Talk:Purgatory

Archives 1 2 3

Rewrite

Okay kids, hold on to your hats.

IT seems like there's been a long standing dispute going on at this page for as long as I can remember, so I finally got around to taking my time, and writing up a rewrite that I think will be much much much better. I'm sure parts of it will need discussion and tweaking, like with everything, but I hope it'll make life much easier round these parts.

and, just for viewing convenience, I'll "transform" the page into the new article, rather than just pasting it in. Here goes. --Alecmconroy 13:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I'm done. The main things I did:

• Revised Intro in order to be simple simple simple. Old one was very dense and impossible to read for hte uninitiated. These are the very first words some people will read about a what is, to them, a very alien concept.
• Created an "Overview" section to simply explain Purgatory to someone very unfamiliar with Christianity and Roman Catholicism. The article is no good if the only people who can understand it are people who already understand it. hehe.
• Merged Temporal Punishment and Fire section, since they're very closely linked. Simple simple.
• Merged Prayer for the Dead and Indulgences, simplified simplified.
• Expanded Purgatory as a place just a tad, so it could be understood easier. One paragraph to present the idea it might be a physical place, the next paragraph to debunk the physical place idea. Also added a dandy image of Dante's Mount Purgatory.
• Made a new section JUST for contemporary authoritative RC doctrine. It's important we pull this out and present it so that we're sure this POV gets expressed, and doesn't get mixed up with the ancient or other POV or oversimplifcations. Now we KNOW the current RC pov is definitely going to get out, in their own words.
• Made a section just to summarize the Purgatory and world religions subarticle, per summary style. Parts of this content were mixed in with history, parts were commented out, parts were never said, or said several times. Now we have one place to get that out of the way, with only single-line references to it in the other sections.

I'm now going to do the following things:

• I'm going to leave the POV tag up for the time being, until other people can look me over and check my work.
• I'm going to immediately file a RFC to try to draw new editors here, both to doublecheck that the changes are good ones, and to help us think of ways to further improve.
• I'll also put it up for a peer review, to get more eyeballs here.
• I'm going to start going through sentence by sentence and sourcing every single claim made. This is the way a Featured Article gets made. I'm pretty sure I know where to find a source for each, but I haven't put them all in just yet-- I'll get started on that immediately.

I really hope everyone likes it. I'm sure there will be a couple changed people would like to make to it all, so hopefully we can get lots of fresh eyeballs in here to talk about what changes (of mine and proposed) are good and which are bad.

Obviously, you don't have to listen to me, but even if htere are some objections-- please please please don't just revert the thing-- that would make my head explode. :) --Alecmconroy 14:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Template:RFCreli The Purgatory article has had various problems for some time, with a few main editors unable to resolve gridlock. I rolled up my sleeves and did a major rewrite that a I hope will ultimately fair "middle solution" to all those editors' concerns.

More importantly, I feel like the old article was very difficult for a general audience to understand. It had lots of jargon that only readers well-versed in Roman Catholic would be able to understand. I felt it was important that an uninitiated reader be able to understand the article, so I worked hard to simplify it as much as possible without crossing the line into oversimplification.

Some questions that I would love some feedback on:

• Is the New Version an improvement on the Old Version?

I'm sure it is, but everybody just double check me, because I was very bold, so, it seems only fair to ask a lot of people to make sure my compass heading for where the article needed to go is correct.

• Does this version comply with NPOV?

I think it does and no one has accused it of being non-neutral yet-- but the POV dispute between other editors had been longstanding, so I don't want to take that POV dispute template down until I've gotten some feedback.

• How could this article be even better?

I'm sure we're not a FA quite yet. :) How could we get there?

--Alecmconroy 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New Comments by Outside Editors

put new comments here I do hope I am entering my response to this discussion in the appropriate place. I have spent the past three hours or so reading through the lengthy exchanges about the revisions to Purgatory, and find myself strongly in agreement with those editors who argue that the current version by Alec et al is not the appropriate one to be using as the "base" for discussion. The original version, condemned for "jargon" offers a better model for suggested edits. BTW, I am one of those "interested readers", and I find no merit in the arguments that I must be written down to in order to retain my interest enough to read an article that I have chosen to read. Trust me, fellas, I can manage big words like catechism! Please resist dumbing down the article in the name of clarity until precision is lost; please return to the original which was worked on for so long before the recent radical reversion. Lots of things need work, I know, but there are many first-class minds represented in these exchanges and good will on both sides. That's my input, since you've asked for other's views. Oh, and please continue to be wary of unintended pro-Protestant POV's in wording. Doc5467 (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• User has less than 15 edits. --Alecmconroy

Since editors involved with the dispute have already added a lot of criticism, I think it's important to point out what's good about the changes. The new intro is decidedly less POV, moving away from a Catholic-centric view. Furthermore (to adress some criticisms) the use of the word "denomination" is completely appropriate in ref to the Catholic Church. Assertions to the contrary are kind of ridiculous: it's a basic question of usage and definition (and common sense). One would have to find a commonly used definition that explicitly excludes the CC as a Christian denomination before pursuing such an argument. What would you have the article say "the Catholic Church and Christian denominations" - that would seem to indicate that the CC isn't Christian - like I said, pretty ridiculous. The assertion "In antiquity Heaven and hell were thought of as physical places," is not wrong - but it does require a distinction between church dogma/doctrine and the laity's perceptions. Heaven and Hell were thought of as physical places for centuries before and after - Greek Elysium and Hades to Durer's etchings, Milton's Paradise Lost, the Divine Comedy. Likewise with purgatory and fire. Mostly what I see is not POV, but issues of sourcing and context. If other editors are willing to go through the article line by line, I see no reason why they can't do it on this revision instead of the older one. Phyesalis (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by previously involved editors

I fear that inaccuracies have been introduced. As an example, treating Eastern Catholic Churches as not part of the Roman Catholic Church. I would prefer the previous text to be the basis for work, with Alec putting up his text a section at a time, instead of rewriting it all. (If the general opinion is in favour of Alec's text, I will of course bow to that opinion. In that case, I would suggest that we work through it section by section, devoting several days to each section, so as to concentrate our efforts.) Lima 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the specific concern you mention-- the heading in which is discussed includes "Other Rites", so the section isn't actually "Outside the RC Church" it's "Outside the Latin Rite". For stylistic reasons, I tend to think it's best to put all the comparative discussions in one section. They're all summarized in the same subarticle, they all have the same basic compare-contrast style, and it make sense to discuss EO and ECC next to each other, since they have similar issues. The grouping makes sense, but perhaps a better section title or intro text would help combat the misperpection that ECC isn't part of RCC. --Alecmconroy 17:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, even if expressed as "outside the Latin Church", it is still inaccurate. Only those ECCs that are of Greek tradition have any reticence whatever about any minor aspects of the presentation, though not about the doctrine. But is now the moment for discussing the new version's inaccuracies in detail? There are worse inaccuracies than that. Take another example: the definition of "indulgence" as "a pardoning of the sins of souls in Purgatory in exchange for monetary donations to the Church". If I hadn't such faith in Alec's good faith, I would call such inaccuracies POV. The more I read the new version, the more strongly I feel that it is not an improvement. And yet many elements of it could have been improvements. Lima 18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Alec, I certainly appreciate the effort. I also sympathise, because it seems that, whenever someone does hard work, it seems criticism is more common than praise, and I don’t want to seem as if I am not appreciative. However, I have many concerns with what seems to be a good faith effort wrought by hard work and a genuine desire for improvement. I list below some concerns.

• In the attempt to simplify the quoted doctrinal material, and to substitute more rudimentary words, the necessary degree of precision has been lost, resulting in an oversimplified caricature of the doctrine, rather than an articulation of the doctrine itself.
• The ODCC does not state that the doctrine of purgatory was first explicitly formulated in the 12th century. I corrected this misreading once before.
• One cannot say that, historically, purgatory has been envisioned as a place of fiery punishment, but now modern Catholic theologians reject this interpretation. Historically, some theologians have envisioned it as a place of fiery punishment, but some others have disagreed, a diversity of opinion that continues today. Perhaps trends may be distinguished, but not absolutes.
• The phrase ‘among other Christian denominations’ mistakenly presents the Catholic Church as a denomination. Catholics and Orthodox do not employ the language of ‘denomination’, only certain (recent) Protestant communities use it, and it could be considered offensive to the other groups.
• Indulgences are grossly mischaracterised as a ‘forgiveness for money’ quid pro quo, and labelled ‘medieval’ when, in fact, they are also ‘modern’ insofar as they are in use today.
• Purgatory is not called a ‘third option’ in any official text, and is more an adjunct element of the option of heaven than an independent option all its own.
• The statement ‘in antiquity both heaven and hell were regarded as physical places existing in the physical universe’ shows a lack of nuance characteristic of the overall rewrite. The association of ‘heaven’ with ‘the sky’ is an etymological correlation whose source predates written history. The word villain derives from villianus, which means ‘one who works on a villa’, but its use today hardly intends a slander against those who work on country estates. Likewise, that ‘cælum’ means both the place with all the clouds and the place where incorporeal souls enjoy the presence of God does not entail that it was universally held ‘in antiquity’ that a soul reclined on puffy white billows. Neither does the use of ‘Thunder’ today (or a thousand years ago) imply belief that Thor’s chariot is disturbing the beclouded sky. By the way, English does not have the same etymological comparison as Latin, since ‘sky’, scéo, means simply ‘cloud’ in Old English, with a different word, ceaster, meaning basically heaven, showing that ancient man could distinguish between the two, sometimes by vocabulary, sometimes by context, just like today.

My suggestion is that we use the former text and review each of your changes a step at a time in determining their inclusion or exclusion. Ritterschaft 00:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Still no outside opinion yet, so I asked a few Wikigeniuses to take a peek, and see what they think, so, prior warning.

I am so sorry that ya'll two feel we still haven't solved the POV issues with this rewrite-- but hopefully people WILL think we made some big stride in terms of readability and writing for a general audience. A few of the specific concerns I can fix immediately, some will be harder to find the right balance, but I'm sure we can do it.

To the extent that anyone thinks the rewrite has POV problems, etc-- please just know they're not intentional-- the main focus was on clarity, organization, and simplicity-- not POV. --Alecmconroy 09:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the focus on (journalistic-style?) clarity, organization, and simplicity has been at the expense of accuracy. While only one editor complained of the previous text as POV, there are now at least two who point to much more specific problems than he did. Ritterschaft mentioned some of them much more clearly than I could (especially, for reasons of no interest to anybody else) yesterday. But more could be added even to his list. No outside editor has yet compared the previous text with the new. I fear that they only look at the present text and give no thought whatever to the question whether it is an improvement on an unspecified old text that they would have trouble in identifying. For that reason, their only interventions have been to alter Alec's text. For my part, I don't think we should work on that text at all until (and unless) it is decided that that new text, rather than the one laboriously arrived at over previous weeks, is the one to work on. Lima 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, thanks for the big work. At first browse, it looks good. This page was given a pro-Purgatory overhaul last February. What it's always needed is another overhaul. If the previous page seemed to be settling down, it was only because disagreements were being put off. Leadwind (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew. Well, I'm glad to hear somebody liked it! Lima and Ritterschaft about had me convinced I really was going crazy. :). Hopefully we'll get some outside comments here that will help us see which way to go. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments by outside editors

I'd say it's pretty good, however the main issue is that the article tends to repeat phrases too often in close proximity (this makes articles boring and wordy). This is what I found in the first two paragraphs:

“ Purgatory is a state, process, or place of purification or punishment in which, according to Christian and Roman Catholic beliefs, the dead are "purified" or "cleansed" prior to entering Heaven.

According to Roman Catholic beliefs, some sins are so severe that in the afterlife, they eternally separate one from God, a condition called Hell. Lesser states of sin are not severe enough to prevent one from eventually attaining eternal union with God, a condition called Heaven. Souls who die in this lesser state of sin are ultimately united with God, but first they must be "purified" or "cleansed," a condition called Purgatory.

”

There might be more problems, but this one stands out the most. The introduction could do with a few links. I've made some fixes. MER-C 10:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know where to put this RFC response...

Sorry, I can't tell where to put this. It's meant as a response to the RFC by an outside editor, but it's hard to see where the RFC ends and regular talkpage discussion begins again. Please move it if it's in the wrong place, and please, please, set up a space for RFC responses that people can tell is for that purpose! A box or whatever.

Anyway. I'm speaking as the general reader: a pretty well-educated person, though you may not think so after I tell you that I'm fairly ignorant about Catholic teaching. I teach writing skills in an academic institution, btw.

I have compared, firstly, the old and new lead section, and secondly the old section "Prayer for the dead" + "Other good works and indulgences" and the new combined "Prayer for the dead and indulgences" section, in the article versions Alec asks us above to compare (New Version, Old Version) .

a) Lead sections. Considering that this is an encyclopedia for the general reader, the old lead section is a joke. Sorry for the frankness, but come on. First it quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then it goes to "more technical language" ? If you want all this terminology somewhere in the article—maybe it's motivated—somewhere, and explained layman's terms, please (FYI, those are the type of terms I see contemptuously referred to as "rudimentary" a little further down)—but don't put it in the Lead! Let me quote from Wikipedia:Lead section:

It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article...In general, specialized terminology should be avoided ... Where uncommon terms are essential to describing the subject, they should be placed in context, briefly defined, and linked. The subject should be placed in a context with which many readers could be expected to be familiar... Readers should not be dropped into the middle of the subject from the first word—they should be eased into it.

The old version of you guys' Lead might have been written in conscious defiance of that Manual of Style advice. Alec's new version, by contrast, shows awareness ofi the readers' needs, and is responsive to them. It does "ease the reader into" the subject. Importantly, it does not quote wordy definitions from specialized reference works. To quote the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church is presumably a simple (and frankly lazy) way of making the text incontrovertible. But the purpose of the Lead, or for that matter the purpose of the article, isn't to be incontrovertible; it's to reach the reader's comprehension and awaken his/her interest. This should be done by means of crisp, concise prose which is appropriate to a general encyclopedia; not by dumping chunks from specialized Catholic reference works in it. Right at the beginning of the Lead, yet! You need to write your prose yourselves, with awareness of what it needs to accomplish. Don't borrow off-puttingly technical sentences that may be appropriate in their original context, but do not work here.

b) Old section "Prayer for the dead" + "Other good works and indulgences" compared with new combined "Prayer for the dead and indulgences" section.

Oh, gee! Well, no point in repeating everyhing I said above, but this old version is actually worse than the old Lead. Sorry, but just compare the first sentences of the old and the new versions:

Old: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the Church's teaching on purgatory is based on the practice of prayer for the dead, a practice mentioned in pre-Christian deuterocanonical 2 Maccabees 12:46 and one that, the Catechism says, the Church has practiced from the beginning."

New: "The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the fate of those in Purgatory can be affected by the actions of the living."

The most off-putting thing about the old sentence isn't actually the length or the technicalities; it's the links. The reader is apparently expected to click on prayer for the dead (just as s/he was pleased to discover a term that s/he thought s/he could understand). The other linked terms do need links, indeed, but they also need brief explanations in place. If you really, really must mention deuterocanonical and Maccabees (while on your way to telling us about "one Onesiphorus"—geesh!) The reader shouldn't have to click on all this stuff in order to understand the sentence, or in order to know which if any of the terms matter. There are several things you can do about it:

• 1. Do what Alec did: lose the deuterocanonical, etc. Indulgences are probably the one concept the reader is the most likely to be looking for in this article, so how can the Maccabees and one "Onesiphorus" possibly be the first thing you need to talk about in the section devoted to indulgences?
• 2. If I'm wrong and these things are really, really important in the context (never mind whether they're intrinsically important, it's always about the context), then explain them on the hoof, if possible, as well as linking them. Or else put them in a footnote. Nice job, Alec.

Bishonen | talk 20:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, thanks for pitching in. Obviously, this page has needed a lot of work, and progress has been kept slow by POV conflicts over this controversial topic. Leadwind (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

While I concur, as I have always, with the notion that stylistic issues should be resolved, this comment unfortunately does not take up the important issue of accuracy, or of other changes that were made. Would you rather have an article that is difficult to read and right, or easy to read and wrong? I think the way forward is to use the previous article as a base, and add these changes to it, which is what I shall do. Ritterschaft (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

People of Protestant tradition (but not Catholics or Orthodox) may well think of indulgences as the one concept to look for in an article on purgatory. They are not the majority. It appears from the above that they also do not wish to give thought to praying for the dead. Which is more important for understanding the concept of purgatory: prayer for the dead or indulgences? Lima (talk) 05:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, it's easier to make an inaccurate article accurate that to make a poorly written article well written. Let's just make Alec's version right. Leadwind (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue of versions is about to be moot, since, as you will be pleased to discover, I am currently making an accurate and readable text. Ritterschaft (talk) 06:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, you have now reverted Alec's version three times in short succession. I believe that's an editor's quota. Leadwind (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft has been improving the original text. Leadwind has been only reverting - already four times today: 06:02, 06:11, 06:38, 07:19. Lima (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft just reverted for the 4th time in a row, in violation of WP:3RR. Leadwind (talk) 07:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just now become aware that, whilst I was editing the article (a matter discussed below), Leadwind was interrupting my work with regular reverts. This seems rather odd to me, and rather bad form, but perhaps it is inconsequential now. I don't mind if my toes were stepped on, given that it ended up not interrupting my editorial process. Ritterschaft (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, Lima is correct, I reverted 4 times. I lost count. My bad. Ritterschaft, for his part, has reverted 5 times (not 4). Lima seems to think that "improving the original text" doesn't count as reverting, even though it requires reverting. I'll stop reverting now that I see I'm over my limit. Leadwind (talk) 07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wishlist

Does anyone know of an official RC source for the fact that the Latin Rite makes up about 98% or so? I can find sources, but I'd like a better one. --Alecmconroy 15:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there a really good online source that talks about the shift from "painful fire" to "cleansing fire"? I have print one of course, and of course we have lots of quotes from EARLY theologians talking about how excruciating the fire will be, whereas the modern CCC doesn't talk about painful fire at all. That said, a really killer online source that explicitly discusses the shift would make for a better article. --Alecmconroy 15:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna take off for the moment, but I'll get back to sourcing the rest of this in. I've basically know where the sources are, I just got lazy and didn't put the citations in when I was writing it like I should have. It's okay though, cause going through and sourcing later is a good "double check" of my own work anyway, to make sure each and every single sentence is Verifiable. --Alecmconroy 15:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Specific concerns

"In the attempt to simplify the quoted doctrinal material, and to substitute more rudimentary words, the necessary degree of precision has been lost, resulting in an oversimplified caricature of the doctrine, rather than an articulation of the doctrine itself."

Hmmm. I really liked letting the idea of letting CCC speak for modern RC doctrine-- at least we know that gets across, so that takes a tiny bit of the pressure off us having to present modern RC perfectly. We don't want to present it erroneously, of course, if the overview is oversimplified and lacking in specific doctrinal details,-- all isn't lost, because we let the CCC teach people exactly what RCs believe, using wording of its choosing. --Alecmconroy 09:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Alec, but inaccuracy appears again in this last comment: you unwittingly suggest the POV that "present modern RC" is different from past Roman Catholic teaching. Perhaps you have in mind not a comparison between present and past teaching, but between present teaching and past imagination, imagery and theological speculation. Present imagery also includes fire etc. Present imagination includes the Prayer of St Gertrude (not found in the writings of the saint herself), and I would be surprised if medieval imagery did not include similar magic wands. The modern-time speculation mentioned in the article about whether souls in purgatory pray for the living began earlier. You should compare teaching with teaching, not teaching with imagery, etc. Lima 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I anticipated this point would come up sooner or later.

RCs have a very unique concept of Dogma-- something can be widespread, widely attested, widely taught, and widely preached, without actually being "authoritative". It raises fascinating issues of definition-- can all the members of a particular religion subscribe to, and teach, a particular religious belief, but not have the religious belief be "part of the religion". From a scholarly point of view-- if we were talking about Hinduism for example, usually we'd try to get at what people are actually believing and use that as the guide for "Is this belief part of a religion?". But, RC is fascinating thing, because of the unique nature of the pope and the nature of dogma-- so it's not always that simple.

As a side note, this leads to terrific accusations of revisionism from people don't grasp the unique RC perspective on dogma. Take the whole Galileo blowup over the geocentric -vs- heliocentric models. Was the geocentric universe ever "part" of Roman Catholicism? Well, ask a comparative religion scholar and you'll likely hear "yes"-- because it was widely taught, widely believed, and of course Pope Paul V would have told you it was if you asked him. But if you ask a modern RC if, in their opinion, a geocentric model was ever "part" of Roman Catholicism-- they'll say "Nonsense-- don't be silly. That superstitious nonsense was never part of true RC beliefs".

Which view is right? Well, they both are! You just have to look what each group's standard for inclusion is. When we have our scholar had on, we talk about what people, on average, actually believed throughout history. When we have our theologian hat on, we talk about what is a true dogma, a truly authoritative teaching.

Part of the problem that you guys have bumped into in the past at this page, in my opinion, is a conflation of the two. People have objected to describing widely held beliefs, on the grounds that they were never authoritative. And people have objected to authoritative teachings on the ground that they poor represent widely held belief. Only, without making any clear distinction between the two different standards for deciding what is "part of" a religion, the discussion has largely been confusing and unresolved.

So, hence the split between an overview, which is free to mention widely held beliefs even if they weren't authoritative, and the CCC section, which presents only those truly authoritative beliefs. --Alecmconroy 13:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I could follow Alec down the road of discussing whether the overview presents one particular view as fact, but that would be to treat Alec's version as already approved in principle. If we were working on the other text, reached through interventions by many editors, it could be defended or amended in the same way as Alec is now doing for his personal version, though, so far, Alec himself is the only one to say his version is the one to choose. I prefer to wait for a consensus to emerge and not to act as if a consensus already existed in favour of Alec's preference. Lima 14:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indulgences

"Indulgences are grossly mischaracterised as a ‘forgiveness for money’ quid pro quo, and labelled ‘medieval’ when, in fact, they are also ‘modern’ insofar as they are in use today."

That Indulgences issue is definitely going to be one of the ones we want to really "get right", and it will be hard to do since it is the source of modern religious debate even still. I hope it's clear that the monetary donation thing is just a practice of 16th century church-- but to be sure we summarize it properly, I'll find a quote from EB so we can we're fairly presenting facts. --Alecmconroy 09:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I swapped the text on the indulgence controversy for something more ironclad, letting EB be our guide and basically quoting them on this.

The practice of granting indulgences was a source of controversy which resulted in the Protestant Reformation. During the middle ages, the process of granting indulgences was "increasingly bound up with money", leading to criticisms about the 'sale' of indulgences.

That still may not be consistent with everyone's personal POV-- the indulgence issue has been a bone of contention for a centuries-- but even if it's partially objectionable, at least it is rock-solid Verifiable. --Alecmconroy 13:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

12th cenury

The ODCC does not state that the doctrine of purgatory was first explicitly formulated in the 12th century. I corrected this misreading once before.

Okay, I dealt with this one similarly-- going to EB, taking the lead from them, and sticking closely to the EB text. So, in this case, "explicitly formulated" in the 12th century did indeed seem to be going a tad too far-- instead I swapped to the EB's phrasing "became widespread" in the 12th century. This should be substantially less controversial. :) --Alecmconroy 13:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

ODCC: "In that explicit form [the current, modern form], the doctrine is not found before the 12th century." Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As I explained the first time, the ODCC gives its own definition of the doctrine, then says that that explicit form is not found before the 12th century but that elements of it are much older. Ritterschaft (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a larger quote, so we can see context? --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

ODCC: "purgatory. A term used only in W. Catholic theology for the state (or place) of punishment and purification where the souls of those who have died in a state of grace undergo such punishment as is still due to forgiven sins and, perhaps, expiate their unforgiven venial sins, before being admitted to the Beatific Vision. (paragraph break) In that explicit form, the doctrine is not found before the 12th century, but elements of it are much more ancient..." If there's a Reliable Source that says there was an explicit doctrine of purgatory prior to the 12th century, let's cite it. As near as my reasearch suggests, the 12th century is when the masters of Paris (e.g., Peter Cantor) formally connected previous speculations about purgatorial punishments to penance, a specific place of purification, etc. Leadwind (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm wonder what are the elements of "the doctrine" that are not found before the 12th century. Lima (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand the problem. I am the one who added the quote, from a different source that I found (which keeps getting deleted from the intro) that states that the doctrine emerged as a fully developed concept in the 12th century. There is no need to beat one's head on the wall over this. Ritterschaft (talk) 05:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Painful fire

One cannot say that, historically, purgatory has been envisioned as a place of fiery punishment, but now modern Catholic theologians reject this interpretation. Historically, some theologians have envisioned it as a place of fiery punishment, but some others have disagreed, a diversity of opinion that continues today. Perhaps trends may be distinguished, but not absolutes.

Well, the issue we have here is that we have LOTS of quotes from very ancient theologians suggesting fiery place of punishment, and so far no really good online source explicitly disavowing fiery place of punishment. CCC doesn't mention pain and fire, and that in and of itself is something-- but not as much as we need.

So, the solution for this issue is for us to dig up a good neutral source that talks about the disavowing or the shift away from all the older quotes.

So, let's term you and Lima the anti-fiery POV. Suppose somebody from the pro-fiery point of view came to you and said:

Look, I have all these quotes from ancient pinnacles of the church taking about how the fires of purgatory are going to be the most painful thing in the world. So, obviously, that view once held a LOT of sway with the very best thinkers of the Christian world.

Now, you claim that painful fire isn't the case-- but why should I believe you? All the best quotes I've seen tell me it's incredibly painful. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the 'painful fire' point of view is no longer held? And you can't just point to the ambiguity of the CC on the issue as evidence that anyone disavows painful fire-- because remember, I still have all those quotes from the ancient theologians, and so far, no evidence that those views were disavowed.

Mind you-- I'm not actually saying all those things-- I just phrased it that way to make it easier to respond to. Personally, I have a really good feel for the shift, but for WP:V, we need a dynamite source to substantial your POV that fiery is mostly out, and that Pope Gregory the Great and the Catholic Encyclopedia don't any more represent the best thinking on the this issue. --Alecmconroy 13:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So, to sum up-- yeah, that issue needs work. It was probably the #1 sticking point in the old article, and I think talking about a general trend from ancient pain fire to modern cleansing fire is the way we'll settle this-- but we're not there yet. --Alecmconroy 13:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thirdness

Purgatory is not called a ‘third option’ in any official text, and is more an adjunct element of the option of heaven than an independent option all its own.

I'm afraid I don't understand this criticism-- the new version doesn't list "third option" as a quote of an official text-- it's just narrative filler for people to understand. After particular judgment, there's Hell immediately, Heaven immediately, or Purgatorial Purification -> Heaven. The reason for emphasizing the "thirdness" of it is that most people (outside of the billion RCs of course) are only going to know about heaven and hell. That there is some third state/condition/process aside from Heaven and Hell is the crux of the article --Alecmconroy 13:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A physical place

The easiest way I know of to explain to someone how Purgatory might be a physical place is to start off by explaining the concept that Heaven and Hell might be physical places too-- and most people start to nod their heads and understand. That the view of these states as a physical place is neither authoritative nor modernly attested in RC is, of course, irrelevant-- they were widely held beliefs, and the echos are still found in imagery and language. I tried to find a good image of the Ptolemaic universe with heaven as the outermost sphere of infinite light and hell as the innermost sphere, but none jumped out at me. --Alecmconroy 14:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rev. 22:14-15 describes heaven/hell as being physical locations, who is in/who is out. Purgatory is less clear, though the relationship between Jonah's suffering in the fish and Jesus in the grave for three days (Mat 12:40, Jonah 2) is indicative of temporary suffering, repentance, and freedom. In that, Purgatory is more than a Catholic doctrine and more widely held by non-Catholic Christians and Protestants than this article implies, so quite a bit of work and a lot more research needs to be done here. --- Bikinibomb (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also Muslim and Jewish ideas of Purgatory should be mentioned more as well, see Gehenna. --- Bikinibomb (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bikinibomb, while I personally consider Muslim and Jewish ideas relevant, I don't see them in standard references, so I'm happy to leave them out. The medieval Jewish concept of Gehenna as a place of fiery purgation after death and before ascent to the hereafter is clearly parallel to the medieval Christian concept of same, but I'm willing to leave it out if we can agree to follow standard references throughout the article. Leadwind (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Temporary restoration of old version

To facilitate comparison, I am putting up, just for a moment, the old version, freed from some additions that had been made to it at the last moment by one editor and that had not yet been discussed collegially. The "old version" can then be again replaced by Alecmconroy's.

The older version has elements that I personally do not like, but that I accepted in a spirit of compromise.

I will of course accept whatever will prove to be the general view about which version, the old one or Alecmcconroy's, is the better one to work on in order to improve the article further. Lima 15:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My own view is that things are being done in a backwards way. We had a text that had been hammered by more than a few hands, and, at least to me, seemed to be settling down. Obviously, I am for further discussion of the text. But what has happened is that a new text has been inserted, and discussion is being stirred concerning this new text. Why aren't we looking at the old one as our base model, pondering the new changes, rather than looking at the new one and pondering reinserting the old? I feel a lot of energy is being spent down the wrong road. -- Ritterschaft (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The answer I'd give is-- the old page was highly disputed. The same few editors have been going round and round on this since at least February, with no sign of a consensus version in sight. Sometimes, an outside view coming in, sweeping things and shaking things up, can be helpful.

Obviously, for this to work though, we have to get a lot of outside eyes to come look the page over and act as our compass-- so far, we've only gotten one such comment, and it was somewhat ambiguous. We'll know more about the direction the article should take as more comments trickle in.

If people liked my direction, then it was a good one, and we just ahve to do some polish and balancing. If people don't like the direction I took things, then I'm not the person who can solve the stalemate, and the content dispute will continue until the regulars work it out, or some other new blood with a better vision comes along. ---- Alecmconroy (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

In the still-evolving form the article had reached after much work in the last weeks, by how many people was it "highly disputed"? Ever since Leadwind called for more people to join in the discussion, there has been a steady advance, not a stalemate. Only one editor has expressed dissatisfaction with the progress, the editor who called others in to give their views and who at one stage declared: "My RfC has already paid off." Why not wait now for comments from the further editors whom Alec has invited in? Then we can decide on which version to base the polishing and balancing. -- Lima (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I too am more optimistic about the progress that was being made. Ultimately, there is no reason that a combination of the articles cannot be employed, but the sudden switch and requests for comments and polishing is, to me, not constructive. -- Ritterschaft (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah-- those are all valid opinions if you think the new article was a step backwards. I have to say, I guess I took it as too much of a foregone conclusion that the editors here at purgatory would read the new version and instantly agree that, aside from a few problem areas, it was a step in the right direction.

Rest assured-- I'm not trying to crowbar the new one into being accepted-- that will happen if and only if there's a general opinion that stylistically, it was an improvement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, you say that the version you put up is "freed from some additions that had been made to it at the last moment by one editor [me] and that had not yet been discussed collegially." In other words, you reverted my work without explanation, even though some of that work was properly sourced. First, please call a spade a spade. If you assume the authority to revert my sourced edits without explanation, simply be brave and say so. Second, I'd like our little community of editors to give me a reality check. Is it OK for Lima to revert my sourced edits without explanation? If not, would you please ask him to stop. LostCaesar before him and now he as well have repeatedly used this tactic, and if it's wrong, Lima should stop. On the other hand, if the assumption is that we can simply revert without explanation each others' sourced work, then that's news to me and I'll adjust my own conduct accordingly. Leadwind (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For example

As I've said, the main problem with the old version was it would be incomprehensible to novices. Let me go through the over versions and intro and just bold all the instances of terminology that will be incomprehensible or difficult to parse for someone who comes here to actually learn about Purgatory.

Purgatory, or "the final purification of the elect", is a process by which, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, souls are purified after death. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "all who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."[1] In more technical language, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church describes purgatory as "a term used only in W[estern] Catholic theology for the state (or place) of punishment and purification where the souls of those who have died in a state of grace undergo such punishment as is still due to forgiven sins and, perhaps, expiate their unforgiven venial sins, before being admitted to the Beatific Vision." [2]

Belief in purgatory developed out of the ancient practice of prayer for the dead, and the notion that not all souls are condemned to Hell or worthy of Heaven at the moment of death.[2] Important theologians, including St. Augustine and Gregory the Great, contributed to the understanding of the soul’s purification after death, prior to the General Resurrection. Curiosity in the West concerning this interim state helped give rise to later theology,[2] and by the twelfth century Purgatory had emerged as a fully developed concept,[3] achieving formal doctrinal definition at the Councils of Lyon (1245, 1274), Florence (1439), and Trent (1545-63).

See what I mean? And the whole article is full of that sort of terminology used without first being explained.

If you look, the only change the rewrite did was to go slow and make it comprehensible. I tried, though perhaps I didn't succeed, to make it POV-neutral, that is, I tried to make the rewrite have the same POV as the original. But I fully accept balancing might be needed.

But, look at all the bolded words, and try to image what this article looks like to someone who come here to learn about Purgatory, without already knowing. Large portions are basically goobledygook. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that most people interested enough to read up about purgatory will have some idea of the meaning of these words and, if they want to learn more, will know that a mouse-click will help for those in blue. I can't believe that the word "catechism" would be an insuperable difficulty for them. And if the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church could permit itself to write of "venial sins", "state of grace", "Beatific Vision", I don't see why a Wikipedia article on religion should be barred from doing the same, especially in view of the existence of wikilinks. Gobbledygook? No. Lima (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not that we're barred from using that terminology, it's just that have the luxury of not being force to be as concise. We don't have the same limitations as a paper encyclopedia. If the ODCC tried to define all its terms before using them in each and every article, it'd quickly get too heavy to lift-- but Wikipedia is not paper-- we have the luxury of explaining our terms completely before we use them. See Wikipedia:Explain jargon.

The other issue of course is that ODCC is for a very specialized audience-- people and institutions that are specialized enough and affluent enough to want to purchase a copy of the ODCC. Whereas wikipedia usually hopes to be more generally comprehensible, since we're free and internet-based and world-wide.

Take the word Catechism. You argue people are probably going to understand it, and you might be right-- but can't we accomplish the exact same ends without using unexplained jargon? The rewrite conveys the same basic info, but in a way that avoided unexplained jargon. If it's not perfectly balanced or has other minor specific problems, that's something to address, but the basic idea of going through and rewriting this so that it can reach a wide audience is, I think, a very good one. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Alec, you cut other statements too, like "The doctrine contributed greatly to Christian spirituality, ritual, piety, and imagination, giving rise to various devotions and literary works," and "like the physical horrors of the process of death itself, [these miseries] were evoked not to curdle the blood and oppress the spirit, but to stir the living to present action." I don't understand this kind of removal. And the issue of technical language can not be a factor in the addition of statements such as where you said that indulgences are "forgiveness for money". I will try and remove some of the jargon from the article that you do not favour, but I do not see the profit in these other changes. And as for the jargon, I do understand that our society has become so secularised that children are religiously illiterate. They know words like 'prophylactic' but not words like 'beatific'. Nonetheless it is permissible to assume basic literacy in religious concepts, especially when no simplified expression will suffice. Personally, I think the current CCC understands this, and does an excellent job in its summary of purgatory of avoiding words like 'state of grace' and 'venial /mortal sins', but you seem to disfavour this articulation. Ritterschaft (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow-- that's a lot to digest. Let me take it one step at a time. Keep in mind that none of these are not firm "it must be so"-- they're just glorified edit summarizes.

"The doctrine contributed greatly to Christian spirituality, ritual, piety, and imagination, giving rise to various devotions and literary works".

This statement, though potentially true, was unsourced. It's wording is such that it would be very difficult to see that sentence as Verifiably true. It basically an opinion, and one that doesn't clearly seem to come from any single source. I was trying to make an article that could go all the way to Feature Article-- one were EVERY SINGLE sentence is verifiable, sourced. And I looked at that sentence and thought "How can I prove, beyond doubt, this is so? If someone comes to me and says 'Is not.', what can I do to instantly prove them that it is verifiable?"

Mind you, I'm not saying it wasn't true-- I'm saying it's not verifiable. There also might be NPOV issues-- that's always a problem with unsourced overview opinions, although that wasn't my primary concern.

"like the physical horrors of the process of death itself, [these miseries] were evoked not to curdle the blood and oppress the spirit, but to stir the living to present action."

Again this is an opinion-- sourced this time, but still one that speculates about motivations outside the context of the purgatory section. For example, another opinion is that physical horrors were evoke neither to curdle the blood nor stir the living, but merely because this is what people genuinely believed, simple as that.

Speculation about motives of long-dead theologians is a little off-topic, at least during the overview of what people have actually believed purgatory to be. Again, I'm not saying it's NOT true-- I think it probably is. But the speculation of WHY they taught is tricky. "Why" somebody does something is a complex subject, frought with NPOV issues. The question for the overview section is "What is this Purgatory thing?" The motives of medieval theologians isn't a good fit for that subject.

"And the issue of technical language can not be a factor in the addition of statements such as where you said that indulgences are 'forgiveness for money'"

First off, I can't actually find any "forgiveness for money" in the new version. Secondly, I personally never ever ever said indulgences were 'forgivness for money'. I personally never ever would say that. What I did do, and what I have to do, is quote EB's discussion of the concerns of Protestant theologians who criticism of the relationship between money and indulgences.

There is a huge difference right there-- just because I quoted a view does not mean I personally agree with it. I quoted it because all the other encyclopedias I could find, as well as all of the books I checked out, made mention of that criticism in their article purgatory. My hands are tied-- I can't NOT mention the indulgence crisis-- it's only one of the central criticisms that led to the largest schism of the last millennium-- there's no way to not mention it. To the extent that the old article doesn't mention the criticism, the old article has a POV issue.

That said, we do want to quote the criticism tactfully and neutrally. The initial version of the rewrite, quoting the infamous Tetzel rhyme, did need some polishing. The revised sentence is: "During the middle ages, the process of granting indulgences was "increasingly bound up with money", leading to criticisms about the 'sale' of indulgences. " This is taken nearly verbatim from EB-- you can take it to the bank, it's Verifiable, Verified, and as balanced as a wikipedia article can hope to get, I think.

"I do understand that our society has become so secularised that children are religiously illiterate/ They know words like 'prophylactic' but not words like 'beatific'."

Exactly. And that's who we want to be able to reach with this. Whenever possible, I want Wikipedia main articles to be comprehensible to an average-to-bright middle schooler. In some cases, it just won't be possible-- but I think it IS possible here, and that's the way to Feature Article. --Alecmconroy (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So it seems, after all, that you did change the text upon grounds far more encompassing than a desire to eliminate jargon. All of the sudden, we learn that you were motivated to remove ‘opinions’ about ‘motivations’, and that you ‘cannot not mention the indulgence crisis’ because you think it is a pov issue. Why did we never, ever, hear of these opinions of yours before?

On specific points: (1) The statement about contributing to Christian spirituality is sourced (Duffy p. 349). (2) The statement about the ‘miseries’ is a sourced statement by a historian (of the Reformation, no less). (3) Your statement that you are quoting verbatim from the EB on the indulgences quote nicely neglects that your first edit, to which I was responding, was not a quote from the EB. You wrote about the “Catholic church's practice of granting "indulgences"... in exchange for monetary donations to the Church,” and your citation simply said “EB”.

Whatever the case, if you want to raise issues such as your belief that indulgences should be more discussed, etc., then I think that’s a fine thing for us to discuss. I would have no problem with that dialogue; indeed, I would encourage it. However, you should not revise the article under the justification that you are removing jargon and then unilaterally introduce unpolished material on this topic without comment. I hope you can see how that would be bothersome.

To conclude, I will simply give an overview of my opinion on the indulgence matter. The article is about purgatory. Indulgences might have relevance in two places. One is on the good works done for the dead. The other would be the section on reformation history (the only place where the ‘crisis’ would be appropriate). This ‘crisis’ is so limited in scope that a heavy handed inclusion of it is hard to justify. It only occurred for a few years in the history of indulgences, and only occurred in a limited geographical area (Spain, Italy, and Southern France, for example, were wholly devoid of indulgences until they were introduced with the Counter-Reformation by an unashamed Catholic Church). And all this has far more to do with indulgences than purgatory (Luther, after all, rejected indulgences and upheld purgatory for a number of years). Ritterschaft (talk) 11:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it's clear your objection to the direction I suggested is substantial-- I guess we'll have to see what other people think. If your view is common, clearly, I'm not who the article needs at the moment-- not that I won't still be happy to lend my suggestions when needed, but if your view is the correct one, my "internal compass" is sufficiently awhack that I probably won't be of much help. We'll have to see if others detect the same stylistic problems in the old version as I did.

To ask "Why did we never, ever, hear of these opinions of yours before?"-- the answer is I actually consider whatever POV issue there are to be relatively minor compared to the issue of simplicity and jargon. Until you pointed it out, I honestly didn't even realize the exclusion of any discussion of the Indulgences Criticisms was a conscious decision-- I assumed that in between all the organizational issues and stylistic issues, the exclusion was just an oversight. Which of course, is why we talk about these things. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Indulgences are key to understanding the Protestant Reformation, to which something like 40% of current Christians are closely connected, and with which any student of European history should be familiar. If, by purgatory, we mean that real place or condition of punishment and purification that (only) the RCC teaches, then indulgences aren't that important. If, by purgatory, we mean the belief system that historians track and describe, then indulgences are pretty important. It's the policy of nonsectarian references (e.g., WP) to treat matters such as purgatory not as real supernatural phenomena but as belief systems. So indulgences are more important to a nonsectarian (e.g. WP) understanding of P than they are to a Catholic understanding of P. Leadwind (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is about purgatory (whether the reader considers it real or not), not about the Protestant Reformation. Nor is it primarily about ideas associated with that of purgatory, though these can quite suitably be dealt with in secondary fashion, distinguishing between the idea of purgatory and these other ideas. Lima (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk about Galileo and Torquemada too? Ritterschaft (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft: "Can we talk about Galileo and Torquemada too?" Absolutely, as soon as we see these topics pop up in good, nonsectarian reference articles on P, then we should include them here. Until then, let's limit ourselves to topic such as indulgences, which do appear in such references. We're not experts. The experts say that indulgences belong in a discussion of P. We're in no position to disagree. Leadwind (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lima & Ritterschaft--- I know it's an unpleasant subject, and I don't relish having to dig it up, but I don't reasonably see how an article on Purgatory can't make mention of it. A reader will want to know: Who doesn't believe in Purgatory?, and the answer is the protestants. Why don't they believe in purgatory? and the answer involves mention of indulgences. Check any encyclopedia written for a general point of view and you'll see indulgences get a mention. We have to mention it, but hopefully, we don't have to harp on it or let it expand beyond a sentence or two. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The current article mentions indulgences twice. I'm fine with how it is. Ritterschaft (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So, neither Ritterschaft nor I want to exclude mentions of indulgences. I thought that was quite clear. "A reader will want to know: Who doesn't believe in Purgatory?, and the answer is the protestants. Why don't they believe in purgatory? and the answer involves mention of indulgences." So in the section dealing with the attitude of Protestants go into their ideas of what indulgences are as much as you like, even beyond a sentence or two. As Ritterschaft says, indulgences are mentioned in the part that tells of purgatory. I can't swallow the notion that the typical reader has the idea that purgatory was something or other that had to do with indulgences, and will look for this above all else in an article on purgatory. Lima (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind's edits

Leadwind's silence on Alec's intervention showed he was not Wiki-active at the time. Now that Leadwind is back, we can discuss his edits. I thought it inappropriate to do so in his absence.

Leadwind inserted an additional first paragraph in the section "Purgatory as taught by the Roman Catholic Church":

On an individual's death, that eternal fate of the deceased (heaven, hell, or possibly limbo) is decided. Those destined for heaven but not yet pure go through purgatory. In purgatory, they suffer punishment for mortal sins whose guilt has been forgiven but whose debt of punishment has not yet been remitted. In life, one can remit such debt through penance. After death, the living can help to remit one's debt through prayer, especially the Eucharist, as well as through alms, penance, and indulgences. Guilt for venial sins might also be expiated in purgatory.<ref name="Oxford">Oxford<ref>

I think there is enough in this section without adding this to it. But if others think differently, let them reinsert this paragraph. It needs a touch of copyediting (what is "that eternal fate?). While it does not seem to be in the style of an Oxford Dictionary, I presume that it is an accurate presentation of the contents of the source.

2. In the first paragraph of the "Prayer for the dead" section Leadwind made the Catechism of the Catholic Church say only that the Church has practised it from the beginning, not that its teaching is based on the practice. That is simply false: see CCC 1032.

3. Leadwind's editing at the start of the "Temporal punishment" section is something to which I do not object. In his absence I did not want to pick and choose among his edits. Now I can.

4. Even Alecmcontroy wants to keep a section on the Eastern Catholic Churches, which Leadwind commented out.

5. I am restoring Leadwind's alteration of the Gregory the Great image caption. I presume, without checking, that it is correct.

6. I do not question the statement about Cathars and Waldensians.

In sum, three of Leadwind's edits are preserved, one is superseded and opposed by Alec, one is simply wrong, and the remaining one I dislike, but I will not, unless supported, oppose its reinsertion. Lima (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the mention of Cathars and Waldensians needs to be reflected upon. The Cathars's eccentric soteriology is complex, even if unsophisticated, and difficult to weave into the section without a modicum of context. It makes the cathars and protestants seem rather analogous, which is clearly inaccurate. Protestants and Eastern Orthodox are worth mentioning because they are still around; its unclear whether a gazetteer of long dead medieval fringe movements would be within the scope of the article. Ritterschaft (talk) 18:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Cathars and Waldensians: If the experts behind ODCC think it's worth mentionining, I don't see how we're in any position to second-guess them. Leadwind (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, would you care to be more explicit about your understanding of the reversion protocol? You seem to be saying that it's OK to revert an editor's sourced edits without explanation provided that the editor in question is AFK. Is that the policy that you're following? If not, why did you revert my sourced edits without explanation? Leadwind (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

History subpage

Now that there are some new editors looking at this page, maybe we can settle an issue over which we've been split: should the "history" section get spun off to its own page and summarized here? Leadwind (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Current version

I have taken the liberty of attempting to implement the requests for a readable prose article together with the interests of accuracy and content reflected by all editors. I hope this contribution goes far in establishing an acceptable text for all. My attempt has been to develop a version of the article that is consistent with the version that had been achieved through lengthy contributions by many good willed editors. Because this version, which could now be called the ‘old version’, was very recently replaced by another text which I have not used as a base model, I feel the need to justify this decision.

Alec came in, rather unannounced, and took the article that had been hammered on by many hands, and unilaterally changed it, in the name of readable prose. He then immediately archived the entire talk page, with the result (wanted or unwanted) that no newcomer would know the extensive process of deliberation whereupon the now ‘old version’ had been forged. He then, forthwith, sought a request for comment on his version, effectively seeking an external stamp of approval in what certainly feels like railroading others, including myself, whose edits, brought about through a fair bit of research and time-consuming work, were summarily removed. Only later, through inquiry, was it discovered that Alec had many other motivations, hitherto undiscussed, lurking behind his heavy handed manœuvres.

Because Alec’s desire to see readable prose found widespread acceptance, not least of which by myself, I have undertaken the revision of the ‘old version’ with a view to this goal, and, if I may say, I believe it has been nigh achieved. As for Alecs other concerns, all of which have proved to be more controversial than the issue of prose, I hope we can work in collaboration, through communal discussion, and achieve an agreement on them. Ritterschaft (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry my actions seems to have put you off a bit. If I was a tad unilateral, forgive me-- I actually thought people were actively seeking substantial help getting the article redone and thought I could provide that help. I think and hope that when enough people have gotten to look at it, it will be clear actually I did a good job of things-- but I certainly didn't mean to ruffle feathers in the process.

For starters-- the archiving the talk page was just a minor matter of convenience for new people come the the page. _PLEASE_ feel free to unarchive sections you feel would we helpful.

I will continue to refrain from editing for the moment, and I certainly won't edit-war over this, because even though there seems to be growing support for the changes I made-- there is no deadline. You'll forgive me if I do revert back from time to time in order to make more sourcing and polishing edits to the version I think will ultimately take hold here-- but I won't do it out of an edit-war like nature or anything like that, but I certainly won't try to force the issue until we reach a firmer consensus that the new version is an improvement. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

But have you seen the changes to the other version? I think you will like them and may even be satisfied. Btw, my feathers are ok =) Ritterschaft (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, I have to admit I can't see the choice you ask me (some ways above) to make as lying between "difficult to read and right," and "easy to read and wrong". If prose is flawed, it fails to express what was intended. Thereby it becomes wrong. And... well... I'm trying to put this tactfully.. but I'm not sure it can be done. Anyway, some of you guys don't seem to have a realistic idea of the difficulties involved in producing an easy-to-read text. It takes practice and stuff.

/me stares incredulously at the first paragraph of the Lead offered by Ritterschaft on Nov 18 as "easy to read":

"Purgatory is the process of purification which, according to Roman Catholic belief, those who died in God’s grace and friendship undergo purification".
"not everyone who died and did not deserve hell was nonetheless not yet ready for the eternal perfection of heaven." '
/me experimentally removes two out of three negations. Nervously puts them back.
/me notes that the phrasing was later changed to
Purgatory is the process of purification by which, according to Roman Catholic belief, those who died in God’s grace and friendship undergo purification"
"concerning those who died and were not condemned, not everyone was as yet ready for the eternal perfection of heaven".
/me fails to cheer up. Goes crazy, edits the "concerning", please don't say "concerning," people, it hurts. Or just revert, whatever. Bishonen | talk 20:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC).

Alec, " I actually thought people were actively seeking substantial help getting the article redone." I have been actively seeking substantial help getting the article redone since February. Thus two mediations and two RfCs. While I was AFK over the summer, the article got worse. If you thought that better writing would be welcome, maybe that just means you don't appreciate what you're up against. Leadwind (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you recall, I was one of those people who came here upon request. The lack of appreciation is remarkable. Ritterschaft (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder too did Leadwind notice that "while he was AFK over the summer", I too refrained from editing the article: I felt there was no need to do so while his slant wasn't being imposed. Lima (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, thanks for pitching in. With your help, we finally got "punishment" into the first paragraph, past Lima's resistance. We also got rid of all those "according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" clauses. When it was just Lima and me, there was no hope for progress. I'm grateful that you're willing to respect the authority of the ODCC on most points, if not all of them. Leadwind (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For example, the intro rewrite

So, because of the concern that I made too many edits too fast so that it was hard to see what had changed, I starting with this edit went through and transformed the intro over the course of about 20 edits. I made extensive use of edit comments so that people could see the reasoning, and better that understand the continuity.

The result is a page which, I think, does not use ANY unexplained jargon. It's brief. It doesn't involve unnecessary details. I think anyone could walk in off the street and read it and understand it.

I know there are a few hotspots in the "new" intro that people are probably going to want to discuss:

1. A lot of people have objected to the mentioning of purgatory as a place of "fiery punishment", but it clearly was the case that it was so-perceived. I don't see how we can not mention this believe, although we can of course talk someone who belive

2. Summarizing what the Protestant objection to Purgatory and Indulgences was is also going to be controversial. It's essential to explain it, but I know that's going to be a sore spot that we have to work at to get right.

So, there's one "for example" of the difference in writing styles. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

There's a POV tag on this page because it's more pro-purgatory than standard, non-sectarian reference works. The page was given a pro-purgatory overhaul in February by LostCaesar, a now-semi-retired editor. Lima has almost single-handedly prevented me from fixing the page. The page has made some progress thanks to Ritterschaft, et al, but it's still leaning toward the RCC POV.

Compare this article to purgatory articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica Online or the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and you'll see what I mean. There's a lot going on, P has long been a controversial topic, and the lines between theological speculation, church teaching, and official doctrine can be hard to follow. But I think I can summarize the POV issue thus: it's the RCC POV that purgatory and related ideas are more widespread in history and outside the RCC than one sees in nonsectarian scholarship. Two examples: history and the Eastern Orthodox.

When charting the history of P, the RCC POV is to emphasize continuity over time. EBO and ODCC, on the other hand, lay out changes over time. What should we say about Augustine? That he advocated praying for the dead (continuity)? Or that he insisted that prayer only helps the saved (change from previous concepts)? Those favoring the RCC POV like to show continuity. But nonsectarian sources point out change. Again, the history section is full of references to relatively minor works because they reputedly demonstrate P-like beliefs. Meanwhile, it gives short shrift to Augustine (Augustine!). The history section over-emphasizes continuity and downplays change.

When describing the EO beliefs relative to P, the RCC POV is to emphasize similarity. The EO do believe that the saved wait somewhere before entering heaven and that prayer can help them. Sounds close to purgatory. But they pray for saints (Catholics don't). They believe that the saved enter heaven simultaneously rather than one by one. Most telling, they believe that the saved rest in light while awaiting heaven, while the RCC teaches that the saved undergo punishment before entering heaven. So which slant should this article have? Let's have it follow the lead of other nonsectarian encyclopedias.

I acknowledge that I have a POV of my own, but I'm willing to set it aside and follow the lead of nonsectarian encyclopedias. Lima isn't. Neither he nor I is an expert. Neither of us should be trusted to look at the evidence and formulate a description of P. Let's look at what the scholarly, nonsectarian experts say and cite them. Leadwind (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am interested in these criticisms of the history section. I understand the debate about the lead, but I am not quite so sure that I can follow these complaints on the history section. I do think we should track both the continuity and change (one does not make sense without the other). But I don’t see the validity of the specific criticisms. We do mention Augustine, calling him ‘most significant’, and we even give him a picture. Granted, he gets only one sentence, but so does everyone else, except Gregory the Great and Martin Luther, two figures that could be classified as ‘discontinuity’. Augustine only mentioned purgation in the after life in a handful of places (as the ODCC explicitly states). I am not sure what ‘relatively minor’ works you are referring to, but I don’t see any that I would be comfortable omitting. As for scholarly references, I think this is certainly a way forward, but I would like to point out that the article has 85 different citations, 15 of which come from the ODCC, and virtually every sentence in the history section is cited by texts that are, beyond doubt, not apologetic in nature. Ritterschaft (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, postscript, at some point I would like to talk about the Waldensians and Cathars in the context of the history section. I think your interest in saying something about them is worth thinking about. But its minor, and I'd rather do the lead first. Just hold the thought for the time being. Ritterschaft (talk) 17:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima's lead

I just reverted Lima's lead again.

LostCaesar kept reference to punishment out of the lead. That's unusual since most standard, scholarly, nonsectarian reference works include "punishment" in the primary defintion (first sentence) of a P article. Thanks to Ritterschaft, et al, we were able to get "punishment" into the first paragraph. Then Alec put it in the very first sentence (where one usually finds it). In response, Lima redid the lead, relying on the Catechism for a description of P, writing of how the EO beliefs are similar to P, distancing the RCC from its long tradition of saying that P is a place of fiery punishment, etc. It's a simple POV issue. Does our definition of P look like the definition in standard, nonsectarian reference works? Lima's did not. Ours should. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: The lead that Lima overwrote cited the Catholic Encyclopedia, which puts the word "punishment" in the primary definition (first sentence), like the ODCC and EBO. "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." emphasis mine Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Leadwind is so hung up on punishment. One would think that the literal meaning of the word "purgatory" would naturally come first and that it would be enough to say later, as I did, that the transitional state after death is thought of as either purification or as punishment for sins. Interestingly, the Eastern Orthodox hierarchs who met in Bethlehem in 1672 and issued what has been called "the most vital statement of faith made in the Greek Church during the past thousand years" spoke of afterlife punishment, not of purification, of repentant sinners who have not brought forth fruits of repentance. Lima (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, in Orthodox belief, man has a disorderd nature as a result of the fall that causes him to love creatures as ends rather than the creator. This is 'sin', a facing away from God, and must be converted (turned around), a process which, when achieved in perfection, results in theosis, in a mirror image of God in man, man who, like an unspotted mirror, reflects the radiant beauty of the face of God in an eternal mutual gaze of love. The purification in the afterlife is simply the purging of man's disordered longing for creatures. Until theosis is complete, man suffers the punishments that naturally flow from sin, from his misguided gaze. In this concept, it is impossible not to describe those short of theosis as anything but suffering and in a state of punishment (not so much from God as from the very nature of sin). Ritterschaft (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are below. Here I would just like to point out that the Catholic Encyclopedia online from New Advent is the 1913 collection. A more recent collection was issued in 1964. I prefer the old one, because the new one has 33% less material, and because it cut out articles on figures of early medieval interest such as king Edwin whom I happen to like. But I think it would be helpful to compare the 1911 with the 1964. Also, I believe a new volume is forthcoming, if not already produced, one which would be able to incorporate the latest text from the Catechism (published in 1992). Ritterschaft (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, "I wonder why Leadwind is so hung up on punishment." Because that's what other encyclopedias say, even the Catholic Encyclopedia. The degree to which the "punishment" issue is excluded or relegated to secondary status is a measure of how POV the page is. It's a very simple measure that any reader can see. Other encyclopedias say "punishment" in the primary definition. We don't. Why not? Because you don't want us to. No one's ever explained why our primary defintion of purgatory should be different from other encyclopedias' primary definition. It's not like we're experts who can assess the evidence and make our own judgment. Let's be humble and say what the experts say. Leadwind (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Compare leads?

Leadwind has reverted the introduction alone. Does that mean he thinks it is time to begin considering the article section by section, instead of whole article by whole article, as Alec wants. So far, Alec hasn't had the overwhelming support he expected for his version.

If and when we do begin a section-by-section comparison, we can consider, among other things, whether Alec's text or its present rival has more jargon. (This isn't the moment for me to argue about that.) Also, unlike Leadwind, I think that a Church is the best source of knowledge of its teaching. Alec's text, with applause from Leadwind, uses the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church as its source for what the Eastern Orthodox Church holds. I, on the other hand, think that a much better source is a declaration by a Council of the Eastern Church patriarchs. The same diversity of opinion concerns the teaching of the Catholic Church. (Of what other Church or group is purgatory a teaching?) Alec's text distorts Catholic teaching outright, justifying the reversion from his text that I will carry out later. Some individuals may have presented indulgences as "a pardoning of the sins of souls in Purgatory"; but we can't have Wikipedia say, as if it were a fact, that that is what indulgences are. The Church believes she has power on earth to forgive sins, but recognizes she has no jurisdiction over the dead. (On indulgences too, a little learning is a dangerous thing.) Perhaps it is just such distortions that make certain people prefer texts that contain them. Lima (talk) 16:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems we now have three options for the lead. One, I will call the ‘base’ model, has a long history. Another option is Alec’s text, which has found mixed reception, not least of which by myself, though everyone has been appreciative of the effort. The third is Lima’s text, which I must confess I have not had time to examine. I think the right way forward is to concentrate on issues in succession, rather than all in one, and to take collective strides at improving particular sections of the article. Rome was not built in a day. I will return the article to ‘base’ form, since I think a collective effort must build on a status quo. Ritterschaft (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the newcomers can now see how hard it is to agree on this topic. Does anyone have a proposal for how to agree? I do. We model our page closely on the EBO or ODCC or a synthesis of those two articles. Leadwind (talk) 06:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As a newcomer I am finding it hard to read through the mass of commentary and know how to make a constructive comment. As a general principle, however, I have found it best in WP to return to the sources. As the Purgatory concept arises in Catholic thought, then the best sources for Catholic belief must be referred to in sufficient detail. This requires quotes, but not too long or too many. It might be helpful to bear in mind the needs of the reader, say someone from a different Christian tradition, or from a different religion. A history section seems like a good idea as there are enough sources to show how the concept emerged and evolved. All material about parallels or similar concepts to Purgatory in Orthodox and Protestant churches should be in its own section, with care taken to use good sources and not allow any original research. It should also be borne in mind that the article should have a Neutral Point of View and should therefore include all notable criticisms of the concept of Purgatory. I don't know if this helps. I am having similar problems in helping out with the structure of Virgin Birth of Jesus which I think still includes too much complex theological argument. If anyone wanted to cast a look, it would be appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"purgatorium"

Current text: It was in this century that the afterlife purification acquired the name "''purgatorium''", from Latin ''purgare'' (to cleanse).<ref>C. S. Watkins, "Sin, penance and purgatory in the Anglo-Norman realm: the evidence of visions and ghost stories", in ''Past and Present'' 175 (May 2002) pp. 3-33.</ref>

Proposed text: In the 12th century, the place where souls were purified was first given the name purgatory (purgatorium).

Or: Western theologians had sometimes written of purgatorial places, and the 12th century, the place where souls were purified was first given the name purgatory (purgatorium).

LostCaesar liked saying that the term "purgatory" applied to a process or condition, not to a place, but in the 12th century it was a place. LC's citation is pretty minor compared to Le Goff, and for all we know Watkins says "place," too.

I'd like to work on the history section, but if the future of the page is in question, I'll have to go slow. Leadwind (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone care to give me a reason not to move forward? Leadwind (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that by "working on the history section" you mean something other than what you are already doing in trying to introduce controversial changes in it.

Do you mean writing a separate article, not just a section? If I remember right, outside commentators have said that history is very useful in the main article. So I do not think that the idea of writing a new highly detailed article on history, even if anyone does favour it, is a valid reason for reducing the information on history in the present article. Lima (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking for input on the single sentence that I've proposed changing. The outside commentators were split on whether to have a history sub page. I'm only removing information that's off-topic or poorly sourced. Leadwind (talk) 14:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see how Bernstein's view that "the insistence that there was no purgatory until it was conceived as a place represented by a noun seems unnecessarily strict" can be considered off-topic. The same holds for Monica's request, given as a concrete example of how "Celebration of the Eucharist for the dead was also practiced, and is attested to since at least the third century". Lima (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This section demonstrates the futility of trying to go slow and work by consensus. I asked for simple feedback on a single sentence and I got no feedback until I pinged the page 5 days later. Editors accuse me of going too fast, but when I try to go slow they ignore me. Sorry, but waiting 5 days for feedback on each sentence, multiplied by the number of contentious sentences on this page, that's too slow. Leadwind (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

With so many other changes competing for attention, why complain about failure to comment on one? Why not concentrate on one section at a time? Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Muddled sentence?

From the lead:

The process is described also as temporal punishment for venial faults and for incomplete satisfaction for serious transgressions that have been repented...

Is this English? Surely there are too many fors. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

On this and other pages, Lima likes to edit my edits, adding clauses and long words. You've found his latest. Leadwind (talk) 00:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Gerald O'Collins

LostCaesar liked a particular Jesuit Father, one Gerald O'Collins. O'Collins is indeed a scholar, and he aspires to an ecumenical audience. But he's been accused of bias in his would-be "objective" work, and I wouldn't exactly trust him on any controversial points. [1] Leadwind (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Prayer for the dead

The article spends too much time on prayer for the dead. The topic is purgatory. A paragraph on prayer for the dead in ancient times is enough. The article is long as it is. Prayer for the dead pertain to P. Catacomb inscriptions do not. Leadwind (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Anthony Dragini

One particular Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Mount Aloysius College in Cresson, Pennsylvania, one with a book to sell, gets a lot of play on this page. [2] Let's see what the page looks like without this guy. Leadwind (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima really likes Dragini because he says that purgatory is in line with Eastern Christianity. Unfortunately, self-published material is not vetted by the scholarly community and doesn't usually count as a reliable source. If someone can verify that Dagini's web site is a reliable source, I won't delete the references. Leadwind (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

This misrepresents what Dragini, who doesn't like the word "purgatory" because of "some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable", actually says, namely that on the only two points that are necessary dogma there is agreement between the Latin Church and his Eastern Catholic Church. Who denies that statement? In any case, all that the article says is that a theologian of Eastern Catholic Greek tradition (i.e. Dragini) describes the attitude of his Church in that way. Now, that is patently undeniable. Lima (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's forget whether Dragini is partisan and let's forget what he actually says. Citing him is a violation of WP policy because he's not a reliable source. If there's a place to include this material, find it in WP policy and show it to us. Lima, here's your chance to show us all that you can set aside your POV and edit WP accordging to its policies. You like Dragini, but his web site is not a reliable source. Remove the material yourself. If you won't remove material that you like but that violates WP policy, then that's POV. If you want to argue that it's not POV, then point to policy. Leadwind (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I acknowledge my inability to understand how it can be affirmed that Dragini is not a reliable source about the belief of his Church and that citing him violates some WP policy or other. Lima (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

If there's some part of WP's verifiability policy that you don't understand, and you sincerely want to understand it, we could probably help explain it to you. Leadwind (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Then please explain it by quoting the part that indicates that a UGCC theologian is not a reliable source on UGCC teaching. Lima (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, UGCC theologians may indeed be reliable, but self-published web sites are not. Does that answer your question? If there's a special exception to Verifiability for theologians speaking on their own traditions, just find it and show it to us. I'm going to remove the Dragini information. If anyone wants to head me off or (heaven forbid) revert me, please explain your view with reference to WP policy. This isn't an issue of preference or being on-topic. This isn't even a guideline issue. It's a policy issue. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Lima on this one. Dragani is an academic who has chosen to post views on his website. This wouldn't make sense if he were a pharmacologist but does make sense for a theologian. I see it as more a question of undue weight than one of reliability. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Judith, I was going to nix Dragini tonight, but I'll give him a reprieve for you. Having struggled with Lima for a long time, especially over the confusing and contentious EO/ECC issue, maybe I'm oversensitive. Still, this is a policy issue. If I'm wrong, someone should be able to quote policy in defense of Dragini. Policy is that self-published websites are, by default, not verifiable. You could use Dragini's site in an article about Dragini, but WP wants reliable sources that are open to outside criticism and oversight. Since this is a policy issue, not a judgment call, I need to see some reference to policy in Dragini's defense. The exclusion of self-published material makes no general exception for academics, certainly not unknown assistant professors. If this guy were an acknowledged expert (say, Le Goff), then maybe. If you can't cite policy to defend Dragini, then there's no defending him. I don't mind having some patience on this issue so that other editors can get up to speed on policy, but if I've given a policy reason to cut him, and I'll cut him unless I get a policy reason not to. Leadwind (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it altogether high-handed to "nix" a theologian on the grounds of a single person's reading of a Wikipedia policy, a reading that at least two others disagree with? In my reading, the policy does not say that nothing self-published is acceptable as a source. And does any source, self-published or not, dispute what Dragani says? Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragini is self-published, a violation of WP verifiability policy (not just a guideline). He is talking about feelings and emotional baggage, not about written doctrine. I finally did cut him. Leadwind (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the Wikipedia policy, "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources", can be cited as excluding the mention of a statement about the doctrine of a particular Church by a theologian of that Church, when it is clearly verifiable that he did make the statement. Lima (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, it's super-easy. Just go to verifiability and find the quote that proves I'm wrong. Copy, paste. This isn't about what you can see. This is about written policy. For all I know, I am wrong, and you really can find a quote that proves it. Go for it. Leadwind (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Curious. The only thing I found was what I already copied and pasted: "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources" (emphasis added, to indicate that this isn't an absolute rule). What should I have copied and pasted? The burden of proof surely lies on the person who claims that a statement about his own Church's doctrine that a theologian verifiably made may not be quoted. Lima (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The policy states specific exceptions to the general rule. Find a specific exception that fits Dragini. There's an exception for articles about the self-publisher (e.g., an article about Dragini could use his site). If there's an exception for "a statement about his own Church's doctrine that a theologian verifiably made," then find it. Plus, D isn't just talking about doctrine. He's talking about others' psychological states and motivations. Why are they uncomfortable, etc. That's interpretation, not doctrine. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I still do not see the quoted statement as a universal rule. It explicitly mentions the possibility of exceptions, and nowhere states that the exceptions that it then explicitly mentions are the only ones.

If Wikipedia quotes Dragini it does not thereby say he is right: why may not Wikipedia quote his view as simply the view of an ECC theologians - that it is the expressed view of an ECC theologian is surely undeniable - and let readers attach to it whatever weight they think it merits?

I regret that I remain unconvinced by unsupported statements by Leadwind alone, especially since Judith said she doesn't agree with him. Would she please indicate that she has changed her mind, or would others kindly express support for Leadwind's view? Then we can finish this. Lima (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should ask ourselves what part of this information is doubious. The source states that (1) as a rule, eastern christians do not use the word purgatory, which is a latin (not greek) word - a point which seems self-evident, (2)that Catholics only need believe in a process of purification after death wherein prayer is helpful - a point corrorborated by the text I just added to the article from a reliable, published source, and (3) that the Byzantines agree to these points - a matter which seems to be to be clear. Am I mistaken on any of this? Ritterschaft (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, can you find an exception in the policy that fits this situation? Any information that's self-evident or corroborated by a RS doesn't need a block quote from an assistant professor. Leadwind (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I would be happy to do so:

"Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is not contentious;"

Thus my question as to what bit of info from the quote is contentious. As I said, the information seems to either be self-evidently true, or when not it is supported by another source that is reliable. Ritterschaft (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, thank you for taking policy seriously. You are right that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves" under certain circumstances. If this article were about Dragini, we could use this material. But it's not about Dragini. Leadwind (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The section in question is concerning what Byzantine Catholics think, and the quote is from a Byzantine Catholic theologian, expressed as pertaining to what he himself thinks.

The quote contains information that is either unquestioned or supported by a reliable source. There seems no grounds for its exclusion. You need to explain to me what part of the quote you think it doubious in order to have any grounds for even questioning the citation. Ritterschaft (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima reversion

Lima reverted the work I've been doing commenting out weak or suspect citations. Lima, I'm being open about what I'm doing here on the talk page. Please follow my example and take your criticisms to this page where we can deal with them openly and fairly. I can understand why Lima is loath to see Dragini (asst. professor) and Cross (1912) go away, but we have better sources for our article. Certainly anything they say can also be found in contemporary, reputable works. Leadwind (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight, weak sources

The pro-purgatory side leans heavily on a few particular sources. This is one reason this page has a POV tag. Pro-purgatory sources, even weak ones, get major play, more than they're worth.

One reference that shows up a lot is Cross from 1912. If Cross's work is still respected as accurate, we'll see the same information in current sources. If we can't find the same information in current sources, then we don't need it. We have plenty of good, solid information on P from current sources. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Another heavy-hitter, with generous verbatim quotes, is [Eamon Duffy]. This guy looks more serious than Dagini, but why does Duffy get long, verbatim quotes? Is he really that central to contemporary Purgatory scholarship? Maybe he is. Anyone know?

As for Cross, he doesn't seem to merit a WP page. Anyone know who he is? Leadwind (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I will respond to all the comments about Cross, Dragini, O’Collins, and Duffy here. First, I would say that this suspicion of the sources is a very new and rather unexpected concern. That said, it is certainly a worthy line of investigation. What I think we should avoid is an unjustified sweeping removal of their comments. We need concrete reasons per removal. For example, one of the citations from Cross simply said that certain named Carolingians wrote about Purgatory, a statement that someone from 1912 should be perfectly capable of making. That example aside, I don’t know who Cross is, and we should ensure that his comments, when made on more reaching matters, are consistent with subsequent scholarship. If they are not then removal is certainly a valid option.

Neither do I know of Dragini, but I have not seen a reason for his removal other than that he ‘has a book to sell’. That does not seem sufficient, not least of which because (1) every person we quote will have a book to sell (we’re quoting from books!) and (2) professors don’t make any money from book sales anyway, unless they by chance manage to break into the mass market. So, is there a good reason to doubt Dragini? As for O’Collins, we need to examine each instance of the use of the source. That he is a Jesuit scholar should in no way disqualify him outright, but on controversial points we might wish to see if someone from another perspective has divergent views, whereupon we might wish to include both (rather than remove one).

As for Duffy, I can speak to the use of him because I personally added that material. Duffy is a scholar on the Reformation, and his recent work focusing on the English reformation is the standard text for late medieval English religion. The second half of his book, on the reasons for the reformation, is more controversial, but the first half, on his characterisation of late medieval piety, is largely undisputed. I thought quotes from him would be helpful since we were having difficulty arriving upon sentences to characterise the overall nature of elements of medieval religion and so, moved by the cries of you, Leadwind, for reliable texts to replace private interpretations, I took it upon myself to add useful material from this source. I see no reason whatsoever for its removal; indeed, it seems almost retrograde. Ritterschaft (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"If Cross's work is still respected as accurate, we'll see the same information in current sources. If we can't find the same information in current sources, then we don't need it." Rather, if Cross's work is still respected as accurate, nobody needs to rewrite it; but as Swisher has shown, even things that Lw does not want to see sourced can be questioned, and then have to be sourced. If what Cross said (e.g. "Theologians of the Carolingian period, especially Alcuin, Rabanus, Haymo, and Walafrid Strabo, contributed to the development of the doctrine") were inaccurate, it would by now have been questioned in some good solid source for Lw to cite.

If Ritterschaft thinks I too lightly omitted two successive statements as sops to Lw, he is welcome to restore them. But perhaps they are unnecessary. Lima (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to the Cross material from 1912? If not, I'm going to take it out on general principles. Ritterschaft, Duffy seems pretty solid, if perhaps not important enough to get lengthy quotes. I'll check the reliable source policy to see if it says anything about self-published web sites by partisan assistant professors. Leadwind (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What "general principles" rule out 1912 material? (By the way, Leadwind himself has been rather insistent on quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia on the question of place.) Lima (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something... how is Dragini partisan? Ritterschaft (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to A. J. Visser, "A Bird's-Eye View of Ancient Christian Eschatology", in Numen (1967)? It's a 40 year old article that LostCaesar interpreted for our benefit. Even if I trusted a 40-year old article, I wouldn't trust LC's interpretation of it. Leadwind (talk) 05:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can look at the Cross article and the Visser artcicle, but you'll have to be patient and wait a week or so, since I am really too busy at the moment. Ritterschaft (talk) 09:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Why delete Cross and not the Catholic Encyclopedia? Cross is an unknown, and no one can vouch for any of the quotes. CE is easily verified by any reader and represents authority. Leadwind (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, if you can get your hands on the Cross and Visser articles, then please put the information in fresh. Editors have a habit of altering references, and there's no telling how our current references compare to the originals. Leadwind (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian Antiquity sub-section of the History section

I have some questions about validity of much of this section, but let's start with the introduction.

Quoting Maccabees and saying that this was the belief of the "ancient Jews" is very inaccurate. Just because the RC church accepts it as a canonical book, does not mean that the "ancient Jews" did. i.e. it most likely just reflects the practice of a minority of people (due to influence of pagan cults) and NOT the Jews as a whole. I believe this statement in the article should be qualified.

Even worse than that is using Acts of Paul and Thecla as a reliable "Christian" source without qualifying it. The fact that it is not canonical shows that it was generally not accepted -- esPECially at that time. Therefore a quote from this source actually goes against the idea of purgatory because its source was not accepted as reliable! This statement also should be qualified.

ok... i'll leave it at that for now. To make this article better overall (including these two things I just mentioned) there needs to be a lot more of "The RC church believes that..." and "Protestants believe that..." instead of sentences given straight out as common facts, there is too much bias going on here... :)

cheers, Swisher6 (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of the canon in terms of Maccabees given the context. What first century AD Rabbinic Judaism thought of what first century BC nationalistic Judaism wrote seems rather inconsequential. As for the Acts of Paul and Thecla, are you suggesting that this text was not written by a Christian? That seems rather untenable. My other comment would be that there is no need for a relentless use of 'Roman Catholic Church' - the term may be used one per major section, and subsequently simply 'Catholic Church' or 'the Church' should be sufficient as long as the context provides the necessary clarity. Style has been a major concern for some editors. Ritterschaft (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Swisher6 has shown to be unfounded Leadwind's idea that the practice of prayer for the dead by early Christians is accepted by all.

As for 2 Maccabees, it certainly shows what was the belief of Judas Maccabaeus and the others who contributed their good money to the collection for sacrifices for the dead; the Acts of Paul and Thecla also shows that the idea of a change in a person's spiritual status after death was not seen as contradicting the belief of those who wrote and read it.

The name of the book is "Catechism of the Catholic Church", not "Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church" Lima (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, if the book is called "Catechism of the Catholic Church," then can you either: a) put the book title in italics, or b) put quotations around that title. This will help clarify that the article is referring to a book for those who don't know. Currently, the way it is, it is not referring to a book. But thanks for clarifying. Swisher6 (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

re: "as for the Acts of Paul and Thecla, are you suggesting that this text was not written by a Christian?"

My opinion doesn't matter here. The point is, is was either written by a non-Christian, or (more importantly) it was not accepted by established Christianity of the day and therefore cannot be a reliable source for information. It weakens the argument. I added "Roman Catholic" to the top of one section to clarify it. You know it's biased when it says "the Church" and it is referring only to the Roman Church. Protestants have a different meaning attached to "the Church" (i.e. the Universal Church of the redeemed throughout all of history). Just helping make the article acceptable to all, I didn't change any argument by adding the full name. cheers, Swisher6 (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Swisher, I agree that clarity is important, and if at some point it is unclear what Church is being discusses (with the relevant concepts implied) then a clarification is necessary. I just don't think we need to walk on eggshells. If the article were about Assyrian Christians then we could say the Persian Church without having to clarify how this church fits or does not fit in to John Calvin's ecclesiology, and without having to say 'Nestorian Church' or (God forbid) 'Assyrian Church of the East' every time.

As for the Acts of Paul and Thecla, I know of no ancient condemnation of a text that was not only widely read by Christians but widely copied and preserved by them unto today. That it did not make the canon of the Bible hardly serves as a condemnation. The Didache did not make the canon, but its a solid historical source for the Christian belief of its historical context (and it was not so well copied). Ritterschaft (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, thanks for your reply! The reason I thought for more clarity here is because we are talking about a topic that the Protestant Church and the Roman Catholic Church (generally speaking) is greatly at odds with each other over. Therefore, to say "the Church" in this context I believe is presumptuous. But once at the top of each major heading is fine with me. I like it how it is now.

As for the Acts of Paul and Thecla, you picked up on a weakness in my writing. I unintentionally wrote that it has no authority whatsoever. What I meant was that because it did not make it into the Canon, a person can now not quote from it as a majority source of Christian thought at that time. This can be fixed by writing, "some strains of Christianity..." or something of the sort. But to take what it says about praying for the dead, and then making the jump to quote it under a heading like "Christian Antiquity" (as if it was with out a doubt a widely recognized Christian text, accepted by all authority) without ANY qualification is poor scholarship.

Also with quoting the Maccabees, or any other inter-testamental period book, you need to qualify it as well. You can't quote from it and then draw the conclusion, "the Jews therefore believed [such and such]). It has to be qualified. For example, for me to say to an atheist, "God is good," would be considered bias on my part. I would have to qualify this to the athiest by saying, "The Bible says that God is good."

Note, I am not for removing this information or the sources, just for clarifying them.

Just my thoughts. Cheers, Swisher6 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Swisher, it looks like this dialogue is going well. On use of 'the Church', it seems we have reached an agreement. On 'the acts of Paul and Thecla', I recognise that we cannot draw a sweeping universal conclusion from one text that emerged in a particular spot, and as such some measure of rephrasing would improve scholarly precision. However, I must ask, are you asking more - that we really to entertain the notion that the Early Church did not practise prayer for the dead? On 'quoting Maccabees', I agree that a measure of subtlety of qualification may be profitable. What we can reasonably draw from the quote is that a Jewish audience of the first century BC would have had no objection to seeing their heroes presented as praying for the dead and thus, presumably, the practice was accepted by the particular communities to whom the text was directed, and by those that copied and transmitted the text. In regards to both this and the Paul and Thecla matter, secondary source material could take us beyond qualifications into more firm and sweeping statements. Ritterschaft (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to come in and muddy the waters, but it really is not appropriate for us as editors to make our own interpretation of primary sources. We must instead find a reliable secondary source and summarise its interpretation of the primary source (in this case scripture). An example of a good secondary source would be an introduction to Christian theology written for university students. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, I fully agree, WP asks for no interpretation of primary sources.

Ritterschaft, yes, yes, yes... and yes. Re: "However, I must ask, are you asking more - that we really to entertain the notion that the Early Church did not practise prayer for the dead?" Good question, but no I am definitely not :)

If you must know what I think, I lean towards this theory: that it was widespread among pagan religions during the OT period (no doubt there), gradually swept into the Jewish belief system, prior to, but most recognizably during the inter-testemantal period (although not universal), and gained more influence through into the first century AD. Christianity, on the other hand, did not immediately absorb it (they had larger theological topics to worry about first). Then there seems to be another period of growth (as there was in the Jewish period) and speedy acceptance of it. Soon it was rampant, (encouraged by the martyr deaths). At no time was it ever universal (for example, like something as basic as baptism was universal). During the history of the Church there were individuals and groups that spoke out against it, culminating, so to speak, in Martin Luther. However, it was widely accepted/practiced Swisher6 (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No one in the New Testament ever tells anyone to pray for the dead (right?). Harnack cited the 2nd century as when the church opened itself up to large-scale Hellenistic influence, and nothing I've seen on this page contradicts the notion that it was in the 100s when Christians started praying for the dead in any sort of systematic or widespread way. 2 Maccabees is a Pharisaic document. Lima assumes that this Pharisaic text is reliable when he asserts "it certainly shows what was the belief of Judas Maccabaeus." In fact, 2M only shows what its authors believed (that people should send money to the temple to ensure a happy resurrection for their loved ones). I'd be happy to have the text say that prayer for the dead was widespread and well-attested in the early church. Explaining that it probably doesn't reflect what Jesus or the NT authors taught is tricky and maybe beyond this article's scope. That's why we should have a History of Purgatory page, so we can delve into all this rich detail. Leadwind (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"No one in the New Testament ever tells anyone to pray for the dead (right?)." Has it not struck Leadwind that there was no need for any of the writers included in the New Testament to tell anyone to do it, especially if people were doing it already? What Swisher says suggests that it had already become common in the world in which Christianity arose. In those circumstances, the absence of a prohibition against praying for the dead - and I know of none either in the New Testament or in any early Christian writing - seems rather an indication of approval. And it looks as if Paul himself prayed for a dead person, even if some either dispute this interpretation or draw a very fine distinction between a prayer and a "pious wish". Lima (talk) 07:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

2M shows both what the author believed and what his audience would have found acceptable. If the text is accurate, then it also shows what Judas Maccabaeus and associates believed. I am searching for a reason why we should draw an imaginary line at the year 100 and say that, before this date, neither Jews nor Christians prayed for the dead. Does any historian posit such a line? Ritterschaft (talk) 09:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, you're right that we don't have enough evidence to conclude much of anything based on 2M. Swisher would have us believe that PftD was slim. The RCC would like us to believe that PftD was well-accepted. 2M doesn't give us an answer either way. I'll say it's suspicious that no one in the NT tells anyone to pray for the dead, and that the rabbis at Jamnia (90 AD) rejected 2M, probably on the basis of its religious innovations. But even that's not conclusive. Let's find a reliable expert, see what they say, and cite them. Leadwind (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You might not find a reliable, non-biased source to cite. I suggest it might be easier to say, "a Roman Catholic historian says this..." and then "A Protestant historian says this..." That way both (perhaps biased) points of view are presented but the overall effect is presented in a fair manner so that the reader can choose.

I also think that the section "Dogmatic texts and other sources" needs to have some Protestant significant pronouncements on Purgatory. For example something from the Westminster Confession and/or the 3 Forms of Unity.Swisher6 (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

original research

For newcomers who are interested in what early Christians believed about the afterlife (i.e., not purgatory), please check out Hippolytus's description of hades [3] and James Tabor's web site [4]. Leadwind (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Where did the references to EBO go? There used to be several. So here we have an article where we quote an assistant professor's self-published web site and an unknown's work from 1912, but references to EBO (NPOV, reliable, and readily checkable) get deleted. I've got my suspicions for why certain editors prefer Dragini and Cross over EBO. Anyone else want to hazard a guess? Lima, you've expressed a desire to describe P in informative, neutral terms. Would you care to go to EBO and start porting in references for us? Or does EBO not suit you for some reason? Leadwind (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

what happened?

I have been wikibreaking for a bit and upon returning I expected to see this article in even better shape than when I last saw it (which was already improving quickly and nearing some apparent convergence, seemingly). Well, in a nutshell it appears the opposite has happened. I do have to catch up with Talk especially to catch up with what some fresh editors have to say, but I cannot hide my surprise at how it has evolved recently. I hope to come back soon to help out. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yak, I'd be curious to know in what ways you think the page has gone backward. I think that we can all agree that the page is being held up by at least one unreasonable, biased editor who's more of an impediment than a contributor. We only disagree on who the editor or editors are. Leadwind (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

A mere glance at the revision history is enough to identify responsiblity for how the article has been evolving. This bombardment of changes intended to shape the article into the image and likeness of an editor's own ideas is perhaps impossible to counter except by reverting to how it was before, and then insisting that the article be discussed one section at a time. I don't see how each of those many changes can be discussed individually. Is there any other remedy? Lima (talk) 05:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, "Is there any other remedy?" The remedy I repeatedly suggest is that we model our article after the articles that a good, nonsectartian article wishes to resemble: ODCC, EBO, etc. Lima, you accuse me of trying to turn the article into a likeness of my own ideas, but it is I, not you, who is is willing to set aside my POV and follow the examples offered by ODCC, EBO, etc. But Yak, I'm asking you for your opinion. Leadwind (talk) 06:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Why limit the experts to a handpicked few, excluding the many that Leadwind wants eliminated?
2. Furthermore, on the specific question of what purgatory is, what expert is there more expert than the body that teaches it? Lima (talk) 07:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Let's not do that. Let's follow wp policy and exclude unverifiable information (e.g., self-published material), and let's use not handpicked sources but the most general ones we have at hand: ODCC, EBO, etc. LostCaesar handpicked Cross, Visser, and Harnack. I just want to use the everyday sources that are on the shelf. Leadwind 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
2. On the issue of what the RCC teaches, the RCC is hard to beat. On the issue of what the Church Fathers said before there was an RCC (for example), I don't see why it's any more objective than other religions are. In fact, the RCC has a vested interest in portraying the Church Fathers as more or less in line with RCC teaching, a vested interest not shared by nonsectarian scholars. Are Lutherans objective about Luther? I wouldn't assume that they are. Luckily, we don't have to be scholars and sort all this out. Scholars have already done so, and we can just cite them. Leadwind 05:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, if I go through the trouble to find the Cross article, and others, will you still be pushing for their removal? I'd hate to be wasting my time. Ritterschaft 07:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing you asked. I don't see any reason we should have to got back 40 or 95 years for scholarly citations on P. You, yourself, said we should cut Harnack for being 100 years old, and I agree. (That was in reference to an anti-purgatory quote, but that doesn't make any diffference to you, does it?) Furthermore, these quotes date from when LostCaesar and I were dueling over how the early Christians saw the afterlife. He deleted my references and substituted his own. He had to go back 40 years to find someone who said that Irenaeus believed anyone made it to heaven before judgment day. Now that LC and I aren't dueling about I's beliefs, and no one's trying to state in general what early Cs believed about the afterlife, it doesn't have much to do with P any more. Visser's references to 4 people talking about P also doesn't seem relevant. For the pro-purgatory camp, it's nice to stack up little tick marks, people who apparentely said something about purgatory (though without any description of what). But there's already good material from noteworthy current sources. Why refer to old scholars that apparently weren't even noteworthy in their time? The ODCC refers to Y Congar, K Rahner, and H U von Balthasar in respect to current RC discussions of P. Why don't we include them? Why should Visser and Cross get a line before these three? My solution is to eliminate the old references, as you said we should do with Harnack. Then, if someone wants to go look up Visser or Cross, and if they're really so relevant and insightful that they're worth including, include them fresh. For all I know, you'll see these articles and there'll be a bunch of material undercutting P, material that LC didn't see fit to include. In that case, I think you'd find Lima agreeing that they're outdated. Leadwind 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

re: Protestant objections

I would like to expand and fix up this section on Protestant objections a little too (although I won't have time for a few more weeks).

One thing that immediately jumps out at me is that the main objection that is listed here is incorrectly stated: This sentence is in the article, ""Becoming perfect" came to be understood as an instantaneous act of God, so that each one of the elect (saved) experienced instantaneous glorification upon death."

This certainly was NOT the Protestant Reformers view, nor in their view is it biblical. No Protestant Reformer worth his salt said that born again Christians "became perfect" and for that reason did not need a process after death.

Rather, the correct view is that the born again Christian was imputed the righteousness of Jesus Christ, immediately upon the act of justification, and therefore declared righteous by God. That is, a Christian is not inherently righteous, but in God's eyes is covered by the righteousness of Christ. The Reformers still believed sanctification to be a process (of salvation) that continues in every Christian's life until death. BUT acceptance into heaven is not dependent upon this (amount of) sanctification. Acceptance into heaven is based soley on Christ's righteousness that is imputed to the believer in life. Therefore the most godly Christian, as well as the weakest Christian, are both righteous before God, for Jesus sake, and immediately accepted into the heavenly kingdom.

This was a significant difference in the Reformer's eyes.

But, I have plenty of sources here to confirm all this..... I just thought that I'd point this out. Great job everyone on building this article! Swisher6 (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple dichotomy between RCC (people earn various levels of reward in the afterlife) and Protestant (the saved are equal in God's estimation) should come into play, but I haven't found a reliable source that spells it out. Leadwind (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thought. This article says that Martin Luther "affirmed that the dead "sleep" unconsciously (soul sleep)."

This is what Martin Luther wrote: "Concerning your “souls,” I have not enough [insight into the problem] to answer you. I am inclined to agree with your opinion that the souls of the just are asleep ... Nevertheless, there is a difference between the sleep or rest of this life and that of the future life. For toward night a person who has become exhausted by his daily labor in this life enters into his chamber in peace, as it were, to sleep there; and during this night he enjoys rest and has no knowledge whatever of any evil caused either by fire or by murder. But the soul does not sleep in the same manner. It is awake ... the soul lives before God. (Luther Work's 48:360-361 & 4:313)

So... does Luther believe in soul sleep?? Swisher6 (talk) 03:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. Luther also said: "Salomon judgeth that the dead are a sleepe, and feele nothing at all. For the dead lye there accompting neyther dayes nor yeares, but when they are awoken, they shall seeme to haue slept scarce one minute." (16th cent. translation). Calvin wrote a tirade excoriating Luther for advocating soul sleep (in a book called Psychopannychia). Luther seems to have said different things. Lacking any expert telling what to say about Luther, purgatory, and soul sleep, maybe we shouldn't say anything at all on the soul sleep front. Leadwind (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

lol -- Luther said that? I didn't know he spoke in such horrible English ;)

Hmmm... I wouldn't have written it in this article like it is written in currently... but I also wouldn't change it unless people vote on it just because it is a Penguin Classic source (I love Penguin Classics... I'd also love to get a hold of tHAt Penguin Classic to see if Diarmaid MacCulloch actually put it as certainly as this article might imply...) Swisher6 (talk) 03:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one puzzled about all of this. Why are people removing a secondary source and its quoted text, or changing the text, without looking at the source? What is the rush to sweep all this aside, rather than laboriously work through each text? And can we really be comfortable looking at Clement, or Luther, and removing a text with a secondary citation based on one reading of the text? This all seems confused. Sometimes there are cries that text should be removed because it does not appear in a secondary source, then there are removals of sourced texts without bothering to look. Sometimes, there is the advocation of removal of a text because it comes from a primary source without secondary support. Then, at other times, text with secondary citations is removed because of someone's reading of a primary source. What a mess! And the matter over Luther just exhibits this, since you in no way can read one passage of his and conclude anything about his beliefs! You need to be a scholar who read everything he wrote. Why? Because Luther said one thing one day and the opposite another (if you'd ever read Luther, you'd know that). And because, when Luther talked about the development of his own ideas from one stage to another, he lied (and if you'd read about him, you'd know that). Ritterschaft (talk) 19:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, could you point out specifically the issues that puzzle you? Particular edits? I'd like to be able to address your concerns and either unpuzzle you or see where I've misstepped. Leadwind (talk) 14:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

St. Clement of Alexandria in "Christian Antiquity" sub-section

Sorry folks, I have yet one more. Clement here is cited as having "developed a view of purification after death." The source given for this is Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:14. However, chapter 14 of book 6 of the Stromata is not talking about anything related to purgatory and therefore is an improper source here.

Stromata 6:14 is about "Degrees of Glory in Heaven." This is distinct doctrine from purgatory, talking about different degrees of reward given to Christians who have already reached heaven.

This should be deleted as a source. Swisher6 (talk) 00:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep them coming, Swisher. Thanks for doing the legwork on that reference. There's more sorting out to do, that's for sure. Strangely, Harnak considered degrees of reward in heaven to be purgatory. When he says that purgatory existed in the early church, that's what he was talking about. Who knows which part of the sentence came from which reference, or what O'Collins really says, or whether it even came from the entry on purgatory? I've deleted the whole sentence as unverifiable. You've found an example of the sneaky editing that LostCaesar got up to when he was slanting the page back in February. Any time you find vague references, such as undescribed "concepts of purification," it's probably LostCaesar's work. What concept of purification, exactly? Probably one that failed to match P and therefore LC didn't want to describe in any detail. Leadwind (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Prayer for the dead

This section is off-base. It's supposed to be about the Catholic practice of prayer for the dead. Instead, it's an apology trying to prove that other Christians pray for the dead, too, and that Christians have prayed for the dead for a long time. It leaves out basic questions. Which dead can be prayed for? (not the damned, not the saints, different from EO) Who prays for the dead? How? (requiem masses, etc.) Instead of telling us about Catholic prayer for the dead, it tries to prove that prayer for the dead is reasonable. Lots of the article is like this. Instead of just describing the topic, it tries to bolster the RCC position. As a result, information is lost or jumbled. Leadwind (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is not about Catholic prayer for the dead. That would be of little service in an article on purgatory. The section is about the ancient practice by Christians of praying for the dead, a practice in which is implicit the idea that those prayed for, or at least some of them, can in this way actually be helped to a better situation. Lima (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this section needs to be reworked...at least re-edited. I do believe it is integral a full knowledge of purgatory though and it starts out well by quoting from 1032 of the Catholic Catechism (except for the fact that it is one looong sentence). Upon my count, line #4-7 of the section are gratuitous here. It ends well too... BUT the word "bespeaks" needs to be updated into modern English - it smacks of plagarism :) Swisher6 (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be useful to note here that not everyone who comes to this article will be looking for a full knowledge of Purgatory. Some might be people who have virtually no knowledge at all of Christianity (people from other religions, children...). Others might be well acquainted with the concept (say Catholics), just looking for further details or references. I don't think the article is currently very good at keeping the basic information separate from the advanced theology. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, of course the section is about Catholic prayer for the dead. It's in the "P acc. to RCC" section of the article. I'm talking about the section entitled "Prayer for the Dead." Leadwind (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Curious reasoning: as if the RCC cannot refer to prayers by anyone but modern Catholics as an explanation of how, as the Catholic Church says, the practice of prayer for the dead is one of the bases of the teaching of purgatory (CCC 1032)! On the contrary the whole point of calling it a basis is that the practice is an ancient one. If it were only a modern practice (which it clearly isn't), it might seem that the teaching of purgatory was the basis of the practice, rather than the other way round. Lima (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a plain fact that ancient Christians and current Eastern Christians pray for the dead. Fine. State it and cite it. Don't stack up evidence for it. And don't neglect to answer the basic questions a reader has: How does the current Catholic practice of prayer for the dead relate to current beliefs about purgatory. How do Cs prayer for the dead? Which dead? What effect might it have? This is the current teaching section, not the history section. This section defends prayer for the dead (pro-RCC POV) but doesn't describe prayer for the dead. Describe it. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Prayer for the Dead section embodies a problem that recurs on this page: that it defends purgatory instead of describing it. The pro-purgatory POV has nothing to gain by describing P. The clearer P is described, the easier it is for the reader to disagree. So defense of P takes up space where a good encyclopedia would describe P. This section is a prime example. Unlike the EO, the RCC doesn't pray for saints or for the damned. Does this section say, "Catholics pray only for those in P, not for those in hell, limbo, or heaven"? No. That would point out how the RCC is different from EO, and this section was written to defend P, not to describe it. The history section is the same way. Does it cogently describe how the beliefs developed over centuries? No, it's a checklist of authors who supposedly talked about P (often with no real content about what they said or why it matters). The point is to demonstrate that P was a widespread belief before the Middle Age. Defense of P in place of description. I'd like to describe P, and that sentiment is not universally shared. Leadwind (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not defending: it's explaining how the idea of purgatory arose. Prayer for the dead is decided one of the reasons. It does matter, very much. Swisher (and he is not the first) has shown that it is necessary to give evidence to back up the statement that early Christians prayed for the dead. The prayer that modern Catholics offer for the dead does not exclude anyone as damned (they don't know who is damned) or as in Limbo (they don't know whether Limbo even exists); but even if they did, it would be irrelevant with regard to how the idea of purgatory arose - which is what the section is about. Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Well stuff me in a Snickers and call me nuts, but where I come from the topic of a section entitled "Prayer for the dead" is prayer for the dead. Prayer for the dead is a constant and formative element of purgatory. Surely the purgatory page should describe prayer for the dead. How about I add a section called "Origin of purgatory in prayer for the dead" to describe current Catholic practices involving prayer for the dead? Leadwind 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

unwelcome image

File:Lonelysoul.jpg

The lonely soul in purgatory

First LostCaesar and now Lima have repeatedly deleted this image from the page. It used to be the image next to the header. If you think it has value, please put it on the page. I think it's a better image for the Fire section than the one Lima put in its place. It's clearer, prettier, and more modern. It could also go in the section about asking souls in purgatory to pray for you, as that's what the image is for. Leadwind (talk) 14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The article on Anima sola shows how ambiguous is the meaning of the image. Lima (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

History sections

I am going to start some work on the history sections. I'll proceed by trying to turn each sentence into everyday English. In the process I will question every point that doesn't seem to be adequately sourced. I might also question the relevance of points and whether there seems to be POV introduced by synthesis. If anything I do is contentious, it would be appreciated if you could let me know here rather than just revert. I still don't have a handle on how and why this page is disputed. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the way to reach consensus on this article is to multiply edits to the extent that it smothers all meaningful discussion. Who can keep up with all the changes that Leadwind is constantly making? Why not concentrate on one section at a time? Lima (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to smother any discussion. I have been concentrating on style and have not taken out anything that appeared to be part of the flow of argument. I felt that unless I did that I would not understand what the paragraphs were about. I won't touch any of the other history sections until editors have had a chance to object to anythign I did that they think is wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if, for a moment, I confused your activity with that of Leadwind. Apologies. Lima (talk) 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Judith, so far it looks good. I'm thankful for anyone with an eye toward clear writing. I'd recommend that you move forward. Leadwind (talk) 20:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I revised two sentences but my edits were reverted. These were:

The patristic authors often understood those undergoing purification to be awaiting the Last Judgment before receiving the final blessedness of the Resurrection of the Dead, and they also often described this purification as a journey which entailed hardships but also powerful glimpses of joy.

and

Later examples, which contain further elaborations, abound.

Is this the style we should expect from a popular encyclopedia of the 21st century? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Judith, how about you make (or remake) the edits you'd like to see and then we'll know exactly what you're suggesting? It seems like Ritterschaft reverted these edits when he reverted a bunch of mine. Maybe he thought they were my doing. Leadwind 14:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Step back and then go forward in orderly fashion

As I am now closing down for the night, I cannot support Ritterschaft's move except by saying that I agree with it, and that I am convinced that the only orderly way to work collaboratively is to examine the article one section at a time. Overwhelming with multitudinous changes is not the way to reach consensus. Lima (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Propose a section for us to work on. Meanwhile, anyone should feel free to delete material that violates WP policy or that is off-topic. Leadwind (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My Thoughts:

wow guys... my head is spinning trying to keep up with all the revisions and such.

I had arranged the "Christian Antiquity section to follow a nice Time-Line. But now someone has placed this sentence in the same paragraph as the 3rd century, when it should be in the 5th: "When St Augustine's mother Monica was dying she told her two sons: "Lay this body anywhere, and do not let the care of it be a trouble to you at all. Only this I ask: that you will remember me at the Lord's altar, wherever you are."[45]" This is a great quote, but why can it not go down in the Augustine section at the bottom of "Christian Antiquity"? That would be better.

If I had any say here, :) this page should be blanked and started afresh

• Leadwind, Rittershchaft, and Lima each take a major section and write it.
• Submit it to Myself and Itsmejudith, who could edit it for grammar (not content) and readableness.
• After we edit it for quality, then we can post it, and all of us can vote on it (without making any changes until all opinions are in). Myself and Itsmejudith will make changes upon your 3 requests.
• Then when one person's section is done, we move the the next person's, and work through that one, and so on... I think that's a great idea!

The Structure of the Article would be (i.e. the "Contents" box)

1. Definition of Purgatory (simply and easy to understand; for all users; including a short sentence or two that shows the traditional Protestant view that Purgatory is an evil -- to keep it balanced right at the start. Key = simplicity)

2. Purgatory as taught by the Roman Catholic Church (simple and short. Details will come in Section 4)

3. Objections to Purgatory (still very simple, straight forward, short)

4. Purgatory through History (long, detailed and more technical section of the article; those who want this information will keep scrolling past the easy stuff above to here.)

4.1 Jewish Practice

4.2 Early Church (replacing, "Christian antiquity")

4.3 Early Middle Ages

4.4 High Middle Ages

4.5 15th Century: Eastern Orthodox Objections

4.6 16th Century:

4.6.1 Protestant Objections

4.6.2 Counter-Reformation Statements

4.7 Purgatory up until Modern Times

p.s. And I think that the last section, titled "Dogmatic texts and other sources" should be deleted as a section. The content, if it is valuable can be spread into the time line above.

but that's only my thought on the issue. (plus I think the discussion page should start from scratch at the same time ) Swisher6 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Swisher that the rapid changes are enough to make the head spin of anyone but the person making the changes :-). Having each editor work on separate sections would still produce too many contemporaneous changes and thus would not be much help towards reaching consensus. Why not have all editors concentrate on just one section and move on to another only after consensus is reached? Of the sections Swisher mentions, the first (definition of Purgatory) seems the obvious one with which to start.

A minor point. Sometimes a thematic arrangement is more suitable than a rigidly chronological one. Monica's dying request is highly relevant to the context in that it gives a concrete illustration of the manner in which early Christians considered the Eucharist especially appropriate as a prayer for the dead.

I am on a journey today and tomorrow and so won't be able to "interfere". Lima (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to blank and start from scratch. Good luck trying to get consensus on a plan. There's no way that Lima and I are both going to be happy with any finished page. I'm willing to be unhappy to the extent that the material is in line with WP policies and guidelines. We've tried mediations, RfCs, etc., and the page is still about a third of the mess it used to be. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone wishing to impose his own ideas on the page would indeed love to blank and start from scatch. 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, suggest the one section for us to start on and let's start. Leadwind (talk) 15:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did already: the definition. Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Swisher, nice structure. Here's my take on it:

1. Description of Purgatory not a definition but a general description, currently the article has no place for contextualizing P in the worldwide practice of caring for the dead or describing general scholalry commentary.

2. Roman Catholic beliefs and practices like what's here now, but more informative and open to scholarly comment (i.e., not just the church speaking for the church).

3. Related concepts not just objections, but also similarities. EO objects to "sensual suffering" but not to the suffering of being excluded from heaven. Certain Chinese afterlife beliefs really simlar. Main article has already been spun off.

4. Purgatory through History (long, detailed and more technical section of the article; those who want this information will keep scrolling past the easy stuff above to here.)

4.1 Jewish Practice

4.2 Early Church (replacing, "Christian antiquity")

4.3 Early Middle Ages

4.4 High Middle Ages

4.5 15th Century: Eastern Orthodox Objections

4.6 16th Century:

4.6.1 Protestant Objections

4.6.2 Counter-Reformation Statements

4.7 Purgatory up until Modern Times

Your history outline looks solid. I'd spin that whole section off to a separate page where people can really go into detail. The casual reader would be well-served by a summary of the history. Currently, the casual reader has little way to get the gist of P's history because this section is so detailed. Leadwind 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft's changes to my edits

Ritterschaft changed a bunch of stuff without explaining why. [5] He even went so far as to delete referenced material, replacing it with unreferenced material. Deleting referenced material requires some explanation. I explained all my changes. Ritterschaft, would you care to explain yours?

I reverted Ritterschaft's changes as they were unexplained, but then I reverted back as a show of compromise. We can talk about these changes one by one. I've restored the referenced material that Ritterschaft cut. [6] Comments? Leadwind (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima said that it's OK to cut another editor's referenced work without explanation if that editor isn't monitoring the page. You've given no reason for cutting my referenced work. I'm moving on to the next edit. Leadwind (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That I deny. But I will not be drawn into yet another of the many distractions. Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite. Why was it OK for you to delete my referenced edits without explanation when you were reverting Alec's work? But you're right, you have nothing to gain by answering this question. Better to keep mum and let it drop. Leadwind 02:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[7] Here's my edit. The Fire section used to selectively quote Trent, even though Trent doesn't mention fire one way or another. It took two of three separate clauses in Oxford and combined them into one. Now we say about fire just what Oxford says about fire. Easy, referenced. Leadwind (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Next up, Monica. Previously, I deleted it. This time, I moved it to a footnote. That way it doesn't get in the way of the common reader and it's still there for the ardent student. Her quote is a fine thing to have on a Prayer for the Dead page, and maybe (probably not) on a History of Purgatory page. It's just extra stuff here. Why "extra"? Because it adds nothing to the reader's knowledge of P. This page is already long and hard to understand. If we want the reader to easily be able to learn about P (we want that, right?), we need to show restraint with the tangential material. Leadwind 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This one isn't an edit of mine that Ritterschaft reverted. It's one that I proposed weeks ago and never got a single criticism on, so here it is: a better sentence and ref about "purgatorium." [8]. Leadwind 00:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Today's step is a fact-tag. I had deleted an unsourced interpretation ("The great success of Cluniac monasticism helped foster a sense of spiritual fervor throughout Latin Christendom"). Ritterschaft restored it. OK, but at least let's find a citation. Leadwind 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I deleted the negative review of Le Goff. When LostCaesar was finally cornered into including Le Goff, he segregated Le Goff into a section at the back called "Interpretations" and added this quote to undercut him. Are we really going to look around for criticisms of each author, or only the ones LC and Lima don't like? Why does this historian merit a verbatim quote when we don't even get one by Le Goff? Or what about the scholars that ODCC names? Is this guy here because a page about P is incomplete without him? No, he's here because he helps defend Lima's POV. If there were some general consensus among scholars that LG was too narrow, that's news. That some historian says that isn't news enough to warrant inclusion on a page that isn't about Le Goff or his book. Leadwind 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Today I redeleted uncited interpretation, the sentence that certain citations of purification are of particular interest due to their antiquity. With this, I've addressed all of Ritterschaft's unexplained reversions of my edits. Next up, off-topic citations of prayer for the dead, and Dragini's self-published web site, in which he opines on others' beliefs (block-quoted by Lima). Leadwind (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft has finally responded to my edits of his edits of my edits. Bessarion didn't become LPoC until later. He came as a Greek. He was apparently appointed as a Catholic bishop during the time period of the council, so he's both Greek and Catholic for some of the council? (Thanks, Inferno, for the backup on this one.) Ritterschaft also insists on including a quote from Trent (which doesn't mention fire) in the fire section. OK. But let's put a chunky quote in the footnote. And Ritterschaft also believes that he knows which part of Trent the ODCC has in mind, though the source doesn't say. He says that the clause in question regards superstition and filthy lucre. I say the clause in question is the one about not telling the uneducated public things you don't want them to know, so I substituted that wording. Since neither of us is a scholar, and neither of us knows which part of Trent influenced theologians to reinterpret fire as metaphor, this whole quote should go away. Also, Ritterschaft altered the citation to make it disagree with the source, changing "reinterpret" to "interpret." Not a terribly big deal, but worth getting right. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to relax. All I did was copy and paste the old text over the new, because I didn't understand why an obvious fact (Bessarion argued against material fire) was questioned. The whole "reinterpret" thing is really on you to explain, since it see you changed the old text. Anyway, it doesn't seem a big deal to me. Ritterschaft (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, I sure do need to relax. You're right about that. Anyway, you seem happy to let this particular point be settled, so fine with me. I think I'm done with the changes you made to my edits. Leadwind (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I thought you had intentionally changed "reinterpreted" (ODCC) to "interpreted" (not ODCC). Since I've had some recent problems with a pro-purgatory editor intentionally altering my cited material, I assumed you were doing the same. I apologize. I do think you're better than that. Leadwind (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Goff

Judith put Le Goff in the lead. I added details. Le Goff's point is that it was in the 12th century that purgatory was first defined as a single, separate place and given its name. Earlier, purification had taken place in the underworld, where all the dead were (not in a distinct place), or those between Heaven and Hell where in two places: one near hell (bad place) and one near heaven (good place). Augustine, frex, had described a 4-way division of the dead: good, not so good, not so bad, and bad. Le Goff recognizes concepts as pre-medieval, but the single, distinct place called purgatory is medieval. Leadwind 14:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this material is too controversial for the lead, given the quote from another historian who disagrees. The lead is not the best place for back-and-forth arguments, and we ought not give one position and not the other. Ritterschaft 18:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Le Goff is a respected historian and AFAIK the only historian to have devoted a whole book to the history of the concept. His work is a suitable source to write up the whole history section and I think this should be briefly reflected in the lead. Scholarly reviews of his book are another excellent source, but we must be careful to not to cherry-pick minor points that were not made by many reviewers. I haven't yet read any of the full reviews but will try and do so. Itsmejudith 20:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a historian disagrees with Le Goff is no reason to downplay him. You can find a historian to disagree with just about anyone. What positive thing does Bernstein say about P? If you can demonstrate that Le Goff is in disfavor, cite that. That would be news. EBO gives Le Goff top billing and never mentions Bernstein. If you want to find scholars worth quoting, why not start at EBO's "further reading" list? [9] Leadwind 06:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a historian disagrees with Le Goff is no reason to downplay him excessively, but it is a reason, when quoting him on a particular statement of his that is in fact questioned, to indicate clearly that his view on that point is not universally accepted, and it is a reason for doubting that he is the best source to quote, in the introduction, on that point. Lima 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we should use Le Goff in the article. But his use in the intro seems problematic, given that his statement being cited has found opposition. It seems, however, that this opposition has now been cut, curiously. Ritterschaft 08:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing curious about my cutting the review. You reverted a number of my edits without explanation. I've been going back over them one at a time, explaining myself at every step. As for the reviewer, what does he say positively about P? Does he say, in the same review, that it was formulated in the early middle ages instead of high middle ages? We don't know because the point of the review quote was not to inform readers about P but to find something undercutting to say about Le Goff. Leadwind 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look at the text. Ritterschaft 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the text, I’m left in a bit of a muddle. I’m not sure we’re really treating either source properly. Bernstein does criticise the use of the nominative, rather than verbal or adjectival use of the stem purg- as unhelpful, but his review of the text focuses more on rather arcane points of methodology, and it is not without complements. However, I can’t help to think that Le Goff’s treatment of the history on a kind of ‘mental plane’ is intentionally peculiar, and I’m not sure quite how to represent it here. It requires quite a bit of background from the ‘French school’ of ‘new history’, if you will. Ritterschaft (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What is purgatory?

Purgatory cannot be described or defined as you describe or define an observable phenomenon such as the transformation of a chrysalis into a butterfly or a place such as the Alps. Purgatory can only be described or defined as posited by some belief system. So we cannot say simply: Purgatory is this or that. We can only say: Purgatory, according to Belief System A, is this; or: Purgatory, according to Belief System B, C, or D, is that. Belief System A, B, C etc. must in every case be specified. We can never make Wikipedia say just: Purgatory is ...

Is this agreed? By Leadwind in particular? Lima 19:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you mean we can't say what the supernatural phenomenon P is, sure. But we can say what the observable teachings, beliefs, practices, and traditions are. We can't describe the spiritual thing except from from a named veiwpoint, but we can describe the cultural thing from an unnamed, neutral viewpoint, if it's sourced. Let's just see what the NPOV sources say and say that. Easy. Leadwind 02:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside possible difficulties in deciding what source is most reliable and NPOV, agreed. And teachings (preachings and theories) of individuals, as well as popular beliefs, practices and traditions, aren't necessarily the teaching of the Church to which they belong. Agreed? Lima 08:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"And teachings (preachings and theories) of individuals, as well as popular beliefs, practices and traditions, aren't necessarily the teaching of the Church to which they belong." Sure. This statement is so vague that it's undeniable. If you're leading eventually to the conclusion "Let's define P differently from how ODCC and OBE do (because we know better than they do how to define P)," then please just cut to the chase. The suspense is killing me. Leadwind 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Another question. If Belief System A gives an authoritative statement about what it holds purgatory to be, Wikipedia should use this when indicating what purgatory is according to that Belief System. It reduces reliability and indeed makes no sense to write instead: "According to Source X, purgatory, according to Belief System A, is ..."; or to write the equivalent: "Purgatory, according to Belief System A, is ...<ref>Source X</ref>" Agreed? Lima 05:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why should I answer your questions when you won't answer mine? I know. How about as a show of good faith? Are you saying that if we say, "Purgatory, according to RCC, is X, Y, and Z," then we shouldn't source that sentence? If that's what you're proposing, I'll say, sure. Make the sentence match equivalent sentences in ODCC, etc., and I won't insist on a footnote. Leadwind 05:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am saying that, when we say what, according to RCC, purgatory is, we should quote RCC, sourcing what RCC does in fact say, not what others say it says. Lima 09:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what the reference is to, or whether there even is one. I just care that our primary definition of P matches that found in other nonsectarian references. If your issue is "what should the reference be," you'll find me compromising. If your point is that our primary definition of P should be different from that found in ODCC, EBO, CE, etc., then say so plainly and let's talk about that. We're discussing the lead, below. Lead the charge. Leadwind 15:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the following has been agreed?

1. We can't say simply: "Purgatory is ...": we must say, for instance, "Purgatory, according to Belief System A (e.g. RCC), is ..."; and likewise, if we prefer some other description of purgatory, we must specify what belief system holds that view of purgatory.
2. If Belief System A (e.g. RCC) gives an authoritative statement about what it holds purgatory to be (as RCC does), Wikipedia should use this when indicating what purgatory is according to that belief system, and we should not say instead: "Source X (e.g. ODCC, EBO, CE, or what have you) says that purgatory, according to Belief System A (e.g. RCC), is ..."

So what is this about a "primary definition of purgatory" with no reference to any particular belief system? Lima 16:25, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Who agreed to Point #2? All I agreed to is that I don't care what you put in the footnote, or whether there is one. Leadwind 22:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So you don't agree that a statement about what the RCC holds should be based on what the RCC itself says, rather than on second-hand accounts? And perhaps you would rule out quoting Leadwind (or Mel Gibson or Einstein or ...) for what he holds?

What exactly are you suggesting? That we put our heads together, review the RCC's statements, and craft a definition that satisfies us? We're not scholars. WP doesn't ask us to review the evidence and come to a judgment. It says go see what experts say. We know what experts say. Let's report what the experts say. What's so hard about that? Do you think you're more qualified to define P than professional, expert editors are? I'm not. Let's just say what the experts say. Leadwind 06:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting just the opposite of "crafting a definition that satisfies us". I am suggesting that, when saying what the Catholic Church says purgatory is, we should do no more than quote what the Church says it is. Lima 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

definition

Lima says let's work on the definition. I agree. It's been bugging me for a long time that our definition is nonstandard. If my read on him is right, he's working up to saying that we should use the Catechism's defintion as our own. Let's compare our primary def to those found in other reference works.

Source	Definition
Encyc Brit Online	the condition, process, or place of purification or temporary punishment in which, according to medieval Christian and Roman Catholic belief, the souls of those who die in a state of grace are made ready for heaven.
OxfordDCC	A term used only in W. Catholic theology for the state (or place) of punishment and purification where the souls of those who have dies in a state of grace undergo such punishment as is still due for forgiven sins and, perhaps, expiate their unforgiven venial sins before being admitted to the Beatific Vision.
New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003)	According to the teaching of the Church, the state, place, or condition in the next world, which will continue until the last judgment, where the souls of those who die in the state of grace, but not yet free from all imperfection, make expiation for unforgiven venial sins or for the temporal punishment due to venial and mortal sins that have already been forgiven and, by so doing, are purified before they enter heaven.
Catholic Encyc.	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. (2003 CE has substantially similar wording, incl. "place.")
current	Purgatory is the process of purification by which, according to Roman Catholic belief, those who die in God’s grace and friendship achieve the holiness necessary for heaven.
leadwind	Purgatory, in Roman Catholic teaching, is the condition or place of punishment where the saved are purified before attaining heaven. (I want place and punishment in the primary definition because that's what I see in other references. Alternatively, I'd be happy to use EBO verbatim or nearly so. ODCC and CE are too jargony.) Leadwind 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Itsmejudith	In Roman Catholic Christianity Purgatory is the purification of souls that have died in a state of grace before entry into heaven. It is also the place in which this purification or punishment takes place.
Lima	Purgatory, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is "the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven" (CCCC 210, cf. CCC 1030, 1054). Observation (not part of the definition): definitions somewhat at variance with the Church's own definition have also been attributed to the Roman Catholic Church. Examples are those that say purgatory is in fact a place: Pope John Paul II explicitly ruled this out.
Compendium CCC	Purgatory is the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven. Because of the communion of saints, the faithful who are still pilgrims on earth are able to help the souls in purgatory by offering prayers in suffrage for them, especially the Eucharistic sacrifice. They also help them by almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance.
CCC	The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: [quote follows] To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. | other passages as well...
NPOV Eschoir	A theological doctrine unique to the Western Catholic Church. Adopted in 1245 and not recognized by any other denomination of Christianity, Purgatory evolved from the ubiquitous practice of prayers for the dead in the Early Church, and became both the name of a holding area in the afterlife and the very process for tainted souls of deceased Catholics to be purified over time by the actions of the living and enabled to enter Heaven.
Alecmconroy Version	Purgatory is a state, process, or place of purification or punishment in which, according to Medieval Christian and Roman Catholic beliefs, the dead are "purified" or "cleansed" prior to entering Heaven.

Please include your own proposals in the table, and let's agree on a primary definition. I'd be willing to call (yet) another RfC on this important and contentious point. LostCaesar and Lima have staunchly defended purgatory from being defined as related to a place or involving punishment. Leadwind 05:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you add the CCC quote to the table please, and also the Compendium. Ritterschaft 07:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft. I don't have the text of either, and neither is a nonsectarian reference work, so neither is a good model for our nonsectarian reference work. If we were writing a Catholic Catechism, they'd be great models for us. If someone wants to put them up for comparisons' sake, that's fine with me. Leadwind 00:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

NB I don't think that the lead is where we need to get the definition "right". It should just give a simple overview for anyone who doesn't want to read further. In a later section we should quote all the official definitions from the Roman Catholic Church that are available to us so long as they are not too long. That would include the Catholic Encyclopedia and the current Catechism. The church's own official statements are good sources for its beliefs. Independent scholarly sources are also very good and should be included whether or not they contrast with the official statements. If they do contrast then we should ideally leave it to the reader to decide where the points of contrast are and what significance should be attached. Itsmejudith 13:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Judith, agreed. Official statements, etc., are fine for the article, but the lead should be consise (a concise, stand-alone summary of the article). Leadwind 15:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind agreed above, in the section "What is purgatory?", on certain principles that he is violating in this "definition" section, which he added later. Lima 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that the Catholic Church's teachings should be represented. There is nothing 'sectarian' about a Church being considered the authority on what her own teachings are. Ritterschaft 18:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I think you think I agreed to something I didn't agree to. What principles am I violating? Leadwind 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, absolutely the RCC's teahings should be represented. The first sentence should say what those teachings are, just like ODCC, EBO, and CE do. And like my and Judith's proposed intro sentences both do. Leadwind 22:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to repeat myself? I thought what I said was clear. Ritterschaft 23:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No need to repeat yourself. You can make yourself crystal clear by simply offering a version of the primary definition that you'd prefer. If you prefer the current version, just make that note in the table itself.

Lima, you can play, too. Please let us know exactly what you propose for our article's primary definition of P. Put it in the table and we can discuss.

As for me, I'm willing to go with Judith's version. She relegates the unwelcome words "place" and "punishment" to the second sentence, which I can accept in the spirit of compromise and the hope to move forward. Leadwind 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Leadwind. Doesn't "What is purgatory?" state my view clearly? We should say that purgatory, according to RCC, is (fill in with anything that RCC says, and give the source - but don't prefer a second-hand source for stating the RCC view), while purgatory, according to (fill in with whatever "according to" you have in mind) is (fill in with a quote that fits your "according to", and quote the source). Lima 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The words you would choose for our definition are not clear. Please propose a definition. Is that so hard? Leadwind 06:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the Catholic Church, "purgatory is the state of those who die in God’s friendship, assured of their eternal salvation, but who still have need of purification to enter into the happiness of heaven" (CCCC 210, cf. CCC 1030, 1054). For your definition (what you are calling "our definition"), that's up to you to decide; but, to avoid confusion with what purgatory is according to the Catholic Church, you must state: "Purgatory according to us is ..." Lima 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, thanks for offering a proposal. To facilitate discussion, I've taken the liberty of putting your proposed lead into the table. My lead and Judith's are not according to us. They're according to the experts behind, say, the 2003 New Catholic Encyclopedia. Your lead is according to you because you have chosen how to frame the definition in contradiction to the experts. Leadwind 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Then specify that the purgatory you are describing is purgatory according to those experts, but let purgatory according to the Catholic Church be given according to the Catholic Church. 18:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, per Leadwind above, you may be mixing up the need to include definitions in the body of the article and the need to have a clear lead para for the article. The Catholic Church's definitions must certainly be included in the body of the article, in quote form. However, the lead need not cite their text exactly. The definitions may be written for a Catholic audience. They were probably written in Latin and then translated. Our purpose as encyclopedia editors is a bit different. We can write the lead ourselves so long as we make a good summary of sourced text in the body of the article. Have a look at the leads of some featured articles for reference. Itsmejudith 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do those articles speak of something like purgatory? "Purgatory cannot be described or defined as you describe or define an observable phenomenon such as the transformation of a chrysalis into a butterfly or a place such as the Alps. Purgatory can only be described or defined as posited by some belief system." That belief system must, I believe, be specified and its belief must be faithfully represented. Lima 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, let's not spend time pretending to attempt to reach a compromise. Let's just shoot straight to the RfC. I suggest the wording: "Should WP's primary definition of purgatory be largely a quote from the Catholic catechism or should it be a general statement based on definitions found in other reference works?" Fair? Leadwind 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. Wikipedia may give any definition (within reason) of purgatory it wishes, even one diametrically opposed to the view of the Catholic Church, as long as it doesn't say that that idea is the Catholic Church's. The question is: "Should the idea of purgatory that Wikipedia attributes to the Roman Catholic Church be based on what the Roman Catholic Church says or on other sources?" Lima 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, may I just ask - looking over the list, the definitions don't seem altogether very different. The CCC manages to avoid technical language that other editors, though not myself, have had problems with. Abstract principles aside, what specifically is the part of the definitions that are in issue? Keep in mind, it is always possible to use more than one definition, if not in the intro then in the body text. Indeed, after the terms are explained, a more technical definition might be apt for the later sections. But, to me, it seems right to give the Church's teaching on her own teaching first, and I haven't hear a good reason against this. Ritterschaft 08:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, we should give the church's teaching first, as summarized for us by the experts. The reason we shouldn't quote CCC is that other encyclopedias don't. Are we better at framing a definition than the pros? I'm not. Are you? Even if you were, it wouldn't matter. WP policy is to follow expert opinion. What I've never heard is why WP's primary P definition should be different from that found in other reference works. Leadwind 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesnt seem like a good reason to me. The ODCC doesn't quote the EB. The EB doesn't quote the CE. The CE doesn't quote the ODCC. The ODCC doesn't quote the CE. The point is, while the other encyclopedias don't quote the CCC, they don't quote another encyclopedia, either. So if you appeal to their example in what they don't quote (CCC), then it would apply against your proposal equally, since they don't quote what you want to quote either. Ritterschaft 16:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima, we're not talking in general about the idea of purgatory but about the first sentence. "Should WP's primary definition of purgatory, attributed to Roman Catholic teaching, be derived or quoted from the Catechism or be modeled after equivalent definitions in other reference works?" Leadwind 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems an excellent proposal. So, give separately: 1) the RCC idea of purgatory; and 2) the "primary definition of purgatory attributed to Roman Catholic teaching". For the first idea, quote RCC. For the second, quote whatever sources are suitable. Lima 15:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, thanks for responding. Now could you please also answer my questions: Are we better at framing a definition than the pros? I'm not. Are you? Leadwind (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think we should rely on the experts who wrote the CCC, i.e. the Church is expert on what her own teachings are. I have no difficulty using the other sourced definitions from other experts as well if necessary or useful, as you will recall. Ritterschaft (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for responding again. Would you also kindly be able to answer my question? Do you think we're better at formulating an encyclopedic definition of P than the pros are? Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Now answer mine. Are the authors of the CCC experts? Ritterschaft (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. You and I disagree, but but we can still have a straightforward discusssion. Yes, they are experts. Did I make you ask me three times? No. Did I hedge with a long clause putting conditions on my answer? No. They are indeed experts, yes. See how easy discussions can be? Can we proceed like good-faith editors? I sure hope so. Since this is now going swimmingly, I'll ask another. Our WP article, is it more similar (in audience, scope, intent, etc.) to the Britannica article or to the CCC article? Leadwind (talk) 01:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, I'll ask you the same pointed question I ask Ritterschaft and Lima: do you think you're better and crafting a def'n of P than the experts are? I doubt it. Let's model our def'n after the experts' definition. Leadwind (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that I will respond. Do I think I'm better? Demonstrably not. But for a NPOV, it should look something remeniscent of mine. Perhaps more dignified and respectful (d'ya think?). Go to secondary sources, and NOT RCC tertiary or primary sources.Eschoir (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

E, what's wrong with mine, Judith's, or EBO's? Leadwind (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory, an exclusivly Roman Catholic Doctrine, is a process of, as well as the place of, posthumous punishment where the saved '[jargon, if tey are saved, why are they being punnished?]' are purified enough to attaining heaven.

In what has developed since the middle ages into current Roman Catholic Doctrine, Purgatory is the supernatural processs of purification of '[souls that have died in a state of grace]' (meaningless jargon to most) before entry into heaven. It is also the place in which this purification or punishment takes place.

I see RCs taking for granted that their definition is the primary one.

Hey, I found this. Thank me later.

"Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment...." 1

Purgatory is believed by Roman Catholics, and very few other Christians, to be a location or state where the souls of most individuals go at the time of death. It has traditionally been viewed as a place of torment, where "nearly all of us shall...have to pass a period more or less long in the excruciating fires of Purgatory after death." 2 Gregory the Great wrote "that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" Augustine 3 and St. Bonaventure 4 agree. The purpose of this pain is to cleanse the individual from the temporal consequences of her or his sins while on earth. Eventually, the person will be eligible to be transferred to Heaven.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/purgatory.htm#menu

Eschoir (talk) 04:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory is a belief that is unique to the Roman Catholic Church.

The Catholic church teaches that salvation is a gradual process of sanctification over time. Few people can be accepted directly into Heaven at death. Purgatory cleanses them from the temporal consequences of the sins that they have collected during their lifetime on earth. Eventually, a person will be eligible to be transferred to Heaven. Conservative Protestants generally believe that salvation is achieved by a person repenting of their sin and trusting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Once this is done, one is assured that they will attain heaven at death. Liberal Protestants, Agnostics, Atheists, Freethinkers, etc. generally reject the idea of Purgatory and Hell because the concept of imprisoning people for thought crimes (e.g. believing in the wrong God), and torturing them there for all eternity is incompatible with their interpretation of the Bible.

With effort, all three concepts of Purgatory can be justified from biblical passages.

Eschoir (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Alec's new def'n is really good. Leadwind (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Lima

Lima, lima, lima, lima. At least you are consistant. Eschoir 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir, be careful not to make matters worse. The less fair other editors are, the more fair we should be in contrast. If you're goinng to imply criticism, say something that Lima at least has a shot of defending himself against. Leadwind 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not. Wikipedia may give any definition (within reason) of purgatory it wishes, even one diametrically opposed to the view of the Catholic Church, as long as it doesn't say that that idea is the Catholic Church's. The question is: "Should the idea of purgatory that Wikipedia attributes to the Roman Catholic Church be based on what the Roman Catholic Church says or on other sources?" Lima 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Try and dkeep Lima away from primary sources. Just try. No, wiki editors should follow the rules and rely on Secondary Sources. "Should the idea of the tastiness that Wikipedia attributes to McDonald's burgers be based on what McDonald's says or on other sources?" Eschoir (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is vastly too long, see wp:size, too Roman Catholic POV, and relies on many very old (the anti-nicean fathers is 1886 not 1979) questionable sources like the Catholic Encyclopedia and the International Bible Encyclopedia, which should be cited for example (Rutherfurd, John, and Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'ONESIPHORUS'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". <http://www.searchgodsword.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T6557>. 1915.) . 32KB is recommended size for articles. Cut cut cut. Is anybody editing who is not Catholic? Do Roman Catholics own the Purgatory franchise? I don't know why they are in the lede otherwise. Is the lede an attempt at defining 'purgatory today'? I propose to you that to athe general reader not much could be as uninteresting as the RCC's latest official take on Purgatory. They can get that f rom the Catholic Encyclopedia. If Purgatory is just a Catholic issue, then it's not a wiki issue IMHO Eschoir (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

32kb is simply a recommendation, one which the guidelines expressly state can be superceded. No brower has trouble with a 59kb website these days, and the space is used wisely. Ritterschaft (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am disappointed that nobody has joined the alliance of Leadwind and Eschoir in denouncing me. It seems that for me retirement is not to be immediate. A pity. Lima (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Would you two like to explain yourselves? Ritterschaft (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I hope we will quickly be able to draw a line under this personality clash stuff and get back to discussing the article. Eschoir's original post under this heading was not called for. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Thanks, Judith. Let's let Lima and Ritterschaft have the last word and be done with it.Leadwind (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To revive my hopes of a pretext to retire, I see that, on the denouncement page, Leadwind has again, as in the past, called in to support him someone who he thinks has similar ideas. Thanks. Lima (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Lima, but it's done now and we should be welcoming as many editors as possible to the page. We need to leave requests for help at WikiProject Christianity and WikiProject Religion. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there's some misunderstanding. I am happy to have found the additional comments by Leadwind and another on the denunciation page, and would welcome more of the same kind. I just made a grateful remark about Leadwind's decision to insist on the matter, rather than leaving the last word to others. Perhaps now a decision can be made the sooner. Lima (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I could use a good English translation of this last post.Eschoir (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yukky sentence

Can anyone suggest how the following can be translated into English?

Purgatory pertains to those souls judged by God to be in his presence forever in the perfection of heaven, but who are imperfect in their holiness and therefore in need of purification.

English means without the Latinate constructions "pertains to" or the passive voice "judged by God to be". Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it means "The souls in purgatory are those that, in God's eyes, are in his presence forever in the perfection of heaven, but need to be purified." Leadwind (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I cut the sentence. Not sourced, not particularly informative. Leadwind (talk) 01:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a good solution but your rewording is also good. If the sentence is to stay, it's now the whole paragraph that needs attention. It's taking a lot of words to say not very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: primary definition of purgatory

Should WP's primary definition of purgatory, attributed to Roman Catholic teaching, be derived or quoted from the Catechism or be modeled after equivalent definitions in other reference works?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Leadwind (talk • contribs)

It seems obvious that the definition of purgatory attributed to Roman Catholic teaching should be derived or quoted from those who do the attributing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church should be used instead for what is Roman Catholic teaching on the matter. Lima (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I agree with Lima. The definition of purgatory attributed to Roman Catholic teaching should be derived or quoted from those secondary sources who do the attributing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church could be used if there's a challenge on what is Roman Catholic teaching on the matter. Any synthesis or analysis requires a secondary source. Primary sources can't be used to advance an opinion.Eschoir (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

However, if the question is whether the primary definnition of Purgatory should be RC, I strongly suggest that eliminates the possiblity of NPOVEschoir (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the problem here? Do I have to read over all the arguements, or can somebody archive this madness and put the Reader's Digest version at the top of the page? I'll be happy to help mediate this if my opinion is desired. I belong to several Religion-related Wikiprojects and work groups. -- SECisek (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This should be the primary definition in the lead:

Acording to Oxford Press, purgatory is "A term used only in W. Catholic theology for the state (or place) of punishment and purification where the souls of those who have dies in a state of grace undergo such punishment as is still due for forgiven sins and, perhaps, expiate their unforgiven venial sins before being admitted to the Beatific Vision."

To highlight the Roman Catholic position:

According to Our Sunday Visitor Books, the Roman Catholic position is that Purgatory is the "condition or place wherein the souls of those who are not ready to be admitted to heaven are forced to endure a process of purification from guilt of their venial sins. The suffering, a temporary and partial alienation from God, is considered propportional to the degree of sinfullness on the part of the individual. The (Roman Catholic) Church teaches that prayers of the living for those in purgatory may be efficacious." -- SECisek (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SEC, the table above is a good summary of our various opinions and a good place to start. Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll offer up a comment. Based on the above table I find Itsmejudith's, leadwind's and the current definitions to be the best of the group. Lima's definition, while a technically correct definition of the RC position, strikes me as awkward. Eschoir's definition seems non-neutral in tone. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have two thoughts about the recent issue over the opening paragraph. First, as a matter of form, an article should begin with the word of the title. So grammatically the word order should begin with ‘purgatory’.

Second, and more importantly, I think I have finally clearly apprehended the issue at hand between Leadwind and Lima. I will summarise this, I hope charitably, and I would like the opinions of those involved to see if this is correct. The argument seems to be over one world, ‘place’. Though other principles have been invoked, such as Leadwind’s appeals to other encyclopaediae, it seems that the employment of this word is the real hangup.

Leadwind wants purgatory to be referred to as a ‘place’. He has expressed his own opinion that he considers purgatory to be a rather absurd concept and finds the teaching to be distasteful. Because the idea of ‘purgatory’ as a specific abode – say, in Station isle, or under a Mount in Italy – seems abundantly crude and even silly, describing the teaching with the descriptor ‘place’ helps present a caricature of the doctrine that diminishes its veracity, even dignity, and thus sufficiently mocks what he would like to be mocked.

Lima wants purgatory to be referred to as a ‘state’. Though Lima’s own opinions have been kept closer to the vest, it seems that he would like a more sophisticated presentation of the teaching, presumably to make it more palatable to erudite sensibilities. Moreover, along the lines of distinguishing between common perceptions vs. officially defined teachings, it seems evident that the descriptor of ‘place’ is not a part of the dogmatic elements of the teaching, and thus in the interest of presenting Catholic teachings with academic integrity, he would like the nuisance to be represented.

I hope I have characterised the divide properly. What it seems we have is a dichotomy: where ‘place / state’, when presented, translates into a ‘crude / sophisticated’ presentation, with ‘speculative / dogmatic’ contrasts, and even a ‘negative / positive’ hue to the presentation.

If this characterisation is correct, then we can begin to move forward along new lines. I would like to make a few points before we proceeded. First, we need to distinguish just what the difference is between ‘place’ and ‘state’. I would suspect that the world can mean different things, and not everyone who says ‘place’ means Station island. Second, we need to discern a way to characterise the distinction accurately, and, in the spirit of charity, allow the Catholic Church the privilege of expressing its own teachings about itself, within the context of overall opinions about the doctrine from others. Ritterschaft (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In my poor opinion, all should be happy if it were stated that "place" is used with regard to purgatory as with regard to heaven and hell; but, if my memory is correct, Lw has said (not in these exact words): "No. The idea of place is essential to purgatory in a way not applicable to heaven and hell." I hope my memory is incorrect. Lima (talk) 12:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Two other dichotomies are Historical/Modern, and Popularly Conceived / Formally defined. My own solution was to have a special section to quote the modern RC CCC to present the modern, formal RC POV. That accomplished, the rest of the article has more space and leeway to present wider views beyond those that are modern and formal. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

This sounds to me rather like what I was saying about the impossibility of giving an absolute definition of purgatory, such as you can give of a natural process or place, leaving only definitions relative to particular beliefs. One definition should give what purgatory is according to the Roman Catholic Church, and another should give what Alec calls the popularly conceived image of purgatory. Unlike Alec, I think priority should be given to the Roman Catholic description of purgatory, but the other description(s) should surely be mentioned also. Lima (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Formal RC POV doesn't get priority-- priority goes to a NPOV synthesis of all the varying points of view of Purgatory, of which the modern, formal RC teaching is but one voice. The contemporary CCC doesn't get to "own" or "define" Purgatory, Purgatory goes far beyond just that one presentation. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think what readers will look for is the purgatory that the Catholic Church proposes for belief. They will not be looking primarily for someone else's idea of purgatory or for information on the various ideas that grew up around Catholic teaching: the various forms of speculation, theological or just imaginative; the vivid pictures in legend, literature and art or in preachers' stories intended to move the imagination and will ... And the alleged distinction between "modern formal" and some other supposed form of the teaching of the Catholic Church needs to be established as a fact before being put into the lead. In any case, what readers will look for is an account of the purgatory that the Church actually teaches. Information on supposed past forms of the teaching belong in a section on history, if not simply in the section on the popularly conceived image of purgatory. We can only speak of purgatory or a particular purgatory as part of some particular belief system (e.g. Roman Catholic teaching); there is no such thing as an NPOV purgatory for Wikipedia to propose, as it can give an NPOV description of Mont Blanc or of Alpine skiing. No purgatory can be proposed as "the real or NPOV purgatory": it can only be proposed as "purgatory according to Catholic teaching" or "purgatory according to ..." Lima (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What I'm hearing are two common misconceptions. One misconception is that an article on a specific religion's belief must be written primarily from that religion's POV. In fact, we write all our articles from a Neutral point of view. So, the article on Muhammad does not, for example, primarily have an islamic point of view, nor will an article on Purgatory have primarily a RC point of view. Rather, they should all have a NPOV that synthesizes all the relevant points of view.

The second objection I'm hearing is that "There is no such thing as a NPOV purgatory", only "purgatory according to...". This is an incarnation of a commmon objection to NPOV. Sure, their might not be any way to make NPOV ARGUMENT about a supernatural afterlife state, this article isn't about that. This article is about a human word, a human concept, and a human belief. In so far as we're talking about a belief people throughout history have discussed. EB can cover Purgatory just as easily as it can cover Democracy or Happiness or Heaven or Hell or any other human concept. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohammed could be observed objectively, like Mont Blanc. Purgatory cannot.

Purgatory is a human belief (expressed by a concept and word). It is generally taken to be a belief only of the Catholic Church, and so is radically different from ideas shared by many distinct groups, such as democracy or happiness or heaven or hell. It should be compared with other religious concepts belonging to a single religion, such as - better examples can surely be found - that of Tirthankar, which can only be examined in the framework of Jainism, though parallels can be sought in other religions, just as one can seek purgatory-like concepts in other religions. Concerning purgatory, the Catholic Church has stated what is its belief. If there are other beliefs about purgatory incompatible with that of the Catholic Church, one must choose the belief system that the purgatory spoken of fits into. Even you did so when presenting your definition: "according to Medieval Christian and Roman Catholic beliefs" (a phrase, by the way, that equates - and I agree - Medieval Christian belief and Roman Catholic belief). You did not present purgatory in some NPOV way, unrelated to any particular belief system. So, though we seem to disagree on some theoretical level, is there any difference on the practical? Lima (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure we disagree on a practical level. Your proposed first sentence, for example, described purgatory as a state, since that is the modern CCC POV. My proposed first sentence calls it a "state, process, or place", since we have reliable sources and notable POVs for each. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Again with the issue of 'place'! Like I said, we should have a discussion on this point, if it is the issue, rather than other secondary points. Whatever the case, I believe that current Catholic belief does indeed get priority, certainly not to the exclusion of other views, but priority. What I mean is, first we say what the Catholic belief is, then we say what others make of it. That is simply being charitable and accurate to the nature of the teaching. So, for example, if a Mormon calls himself a 'Christian', but others don't agree, it would be reasonable to first state the self-identification, then what others make of it. Maybe that's not a great example, but I think you get the idea. Ritterschaft (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Pointing peeps again to my Proposed Version, the intro I like best is: Purgatory is a state, process, or place of purification or punishment in which, according to Christian and Roman Catholic beliefs, the dead are "purified" or "cleansed" prior to entering Heaven. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft: "If this characterisation is correct. . ." It's not. Allow me to avoid the temptation of responding in kind and expressing my own opinion as to Lima's unstated motivations. I want the page to be NPOV. I can detect POV whenever Lima (or another editor) balks at expert opinion. ODCC says "place" and "punishment." Lima balks. The experts are NPOV, so opposition to the experts looks like POV to me. My goal of lining our articles up with NPOV articles in other reference sources is to make our articles NPOV. Leadwind (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind, can you accept that purgatory is spoken of as a place, as heaven and hell are?

If an expert attributes to the Church an idea that contradicts what the Church itself says is its idea, is it not possible that the expert is mistaken? Which should we believe? Lima (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are my express reasons why your recent change will not work. (1) Purgatory is supposed to be the first word of the article, per style requirements. (2) I am of the opinion that the first, though not the only definition of Purgatory should be according to the most expert source on what the Catholic Church teaches – that is, the Catholic Church (ergo the CCC). (3) I feel the use of ‘place’ requires nuanced treatment to properly express this concept in all its diversity. I can explain this opinion in a discussion on the matter, which should be opening up independently of the discussion on sources, since, as I argued above, I feel the bit about sources is not the fundamental root of the controversy. Ritterschaft (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken, it is not supposed to be the first word of the article. From WP:LEAD:

The first paragraph needs to establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it. For example:

Introduction (essay): "In an essay, an introduction is..." or,

Introduction (music): "In music, the introduction is..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs) 21:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We've got four editors for a primary definition like Judith's and two apparently for Lima's. I put Judith's definition in the article and expect it to stay there until the scene on the talk page changes. Leadwind (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

forbidden information

File:Lonelysoul.jpg

Since ancient times, Christians have described purgatorial fires, though fire has never been dogmatically associated with purgatory.

this is a post of mine from November, which I'm putting here to remind me what cited information has been cut from the page

I understand that certain information is not allowed on this page. Let's at least document the forbidden information here so that other editors, should they be wiser than we, can decide whether to put it back in.

Image of the anima sola, once the initial and only image, is said to be not edifiying or appropriate. It's a pretty picture, with a better view of "fire" than our current one, but it's not allowed.

The EBO says that the Bible presents a coherent view of P only when seen through the perspective of medieval theology. Citation cut and not replaced.read online

EBO says that P arises from the worldwide practice of caring for the needs of the dead, as do similar practices in China. Citation cut and not replaced.read online

The ODCC says that early Christians didn't worry much about an intermediate state because they were awaiting an imminent end of the world. Citation cut and not replaced.

I'd like to think that any real, reliable information would be allowed, but I'd rather move forward with Alec's task list than fight. Can we move forward with Alec's list? Leadwind 14:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevant academic paper

David B. Hershenov and Rose Koch-Hershenov, 'Personal identity and Purgatory'. Religious Studies 42 (4) (Dec 2006): p439. Somewhat heavy going. Should be included though. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what it says? Leadwind (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've read it, but as for being sure I understand what it's saying.... I think the main argument is that if only our soul goes to purgatory without our body then we do not experience any punishment. Therefore the self and the soul should not be separated in the way that Aquinas proposed. Who here's an expert in contemporary Christian philosophy? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

experts, articles, etc

Ritterschaft seems to have dropped the line of a thread buried in a section above. And just when we were at the point of answering each others' questions directly. So here's my Q for Ritterschaft again: Our WP article, is it more similar (in audience, scope, intent, etc.) to the Britannica article or to the CCC article? Leadwind (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh, there is no CCC article. The CCC is simply a resource for Catholic doctrine. Ritterschaft (talk) 22:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)