ask for help. And if someone offers you a pointer, say "Oh, thank you, but I'm still having trouble". And then I'll say: "pretty much any google search for 'latin rite' and 'widespread' will work-- here's this source: [21].

You get the idea-- you should be working WITH the rest of us to improve the article-- not DEMANDING that a certain level of satisfication be achieved before you will accept our partial improvements So when you've riddled my introduction with "fact needed", but one gets the impression you're not genuinely having trouble finding cites for those facts, but instead are trying to just needlessly create a high bar to prevent modifying the article. You get the idea: could you really not find a cite to prove those with unabsolved mortal sins are thought to exist in hell, or did you just think asking for a fact tag would give you an excuse to delete my edits if I didn't jump through the hoop of providing a cite? Could you really not find a site for "place or condition", even though I'd given you one on the talk page?

You get the idea. Don't be an opposing counsel who yells "objection" at every conceivable instance-- rather be a collaborative author, or at the minimum, a non-disruptive one. The source I cited about ECC, for example, was not EOC, he's ECC, and a Phd in Theology at that. That doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement still, but it does mean ridiculing my improvements only reflect badly on yourself. So, yeah.. stop. :) --Alecmconroy 06:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alec, surely you're not talking about orthodoxinfo.com, are you? It's one of the most prominent (and reasonable) conservative anti-Ecumenist Orthodox sites on the web! Patrick Barnes is neither ECC -- he is a member of the Serbian Orthodox Church -- nor is he a PhD. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No-- there appear to be wires crossed along the way here. hehe. The best source I can find for the ECC is East2West, which at least claims to be written by a Byzantine Catholic with a PhD in theology. --Alecmconroy 23:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link I was looking for. It's the ECC perspective on the differences between Eastern and Latin traditions. [22] They say, "Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point." This link doesn't seem to be anywhere on the page. Jonathan Tweet 04:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's Anthony Dragini's website. He used to handle the section on Eastern Catholicism for EWTN's Q&A pages -- and may yet, for all I know. He's reliable for the ECC POV, including their opinion of the Orthodox -- but is there some other source for "final theosis"? I have to say he's the only one I've ever heard use the phrase. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:18, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be why I'm having some trouble following you here. I wonder if you typed "Eastern Catholic" when you meant "Eastern Orthodox" someplace above. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote the same page elsewhere, but that seems like a useful quote to mention elsewhere. My text is in no way, whatsoever, perfect. It's meant to be edited. My two points were: 1. Need an easy, simple intro, and 2. Need a separate ECC section. And 3. Need a protestant section, obviously. --Alecmconroy 06:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy says I have an adversarial attitude. I do. Not to him. But to his distorted presentations of "Purgatory in Roman Catholic Doctrine" including Purgatory in the belief of the Eastern Catholic Churches. I think it is everybody's duty to have an adversarial attitude to presentations of falsehoods as facts. Doing that is not fulfilling a "job to improve the page".

Now for (at least some of) his comments. I did not intend to ask for a quote about the proportion of Latin-Rite Catholics. I just made a comment on the strange positioning of the source given, I presumed, for the statement that Purgatory is a place found in a rite (!), when the source given supported neither that nonsense statement nor the remark about the 98% proportion.

He says I am not myself looking for sources to support the statements he has made. Of course I do not look for sources to support statements that are either totally false or that omit important factors and yet claim to present the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I don't understand: "The source I cited about ECC, for example, was not EOC, he's ECC, and a Phd in Theology at that". The source that I said (04:24, 4 May 2007 ) was a curious one for him to cite (22:00, 3 May 2007) about the teaching of the Eastern Catholic Churches is titled "The Orthodox Response to the Latin Doctrine of Purgatory Given at the Pseudo-Synod of Ferrara-Florence". A most peculiar title for one that he says is an Eastern Catholic site: I thought all Churches in full communion with Rome considered the Council of Florence a genuine Council, not a pseudo one. That is a most peculiar source to give for "proving": "The Eastern Catholic Churches disbelieve in Purgatory." This statement is false and there are dozens of sources that show that it is false. To take just one Eastern Catholic Church, let him have a glance at the sources he will find if he looks up "Syro-Malabar Purgatory" in Google. So on what grounds does he complain that I fail to cooperate with him by searching for sites that might seem to support his false statements, instead of asking him to back his statements up with verifiable sources? Lima 08:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article cited only one source as saying that Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Purgatory. Since that source, as has now been spelled out, actually says the opposite, will somebody please remove the section (3.1 Eastern Catholic Churches) that exists only to make that false statement. Lima 13:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The section doesn't exist just to make any particular POV about ECC. The point is: ECC is unique. Not quite the same as Latin Rite, but not quite the same as EOC either. Getting the language of that section right may be tricky, but it's a section that's needed. ECC doesn't have a "Purgatory", so we can't just lump them in with Latin Rite. At the same time, ECC is in full communion with the pope, so we can't just lump them in with EO. --Alecmconroy 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Then I can only wish you luck in "getting the language right" to express the alleged different views of the various Eastern Catholic Churches. I've known a Syro-Malabar bishop who referred to the Byzantines as "the Western Church"! The break between those two traditions came as far back as 431. ECC, you say, is unique. I doubt if that statement makes sense, since the ECC are manifold. The Byzantine ("Greek") Catholics are not quite the same as the Latin-Rite Catholics nor quite the same as the Eastern Orthodox, yes. Nor are they quite the same as the Maronite Catholics, nor quite the same as the Armenian Catholics, nor quite the same as the Ethiopic-Rite Catholics, nor ... They "agree with the Latin Church fully" on the doctrine of Purgatory. The use of different imagery and nomenclature does not contradict that. Just think of the different images and names that are used, even among Latins alone, of Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick ... It is ridiculous to speak of "just lumping the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Eastern Orthodox Church". Perhaps you meant to speak, more understandably, of just lumping the Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches with the Eastern Orthodox Church. But you can lump all the Eastern Catholic Churches, whether Byzantine, Chaldaean, Coptic, or whatever, with the Western part of the (Roman) Catholic Church to which they all belong and whose doctrine on Purgatory they all "agree with fully". Yet you insist on having the Eastern Catholics presented as belonging to some "other" Church. Perhaps you think the Byzantine Catholics "don't have" Confirmation either, since they call it Chrismation? As I said, I must give up trying to get these facts across and just wish you luck. Have at it. Lima 16:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ya say: "It is ridiculous to speak of "just lumping the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Eastern Orthodox Church". Here it would seem you, are in agreement with Porfyrios, Jonathan, and myself. The old version of the article had them all mixed together.

As for lumping the ECCs with the Latin Rite-- if it were truly just a matter of translation, then I think it would be okay to mix the two. The sources I've read make me think that it's a little bit more than that-- that there is an actual theological disagreement between the the particular churches on the subject, albeit a disagreement that is small enough to allow them to still consider themselves "in full communion". If that's the case, then we have to have a separate section to cover those views. --Alecmconroy 17:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima is continually trying to distance the RCC from its own teaching. On this page, it's the teaching of purgatory that's held at arm's length. Lima's doing the same thing on Original Sin. It's a trick to say that the ECC agrees fully with the rest of the RCC about purgatory. The only thing they agree fully about is the dogma, which is very vague. The vast amount of specific and elaborate teaching on purgatory in the RCC tradition is not dogma. Like LC did earlier, Lima's trying to keep the focus on dogma and off of "teaching." It's Lima who changed the section head to "popular imagination." Why? to distance the information from the RCC itself, as if anything that's not dogma is "imagination." It's more than that. It's teaching that Catholics have taken seriously for hundreds of years, not pop culture. Do the ECC and RCC agree about purgatory? No. Do they agree on the vague dogma of purgatory? Yes, but trying to define "purgatory" as "the vague dogma about purgatory (and not the extensive, specific teaching)" is a trick intended to protect a POV. Jonathan Tweet 13:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Would JTwt please give citation-supported examples of those parts of the Latin Church's "specific and elaborate teaching on purgatory" that, according to him, are not part of "the vague dogma of purgatory"? (I imagined that "vague dogma" was an oxymoron, believing that dogmas, of their very nature, were meant to be precise; but JTwt seems to know better.) By "citation-supported" I mean with authoritative sources that say they are indeed part of the Latin Church's teaching. Otherwise, JTwt is just ignoring the "content must be verifiable" rule. JTwt is ignoring the rule also when once again sourcelessly saying the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Roman Catholic Church (of which they are part!) about Purgatory. Lima 15:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I already supplied this, showing both the dogmas and what the Latin Fathers wrote. The latter are markedly more detailed than the former. I'd have to agree it's fair to say the dogma is relatively vague, as dogmas go. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I don't even understand your question. We seem to be talking past each other. If I take your words at face value, you seem to be questioning whether the Latin tradition has a lot of specific content on purgatory not found in dogma. Indulgences, sabbatine privilege, the identification of purification with fire, the idea that purgation takes place in a discrete locale, those are all specific teachings that are not dogmatic (and some have fallen into disfavor). Could it be that you've never heard of these things and really don't believe that they're part of the Latin tradition? Jonathan Tweet 13:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

JTwt, I don't understand your problem. You want indulgences mentioned. They are. Prayer, almsgiving and indulgences were and are primarily for the living, but can be for the dead also. The fact that they can be for the dead, which is the only aspect of the Church's teaching about them that concerns Purgatory, is mentioned. What else do you want? A whole subsection on prayer, a whole subsection on almsgiving, and a whole subsection on indulgences? The Church's teaching on these matters are not subsections of its teaching on Purgatory. Is a link to articles dealing with these not enough for you?

"Sabbatine Privilege", which the Carmelites were permitted to teach, was mentioned in my first revision of what the article said about the Church's teaching, the revision that you and Alec decided to replace. If you think it such an important factor, I will willingly again put it in the section on the Church's teaching, to please you.

The section on the Church's teaching already says that Purgatory, like Heaven and Hell, is a spoken of as a place. Are you saying that a Dante-like idea of Heaven, Purgatory and Hell as "places in discrete locales" (i.e. places within space?) is part of the Church's teaching? If you are, I'm afraid I must disagree with you outright.

The section also states explicitly that after-life purification is spoken of in terms of fire. It even quotes an Eastern Father of the Church who also speaks of after-life purification in terms of fire. So that too does not seem to be missing.

Apart from the "Sabbatine Privilege", which I will put in if you tell me you think it important enough, what else do you want mentioned as part of the Church's teaching? Lima 14:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I don't understand this line of questions. Are you really questioning whether there's Latin teaching on P that's not part of dogma? If that's not what you're questioning, then what is it again? Is this conversation about whether to call the main description of P the "Latin tradition" or "popular imagination"? Jonathan Tweet 13:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Dogma vs teaching vs 'popular conception'

I think the "popular imagination" phrase is a little misleading-- it suggests that the concept of a purgatory as a "place" of "fire" was just the Catholic equivalent of an Urban Legend-- something that a many completely clueless people believed, but which nobody of merit would actually accept.

But the truth is, many respectable leaders of the church often "imagined" it as such-- in the past, and even today. Right now, one can easily find expositions and sermons by priests today which seriously describe purgatory as being associated with painful, punishing, sensory-experience fire. Historically, some of the most authoritative catholic theologians described purgatory as "seering fire" and as "more painful than any pain felt in this world". So, it was a teaching. it was taught that way by authorities within the church, and to a lesser extent, it's still taught that way by some leaders of the church. It's not an imagination, it is something that is actually taught. Aside from all the verifiable cites found in the article, I know for a fact that a "painful, hellish purgatory" was taught, because I personally was taught it when I was a wee one.

At the same time, "painful, hellish purgatory" doesn't seem to be a dogma, as far as I can tell. Dogma seems to have intentionally avoided the questions about the precise nature of purgatory.

Modernly, the teachings are moving towards a softer, more loving purgatory. More and more, people are teaching that the fire is more "cleansing" than "searing". The pain of purgatory is being taught more and more as just a "pain of not being with God" rather than an external imposed intentionally punishing pain.

Now-- is all that a fair description of things? If so-- let's see how we can improve the article by a) brining the "simple intro" more in line with both views about the nature of purgatory and b) explicitly talking about the historical shift in the nature of purgatory (verified with cites, of course. ) --Alecmconroy 19:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your summary seesm right. Let's improve the article. Jonathan Tweet 14:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Extra space and leeway

To Jonathan Tweet: Do you think Alecmconroy has really used wisely the "extra space and leeway" that you wished to give him? Lima 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

While his edits haven't been perfect, they've moved the page forward, which I'm happy to see. The WP process isn't about every step being perfect. It's about moving the page in the right direction. Jonathan Tweet 13:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

MedCab case over

The Mediation Cabal case may be over, but that doesn't mean the issue is. I insist that all editors of this article work together and find a solution for making this article sparkle. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 01:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Surprise

I am surprised that any Wikipedian would even momentarily entertain a ridiculously arrogant request to be given a free hand so as to stamp a Wikipedia article with a particular personal POV. The complainant should make source-supported edits, just like anybody else. [[

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Purgatory/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is not a B-Class article. It's POV and it's written very badly. Leadwind 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 02:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 21:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)