Talk:Purgatory/Archive 1

message: Everything in this paragraph is true, and supported with a citation in the case of the EO; please don't remove the citation. The EO have the beliefs described here. Below, I also demonstrate and substantiate with links that the EO do feel at odds with the term Purgatory. 207.192.130.197
Thank you Tom. The EO and RCC have very similar beliefs and practices. They both take great support from 2 Mc, and they both have beautiful liturgies addressing what each considers to be the spiritual needs of the dead. That is the truth of 'traditional christian spirituality'. Where they differ relates to the divide, so there should be a link there about that, and where they are similar we can provide some evidence: hence the Bible link and the link to the EO description of how they pray for the dead. Meanwhile, the EO voice some disapproval of RCC points of theology, and a reader of the encyclopedia should see that fact, so below, I have found some helpful links, both exploring the differences and how some people think that after all they have much in common. I found all those links myself, and was only too glad to include them in the entry. 207.192.130.197 21:08, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: EOC and Purgatory

message: I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence.  I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles.  Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife.  Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "otherworld as a 'real experiernce'" has to be couched within its framework if it is to be neutral: "In Scientology..." "In the Occult..." "In Celtic mythology..." etc etc.  Wikipedia does not treat paranormal experiences or promises as facts. --Wetman 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The Eastern Orthodox position on "Purgatory" is still not fully presented in the present RC-oriented article. Can we get a better section? --Wetman 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried to improve it based on what I found. Initially I just changed it to them rejecting it, but it seems more complicated then that. The Ecumenical Patriarchate's site does indicate strict rejection. The "sleeping in the Lord" does not allow for any betterment or forgiveness after death. The souls may get a "foretaste" of whether they'll be damned or saved on Judgement day, but there is no purification. (Hence it is not in any sense like Purgatory) However other Orthodox thinkers or sites indicated a lack of unaniminty. They all reject indulgences or the equation of the condition with fire. However certain articles from Orthodox history indicate acceptance of a (place, condition, other?) where some sins can be forgiven after death. However this place does not require a special name and merely lacks light or the presence of God. To be honest being a post-Vatican II Catholic I didn't really think Purgatory had to be a place of literal fire, but apparently the issue of purgatorial fire was one of the biggest arguments the two camps had at the Council of Florence. Also the Orthodox felt the lines from Corinthians didn't justify any middle place or Purgatory. The statement about surviving the fire they stated, somewhat justly even I'll concede, meant that the soul is not obliterated by the fires of Hell. Anyway although I'm RCC I hope I moderated it's "there's no real difference" stance in least somewhat.--T. Anthony 08:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizing Afterlife Articles

message: I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence.  I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles.  Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife.  Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:42, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The "otherworld as a 'real experiernce'" has to be couched within its framework if it is to be neutral: "In Scientology..." "In the Occult..." "In Celtic mythology..." etc etc.  Wikipedia does not treat paranormal experiences or promises as facts. --Wetman 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Organizing Afterlife Articles

message: I submit that the Purgatory of Roman Catholic doctrine is not necessarily a place, but it is definitely a process. Simply put, if one dies with sin, one cannot enter heaven, which is perfect. The cleansing process is called purgatory. The Catholic teaching on purgatory is made explicit here: http://www.nccbuscc.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art12.htm. It asserts only that a purification is necessary to enter heaven, this purification is painful or uncomfortable, and that appeals to God by the living will assist a person undergoing purification.
Trweiss 05:47, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of ''place'' in the article

message: Let me chime in here real quick like. I have been Catholic all of my life, and have been taught the doctorin of Purgatory. As a child I believed what I was taught but since I have matured, I have to say I do not believe there is a Purgatory. If you read the Bible, the prophets of the old testement, Jesus Christ and His apostals in the new testement preached about heaven and hell. Heaven is refered to in the Bible 559 times, and Jesus refered to hell more than He did heaven. I don't recall Purgatory being mentioned in the Bible at all, not once! If you read Luke's account of the crucfiction, Jesus tells one of the thieves this " I tell you this, today(today) you will be with me in Paradise". No mention of Purgatory, after all he was a thieve and I am sure he had not repented all of his sins. Just a thought. MEG
Just a brief note.  I am a Lutheran, and I've never been expressely forbidden to pray for the souls of the dead.  It may be advisable to reword that sentence in the article. ~sjw
:Regardless, your personal POV is not the point. The belief is required of Catholics. It is indeed biblical. Dominick (TALK) 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But what biblical passage can you cite? I saw a catechism there. Meaning it is indeed required by Catholics, but not necessarily strictly biblical. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives some passages, which to me seem to have been interpreted a tad bit (whether they be 'correctly' or 'incorrectly' interpreted; however, is not my concern - I leave such debates of doctrine to interdenominational Christian discourse). In any case, I always get a certain satisfaction that any references to Zoroastrianism are deafeningly quiet in such material (purgatory, prayers for the dead, etc.), although it is likely IMO that purgatory came through Manichæism, rather than directly from the Babylonian Exile, as Hell did. Gratia vobiscum. Khiradtalk 05:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comments

message: In the Roman Church, no doctrine is ever presented, promulgated, initiated or developed— it is only "clarified", as the usage in this article has been. We all understand the verbal maneuver here, but Wikipedia cannot present doctrines as always "clarified" as it would if it were an organ of the Roman Church. --Wetman 01:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RC "clarified" doctrine

message: There are a few other concepts similar to Purgatory in faiths not all that related to Catholicsm.
For example in Islam there is Barzakh and the Fijian Murimuria is sometimes interpreted as related. There might also be some schools of Buddhism with a vaguely similar idea. Should these get a mention or are they way too different?--T. Anthony 09:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No they are not too different. Infact the Zoroastrian one (kudos to whomever included it) is the oldest (western) version, and as with many other elements of Christianity, too freakishly similar to have been mere coincidence IMO. Although I'm not sure what relevence the accusation of 'nefarious purposes' cited holds in this context. Also see: Hindu Svarga. Khiradtalk 03:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea it's "nefarious" comes from the idea Purgatory itself is about increasing Papal power and gaining money through the selling of indulgences. I personally see Purgatory as a very noble thing, but the idea it's a "swindle" is kind of a big part of many conservative Protestantism and also accepted by some atheists. I think I was the one who added hamistagan, but I'm not certain. Zoroastrianism fascinates me as I agree it's quite similar to pre-Reformation Christianity. I think I might interpret the "why" of that different, but who knows?--T. Anthony 11:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Purgatories" outside Judeo-Christianity

message: This article could very well be a Featured Article! All it needs is a cleanup and the we could put it up on the FA list.    pkazz 12:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I wrote that purgatory comes partially from Plato's philosophy, and someone asked for my source but i dont kno how to get back to that talk page. i cant find my original source but i did find it in another source: 
http://www.arkedmin.org/Writings/Lessons/hellorigin.htm#pagan -under the subtitle, pagan sources for purgatory-
"The works of Plato from the fourth century B.C. have been a strong influence on subsequent religious beliefs including those of the Pharisees. In Jesus' day, Greek culture was popular, making the ideas of Plato attractive to people who wanted to be considered well educated... "Tartarus has rivers for various purposes such as the River Styx. Souls who are not especially good or bad are purified for a year and released. Very bad, "incurable" ones remain forever. Those who are not so bad can ask those they wronged for forgiveness and, if it is granted, be released. (Notice who thus becomes their savior.)" 
There are probably other sources that explain it better, but this is one. At the time of Jesus, judaism was mixing with zoroastrian influence, which had some greek philosophy in it. There are definitely striking similarities between Christianity and Platonism, purgatory being just one. but if someone doesnt want Plato in the article, i don't care.  (Unsigned by 24.106.140.254)
:That article uses Wikipedia as one of its sources, and declares itself early on as being intentionally written with a specific point of view, so it's not a good source on both those counts.  Coyoty 19:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Plato's Myth of Er in which the good are rewarded in the heavens and the bad are punished in the underworld before being reincarnated. Jonathan Tweet 15:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato 

message: Catholics equate being "born again" with Baptism, and see salvation in terms of Jesus having appeased God on our behalf rather than seeing it in judicial terms. Their response to Protestants is to ask how -- if Jesus paid for all sins in a judicial manner rather than in a propitiatory manner -- God could send anyone to Hell since doing so would require Him to punish twice for the same sins.
I found this passage confusing.  What does "propitiatory" vs. "juridical" mean in this context?  Do protestants equate "born again" with Baptism?  If they do, then the article should say so.  If not, then any such equation would be merely a misunderstanding, and they rest would not follow.  Lastly, why would damnation be double punishment, and even if true, why would this be a problem? Lostcaesar 15:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about the subtle differences between those two words, but like many other things, there is no single viewpoint on how one is "born again" in the Protestant denominations.  Some believe that baptism is necessary for salvation, while others believe that accepting Christ should not require any ritual.  The double punishment is referring to the fact that the sins being punished in hell are the same ones that Jesus received punishment for on the Cross...though I'm not sure how Catholic theology avoids this.  In any case, this passage (and much of the rest of the article) smells like original research.Miraculouschaos 23:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Passage 

message: The article I thought was in need of a reorganizing and clarification of some points.  Its format was choppy, with multiple renderings of the Catholic doctrine, various sections where history was discusses, a back-and-forth protestant vs catholic section, and even some contradictory material.  I hope this work helps the page in the future. Lostcaesar 22:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great Job Lostcaesar Ag2003 12:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Substantial overhaul 

message: This is just one version of the Bible.  If we're going to reference one Bible, it might as well warn the reader that the version given is the Bible used only by Roman Catholics and not Protestants. --71.200.61.10 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm lost, could you point out where the translation in question is being used, and how that is pov vs other translations, please.   Lostcaesar 09:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be better to not link it to one certain translation.  Instead just leave it without external links and let the reader look up the passages with their own Bible.  Just my opinion. If there's still no problem, then use the translation. --71.200.61.10 05:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me, though some of the links are not in every translation. Lostcaesar 11:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: Douay-rheims translation 

message: This article treats prayers for the dead as indicating a belief in a Purgatory of some sort, but look at this quote:
:"A woman, after the death of her husband . . . prays for his soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the first resurrection."
If dead husband were in Purgatory, the woman would be praying that he ascend quickly to Heaven. Instead, his hope lies in the Resurrection. This quote is compatible with the idea that the dead are still awaiting their judgment (soul sleep) rather than being judged immediately after death. Off hand, I can't think of a clean way to offer this interpretation, except maybe an appended section about "soul sleep" and how its adherents interpret early Christian prayers for the dead. Jonathan Tweet 15:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what is relevant is whether Tertullian advocated soul sleep or not.  I dont think he did, and that is what you would need to make that interpretation, but im not a Tertullian expert. Lostcaesar 17:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote still doesn't refer to Purgatory, either to purifying pain or to one reaching Heaven before the Resurrection. That this reference and other references are being used to back up the concept of Purgatory existing early in the Church is only half the story. In fact, this quote could be used to demonstrate that the concept of Purgatory, as expounded in 1254, didn't exist in the early Church (and by extension that prayers for the dead are not proof of a belief in Purgatory). Jonathan Tweet 18:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The quote shows that prayers for the dead have an effect on the soul of another after death, and that only makes sense in the context of purgatory.  The doctrine as expressed in 1254 is obviously more developed that it was in the third century.  That, however, does not directly apply to the point in question.  The rudamentary notion of purgatory is expressed in the quote by Tertullian.  Furthermore, its claim to the efficacy of prayers for the dead is a direct contrast to the claims of the reformers.  Lostcaesar 19:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, read carefully, the article only claims that Tertullian (and another) are talking about prayers for the dead.  Other authors are given in reference to purgatory, but Tertullian's comment is already percisely worded to inculde your concerns.  Lostcaesar 19:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The quote shows that prayers for the dead have an effect on the soul of another after death, and that only makes sense in the context of purgatory." Purgatory is one explanation for why prayers for the dead would be effective, but not the only one. The quote in 2 Maccabees shows that praying for the dead is effective but not at relieving suffering in Purgatory, but rather at improving the standing of the dead on Judgment Day. In fact, Tertullian's quote is more in line with the quote from 2 Maccabees than with Purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 19:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All the article claims about the Tertullian quote is as a reference to the antiquity of prayers for the dead.  86.135.134.155 21:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me add also that I think you are misreading the article's presentation of purgatory.  Please look at how the teaching is defined, with references.  Lostcaesar 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think our only duty here, in this instance, is to accuratly represent the sources.  I'll examine them in full in due time and give my opinion after that.  But to speak personally, aside from the specifics of the sources, I want to express the ancient view that Christians pray for the dead to improve the state of another in the hereafter, which is the core of purgatory. Lostcaesar 19:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added ref's and put in a quote to better express the sources.  I will say that the Acts of Thecla says nothing about Falconilla, who was the dead being prayed for, as being unbaptized.  Both Trifina her mother and Thecla (the prayer) are mentioned as unbaptized, but not Falconilla.  Lostcaesar 07:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The source is a dictionary of theological / doctrinal terms.  The text is from the entry on purgatory.  It says "Greek authors like [examples] and Latin authors like [examples] wrote in various ways of purification after death and our comunion through prayer with our dead departed".  Purgatory is purification.  If you says "the dead may be purified" then you have said a statement about purgatory.  The authors in question say, according to the source(s), that the dead may be purified and prayer is involved.  The authors coupled purification of the dead and prayer for the dead, so we are right to say as much.  As yet I do not think we have a very solid source on EoC belief, but it doesnt seem relevant here.  Lostcaesar 09:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this the source? A book written by Jesuits for Roman Catholic students with no scholarly bibliography? This is the source for this information? People rag on the Jesus Seminar for being below scholarly standards. That said, I have come to be convinced that a lot more material that sounds like purgatory is found in the early church than I thought. Let me take a shot. Jonathan Tweet 16:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not so much the idea of purification after death that's a problem for the Orthodox -- of course we believe in it; otherwise there'd be little point in praying for the departed. It's the underlying doctrine, that "satisfaction" must still be forthcoming for sins that have been repented of, confessed, and absolved. At Florence there was also strong objection to the "purgatorial fire", to which there still is, even in the attenuated form of it set forth at Trent. The Orthodox believe rather that the dead are purified through prayers, the Eucharist, and by good works offered on their behalf. And neither do we believe that the righteous departed experience the full blessedness that will be given them until after the general resurrection when souls are reunited with bodies. See  which presents the EO position as clearly as might be, as expressed by St. Mark of Ephesus. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the concept of theosis figure into this? It looks to me as though the EOC emphasizes purification and ascent while the RC emphasizes punishment and castigation. Both traditions see people rising in spiritual status, but it's more mystic and glorious in the EOC, more legalistic and punitive in the RC. Jonathan Tweet 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That summarizes it well IMO, but no doubt a Roman Catholic would see it differently. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Would you want to say anything specific about theosis? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan Tweet (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll have a look at it, but my gut feeling is that it would be OT for this article to talk about it much. It's less the process of purification and more its end, the union with God resulting from a life in Christ and is approached more from an ascetic viewpoint than in consideration of the afterlife. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayers for the Dead 

message: I'd like to collect the verses that are cited as supporting the idea of Purgatory. I figure I could put them at the bottom in the "notes" section or something so that they don't bulk up the article. Anyway, with the verses quoted here, curious students of the issue could review the verses for themselves. Jonathan Tweet 15:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Previously, the verses were linked using the standard wikipedia process, and I think this was best.  However, someone did not like this, because he said the links (which were to the DR Bible) were pov, basically because he did not like the translation.  Thus, I de-linked the quotes to solve this complaint.  Now that we have quoted the passages in full, in references, we are back to the same matter of translation.  This does not bother me.  I noticed, when I added a reference to one passage, that you changed the translation.  I don't know why, but like I said, I dont particurlarly want to get into a "proper translation" question.  If someone wants to look it up in another translation he can, if he wants to learn Greek or Latin or Syriac or whatever then great.  But I would suspect that someone will, sooner or later, come here and dispute the qutations.  So, I bring this up to get your thoughts. Lostcaesar 19:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did change a notation from one translation to another. The quotation had words missing for some reason. I replaced it not to change the translation but to provide one that didn't have words missing. This is the translation that I replaced: "And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that the that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that the who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them." I understand that there's a system for sending people to a list of translation options, but it's a lot more convenient to have all the quotes in one place so that someone can simply read them all together. Jonathan Tweet 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: All the user has to do is click on the link to go to the text.  With the current link, the user can read whatever translation he likes.  It is the standard way that wikipedia uses biblical verse notation.  All the section says is that those passages are cited in support, not whether they really do support the doctrine, and even explicity says: "The extent to which these passages refer to a state of purgation remains subject to interpretation."  That sounds like the right thing to do for me.  Lostcaesar 07:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, some verses are taken out of context (Zechariah). Second, it takes more than a click to see the text (click, scroll, click, back, back for each text). Third, for the reader who doesn't make that effort, these do look for all the world like actual scriptural support for purgatory, especially because there's no contrary section: Bible verses that would seem at face value to contradict purgatory. If these verses only mean purgatory to people who have faith that they do, then the whole selection could be replaced with "Roman Catholics have faith that several Bible verses actually refer to purgatory." Let's give the reader more information. I want to give the reader as much clear information about the history of purgatory as possible. Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's only of relevance if some source on the subject cites it. The purpose here is to list those verses that are actually used to support the doctrine, not those that might seem to us to support it. Otherwise we're both engaging in original research and run the risk of engaging in advocacy for it, which we may not do no matter what we think of it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scripture Verses 

message: JT, I want to talk about your recent addition, titled "Academic view".  First, let me say that I think there is a way to express this point of view in the article.  That said, I think this first start is very rough.  It only has one citation, that of what seems to be an argumentative essay by James Tabor.  Yet it claims to be characterizing all of academia.  I don't think the one reference supports this.  We could perhaps say "Tabor's analysis" or something like that, and replace phrases like "in secular estimation" with "in Tabor's estimation".  Also it contains this sentence: " 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."  That sounds like original research – does Tabor say it?  The Bible contains a discourse of the afterlife were the dead see the bosom of Abraham but are prevented from getting there and instead reside in an unfortunate place, though apparently not Gehenna.  My point is simply that I don't think this statement is anything but original research since it doesn't take into account this section.  Sure, it can be interpreted differently, but to say that there is no mention of this (or particular judgement) just doesn’t sound right.  Because I think there is a right way to include this view I have left the text in for the time being, but I think we need some improvement here, especially in terms of specificity and references.  Lostcaesar 07:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may chip in, I'm not entirely happy with the way the section is phrased either. The reality is, of course, that Purgatory qua Purgatory, is a is an early mediaeval theological construct, in an effort to unify some data and resolve what appeared to be some loose ends in Christian Eschatology. The same loose ends were tied up in other ways elsewhere in the Eastern Churches, of course, but the Tridentine understanding of the concept is essentially a Mediaeval invention (and I don't mean fiction). That is no secret at all; any scholarly history of the subject will confirm it. Still, the section could be worded better, so it doesn't look like the RCs invented it out of thin air. --InfernoXV 10:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the section a work in progress. On one hand, I don't want to go overboard. I want to sketch the academic view, but I don't want to belabor it. I'm open to suggestions. These views are not Tabor's alone, and they represent (as near as I can tell) the common views of secular religious historians (e.g., Stephen Harris, who wrote the textbook I studied from in college) and even liberal Christians (e.g., Harry Emerson Fosdick). If someone wants to rewrite the section to say something narrower, that's fine. It just means I'll need to go fetch more references to expand it again. Jonathan Tweet 14:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JT, I think your contributions are a good addition, and that you are going in the right direction.  I understand that this is a work in progress.  I am trying to point out areas for improvement, without getting in your way.  I think inferno's point, which I agree with, is that the doctrine developed over time, and what is important is to sketch that development to some extent, though obviously we will be dealing with a good deal of interpretation, and we will have to return to this notion of just what is essential to the concept of purgatory.  One thing that I am concerned over, however, is that you seem to associate secularism with scholarship.  There is no requirement for a scholar to be secular, and there is no reason to think that a secular scholar is, by merit of that fact alone, any better at examining the material in question.  So I think you need to decide if you are sketching scholarly views, or the secular view.  Obviously the former is a lot more interesting.  Lostcaesar 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: State it only with references.  Goldfritha 18:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what would be good would be a nice quote about the development of the doctrine in antiquity, say 200-600. Lostcaesar 20:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, two things. First, do you have a different version of what you would write for "academic view"? Second, could you please be patient as I go back to my notes? I don't remember which sentence came from which source, etc. And I'm cutting back on my wiki editing. Third (OK, three things), do you think it would be better labelled as "historical view"? After all, the viewpoint isn't strictly academic. It's the viewpoint that views sacred texts, etc., as historical artifacts and documents rather than as sacred texts, etc. Jonathan Tweet 03:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would write the section somewhat differently, but I am letting you have a go at it since it was your idea, and yes I will be patient as you track down those sources.  I merely added the tags as a request for them.  I can try and contribute some too; I just did not want to step on your toes while you put together this section.  "Historical view" doesn't seem quite right.  Perhaps "history of the view", though would take the section in a bit of a different direction and would require the inclusion of differing scholarly takes, if you know what I mean. Lostcaesar 08:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LC, I don't see this section as substantially more troubled than others on this page (e.g., the Jewish section with almost no references and information about the mourner's kaddish that is contradicted on the page about the mourner's kaddish). But if you can find an atheist who thinks that the "academic" section is a big step down in quality, I'll be happy to omit it. Jonathan Tweet 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply meant for the time being; If there are problem with the Jewish section then we should fix them. Lostcaesar 07:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one more reference and added it in. The only unreferenced issue remaining is one that doesn't strike me as controversial given the content of the rest of the paragraph (which is referenced). The sentence is this: 'These various views account, in secular estimation, for why sects as different as Roman Catholics and Jehovah's Witnesses can find Bible verses to support their various beliefs about the afterlife.' I've been reading on this topic on and off for over 20 years, and I can't tell you what the specific source is, nor have I been able to find it on the Internet. But now that the rest of the paragraph is well referenced, how about removing the "expert" tag and the one remaining "sources/OR" tag? This page is full of unreferenced sentences, and I don't think it's good form to single this one out as being a problem. I have already referenced the paragraph to meet a standard to which other sections have not been held. If anyone can find a counter-reference to the sentence in question, of course, that's another story. Lacking a counter-reference, however, I think the sentence can stand. Jonathan Tweet 14:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not a tautology that secular scholars regard purgatory as invented by the Catholic Church. If it appeared in the Bible, it wouldn't be so considered. If Hooker doesn't represent secular historians, please find secular scholars that don't consider purgatory to be a Catholic invention. Gregory did not fully develop Purgatory; he described the purification as prior to Judgment Day, not prior to entrance into Heaven. Also the concepts of venial sin etc. aren't apparent in Gregory's doctrines. For not worrying about whether the Bible teaches purgatory, Catholics sure are eager to find support for it in the Bible. I'd be happy to include a line like, "The lack of support for purgatory in the Bible doesn't undermine the Catholic doctrine of purgatory because the Catholic Church recognizes authentic revelation outside the Bible." I'd be happy to see a neutral way to describe the developments in the doctrine of purgatory. A point-by-point timeline would be great. Such a description would go into neither the "Catholic" nor "Secular" views on purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 08:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Addition

message: There is a statement under the section on Eastern Orthodox theology which reads: "Eastern Catholics, like the Eastern Orthodox, do not teach the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory."  I doubt this is factually accurate and propose it be deleated unless a competent citation can be found. Mamalujo 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that, and have restored it. I'm an Eastern Catholic and I can tell you that Purgatory is mentioned nowhere in our official catechisms, and is not in our prayer texts either liturgical or private. Have a peek at http://www.east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory and its references to the Treaty of Brest. InfernoXV 07:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used that source to express the view therein mentioned.  Lostcaesar 08:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Rite Catholics

message: I found it odd that while we cite several Biblical passages that could metaphorically refer to purgatory for the Catholic side, there isn't anything on the Protestant side apart from quotations from some Reformers. I took the initiative to add a couple of passages based on an online book I found criticising Catholic doctrines. It would probably be prudent to expand the section further, though, and to locate citations for the Protestant theologians who believe in purgatory. Johnleemk | Talk 13:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Lostcaesar 14:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protestant claims 

message: I propse this is renamed to "secular view" - thoughts?  It seems more descriptive.  Catholic theologians are, after all, academics.  Lostcaesar 17:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic View 

message: LC, you deleted the Zoroastrian material as irrelevant. Why is that? It seems relevant to me. How about I put it back in, and if you can get someone to agree with you that it should be deleted, they can delete it? No need for us to butt heads again. Jonathan Tweet 20:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kept one bit of info from there and moved it to a different section.  Zoroastrianism basically vanished in antiquity (along with their religious text, for the most part).  Current "zoroastrians" are really a different religion, neo-zoroastrians.  It doesn't seem significant, nor do I think that a really authentically "zoroastrian" position exists.  The only relevance is whatever scholars can piece together about the ancient religion, which was a real, major, bitheistic faith, of historical significance.  I kept the sentence about ancient zoroastiranism, and junked the modern day stuff.  What about it did you think was worth mentioning? Lostcaesar 20:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoroastrianism might be the red-headed stepchild of the monotheisms, but if we're talking about how various religions treat a middle state, it sure seems to apply. I don't pay much mind to what's "real" Zoraostrianism or "real" Christianity for that matter. They're belief systems and are noteworthy on that account. It's Wikipedia policy to be abundant and redundant, especially when editors agree on whether material should be included. The default stance is that it should be included. Jonathan Tweet 21:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not making a distinction between what's "real" Zoroastrianism.  Zoroastrianism basically died out, like Celtic or Germanic paganism.  The beliefs of ancient Zoroastrianism are historically significant because the group was significant in the ancient world.  Modern neo-Zoroastrianism is like modern neo-paganism - its miniscule and has no constitutive belief system.  After moving that claim, all that was left in the section anyway was about one sentence.  If you want to include something about the journey through the afterlife in ancient Zoroastrianism, it sounds ok to me, but were getting a bit away from Purgatory and over into just generic Afterlife.  Nonetheless we could maybe have a bulk section that talks about this, the Egyptian passage to the realm of the dead undergone by the pharos, maybe the German warriors waiting for the final battle in the hall of Valhalla, and so on. Lostcaesar 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic, it believed in 2 Gods.  Lostcaesar 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, we seem to agree about the importance of ancient Zoroastrianism.  I think if you notice I went out of my way to preserve a reference to this (the only reference to it), one which is obviously a view I do not personally agree with, so it should be clear that I am not trying to exclude such points.  If you want to talk a little about ancient Zism (or other religions), it sounds ok to me - I happen to be quite interested in this stuff so I won't complain.  I will say to be kinda careful when getting info on ancient Z-ism; because it faded away, and especially because the original religous texts perished, it is very difficult to reconstruct their beliefs (its a bit like discerning Germanic pagan beliefs from 13th century texts), so scholarly views vary a good deal. Lostcaesar 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LC, could you provide me with a reference for your assertion that the "Zoroastrians" writing in Pahlavi in the 9th century weren't Zoroastrians, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, could you please restore my informationn about Zoroastrianism and its "middle state"? Jonathan Tweet 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I thought we had established, contemporary Zoroastrianism is historically disjoined from the ancient religion and consists of a reconstructionist movement.  Is this disputed? Lostcaesar 00:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hamistagan comes from 9th century Zoroastrianism. If 9th century Zoroastrianism wasn't Zoroastrianism, please direct me to somewhere where I can confirm your assertion. I'm no expert on Zoroastrianism, but I've done some reading, and the 9th century Zoroastrians seem to me to have been Zoroastrians. If your issue is only with contemporary Zoroastrianism, then please replace the material you deleted under the header "Medieval Zoroastrianism" or something. Jonathan Tweet 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Do we have any reason to think the information is accurate?  Lostcaesar 20:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Search for hamistagan. Do we have any reason to think the information is inaccurate? Jonathan Tweet 21:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reason to think it confused because it doesnt distinguish between ancient Zoro. (interesting) and reconstructionist movements (irrelevant). Lostcaesar 08:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. Now document your reason. If you can't document your reason, please restore the material you deleted. Or at least assure me that you won't delete it again for no (documented) reason. You referred to "contemporary" Z'ism and "modern day" stuff, but this is medieval Z'ism. Jonathan Tweet 14:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Zoroastrians believe in hamistagan, a place where the souls of those whose good and bad deeds are equal await resurrection on Judgment Day. Souls in hamistagan do not suffer. 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"). This might be the oldest purgatory concept so critics of the Catholic Church, like Frank Hughes, indicate they borrowed the idea from Zoroastrianism for nefarious purposes.
This section talks of "what Zoro. believe", not what Zoro. held in antiquity.  It then talks about "it", i.e. the concept discussed above as in the present, being the "oldest concept".  So its not talking about "medieval stuff".  Its talking about, in my understanding, beliefs of antiquity that are falsly represented as historically continuous with beliefs of today.  Lostcaesar 15:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well I'd be darned, you're right. I ascribed medieval beliefs to modern Zists. So show me the documentation for your assertion that modern Zists don't believe it. Jonathan Tweet 05:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying they don't - I'm saying that the modern movement is a reconstructionist movement.  It'd be like saying that celtic pagans believe (present tense) X, Y, and Z, and that Caesar wrote about this religion (present implied) in his "Gallic Wars".  The celtic paganism that Caesar encountered vanished at a historical point.  Centuries later (in the 1970s to be exact), someone tried to begin anew a new religion, minus some things like human sacrifice, based in part on what Caesar wrote.  Now, I like what the section says at present.  It mentions 9th century beliefs and ignore the irrelevant neo-zoro-ists.  So I think were cool.  Cheers.  Lostcaesar 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have never documented your assertion that modern Zism is a reconstructionist movement. If it's not, then the text can go back to referring to present-day Zists. Jonathan Tweet 14:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zoroastrian material 

message: Thanks, LC. "Secular" is way better than "academic." I especially like "secular" because of its root meaning: worldly or temporal. Jonathan Tweet 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Secular" View 

message: Bible verses were moved to the lead section. That's too detailed for a lead section. Jonathan Tweet 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new lead 

message: I moved the following text to talk: 
:Other early accounts of the afterlife, however, apparently contradict the doctrine of purgatory. Hippolytus of Rome, for example, depicts the righteous and unrighteous alike as going to hades, where the righteous enjoy blessings and the unrighteous suffer anticipation of their punishmentAgainst Plato, on the cause of the universe . This description parallels Luke's description of Lazarus and the rich man in hades, with flames for the wicked, the bosom of Abraham for the righteous, and an abyss between them.
I am not sure that the statement of Hippolytus is indeed contradicting the doctrine of purgatory.  It is perfectly fitting to call the afterlife by different terms, as scripture does, and Hades seems as applicable a word for the hereafter as any other.  In his description there is a realm of the afterlife reserved for unquenchable fire, and another for those who suffer temporal punishment (his words) awaiting the blessedness of heaven, and a gate through which is reserved the joy of the elect.  So I don't see the connection.  Also, the bit about the parable of Lazarus does not make sense to me — how is this vision of the netherworld applicable to unorthodox views of the afterlife?  At any rate we are lacking a scholarly opinion and thus this disputed matter is perhaps original research.  
Lostcaesar 21:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You read the text at the end of the link? If so, then once again we have proven our ability to read the exact same text and come to exact opposite conclusions. According to purgatory, the righteous die and start suffering. According to Hippolytus (and the early Christian/1st-century Jewish concept of hades), the righteous die and are at rest. In the doctrine of purgatory, the dead either go to hell and suffer or to purgatory and suffer. In the hades system, the dead all go to hades where the damned suffer and the saved are happy. How again are these the same? Let's at least find a way to preserve the link and allow the reader to make up their own mind. Jonathan Tweet 06:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all OR, but we can discuss to an extent anyway.  Here is what Hippolytus says: "But now we must speak of Hades, in which the souls both of the righteous and the unrighteous are detained.... [T]he angels are stationed as guards, distributing according to each one's deeds the temporary punishments for (different) characters."  That is purgation.  Lostcaesar 09:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purgatory is only for the saved. Hades, and its temporary punishments, is for everyone. Here, the wicked suffer temporary punishments before eternal judgment on judgment day. Thus H's hades is not your purgatory. As to this being OR, a slew of references purportedly in support of purgatory are not OR, but references contrary to it are? How's that? Jonathan Tweet 14:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved due to accuracy issues 

message: In one question, I asked users that, if Christians believe that Christians will go to heaven and non-Christian will go to hell, and Catholics believe that some people will go to purgatory after they die, then who do Catholics believe will go to purgatory when they die? One user answered by saying that it is never official Catholic doctrine that all people who are not Christians will go to hell after they die.
That sounds strange! The Bible clearly says that all people need to be saved from going to eternal hell, and you cannot be saved without being a Christian. But Catholics still believe that some non-Christians will go to purgatory instead of hell after they die.
I guess that one of the reasons why the doctrine of purgatory exists is that the fact that all non-Christians will go to an eternal hell is something that even Christians find hard to accept.  The Anonymous One 05:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work that way.  Pugratory is not specifically for non-Catholics or non-Christians &c.  I would have hoped that the article expressed that clearly enough.  Purgatory is a process of purification where unforgiven venial sins, and uncompleted temporal punishment due to sin, are forgiven &c., making one ready for heaven.  If everyone in the world were Catholic, a great many would still go to purgatory (and Hell, for that matter) because they would still sin and would still need to do penance (temporal punishment) - though it would be less, at least, simply because being Catholic avails you to all the sacraments &c. giving you more access to divine grace.  Now, as for salvation, there is no salvation outside Jesus Christ and his Church.  What that means is, if you are saved, it is through the merits of Christ's saving act as dispensed by his Church.  You could think of it like this: everyone in heaven is catholic, whether they died one or not.  Now, we know of no other way to be saved besides baptism, and that comes in three forms: water, blood, and desire.  What happens to people who are not Christian?  All the Church has said is that it is not impossible for them to be saved: there might be a way.  It is something about which we should trust in the mercy of God, and if it bothers you then, by all means, pray for them.  Lostcaesar 08:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Guess on Why the Doctrine of Purgatory Exists 

message: Is it possible that purgatory was invented to discourage early Christians from prematurely ending their lives, either through suicide or reckless martydom? After all, if a person thought they were going directly to heaven, why wait around on an imperfect Earth? Purgatory effectively negates the benefit of dying young.Hellbound Hound 01:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another possibility for the creation of purgatory 

message: I made some changes, mostly structural though it looks far more than it was in a view of the edit synopsis.  Because Eastern Rite Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church had basically the same view, I thought it best to put the tradition into Latin and Greek versions, rather than Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (since the ERCC are also what is meant by Roman Catholic).  I moved the biblical passages section into the bit on spirituality, since it seemed better there.  This article is not about debating the veracity of scriptural proof texts and whatnot.  I also tried to rephrase the "early christian writings" section to better express the historical nature of the statements, rather than to look upon them in hindsite and try and fix them to this or that camp.  I also eliminated the "back and forth" style the article had, in accord with the guidelines.  Some other minor things...; Lostcaesar 12:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have got to be kidding us. The lead section defines purgatory as only that which can be stretched to match the EOC view (not "punishment for unremitted but forgiven venial sins," etc.). The difference between EOC and RC is attributed to terminology (!). Now that the Bible verses weren't all hand-picked to support Purgatory, they're tucked away in a later section. Once again, I try to make information more readily available, and you're making it harder to come by. Honsetly, LC, I don't know what to tell you because I myself can't think of a way for you to be fair and to be true to what the Catholic Church teaches at the same time, but wow. In the time that you and I have struggled with this page, I've learned a lot about early Christian views about the afterlife and purification after death. What you seem to have learned is how to spin the information. I'll let the dust settle, but don't get attached to this version of the page. Jonathan Tweet 14:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well lets talk about it.  What are your specific objections?  All you mentioned here was the lead and the bible verses, so that's all I can talk about.  The lead references the Catechism of the Catholic Church for its definition of purgatory, so I am not "stretching" anything.  As for the verses, it seems best that they be under spirituality.  The contra verses can be included in the protestant section if that section is reworked accordingly. Lostcaesar 14:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 16:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the correction, and I am glad you agree with the edits.  =D  Lostcaesar 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits