Talk:Purgatory/Archive 3

POV tag

The recent overhaul of the page depicts the topic in a fashion far too amenable to one POV (Catholic). At every point the recent overhaul downplayed dissent from the doctrine and smoothed over rough spots. A salient feature of purgatory is that no one outside te RC is buying it. Jonathan Tweet 18:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific? Lostcaesar 18:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Used "" to mark places that are POV. You can see them, or search for them, if you edit the page. Jonathan Tweet 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well I will export those here for us to discuss.

(1), You said that the lead " Doesn't describe those aspects of purgatory that are most controversial." What aspects are those? The lead gives the dogmatic aspects of purgatory according to official Catholic teachings.

(2), You said that the lead "treats theosis as a different term for purgatory". You will have to spell out how the term "final theosis" is misused, since the source expressly says, " Rather than "Purgatory," we prefer to call it "the Final Theosis."

(3), You said, "Bible verses moved to later contrary to standard format and natural reader interest". What "standard format" are you referring to? How do do you justify your claims concering "reader interest"?

(4), You said, "pov O'Collins treated like scholarly source but is just intra-RC POV". O'Collins is a scholarly source, he is a published scholar and the text is a history book published by Oxford University Press. Besides, all he is cited in that section as supporting is that the concept of purification etc. is found in certain ancient texts and the like, which is hardly a controversial position and expressed in other sources cited in the same section. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Do you have reason to think him wrong?

(5), You said that "pov quotes Harnack selectively, portrays early Christian writing as in line with P contrary to EOC view" - how does it so portray early writings? Also, the only selection was that the article selects from Harnack the statement he makes that purgation was common in ancient writings, and it is selected because it is relevant. What else would you like said from Harnack?

(6), You said, "emphasizes agreement and downplays dissent contrary to EOC view". What matter of "dissent" are you speaking of?

(7), On bible verses, you said , "Lots of these quotes are out of context or ambiguous, and no contrary quotes are mentioned". The context is Catholic and Orthodox spirituality, wherein they are obviously interpreted as supporting those beliefs, so the context seems fine. Obviously, there would not be aby contrary quotes (whatever those are supposed to be) placed here, since this is about Catholic and Orthodox spirituality. Such quotes could be put in the section on protestant views.

If I had to review your concerns, I think I would have to request what you think the relevant doctrines to be, and whence you derive this view. What exactly is this doctrinal "dissent" that you think is absent?

Lostcaesar 20:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My answers are in the text. Jonathan Tweet 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, there's more work to do, but I'm going to take a break just now. I cut you slack when you overhauled the article. Please cut me some slack on this material. Jonathan Tweet 21:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the following changes. I left in your clarification on Dante, and on O'Collins. I removed or moved some text from the intro. The intro cannot be too long. The matter of venial sins etc, which is complex, is best left for the later section, I think, and moreover Greek tradition understands a difference between light and grave sins as well, which the current wording seemed to exclude. The issue of the Merits of Christ being dispensed by the Church is not discussed in the article, but if it were it would be better in the later sections. I removed the section on the Bible as I am not exactly sure of its relevance. The view of Harnark is already expressed in the section on Protestantism, so I omitted the duplicate text which was in a less apt location. I also took out the inline text as it is represented above. Lastly, I removed a couple OR sentences that may have conflicted with some of the sourced text; we must be careful with primary sources not to violate OR.

JT, if I may simply take the issue directly, I believe your problem with the article is twofold. One, you want the article to say that the GO and RC churches have an irreconcilable difference on the matter of purgatory, especially the doctrine of a real purging fire. The problem is, this is incorrect. The RC church does not and never has had a "doctrine" of such. Furthermore, purgatory simply is not an irreconcilable difference, evidenced by the fact that the ECCs have the exact same theology on the matter as the GO, but are in full communion with the RCC. So it simply cannot be an irreconcilable difference. Two, you want the article to debate the biblical foundation and veracity of the doctrine. Unfortunately, an encyclopedia is not the place for this. There are lots of websites that try and make these arguments. Lostcaesar 08:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, if I may simply take the issue directly, I believe our problem with the article is that you want to de-emphasize the facts that a reader might interpret to mean that purgatory is special to the RCC, and I want those same facts to be clear. It is a recurrent theme in our disputes that you want to remove or de-emphasize information that I want to state in straightforward terms. I want to state all sides clearly and up front, and you want to massage the text into shape. For example, Tertullian says that souls are reserved in hades until judgment day. Your version of that opinion is that souls don't enter into full blessedness until judgment day. That's not a clear statement of T's position; it's a spin. From your view, it's the right spin, but it's not T speaking for himself. You might well accuse me of POV in trying to point out that purgatory is the RCC's thing, not well-matched in the EOC, Protestant tradition, or early church. In my defense I can only say that I'm trying to include material that's missing. Honestly, you seem to be in something of a bind. Yes, it's true that antipapist bigots pick on purgatory, but that's because it's a soft spot in the teachings of the church. Whatever, religions aren't perfect and they have soft spots. Jonathan Tweet 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of Pov or anything else. I think your edits are good faith. As for the material, I do not think the sources we have support the view that "purgatory is the RCC's thing". In otherwords, the "information" you want to emphasize is problematic for me because I am not certain that it is correct information, given our sources. As for Tertullian and the like, I myself and not fully versed in the Tertullian corpus, and depend on secondary sources to expound fully on his eschatological views. The sources we have speak in the language of final blessedness following the Resurrection. In truth, it doesn't seem to be a central matter, since we are more concerned with purification than with the eschaton anyway. And, for whatever its worth, I don't see myself in a "bind". I have expanded and clarified the section on Protestantism just as much as on Latin and Greek Christendom, and the text I added was far more fair and far less patronizing to the Protestant position than what was previous there. I have also put in requests on the Judaism and Islam portals for help with those unsourced sections. Lostcaesar 16:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored POV tag. LC, you removed the POV tag once my objections were answered to your satisfaction. The whole article is slanted. My original objections remain, even though you dismiss them. If you think your Purgatory page is not a slant, get an RfC. Jonathan Tweet 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering the recent changes, what specifically do you have a problem with at present, and what sources do you have to support your position? Lostcaesar 07:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, please don't pretend that this is a discussion. You decide what material goes on the page and how it's presented. You delete, rewrite, or subordinate my additions. To discuss the issues as if we were deliberating in good faith would be a farce. You ask what my concerns are, but I've already told you. Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is your position? That the pov tag will remain in perpetuity without recourse? Lostcaesar 22:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have recourse. Accept reasonable edits from people who disagree with you about purgatory. What's your position, LC? That you decide what material goes on the page, and if so, how it is presented? I'd rather the page be balanced. You've demonstrated how amenable you are to my edits, so I have little hope for that. As I said, if you think that your take on the Purgatory page is not a slant, get an RfC. Jonathan Tweet 01:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to do that I need a statement from you expressing your current position. As for my edits, my position is that I wish to avoid OR, unsourced statements, or improperly sourced statements, and to accurately present the material. Lostcaesar 08:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, I already listed my objections in the text itself. You apparently deleted them? In summary, I'd say my objections are to most of what you've done to the article since Feb 27. Curious readers are directed to this comparison of versions [1]. Jonathan Tweet 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The article does indeed contain, as Lostcaesar indicated, unsourced statements, improperly sourced statements and inaccurately presented material. In spite of requests for citations these have not been justified, and therefore ought to be deleted or corrected. Since this has not been done, the article does suffer from the imposition of a certain POV; and I think the tag should remain until this defect is remedied. Lima 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and, in one swoop, purged the lead of all the irrelevant and unsourced statements. Sanctum Cor Leonis 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to WP. I see that these are your first edits under this user name. Please join us below for a discussion of what the lead should contain. Jonathan Tweet 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I put forward a proposal that we accept, at least provisionally, SCL's lead in place of the previous one. Because of the study that the game deviser has forced me to do on the question of Purgatory, there are several points I would wish to modify. But I would be happy if we would, all of us, drop the other drafts, accept SCL's text as the lead of the article, and then deal with the unsourced statements in the rest of the article. I vote yes. Presumably so does SCL. What do others think? Lima 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's much better than the previous one and I would go along with this proposal. GoldenMeadows 17:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get the lead right first, and only move on to the rest of the article when the lead is right. This lead includes pro-Catholic POV, and since that's the reason for the tag and the dispute, it should be fixed before we proceed. Jonathan Tweet 11:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead includes an amusing error that LostCaesar used to be fond of: "Purgatory, or the final Purgatory is a doctrine." First, this formulation is a pro-Catholic spin designed to focus narrowly on the small amount of purgatory doctrine and to deemphasize that majority of church teaching on purgatory, which isn't doctrine at all. Second, it's just wrong. When the saved die, do their souls go to a doctrine? Are the souls being purified right now in a doctrine? No, they're being purified in a place or condition, because that's what purgatory is, a place or condition, not a doctrine. Jonathan Tweet 11:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The deviser has produced another game that amuses only himself. He might as well say that Transubstantiation is not a doctrine. In the strict literal sense, Transubstantiation is a change that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, takes place. But nobody, perhaps not even the game deviser, would object to Transubstantiation being referred to as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. In the same way, Purgatory in the strict literal sense is a purification that, according to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, takes place. But who but this game deviser would object to referring to Purgatory as a doctrine of the Catholic Church?

When we speak of Transubstantiation, we define it as the Catholic Church defines it. If we give the word "Transubstantiation" some other meaning, we are off-topic. When we speak of Purgatory, we should likewise define it as the Catholic Church defines it; otherwise we are off-topic.

The game deviser apparently imagines that he knows better than the Catholic Church what Transubstantiation and Purgatory and whatever else the Catholic Church teaches to be realities really are! Lima 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

lead

I've summarized the concept of purgatory, in context, in the lead. A lead should be informative. There's more to do on the lead. Jonathan Tweet 15:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the introduction should be reduced to the first paragraph alone. As it stands, the introduction has, on its own, length enough, and more, for a short Wikipedia article with subsections, but consists almost entirely of a disorderly and unclear repetition of ideas that are dealt with better and more appropriately later. If there is anything of value in the introduction that is not covered elsewhere, that can be inserted in its proper place. What do others think? Lima 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, Lima wants to suppress information about purgatory in defense of a pro-RCC POV. Defenders of POVs generally try to suppress information. But see WP:LEAD. The lead is supposed to summarize the topic. Just because material can be covered elsewhere is no reason to remove it from the lead. In fact, the lead is supposed to do just that: summarize the material that's covered elsewhere. It's true that the lead is in disarray, but that's because people keep sticking in material whose purpose is not to explain purgatory but to defend the reputation of the RCC. The mention of hell in the CCC is off-topic, as is the mention of the trinity. If defenders of POV weren't intent on inserting defenses of the RCC into the lead, it would be in OK shape. Jonathan Tweet 15:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to suppress anything. I merely proposed that the lead should cease to be an article in itself and that details of what either the Catholic Church or Twt teaches about purgatory belong rather to their proper places within the article. Only one person has responded to my invitation to give opinions on my proposal. I therefore consider my proposal to be dead. Lima 04:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest a massive trimming of the lead. As it stands at the moment it is extremely bloated and contains detail which is not important to the overview of the article. I would argue that it neither fulfills the length requirement nor the "written in a clear, accessible style" requirement as discussed in WP:LEAD. Paragraphs such as the last one can certainly be removed. SumDude 20:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs trimming. Lima and I are currently in mediation over the whole page, with the lead as a prime example of the trouble this page is in. Our mediator is currently suggesting that all major changes be discussed here first. If someone wanted to try writing a shorter, non-POV lead that could stand alone as a concise summary of the whole page, I'd be grateful. Jonathan Tweet 01:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I had planned not to get involved until mediation is over, but let's edit boldly. Here's my attempt to reduce the last paragraph to one sentence. Since we're going to cover the controversy in the article, it needs to appear in the lead, but if we can do it in one sentence, hurray! I'll warn you ahead of time that I can't help but frame the issue according to my POV, but I'll try to stick to the facts. My POV is that religions historically demonstrate considerable change in beliefs over centuries. The question that the last paragraph of the lead answers is "How does the Catholic tradition of Purgatory fit into the story of Christianity overall?" I will try to state the case in as clear and bold a form as I can because that's good writing. If I err, it is by overstating the case. Here's the last paragraph with that POV in mind: "No other branch of Christianity teaches Purgatory as dogma, and the doctrine has historically been controversial, especially because the Bible's teaching on the topic of afterlife purgation is slim." I'll get references, but I'm not going to bother until the content is agreed on. If I've overstated the case, correct me. Here's a shorter alternative: "Noncatholic Christians, including those who pray for the dead, generally regard Purgatory as an error and don't find Purgatory in their Bibles." At issue is that every other denomination out there disagrees with the Catholics on Purgatory. This is a salient fact. It's not true about prayer for the dead or veneration of Mary (practiced in the East). It's not true about particular judgment (taught throughout the West). If we fail to inform the reader of this remarkable trait that Purgatory has, we're missing something. Jonathan Tweet 02:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed good that someone else wishes to discuss the question. What does SumDude think of the following draft for the lead? What indeed do others think of it?

According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Purgatory is the "final purification of the elect": "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."<present reference note 1>

The doctrine is based on the practice in all the ancient Christian Churches of praying for the dead in the belief that they are thereby assisted.<present reference note 5>

The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects the notions of place and fire associated with this after-death purification, and Protestantism in general rejects all possibility of after-death change of spiritual status.

In the lead to an article on any religious concept - say, sola fide, or moksha - it is surely enough to state briefly what the concept means and to indicate, again briefly, if there is a dispute about it. Lima 04:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, a short disclaimer. It is clear to me that both Jonathan Tweet and Lima have spend a large amount of time on this article and that both probably have a far greater knowledge of the subject than I do. My contribution won't focus on the content as much as it will on syntax and semantics, and certainly the first thing I noticed about the article was the state of disrepair the lead is in. That being said, I believe the lead should address the following important topics:

• Definition of Purgatory according to the Roman Catholic Church
• Short section on origin and interpretation
• Short section on disputes

To that end I feel the lead proposed by Lima is a good starting point, though I feel it might need to be expanded a little bit. Also, Jonathan Tweet's suggestion of "No other branch of Christianity teaches Purgatory as dogma, and the doctrine has historically been controversial, especially because the Bible's teaching on the topic of afterlife purgation is slim" strikes me as being both eloquent and fitting. SumDude 09:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I would have preferred to let Jonathan Tweet, at whose request I avoid referring to him in the abbreviated form I have used in the past, make the first comment on SumDude's observation. But after some delay I have decided to say just this: The concluding phrase "especially because ..." is out of place, chiefly because it is simply false in relation to the longstanding controversy with the Eastern Orthodox Church about Purgatory. (In addition, the phrase seems to presuppose the narrow Protestant canon of Scripture: most Christians consider the Second Book of Maccabees to be part of the Bible.) Lima 10:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly why I posted my "disclaimer". Do you perhaps have a suggestion on how to rephrase it to still indicate that the concept of purgatory is controversial (even for some Roman Catholics, I believe)? SumDude 11:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think SumDude need disclaim anything. It is far better to have in the discussion someone who forms his opinion on the basis of the evidence presented than one whose aim is to make the article conform to personal ideas that he has picked up somewhere or other or simply formed independently and for which he has difficulty in finding really reliable sources. Until we hear from Jonathan Tweet, at whose request I avoid referring to him in the abbreviated form I have used in the past, I think it would be imprudent to spend energy on how to rephrase the "especially because ..." statement. (By the way, I am unaware that the concept of Purgatory is controversial among Roman Catholics: perhaps SumDude is thinking of the concept of Limbo.) Lima 11:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First, WP:LEAD states that a lead should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the article. One might be surprised at this guideline because so many leads are little more than definitions of the topic. In my experience, leads are often weak and need help. In this case, Lima's lead is far short of something that could stand alone. Imagine that someone read only the lead. They wouldn't get much out of a very brief version. The current lead is bloated, but Lima's lead is far too brief. Let's focus on trimming the last paragraph and return to the lead as a whole later. Second, Lima's version of the last paragraph understates the case. Why say that two branches of Christianity reject P when you can say that all others do so? Why exclude the key reason that other Christians reject P? Doesn't a reader have a legitimate interest in understanding why? It's true that for the EO the problem with the P isn't just the scant scriptural support. Maybe the sentence should read, "especially because they find little support for it in the Bible or in authoritative church tradition." The EO don't see purgatory in the writings of the church fathers, either. Finally, Lima's take on why the EO reject it is disengenuous. The whole vision of the afterlife and particular judgment is different in the EO; it's not just an issue of fire and "place." And to claim that it's the concept of "place" that's the problem is particularly sneaky because modern Catholics reject the idea that P is a place, too. If I wanted to discredit opposition to P, but I were forced to acknowledge this opposition, I'd take Lima's approach: avoid explaining why others reject it, and portray those who reject is as different from each other (rather than as having a common reason to reject it). Jonathan Tweet 13:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If it's any help please have a look a look at how another modern encyclopedia handles the introduction to its article on purgatory.[2]. My own opinion is that the lead should state clearly what the R.C teaching is with a single sentence that states it has been a source of controversy in the past with other Christians who do not believe in its existence or have serious criticisms of the R.C teaching. If you start to elaborate any further in the introduction with various nuances, or bring up the position of other groups, then you invite ongoing disputes with people who rightly feel it misrepresents them. If I want to know what these disputes are then I should be able to go to a section in the article that deals with it in more detail but please keep the intro clear and simple. GoldenMeadows 13:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully with GoldenMeadows. When Jonathan Tweet, at whose request I avoid referring to him in the abbreviated form I have used in the past, speaks of the lead of an article, he seems to ignore the word "concise" and to require that it be written as if it were in itself the article. This, I believe, is just a personal idea of his that lacks support from others. Like other personal ideas for which the only evidence appears to be a declaration by himself, he seems to imagine that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not believe that the state of souls can be changed after death (a Protestant idea); in reality, the Eastern Orthodox Church holds that "such souls as have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance ... may be aided towards the attainment of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf, especially such as are offered in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their memory."[3] I wonder what are the other branches of Christianity important enough to merit mentioning along with the Eastern Orthodox Church and Protestantism that he knows (?) have difficulties with the doctrine of Purgatory. I have no objection to whatever number of explanations of opposition to the doctrine he wishes to include in the article; but, as GoldenMeadows says, those who want to know more about the disputes mentioned in the lead should be able to go to a section or sections that deal with them. I second the plea: "Please keep the intro clear and simple." I am grateful to both GoldenMeadows and SumDude, who may have yet more to say. And perhaps others too would like to comment. Lima 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GoldenMeadows' suggestion of having a look at a current encyclopedia's lead section on Purgatory is sound advice, even if I find Britannica's lead a bit lacking. As for my statement regarding some Roman Catholics' rejection of the Purgatory doctrine, it was based on a discussion I had with a Catholic Priest-in-training (I myself am not Catholic), which is of course not even nearly sufficient evidence to warrant inclusion, but which made me wonder whether there aren't sections of Roman Catholics who reject this belief as well. Yet again, I do not know enough about the subject at hand to say one way or the other (my religious field of interests has more to do with arguments for/against the existence of God), but that's where all of you who are properly familiar with the subject come in. SumDude 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's agree on the basics first. The lead should be able to stand on its own as a concise summary of the article, yes? Jonathan Tweet 16:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well ... maybe. The Cambridge Dictionary of American English defines a summary as "a brief, clear statement giving the most important facts about something." The problem in this case is defining what exactly constitutes an "important fact." From what I have gathered Jonathan Tweet believes it is important to list different religions' take on Purgatory and why they dispute them if they do, in the lead, while Lima believes otherwise. While I acknowledge the importance of noting that Purgatory isn't globally accepted (within the wider Christian faith), I tend to agree more with Lima on the appropriate scope for the lead. SumDude 17:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More from WP:LEAD. "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any." Don't take my excerpts as a reason not to read WP:LEAD for yourself.Jonathan Tweet 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, here's how I might do the lead:

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Purgatory is the condition of afterlife punishment in which the souls of the saved are purifiied (purged) so they can ascend to heaven. Those who don't go to purgatory go instead to hell, heaven, or possibly limbo. Catholics commonly offer prayers to assist the souls in purgatory, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist. While a general description of purgatory is dogma for all Catholics, most of the details about it come specifically from the Western tradition and have never been declared dogmatically true.

The concept of purgatory arose from the common Jewish and early Christian practice of prayer for the dead. As is true today, early Christians considered the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist to benefit the souls of the dead. The concept also draws directly from Biblical imagery in which God uses fire to test or purify His people. Purgatory has no direct support in the Bible, especially in the sense of a distinct afterlife destination. Early Christian beliefs about purgation after death are common but vague. The term "purgatory" was not coined until in the 11th century (purgatorium, Latin: place of cleansing), and purgatory acquired most of its specific imagery and tradition in the Middle Ages after the East-West Schism. Medieval theologians, for example, specified that the intolerable pain of purgatory is caused by fire. Today, the images of painful punishement are tempered with a softer image of happy souls willingly undergoing purification.

No other branch of Christianity teaches Purgatory as dogma, and the doctrine has historically been controversial, especially because the Bible's teaching on the topic of afterlife purgation is slim.

The first paragraph should probably include a fuller description of purgatory. For example, there's no reference to penance. But this is a start.Jonathan Tweet 19:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare my lead to the actual lead here. Jonathan Tweet 19:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a short hurried comment before I go to bed after being out. This new proposal of 19:44, 8 June 2007, while at least being shorter than before, says very little about what the concept of Purgatory is. What is essential in the lead is surely to let people know what is meant by Purgatory, not to enlarge on hell and heaven, what people do in relation to Purgatory, images associated with Purgatory, (slanted) history of the idea and the word ... That stuff is, I contend, basically outside the scope of the lead. I feel sure most people would expect a lead just to say what is meant by the subject of the article, and they would expect that subject to be discussed further on, not in the lead itself. In short, I feel that my own draft of 04:45, 8 June 2007, which does not attempt to insert interpretations as the 19:44, 8 June 2007 draft does, is far more suitable. Which draft do others prefer? Good night. Lima 20:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathen Tweets's suggestion is an improvement but I still think it leaves the door open to ongoing disputes. "Purgatory has no direct support in the Bible" is contentious, the R.C Church believes it does. There are disputes between Christians as to what are the canonical books of the Bible, there are disputes as to the very principle of bible only authority as against bible and tradition. "Early Christian beliefs about purgation after death are common but vague" but is this especially so with purgatory? What about specific details relating to heaven or hell and so many other things that Christians are asked take on faith? "The term "purgatory" was not coined until in the 11th century" The use of the term purgation goes back much further and like the word Trinity it is considered to be implicitly taught in scripture, according to many Christians. "Medieval theologians, for example, specified that the intolerable pain of purgatory is caused by fire...." But others, from an early age, have seen the "fire" as symbolic of spiritual suffering. I am not suggesting that these topics are not treated, rather that be treated in a little bit more detail within the main body of the article with a brief mention in the leader that criticisms do indeed exist. The WP:LEAD emphasises that the guidelines are not carved in stone and common sense is to be used. On looking at featured articles in the sphere of religion for good examples of this in practice I observe that in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Islam the editors, rightly, have avoided superficial criticisms in the leader, for almost certainly it would provoke response through too simplistic a treatment of contentious material. Finally I copy the opening paragraph on purgatory from the Jewish Encylopedia for an example of their treatment of this subject:

"An intermediate state through which souls are to pass in order to be purified from sin before they are admitted into the heavenly paradise. The belief in purgatory, fundamental with the Roman Catholic Church, is based by the Church authorities chiefly upon II Macc. xii. 44-45: "If he [Judas] had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the (dead. . . . Whereupon he made an atonement that they might be delivered from sin"; for this indicates that souls after death pass through an intermediate state in which they may by some intercession be saved from doom. The same view, that an atonement should be made for the dead, is expressed in Sifre, Deut. 210. The idea of an intermediate state of the soul, release from which may be obtained by intercession of the saints, is clearly dwelt upon in the Testament of Abraham, Recension A, xiv., where the description is given of a soul which, because its good and its evil deeds are equal, has to undergo the process of purification while remaining in a middle state, and on whose behalf Abraham intercedes, the angels joining him in his prayer, whereupon the soul is admitted into paradise.Rabbinic Views The view of purgatory is still more clearly expressed in rabbinical passages, as in the teaching of the Shammaites: "In the last judgment day there shall be three classes of souls: the righteous shall at once be written down for the life everlasting; the wicked, for Gehenna........."[4] GoldenMeadows 08:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, GoldenMeadows. At the cost of being tiresome - something for which I beg pardon - I think it worthwhile to point out, as succinctly as I can, how POV the 19:44, 8 June 2007 draft is, and how much it depends on the drafter's personal ideas, rather than verifiable sources:

According to the Roman Catholic Church, Purgatory is the condition of afterlife punishment (Formula chosen to suggest that what is essential to Purgatory is punishment, and that purification/cleansing is secondary) in which the souls of the saved are purifiied (purged) so they can ascend to heaven (Wouldn't it be good to give a citation for this statement?). Those who don't go to purgatory go instead to hell, heaven, or possibly limbo (Relevance?). Catholics commonly offer prayers to assist the souls in purgatory, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist (Practically a quotation from a well-known catechism of the Eastern Orthodox Church, indicating that, in fact, the great majority of Christians do "offer prayers in behalf of the dead, especially in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ", but the drafter presents such prayers as a practice only of Catholics, and indeed, by inserting the word "commonly", of some Catholics only.). While a general description (What does "a general description" mean? Apparently it is intended to give the idea that purgatory, though said to be a teaching of the Catholic Church, is really something different from what the Catholic Church declares it to be.) of purgatory is dogma for all Catholics, most of the details about it ("It" is, of course, Purgatory, not as taught by the Church but as the drafter declares it to be) come specifically from the Western tradition and have never been declared dogmatically true (but the drafter himself declares them to be true in some other sense, whatever that sense may be).

The concept of purgatory arose from the common Jewish and early Christian practice of prayer for the dead. As is true today, early Christians considered the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist to benefit the souls of the dead. The concept also draws directly from Biblical imagery in which God uses fire to test or purify His people. Purgatory has no direct support in the Bible (if "Bible" is interpreted as excluding the Second Book of Maccabees, though most Christians consider this to be part of the Bible), especially in the sense of a distinct afterlife destination (Instead of a neutral word like "fate", the word "destination" is chosen, seemingly for the sake of insinuating the idea of a location somewhere in space). Early Christian beliefs about purgation after death are common but vague (They included the precise belief that prayer for the dead was of benefit for the dead, by influencing their definitive fate. Not everyone would consider this to be vague.). The term "purgatory" was not coined (as a label for an already existing belief, as other terms too, such as "Trinity", were coined to refer to already existing concepts) until in the 11th century (purgatorium, Latin: place of cleansing), and purgatory acquired most of its specific (Why add this adjective? What does it mean? What is the generic imagery to which it is opposed?) imagery and tradition in the Middle Ages (and it continues through books and films to acquire further imagery) and after the East-West Schism.(Citation, please. Wasn't the imagery of place and fire used long before 1054?) Medieval theologians, for example, specified that the intolerable pain of purgatory is caused by fire (A picture that, as citations in the article show, was used long before the Middle Ages, and even in the East.). Today, (Another smart choice of a word, to suggest something very recent) the images of painful punishement are tempered (Always? By whom?) with a softer image of happy souls willingly undergoing purification.

No other branch of Christianity teaches Purgatory as dogma, (As well as not being exactly true – Old Catholics also hold Purgatory to be a dogmatic teaching of the Church – this statement, with its insistence on the word "dogma", seems intended to insinuate in weasel fashion that Purgatory is believed in by scarcely anyone. Those Western Christians who do not hold Purgatory to be a dogmatic teaching of the Church believe in no dogmas whatever, not just in a dogma about Purgatory; and Eastern Christians admit no dogmas whatever defined later than 381 (Nestorian tradition), 431 (Oriental Orthodoxy), 787 (Eastern Orthodoxy), dates earlier than the Western Church's official declarations on Purgatory.) and the doctrine has historically been controversial, especially because (Citation, please, for this attribution of an alleged cause.) the Bible's teaching on the topic of afterlife purgation is slim. (On the contrary, most Christians believe that the Bible explicitly teaches that those who die can be delivered from sin even afterwards.) Lima 09:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

GM's example of Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and Islam demonstrate that a lead should be substantial. If someone wants to offer a substantial version of the lead for consideration as an alternative to mine, please do! Lima criticizes point after point in my lead, and I could address each point, but instead let's move forward. Who has an alternative lead to propose that, like those that GM has used as examples, would be substantial instead of cursory? Jonathan Tweet 14:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation, or opinion. The Joseph Smith article is an example of a good lede. The Islam article is an example of a bad lede. The latter is considerably long and contains multiple citations, contrary to WP:LEDE. Just my own view, you're welcome to some salt with it. Vassyana 19:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Clarifying, the Islam lede is a good overview, but could easily be more concise and citations should be in the body of the article. Vassyana 19:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of previous features articles was meant as example of how to avoid arguments taking place in the leader section, thus effectively destroying the credibility of the article, through too early an introduction of criticism. Anyway, my opinion is that that the teaching of the R.C Church should be made very clear in this section with any criticism's dealt with later for the reasons given above. It is possible to do this by reference to whatever official teaching documents have been issued down through the ages but this then introduces interpretation of primary documents, always open to disputes over the authority of the interpreter. However, the catechism issued in recent years, in its teaching of purgatory, interprets those same documents with the authority of the Catholic Church to back it up, i.e. the reader no longer has to weigh up the interpreters credentials. For this reason I favor a leader that explains the teaching by closely following the text in sections 1030, 1031 1032 of the catechism along with it references to primary sources. It sets out what she teaches and there is no sectarian asides about the errors of other Christians within it deserving of a response. This would provide a more fuller and authoritative treatment of what the teaching actually is. If agreeable I will prepare a draft, though simply looking up the passages on-line will give some idea of it's appearance. GoldenMeadows 09:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Lima 11:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead for this article should follow WP guidelines. If the topic of this article were "Official current teaching of the RCC on Purgatory," GM's lead would be spot-on. But if the article isn't limited to the official current teaching, neither should the lead be. Jonathan Tweet 11:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet stated earlier that "[His] POV is that religions historically demonstrate considerable change in beliefs over centuries." and I keep on getting the feeling that he is forcing this POV on the lead. Everything GoldenMeadows said makes a lot of sense to me, and I'd like to see his draft for a lead before criticizing it. GoldenMeadows, I will greatly appreciate your time and effort in preparing such a draft. SumDude 12:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to withhold any further criticism until I've seen GM's draft. He'd asked for feedback before he wrote it, so that's what I gave him. Either way is OK with me, though I would advise editors not to spend a lot of time working on material that contradicts WP guidelines. In an effort to be above-board, I disclosed my POV. I'd be happy to hear what Lima, et al, say their own POVs are. Jonathan Tweet 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

In case my words were misconstrued, I was not criticizing your POV and indeed I also believe that it is easier to avoid writing in a POV style when others are aware of what your POV is. It is exactly this reason why I noted that your contributions seem to tend towards your POV. As for my own POV, if one can call it that, I don't have an in depth knowledge of the subject and I'm not Roman Catholic. I merely stumbled upon an article which seemed to have two editors with conflicting ideas (Jonathan Tweet and Lima) and as such I hope to format current information rather than introduce new information. I feel I am fairly unbiased, but I believe that the lead should deal more with the definition and explanation of the subject matter than going in depth about its history or disputation. As for going forward, I suggest the following. Once we receive GoldenMeadows' lead draft we'll have three drafts, from which we can choose one to refine and extend (probably incorporating elements from the other drafts as well). Hopefully this will result in a lead which both follows Wikipedia's principles and is accepted by all. SumDude 14:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is agreed that Purgatory is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. Other meanings of the word "Purgatory" are only analogous, not the basic meaning. So I think an article on Purgatory should primarily present Purgatory as in the actual teaching of the Catholic Church, while also mentioning, in a secondary way, any other important meanings given to the word. In exactly the same way, I think a doctrine of another Church or religion should be presented as that Church or religion proposes it. Is this a POV, in the Wikipedia sense? Lima 17:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a draft for consideration. All the material is from authoritative or notable sources. I think this should hold true for the rest of the article. The emphasis is on the doctrine the Roman Catholic Church teaches in her catechism. It seems important to set this out in order to evaluate the claims or challenges made elsewhere in the article. The final paragraph highlights the existence of differences with other Christians but, for reasons already discussed, it seems better to get the big picture, and limit the scope for contention between editors in the leader, by avoiding all the various nuances that could be raised, i.e. deal with these in detail within the main body of the article.

"Purgatory is a teaching of the Roman Catholic Church describing the process of purification that may be necessary before a person is admitted into heaven. It teaches that those who die in God's friendship and grace, though still imperfectly purified, are assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they must first undergo the required purification to attain the holiness needed to enter the joy of heaven. This final purification of the elect is given the name purgatory and it is described as being completely different from the punishment of those in hell. The doctrine of purgatory was formulated mainly at the Council's of Florence and Trent.

The catechism of the Catholic Church recalls a tradition, based on scripture, that purgatory is a cleansing fire. An early Church Father who reflects this tradition, Saint Gregory the Great, taught that for lesser faults there must be a purifying fire before the final judgement. This teaching was based on a passage in the Gospel of Matthew when Jesus declares that a certain class of sin will not be forgiven in this life or the next, suggesting to Saint Gregory that certain offences can indeed be forgiven in the next life. This is coupled with passages from New Testament epistles that speak of fire.

The Church's describes her doctrine of purgatory as also being founded on the tradition of praying for the dead as described in II Maccabees, a book which she holds to be canonical and part of sacred scripture. In this account Judas Maccabeus is described as making atonement for the dead so that they may be released from their sins. The memory of the dead has been honored by the Church from the beginning and it has offered up prayers and what it considers to be the most important, the Eucharastic sacrifice, for their intentions. Almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance are also commended by the Church on behalf of the dead and illustrates this by recollecting how an early Church father, Saint John Chrysostum, used the example of Job's sons, whom he describes as being purified by their father's sacrifice, to commend offerings and prayers for the dead in order to bring them consolation.

The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is not accepted by other Christians and the doctrine of purgatory has been raised, principally, in two Councils. In 1439 the Council of Florence, in part, sought to heal the rift between the Western and Eastern Orthodox Church relating to the doctrine of purgatory that came into the open during the thirteenth century, whilst the Council of Trent (1563) affirmed the doctrine in the light of the challenges raised by the Protestant reformation. The definitions given by these councils only go as far as affirming purgatory and the assistance given to the dead through prayer, but most especially, the sacrifice of the altar."

Sources: Doctrine (i.e first three paragraphs) is a close paraphrase of that given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030, 1031 &1032; the reference to the rift in the 13th century (4th paragraph) is from Timonthy Wares "The Orthodox Church", The reference to the limits of scope in the official council teaching is from the Catholic Enyclopedia. (1911) GoldenMeadows 19:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, I have my criticisms. But I'd like to offer Lima the first assessment. In mediation, we've agreed, among other things, to follow the guidelines of WP:LEAD. I consider myself to have a good understanding of this policy already, and in the past I've criticized Lima's draft for allegedly contradicting these guidelines. So Lima, would you please tell us, in your opinion, how well GM's lead follows WP:LEAD? Jonathan Tweet 02:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that this third draft is too long. I strongly disagree with the idea proposed by one editor here (but, I think, not by others elsewhere) that the lead must necessarily touch on every single topic in the article. I also disagree with the inclusion in the lead of arguments for or against any view on the subject of the article. This draft too seems to include such considerations. Why not just state, as the article's introduction, what the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is, and leave for the body of the article all other matters: history, scriptural basis, misunderstandings, imagery accretions, views of other Christians, objections, and anything else that is in some way relevant? Lima 04:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I think your point about the length of the the draft is valid but I would still like very much to stick as closely to the what appears in the catechism and the order of the information. Would you consider putting a line through those parts of the Catechism paraphrase given above such that you are still happy that it preserves the essential teaching of the Roman Catholic Church? I think you are also concerned about the last paragraph? I don't have a strong view on this matter but I do have a preference for making some mention that the doctrine of purgatory has been a source of contention in the past, but like you I would prefer that the leader does not continue to be a battle zone. GoldenMeadows 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I must be explicit about what I see as the more profound drawback of Draft III: to me it sounds too much like arguing for the concept of Purgatory. My poor opinion is that the introduction should merely explain what the concept is, perhaps adding something about what it is not, but any statement about the concept that sounds like either justifying it or attacking it should be left for later sections. One such section could be: Scripture and Purgatory; in that you could put what you say about the imagery of fire being based on Scripture and about the argument based on Matthew 12:32. Another could be: Church Fathers and Purgatory: in that you could put the quotation from Chrysostom.

The sponsor of Draft II would, I suppose, love the introduction to distort or to attack the concept of Purgatory. So I thought he would be the one to draw attention to this problem that I see in Draft III; but since he is devoting himself instead to directing attention to any possible distraction that would draw the discussion away from the concrete drafts proposed, I must do it myself.

Two requests, not for discussion, but for action, if and only if someone agrees to do it.

1. This section has become very long: perhaps we should continue in a new section. I was hoping that the discussion would continue under the heading "Please concentrate on work".

2. Would someone please archive all of this page that is no longer a matter of live discussion? Lima 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assessment. I'd still like you to answer my question: How well does GM's lead follow WP:LEAD. You agreed to follow those guidelines. Now apply them to the GM's draft. You and I apparently each think that the other is editing in bad faith. If you refuse to apply a guideline that you agreed to, I'll be sorely tempted to read that as evidence of bad faith. Jonathan Tweet 13:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on drafts

1. Lima's draft. Lima's draft is far too short, oversimplifies the concept and relies on a quotation from a single source. It also fails to provide a reasonable overview of the article.
2. Jonathon Tweet's draft. This is filled with inaccurate and/or POV statements. I will illustrate some examples. The claim there is no direct support for the doctrine in the Bible is distinctly POV. The second paragraph closes with a strongly POV assertion. The closing sentence of this lede draft is strongly assertive, but seems dubious and a bit POV. It fails (by implication) to acknowledge that universal opportunity (of which purgation is one form) is a common question of Christian theology.
3. GoldenMeadows' draft. This is more or less an apologetic recitation of the Catholic POV and completely fails WP:LEDE.

Of course, this is just my own subjective review of the three drafts. You're always welcome to salt with my opinions. However, I feel all three are woefully inadequate. Something that would combine Jonathon's overview with Lima's neutral tone would probably be ideal. Vassyana 01:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, but as previously explained with regard to draft III the intention was to state what the Roman Catholic Church actually taught rather that what other people thought it taught with any criticism referenced in depth within the article. That was the intention but since it seems not to have any support I am happy to withdraw it. GoldenMeadows 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

V says my draft "fails (by implication) to acknowledge that universal opportunity (of which purgation is one form) is a common question of Christian theology." If universal opportunity is the chance for the unbaptized to choose to accept Christ after death, it's not related to purgatory. Purgatory doesn't offer salvation to people who, in Protestant schemes, would be damned. It offers punishment to people who, in Protestant schemes, would just be cleared. It is true that the issue of post-baptism sin was a tricky one right from the start, and that's an angle that I think this page has never covered before. Jonathan Tweet 11:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Draft IV

Vassyana's is, I think, just the sort of contribution that moves a discussion forward, pointing out seeming faults in draft texts that the proposers can then try to remedy. I do not necessarily agree with Vassyana's criticism of Draft I. But it would not be constructive to dispute it. I prefer to move the discussion forward by modifying my draft as follows:

According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, Purgatory is the "final purification of the elect": "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."<present reference note 1>

In popular imagination, Purgatory is a distinct place in which the souls of the dead who are not bad enough to be condemned to Hell, nor good enough to go directly to Heaven, are tormented by fire as punishment for their minor sins.

While early Christians admitted an after-death change in spiritual status as a possibility,<reference to multiple sites that in this regard quote Acts of Paul and Thecla, and Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity> and even Greek Christians wrote of a purification by fire after death and of the ability of the living to gain pardon for the dead,<reference to multiple sites that refer in this regard to Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom and perhaps others - though again I do not see why direct quotations from these writers would not be better> speculation about the nature of this purification advanced mainly in the West. The idea that those being purified were in a distinct place among the dead was strengthened by the substantival use, from at latest the eleventh century, of the Latin word purgatorium for the place or state of that purification. In early centuries, as witnessed for instance in chapter VII of Tertullian's Treatise on the Soul, the soul was thought of as in some way material and the fire associated with the process of purification was similarly thought of as material. Even when, with the spread of Aristotelian philosophy in the West, this notion of the soul was rejected, the fire continued to be imagined as material.

At the 1439 Council of Florence, the nature of what the Western Christians called Purgatory was one of the topics in dispute with the representatives of the Eastern Orthodox Church, who, however, like all the ancient Christian Churches, accepted the practice of praying for the dead in the belief that they are thereby assisted.<present reference note 5>

In the following century, Protestant theologians developed a view of salvation that excluded all change of spiritual state after death. They accordingly denied that prayer for the dead was of any avail, although in general they did not accept Martin Luther's notion of soul sleep, whereby the dead have no consciousness until reawakened in the resurrection of the dead, thus excluding particular judgment. One reason for their rejection of the doctrine of Purgatory was its connection with indulgences.

The Eastern Orthodox Church continues to hold that "such souls as have departed with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance ... may be aided towards the attainment of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their behalf, especially such as are offered in union with the oblation of the bloodless sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith for their memory".<reference to The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church, question 376> and the Catholic Church holds that "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."<reference to Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 210-211>

Purgatory and the possibility of making atonement for the dead is also part of Rabbinic Jewish teaching, dating back at least to the time of the Maccabees, some two centuries before Christianity grew out of Judaism.<Jewish Encyclopedia article referred to by GoldenMeadows>

I could try to polish this draft better, but I prefer to present it as it is to the consideration of other editors. I look forward to reading their reactions. Lima 04:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment on Draft IV: More of a question, but is the idea of alms giving, penance ..., mentioned in the Roman catechism, a significant part of the doctrine? When I looked up the council documents over the weekend they explicitly mention these kind of things and, if I understand correctly, this can never be subject to change, i.e Roman Catholic's believe this forms part of the deposit of faith? GoldenMeadows 08:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this comment. I have responded by adding a further paragraph to Draft IV. Lima 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just remembered the reference that GoldenMeadows earlier gave to Jewish belief in purgatory, and have added yet another short paragraph. Lima 09:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this version is a big improvement on the current articles leader - its authoritative and gives a good overview. GoldenMeadows 09:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima, this draft is long, and the phrasing is stilted. "early Christians admitted an after-death change in spiritual status as a possibility" "The idea that those being purified were in a distinct place among the dead was strengthened by the substantival use, from at latest the eleventh century, of the Latin word purgatorium for the place or state of that purification." "the nature of what the Western Christians called Purgatory" I think your wording is stilted because you're straining to put historical data in the best possible light. You've also included a long description of soul concepts in order to defend the medieval idea of material fire in purgatory from criticism. Instead of getting straight the point and being clear, you are forcing the data into shape. Your only reference to Protestant criticism leans heavily on soul sleep, which Calvin rejected (while also rejecting purgatory) and which mainstream Lutherans have also largely rejected. Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To respond to the remark about Protestant criticism, I have retouched what is said about the Reformers. I am unsure what if anything I should do in response to the remark about the length of my draft, which was previously said to be too short, and I cannot hope to reach the standard of literary excellence proposed to me. Nor can I do anything about the attribution to me of motives of which I am unaware. Lima 18:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

V says to work together and combine the best of our drafts. I like how you mention the martyrs, because that's good historical detail. Council of Florence is a good point to mention. Soul sleep's a favorite tenet of mine, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of lede-relevance. The EO doctrine is good, too, as it shows that the EO talk about judgment day, rather than about helping people currently in intolerable pain. The Jewish mention is good, but there's no purgatory in 2 Macc; 2 Macc matches the EO doctrine: it's judgment day you're looking out for. It's a lot of material. We'll have to summarize massively. Jonathan Tweet 01:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan 2.0

My draft was "woefully inadequate"? Well, you get what you ask for. That's a fair assessment. I can see my own POV once it's pointed out by a neutral party. Here's a new draft, with more information about purgatory and penance, and an attempt to reign in my own POV. I know that Lima doesn't want "punishment" in the first sentence, but that's where it is in the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I don't think that it's POV to put the word there. I tried sentences with "purification" first and "punishment" second but couldn't make them work. (Really, I did try.) I want to put purgatory in the context of particular judgment (who goes to purgatory, who doesn't, and why), but there's so much going on that it's hard to be both informative and concise.

According to Roman Catholic tradition, Purgatory is the place or condition of temporary afterlife punishment [Catholic Encyclopedia] in which the souls of the saved are purifiied (purged) so they can ascend to heaven. Purgatory cleanses venial (“forgivable”) sins, and forgiven mortal sins, but not original sin or unforgiven mortal sins. Those few who die alreadypure go straight to heaven. Those excluded from heaven by original or mortal sin to go hell or possibly limbo. Catholics commonly offer prayers to help the souls in purgatory, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist. The Church offers various means to help the faithful reduce their own punishments in purgatory, especially penance (the sacrament of reconciliation). While a general description of purification before Judgment Day is dogma for all Catholics, most of the details about purgatory come specifically from the Western tradition and have never been declared as dogma.

The concept of purgatory arose from the common Jewish and early Christian practice of prayer for the dead. The concept also draws from Biblical imagery in which God uses fire to test or purify his people. While the modern description of purgatory is not explicit in the Bible, Scripture does attest to purification and forgivenss of sins after death. Early Christian and early medieval beliefs about purgation after death are common but varied and vague. The concept of fiery, purifying torments formed the basis for later development. Purgatory acquired most of its specific imagery and tradition in the Middle Ages after the East-West Schism. The term "purgatory" (purgatorium, Latin: place of cleansing) was officially assigned to the place of purgation in 1254 by Pope FILLINNAMELATER. Thomas Aquinas and other Medieval theologians established the concepts of purgatory in essentially their modern form. Today, the images of painful punishement are tempered with a softer image of joyful souls willingly undergoing purification.

No other branch of Christianity teaches Purgatory as dogma, and the doctrine has historically been controversial, as other Christians do not see the Western church tradition as authoritative. Indulgences in particular came under attack during the Protestant Reformation. The general concept of purification after death, however, appears not only in other Christian denominations but also in Judaism and Zoroastrianism.

Jonathan Tweet 13:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I like it. I feel it is a step in the right direction regarding the length of the lead and the content covered by it. That being said, I believe it should include some mention of both the Eastern Orthodox Church and II Maccabees. The only other major issue I have with it is the sentence "Today, the images of painful punishement are tempered with a softer image of joyful souls willingly undergoing purification." I'm not sure it is accurate (what do others think?) and the use of the word 'joyful' feels out of place to me. Perhaps just "... image of willing souls undergoing purification?" SumDude 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Though this draft abounds in statements that the suggestions agreed on say I should question ("Due to the availability of sources, references should be requested for all unsourced claims that are likely to be challenged"), the fact that the drafter can see POV in his work only if it is pointed out, he says, by one whom he considers to be a neutral party, it would be unavailing for me to do the pointing. But I will remark on the absence of what most people would consider to be the primary source for exact knowledge on what Purgatory is, namely what the Catholic Church actually declares it to be in its precise and specific documents. For the confusing picture of Purgatory that is presented in its stead (and that the reader is perhaps supposed to fill in from whatever ideas he already has), no sources are given. Does Purgatory have seven terraces? Is an onion that a disagreeable woman gave to someone as the one good deed of her life offered to her to hang on to so as to be lifted out of Purgatory, but when she kicks off the other souls who try to cling to it also, does it slip from her clasp? There are hundreds of other stories that show how people imagine and have imagined Purgatory, stories that do come "from the Western tradition and have never been declared as dogma", but they are not the stuff of an article on what Purgatory really means.

Between the two drafts presented, which seems to other editors the better? Lima 19:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet's V 2.0 is an improvement but it still has major problems.

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not referenced and this has to be the most authoritative source in an article such as this. The case for changing doctrine that you wish to suggest is undermined by this since surely you, or rather somebody notable in a published work, must establish what is currently taught before you can detail the changes they claimed to have been made. Anyhow it should not be argued out in the leader, a POV is exactly that, it should not get in the way of an articles main aim.

2. There is no clear distinction made between doctrine and popular imaging, all is grouped under "tradition".

3. "those few who die already pure go to heaven", is asserted but who has counted them? Why does such an assertion even have to be made in a leader which seems somewhat peripheral to what should be there, i.e. basic things like what the R.C church actually teaches in her catechism.

4. The doctrine of purgatory is not clear, see 2, but this is compounded by now raising mortal sin, venial sin, heaven, hell and "maybe limbo" in the leader. I think we should stick to purgatory in this section and limit the scope for even more confused information.

5. The "concept of purgatory" is mentioned but this leads to even more doubt in the context it appears. Does this mean doctrine? Is it meant to suggest that it was a creative process , the germ of the idea being taken from the examples given? From what I read researching for this article this is not what the R.C or Orthodox Church's understand about doctrines of faith, in fact from my reading this is exactly what they seek to avoid. Though their understanding of a doctrine may grow they truly believe it was always there from the beginning. It doesn't matter if a person disagrees with this, it's sufficient to report what they believe.

6. You bring up again the matter of scripture and how the modern "concept" of purgatory is not present in scripture but this again seems to suggest that the R.C and Orthodox Church's rely only on scripture. There was no scripture book as we know it when the Church became visible in the world, the Church preceded the Bible, it was the authority of the Church that declared what was should be regarded as sacred scripture. The draft appears to be reflecting a bible only culture that is foreign to the early Church. Saint Athanasius would write of the decree concerning Arianism: " The word of the Lord, put forth by the ecumenical council at Nicea is an eternal word, enduring forever." St. Gregory the Great: " I profess that as I receive and venerate the four books of the gospels, so I do the four councils" and so on.

7. The mention of no other branch of Christianity teaching the dogma of purgatory seems to suggest that the norm is for all Christian Church's to use dogmatic teaching but this is not my understanding, do you have a good citation to back this up?

8. The mention of painful images being substituted in modern times with joyful souls willingly undergoing purification is maybe an assertion that can be set out in the body of the text, but putting it in the leader seems to be giving it undue weight since the Catechism of the Catholic Church does indeed mention images of fire and alludes to the difference between the suffering of the two on the basis that one place it serves the purpose of purification contrasted with Hell in which there is no such purpose.

The draft is better than the last but as it stands I think Lima's V2 is the more authoritative and conveys better what I take to be the doctrine based on reading the relevant documents. GoldenMeadows 20:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

GM says: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is not referenced and this has to be the most authoritative source in an article such as this. The case for changing doctrine that you wish to suggest is undermined by this since surely you, or rather somebody notable in a published work, must establish what is currently taught before you can detail the changes they claimed to have been made." What material in my draft contradicts the CCC? What material in the CCC is missing? As for "changing doctrine," I don't believe that RCC doctrine (as defined by the RCC) has changed. I say that tenets change, that beliefs change. If I had evidence that actual RCC doctrine had changed, this would be a much different discussion. The slippery disctinctions among doctrine, teaching, and beliefs keep making it hard to be clear about this topic. Jonathan Tweet 14:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediator comments

Vassyana, you moved us ahead with your (scathing) assessment of our three leads. Could we get some of that same help again? Lima, SCL, and I have each proposed a lead. SCL's is in the article itself. Jonathan Tweet 13:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If I, a non-mediator, may make a comment, I would suggest that you should try to adjust your draft to meet each successive comment that is made on it. That is what I tried to do, without thereby accepting that the (scathing) comments were fully justified. How else can we cooperate? Lima 15:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The current lede in the mainspace comes across as clear advocacy for the Catholic POV. Let's get a little discussison started. What do people think the strong points about each lede are? What do editors think the weakest part of each is? Try taking the strongest parts of each and weaving them together into a compromise lede. Or, drop the weakest points of each and drop anything left that seems out of place in a lede. Try weaving the leftovers from that into a compromise lede. Basically work out some consensus and take what is best from all the proposals and exclude what is worst about them. Just a suggestion. Cheers! Vassyana 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Vassyana. I must ask you to be good enough to indicate on what grounds you think the current lead is "clear advocacy for the Catholic POV". As far as I can see, the current lead states what the Purgatory theory is according to the Church that has formulated it, indicates how the theory came to be formulated, and indicates also what others think of the theory, explicitly saying that others do not accept it. Where is the advocacy in that? An article on something like Einstein's Theory of Relativity could do the same: state what the theory is as formulated by its author, perhaps give some indication on how he came to formulat the theory, and, if appropriate, indicate generically the views of others about it. Where would be the advocacy in that? Sorry, I need your help to understand your statement. Lima 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's written from a narrative viewpoint that assumes the Catholic POV is correct, downplaying differances which have historically been of serious contention between the Catholic and Orthodox. Or at the least, it is how it appears to me as a reader. (Purgatory is one of the main issues in the division between Catholic and Orthodox, in pairing with disagreements over creeds & Christology.) It additionally is heavily reliant on primary sources, which is heavily discouraged. Footnote 3 is especially of concern, since the statement it supports is original research. A lede should be a summary of the article, and have very few to no footnotes. Please see WP:LEDE. Regardless of POV issues, which may simply be a misreading by me as I am a subjective single person, the lede is far from adhering to the principle and letter of Wikipedia rules. For example, the Catechism is very useful for verifying, and have an official source on, what is or is not an official Catholic teaching. However, it should not be used as the main source, since it is a primary source. This topic is well-covered enough that there is no difficulty in finding reliable and highly respected secondary sources. I hope that clarifies my concerns. Vassyana 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Original research, POV. OK, that's a lot clearer. Thanks. You are perhaps too modest in estimating the value of your opinion. Still, I like to question authority, and I don't see any support for the idea that the lede should be low on footnotes. I can't find it on WP:Lede. Am I really just missing it? I do understand the general point, that the lede should be so well within established scholarship that there's no one particular authority to point to. But on the religion pages, information gets deleted if it's not referenced. Sometimes even if it is referenced. Jonathan Tweet 00:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm an old man. :o) Once upon a time it encouraged leads to have no footnotes. Since the lede is supposed to summarize the article, any facts should be cited in the article body. I still think it is a good idea. However, you are the correct that the guideline does not currently provide such guidance. Apologies for my error. Vassyana 03:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I have fully comprehended Vassyana's comments. (I think I may well be the older of the two.) But I have endeavoured to rid the lead of what he seems to see as wrong in it. That, I think, is a good way to carry the discussion forward.

Footnote 3 is now gone, not because its content is accused of being Original Research, since it would be extremely easy to quote secondary sources that quote the same writers for the same idea: it is just that I do not think the statement it supported is important enough to keep in the lead. Non-Catholic sources for statements in the lead are now more abundant than Catholic ones. (Again, I just do not see why quoting CCC for the teaching of the Catholic Church can be considered Original Research; if anyone does insist on that idea, we can give a dozen or more secondary sources that state what CCC says on the matter, an operation that to my poor mind seems utterly stupid.)

If someone thinks the differences between the Greek and the Latin ideas of final purification have not been sufficiently stressed, the remedy is in his hands: let him add sourced statements about the differences. But let him not suppress official statements by the Greek side thatr indicate that the differences are not quite as radical as perhaps some imagine them to be.

Now a plea for help. Will someone please give me the link to Vassyana's suggestions about how to work on this article. The link to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory was added automatically (or rather, I suppose, by Vassyana) to my watchlist; but no link to the separate page(s) with the suggestions appears, as far as I can see, either on that that page or on my watchlist. I think his suggestions included that of pasting in the Talk page the previous text of anything changed. Perhaps it was instead the contrary. Provisionally, I have made the modifications only in the article itself. That has the advantage of making it easy to see what exactly are the changes that have been introduced. But I am fully prepared to follow Vassyana's suggestions, when I get to read them again. Meanwhile, perhaps someone else will kindly do on my behalf whatever pasting I was supposed to do myself.

Now will everybody else be good enough to give their opinions on the purified lead (not yet, I think, in its final purification stage). Lima 08:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You may find my general suggestions here. Please, if you disagree with any of my suggestions or opinions, feel free to object and discuss. I have no authority here. We're looking for consensus not just cooperation. If you have any questions or objections, please feel free to voice them. Cheers! Vassyana 10:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the suggestions seems to me to indicate that no particular action is necessary, since my editing of the lead is meant only to adjust it to meet the objections of others, and is not, I think, a major change. Others may disagree and may take the action that they think is required. But it would be better if they would, like Vassyana, comment on some concrete points rather than making merely generic objections. Further adjustments in response to such comments would then pave the way for a consensus.

Objections to present lead

First, I don't even agree that the lead in the main body should be our starting point. It's like the ghost of LostCaesar came back to put the lead back the way he liked it. The lead doesn't even describe purgatory as it's understood today. It gives a definition and then launches into history. Who goes to purgatory and why? How does it fit into the afterlife plan described by the Church? How does a good Catholic minimize their time in purgatory? I could modify this lead until it had the description, context, and neutral tone, but it would be easier to start over, and that's what I've already done anyway with my last draft. Jonathan Tweet 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't even agree that the lead in the main body should be our starting point. There is no rival starting point. It's like the ghost of LostCaesar came back to put the lead back the way he liked it. You mean to prevent it from being the way you like it. The lead doesn't even describe purgatory as it's understood today. Understood by whom? By you, as a straw man you yourself create so as to knock it down easily? It gives a definition and then launches into history. Not a bad way to begin, used by other articles on religious and scientific (see examples in Category:Fundamental physics concepts) subjects. Who goes to purgatory and why? Those who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified from attachment to material things rather than God; or, to put it in another way, in line with Eastern Orthodox teaching: Those who died with faith, but without having had time to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance. How does it fit into the afterlife plan described by the Church? As purification for entering the joy of heaven. How does a good Catholic minimize their time in purgatory? By living a good life: after death they cannot themselves change their situation. I could modify this lead until it had the description, context, and neutral tone, but it would be easier to start over, and that's what I've already done anyway with my last draft. A draft that drew much criticism and no support. As I already said, there is no rival starting point. Lima 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We agreed to mediation. Our mediator said to combine the best parts of the leads into one, not start with one lead and fix it incrementally. Let's follow the mediator's suggestion. I've pointed out the bits I like in Lima's lead. Now Lima can point out the part he likes in mine, and we can try to combine the best of both. Jonathan Tweet 20:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What I think you call Lima's lead (Draft IV) is dead. Otherwise I would still be adjusting it in view of comments. What about comments on the live proposal? Concrete ones, please.

The Tweet lead is presumably the one labelled "Jonathan 2.0". That goes back to 13:58, 12 June 2007. I have failed to find any more recent. In the rather long interval since then, this draft has never, even once, been adjusted in view of the many negative comments that others have passed on it. I have read it through several times again, and regret to say that I find nothing in it that I could select as "bits I like". I am sorry for having to say this, but clarity can only come with sincerity.

It seems then that, unfortunately, this suggestion for reaching consensus does not work. What else, if anything, can we try? Lima 00:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused

Why does this article talk about all manner of theological topics, from infant baptism / salvation, to heaven and hell, mortal and venial sin, indulgences, eschatology...? I think the page needs a purgation of its own. 129.11.76.215 14:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if the person who made this remark - and others too - would together discuss the question (above under "lead") Lima 04:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

POVs

I'm taking the liberty of splitting the personal POV discussion off from the long Lead discussion. The issue of the editors' POVs is broader than the lead proper, and I don't want that separate thread to get lost.

Here's what I stated my POV as:

My POV is that religions historically demonstrate considerable change in beliefs over centuries.

And Lima:

In exactly the same way, I think a doctrine of another Church or religion should be presented as that Church or religion proposes it.

And SumDude:

As for my own POV, if one can call it that, I don't have an in depth knowledge of the subject and I'm not Roman Catholic. I merely stumbled upon an article which seemed to have two editors with conflicting ideas (Jonathan Tweet and Lima) and as such I hope to format current information rather than introduce new information. I feel I am fairly unbiased, but I believe that the lead should deal more with the definition and explanation of the subject matter than going in depth about its history or disputation.

GoldenMeadows, you've floated a draft of the lead. Would you like to play this little game and describe your POV? Jonathan Tweet 13:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC) JT, Am not entirely sure what you are asking since I have already expressed my POV about the article presentation above. If you mean do I have strong personal views on the issue and want that reflected in the article then the answer is no. I think I am tolerant when it comes to religions, I can admire anyone who sincerely tries to live out what they they believe, as long as they respect the rights of their fellow human beings. GoldenMeadows 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Lima says: "I think a doctrine of another Church or religion should be presented as that Church or religion proposes it." This approach, presenting a topic the way one Church or religion presents proposes it, looks to me like a violation of NPOV. Jonathan Tweet 14:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense! If what you present as the doctrine of a Church or religion is something other than what the Church or religion holds, then you are off topic. Present it as what it really is, then criticize it as much as you wish.

I really should not have answered this red-herring topic, and I will refuse to follow it further, if the game-deviser tries to pursue it. The rest of us will, I trust, continue to discuss the article, even if he does not. Lima 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The conflict on this page is POV and how to present information on purgatory. Lima, you consider a discussion about POV and how to present information on purgatory to be a red herring. Your formula for presenting P is contrary to WP practice (and to encyclopedia in general). You say, "Present it as what it really is, then criticize it as much as you wish." The WP way to do it is not to present P from the RCC POV and then "balance" it with criticisms. The WP way is to present P from a neutral POV in the first place. Jonathan Tweet 14:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Purgatory whose existence and nature is in dispute between the Catholic Church and some others (the Purgatory surely that this article is supposed to be about) is just as surely the Purgatory that the Catholic Church believes in, otherwise it would not be defending it. Why can't we agree on "Present it as what it really is"? That is the objective and neutral way of presenting it.

I do consider a discussion about individual POVs, rather than about the content of the article, to be a red herring. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from starting a side-discussion about the Tweet's POV. After all, his POV is so blatant that everyone sees it without any need to draw attention to it. Lima 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please concentrate on work

May we please get on with discussion of the three drafts that have been proposed for the introduction? I would recommend Goldenmeadows not to respond to the question above, and to concentrate instead on the business in hand.

I have given my views on Drafts II and III. It will be more productive if Goldenmeadows will instead respond to my criticism of his draft and say what he thinks is defective or plain wrong in the other two. Then perhaps we can make progress. Lima 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

dogma

I'm going out of town soon and might be scarce for a week or so. Would someone kindly do us the favor of finding definitive online sources for Purgatory dogma? Catechisms, councils, ex cathedra, whatever. I'd be looking this stuff up myself if I had the time. I think the article itself already has a lot of the links, but I don't think it has links to all the dogmatic statements on purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 04:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Easy. In his talk on 4 August 1999, Pope John Paul II mentioned: Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304 (old numbering 693); Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580 (old numbering 840); Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820 (old numbering 983) To these can be added the 1274 Second Council of Lyon: 838 (old numbering 456). All these are in the authoritative Denzinger#The Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum.

I'm glad to be of some service to Jonathan Tweet, who is doubtless already familiar with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1030-1032. (I am surprised to see that the article does not give this among its External links. I must remedy this omission.) This catechism gives references to all the above, and also to DS 1000 (old numbering 530). Lima 09:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also SOLEMNI HAC LITURGIA (CREDO OF THE PEOPLE OF GOD), 30 June 1968, Pope Paul iv[5]

GoldenMeadows 11:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What about catechisms previous to the 1992 version? The Roman Catechism at least is dogma, isn't it? I don't know about the Bellarmine or Boston catechisms, whether they're doctrine or merely consistent with doctrine. Or other catechisms that there may have been over the centuries. Jonathan Tweet 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There were only two previous catechisms similar to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1. The Roman Catechism, also known as the Catechism of the Council of Trent, because prepared at the request of that Council. The link given in the Wikipedia article about it doesn't seem to work at present. But you can consult an English translation at this site
2. The Catechism of Pope Pius X: EWTN provides an English translation.

There were no earlier catechisms of the Catholic Church: if I remember right (but perhaps I do not), it was Martin Luther who invented the catechism genre.

I prefer not to answer the question whether the Roman Catechism is dogma. The short answer would be: "No". Is it enough to call it "authoritative"? I never heard of the "Bellarmine Catechism" or the "Boston Catechism". Do you mean the Baltimore Catechism? Rather authoritative too, even if not to the same extent as a catechism written not just for a single country (the United States of America), but for the whole Church. The Wikipedia article gives links to the text. There were and are similar catechisms in use in many countries. Lima 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Baltimore C not Boston, as I said. Bellarmine's Small Catechism comes form the late 1500s. [6] Lima says "I prefer not to answer the question whether the Roman Catechism is dogma." You promote dogma as the centerpiece for info on P, and then you prefer not to answer straight questions about dogma. In my understanding, the Roman Cat explains dogma but is not itself dogmatic. Jonathan Tweet 13:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have eliminated my reply to these remarks, since they seem to be about me, not the article. It is the article we should discuss. Lima 15:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

The original discussion concerning the POV tag has been archived. Readers deserve to know why a page is tagged. The POV tag was first applied after a retired editor gave the page an overhaul in February, resulting in a violation of NPOV (per the RfC). The page has not been fixed, and attempts to fix it have led to a dispute that's currently in mediation. Jonathan Tweet 15:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Rather than putting back here a presumably long and difficult-to-follow discussion between you and the person or persons you were formerly in dispute with but who have since given up trying to put their case, I think it would be much better if you were to place here an explanation, preferably a short one, of why you think the article as a whole is POV (I too think it is POV, but almost certainly for reasons quite different from yours) and in what way you think it requires "fixing" (I too think it needs fixing, but almost certainly in a way quite different from the way you think it should be fixed). Lima 18:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text back before I noticed Lima's post, any objections to Lima's proposal? GoldenMeadows 20:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

As is perhaps obvious from I wrote here, I was not following this article last March, when the discussion that has now been restored to the active Talk page took place. Now that I have read it, I am more than content to have it, and the POV tag, kept alive. Lima 07:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fantasy

To keep this neutral would it be possible to include something to the effect that there is a strong factual position for all of this being superstition and not existing at all ? By all means document the history and the influence of these beliefs since those things are factual and very significant in recent history. Arguing the finer points of something that doesnt exist seems a pointless use of resources. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. There is no such place as heaven hell or purgatory and no such being as god. Since wikipedia is supposed to be factual I would at least like this fact to be presented to those who come here to be educated and learn.

cdxp 14 June 2007

"Since wikipedia is supposed to be factual I would at least like this fact to be presented to those who come here to be educated and learn." Please propose a sentence or paragraph for us to add. If you're right, we're reasonable people and we'll add it. Jonathan Tweet 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But perhaps your opinions are better directed towards an article that deals with the existence or non-existence of Gods rather than this article which deals with a particular belief. You might also want to see how this issue , i.e so called "facts" only learning, has been treated in a fictional setting? GoldenMeadows 09:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, IMHO the article is factual, because it is fact that many people believe this. The article is not meant to be an assertion concerning the actual existence of purgatory, merely to give a faithful representation of what it is. Guldenat 19:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

new approach to lead

The mediator's suggestion to compromise on the lead did not result in success. The page is still a mess and the lead is still POV. We need to stop trying real hard to do what doesn't work and figure out something that does work. Here's my suggestion...

We go to the Encyclopedia Britannica page on purgatory, and we summarize it, and we use that summary as our lead. The lead is supposed to be able to stand alone, and a summary of an EB article would stand alone. The lead should be based on reliable, neutral sources, and EB fits the bill.

Then the lead is the outline for the article, which we fill in.

Before someone accuses me of laying a trap and proposing EB because it's subtly anti-RCC or something, let me say that I'd be happy to use a superior online source that someone points one out. Jonathan Tweet 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Which edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica do you mean? The copyright present edition or the public-domain 1911 edition. Links to both are given in the article. Both, within their limitations, seem good to me. If you mean to work on the copyright edition, don't forget that, right at the beginning, it makes a distinction between a) the original and strict sense, namely the Purgatory of Catholic belief; and b) "a wide range of historical and modern conceptions of postmortem suffering short of everlasting damnation." Please do not attempt to confuse them.

There is no doubt that the Buddhist, Chinese and Zoroastrian ideas mentioned and the Eastern Orthodox conception of the prayer and good deeds of the living availing to liberate the souls of the dead from their "direful condition" before the Last Judgement all fit in with the "wide range of conceptions". To this same wide range belongs "the conception of purgatory as a geographically situated place (which) is largely the achievement of medieval Christian piety and imagination." And of course to the same wide range belongs also the Purgatory in which the Catholic Church believes.

If there are to be two articles, one on the Purgatory of Catholic doctrine, and the other on the wide range of beliefs that some have come to label "purgatory" in a loose sense, I think the word "Purgatory" should direct to the first of the two, since I am convinced that what most readers want to find out about is the Purgatory that the Catholic Church believes in. If both senses are to be treated in a single article, I think the "wide range" meaning should a) be kept distinct; and b) be put in second place.

If this distinction is observed, I have no objection whatever to you or anybody else adding as much as you like to the "wide range" sections of the article. I might even try to study Zoroastrian and Buddhist ideas, as I have those of the Eastern Orthodox Church, in order to help you. Lima 17:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean the modern one. I have sometimes wondered whether there should be a "purgation" article as there is a "hell" article, plus a "purgatory (catholic)" article, as there is a "hell (Christian)" article. Let's start with one article and see what happens. Jonathan Tweet 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing the article is a lot of work. If someone objects to this effort in advance, please speak up. Jonathan Tweet 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Surely nobody objects in the abstract: the work could certainly be done in an objective NPOV way. But the rest of us fear that your concrete "summarizing" will contain much to object to. To avoid that, please do not distort the Catholic Church's teaching on Purgatory by confusing it with notions put forward by individual theologians or elaborated by popular and poetic imagination. These notions, no matter how much they differ from Eastern Orthodox or Buddhist ideas, belong with the many other notions that fit into the loose understanding of "purgatory", which until now I did not think was yours. They are not and have not been the Church's teaching.

You are aware, I presume, that the copyright Encyclopaedia Britannica article, while it begins by making the distinction between the two meanings of the word "purgatory", devotes itself then to the loose understanding of the word "purgatory", with little or no further attention to the strict meaning of the word. That is why I said that I think it is a good article "within its limitations". But when most people meet the word "Purgatory", they surely associate it with the Catholic Church's teaching - even people who have distorted ideas of what that teaching is. I therefore also said that the Wikipedia article, if it continues to bear the name "Purgatory", should give first place to the strict and original meaning of Purgatory, and not present it as merely one of the ideas that can be included under the vague meaning that some - a small minority, I think - attach to the word. How many would in fact connect the word with Buddhist ideas? Would even Buddhists use the word "purgatory" for their ideas? So, as I already said, the copyright Encyclopaedia Britannica is useful for elaborating the section(s) on the loose use of the word "purgatory". But it would be absolutely unacceptable to use it as a pretext for replacing what the Wikipedia article says or will say about the strict meaning of the word. Please keep the two meanings distinct.

And please give time, reflection and revision to whatever you write, before you present it. Lima 04:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Remember too that your statements must be verifiable. Verifiability means more than an Original Research interpretation of the Encyclopaedia Britannica article. Direct quotations, with context, in the form, "The current (2007) online edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: '...'", are to my mind perfectly legitimate. As has been shown recently, some do not allow even that, at least for quotations, with context, from early Christian writers. I fail to understand the logic of this position. Lima 06:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The lede should be general enough that we don't need to quote specific sources by name (though we can footnote them). If you think that the lead should be peppered with phrases such as "The current (2007) online edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says: '...'", we're in for another conflict. If you want to challenge V's analysis that the use of primary sources in SCL's lede is OR, then just go read the OR page and find where he's wrong. As to the loose definition of purgatory, I'm not inclined to say that the Chinese Hell is a purgatory. But I'd say that if it's called purgatory and it's significant it can be mentioned. What about the cave leading to St. Patrick's Purgatory? That's not doctrinal Purgatory, but it's part of the historical picture of Purgatory.

You disagreed with our mediator about the length of the lede. You disagreed with him about OR and primary sources in the lede. You were unable to take the first step in following his suggestion and compromising with me on our respective leads. Now you are lodging in advance your potential objections to using a current, well-respected, neutral source as the foundation for our content. The current lede is POV and suits you fine. I'm putting some fair bit of work into summarizing a long and concise article, and it's not hard to see what your reaction is going to be when I'm done. My hope for this effort is dimming. Can you say anything that would give me reason to continue? Jonathan Tweet 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

How about having separate sections for the Catholic understanding (this would probably be the largest due to the extent of theological development), Protestant understanding, Universalist understanding, questions of supertition, etc?

Strangely, there's fierce opposition to including a complete Catholic understanding, as much of the teaching about purgatory isn't doctrine and is thus subject to criticism. Jonathan Tweet 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

recent overhaul

Lima, would you please weigh in and give your opinion of the article in its current state? Would you agree with whoever took off the POV tag that it's now in line with WP policy? Jonathan Tweet 03:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

This article has been pro-Catholic POV since LostCaesar overhauled it in Feburary. The mediation that LC dropped out of labelled the page POV. The RfC that LC requested labelled the page POV. The new mediator labelled LostCaesar's new lead (the current one) as POV. For those of you new to this game, here's how the pro-Catholic POV works on this page.

• Suppress reference to "punishment." A salient feature of P is that it's punishment. The lead elides this fact because it doesn't play well to a modern audience.
• Purgatory as a condition. The term purgatory originally referred to a place, specifically a hell (inferno, underworld). The idea of immaterial souls being kept underground doesn't play well, so editors talk about the term referring to a condition or a process. Dogmatically, purgatory is a place, being given that defintion in 1254. These days, it's understood as a place in the spiritual sense, but it's a place.
• Suppress details. The Council of Trent recommended that Catholics not discuss P freely because it's liable to be criticized or misunderstood. Editors defend the pro-Catholic POV by deleting details that they don't like. Details that can't be suppressed, such as the single most comprehensive scholarly book on Purgatory saying that it's a medieval invention, get downplayed (e.g., stuck in the back of the article).
• Doctrine. The idea that purgatory is a doctrine is false. Purgatory is a place or condition of afterlife punishment and purification. There are doctrines about it, but it's not a doctrine. Also, there are nondoctrinal teachings. Also folk beliefs. The attempt to define P as a doctrine, or to denigrate all teaching about purgatory that isn't doctrine, is an attempt to defend the broader P tradition from criticism.
• History. P as formulated in the middle ages just doesn't exist in the early church or early medieval church. Early Christians believed that the dead awaited judgment day in hades, and that the saved were happy there, not punished. Editors struggle to find elements of early Christian belief that synch up with purgatory rather than simply summarizing early Christian afterlife beliefs.
• Bible. The section on what the Bible says about P has been deleted because the Bible can only be taken to refer to purgatory if interpreted in the manner of centuries-later Catholic teaching.

I like Catholicism for its erudition, charity, and support of human rights, but the months-long defense of pro-Catholic POV on this article forces me to promote the viewpoints that come across as anti-Catholic. If this page were dominated by raving Protestants who wanted to portray P as invented wholesale in the 1100s, then I'd be defending P against them.

LC's POV lead has been sitting there for weeks. If no one else fixes it, I will.

I also have a standing offer to use the Encyclopedia Britannica article on P as the basis for a comprehensive lead, which would be the basis for structuring the article as a whole, but I'm not going to do the work if it's just going to be stonewalled. Do I have any support for that project? Jonathan Tweet 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the pov you want added is your own, eccentric pov. Purgatory is not one of your D&D worlds, and this article is about purgatory, not a caricature of it. 86.141.36.162 17:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you ensure your comment are civil?--Addhoc 19:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous from Leeds, England

Would the anonymous editor using a Leeds University computer explain why s/he keeps reverting to a version with errors?

Does s/he not agree that Purgatory is not a doctrine, but is instead what the doctrine is about? The souls in Purgatory are surely not in a doctrine, but in what the doctrine is about. Why then does s/he not accept that Purgatory is the object of a doctrine, not the doctrine itself?

Does s/he deny that the word "purgatory" is sometimes, admittedly in a loose analogical sense, applied, not to the Purgatory that the word in the strict sense refers to, the one that the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is about, but instead to a temporary after-death purification or punishment believed in by, for instance, Buddhists (who admittedly would perhaps not themselves use the word "purgatory" for the object of their belief). That the word is sometimes used in this way is verifiably shown by the citation of the online Encyclopaedia Britannica given in the text that s/he keeps erasing.

I myself will not object if s/he insists on deleting the sections "Place or condition", "Heaven and Hell", "Purgatory's role", "Venial vs Mortal sins", "Nature of Purgatory", "Indulgences". In fact, I think this part of the article should be considerably reduced. But I am sure others will object. If s/he wants to eliminate all that part, s/he can do so without reverting to a version with errors.

S/he has introduced two formating errors in the section "Eastern Orthodox Churches".

Why does s/he insist on changing all quotation marks to "smart quotes", when "straight quotes" are the usual ones in Wikipedia?

Why does s/he keep eliminating the interwiki link to sq:Purgatori?

Soidi 18:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you do not object to the removal of the superfluous sections, then I removed them. Its best, since this article is about hell, not every facet of Catholic belief in the afterlife and judgement. I fixed the format error, I think, and employed straight quotes as you requested. I also returned the links I acdentially took out. The only change you questioned that was not employed was the bit that purgatory is not a doctrine, and the "analogical loose sene" refered to. Perhaps we could have a disambiguation page for other uses of the word Purgatory, but its standard use refers to the Catholic teaching about the purification of the elect in the afterlife. 129.11.77.198 11:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Leeds. And apologies for the brusque tone I used earlier. I really only wanted to discuss the matter, instead of reverting each other's work. We may even find we agree fully.

I don't like the expression: "'Purgatory' refers to a doctrine of the Catholic Church." Surely it is the other way round: the Catholic doctrine refers to Purgatory. I have now tried to express the idea in another way, since you seem to dislike saying that Purgatory is the object of a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The reason why I think we should mention the loose sense in which some use the word "purgatory" (lower case is more suitable in this case, I think) is that, as you will see in the discussion above, one editor insisted that his idea of Purgatory was better than the idea that the Catholic Church and that if the article dealt only with the Purgatory that the Catholic Church believes (you might well ask what other Purgatory is there) the article would be POV (according to his POV, of course). Most editors seem to agree with you instead, but I think we should make some allowance for him.

What I said about straight quotes was only because I imagined (wrongly, I now think) that you were insisting on changing them to smart quotes.

Anything else we should discuss? Soidi 15:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As one of Wikipedia's many style tics, far too many articles begin with "Articlename is a term referring to...." Of course it's a term! And if it didn't refer to anything we'd hardly bother with an article about it. Just start with the word and get on with it, as you did in your edit. It much improved the intro.

This is almost as annoying as "it should be noted". TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous editor from Leeds who wishes to define purgatory as a doctrine and who wants to remove explanatory material from the page? Why, LostCaesar, have you come back to us? Jonathan Tweet 14:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, LostCaesar, don't you come back to us? You may have given up the effort because of a JT quibble, but that is in the past. Your view too deserves consideration. Lima 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I left because I felt spending large ammounts of time contributing was ultimately useless, since, as experienced showed me, someone with no expertise could butcher factual information in an almost unlimited number of articles and, when called on it, win the day by either rallying another random person to his cause, or simply increasing editorial output through bursts of unmatchable energy. I suppose I retain a measure of hope, since I still return from time to time. 129.11.76.216 12:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do. Not just to look, but to intervene. Lima 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LostCaesar, here's one place where we agree, that this page is a huge waste of time because WP doesn't have standards in place to discern between good scholarship and POV muck. This page is a mess. It shows WP editing at its worst. While I agree with your assessment as to how vulnerable WP is to editors with POV to champion, I would also mention the animosity, name-calling, wikistalking, and blatant disregard for WP standards that have marked this page. Jonathan Tweet 03:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

LostCasear, while I was afk, did you ever own up to being Sanctum Cor Leonis, or deny it? Leadwind 13:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. Lima 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

external link

In addition to Jewish and Catholic apologetic views on this topic, I am going to add this: http://www.carm.org/catholic/purgatory.htm regarding Protestant apologetic views on Purgatory. I found no proof of spamming on this website with its hyperlinks. Any opinion? - 219.73.11.127 07:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No you won't. Stop spamming that website into articles. IrishGuy ^talk 19:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

This one-single article is focusing on the topic of Purgatory, I see no trace of spamming. FYI, instances exist on wiki when CARM articles are widely used as external sources:

• Criticism of Mormonism
• Arnold Murray
• Tahrif
• Lucy Harris

Don't make me laugh!--219.73.11.127 04:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

One last time, adding links to the same website in numerous articles is spamming. Stop. IrishGuy ^talk 07:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Read the link above, it is simply on-topic Purgatory article. 219.73.11.127 08:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it when you adding a links to this articles may result as a spam? But why? Is that you are only have source to a certain article and have an additional information about the topic of an articles? isn't it a good idea or else.--Sarahosmer 18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

oxford dictionary of the christian church (ODCC)

I can't imagine why anyone would object to the addition of concise information from a reputable, current, nonsectarian source. Object away. Jonathan Tweet 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Just about every nonsectarian reference refers to purgatory, in the very first sentence, as a "condition or place" where souls undergo "punishment." Why aren't the words "place" and "punishment" in the very first sentence, as they are in standard source? Even the gol-dang Catholilc Encyclopedia uses the terms "place" and "punishment" when defining purgatory. Those words have been kept out of the first sentence, demonstrating a long-standing POV issue that pervades the article. Let's just make our first sentence basically like every other nonsectarian source: "In RC, purgatory is the afterlife condition or place of expiation and punishment where the faithful are purged of sins before entering heaven."

Once again, the lead has been turned into a hash by people adding stuff in order to protect the pro-purgatory POV. When a sentence is negative toward purgatory, someone has added a clause to the effect of "According to SOURCE, [negative thing]..." Extra stuff has been jammed into sentences in order to protect the pro-purgatory POV.

LC's request for comment told him to incorporate Goff's stuff into the body instead of segregating it as an "interpretation," and he still hasn't.

Same old stuff.

Sorry for my unexplained absence. Ongoing tragedy in my immediate family has hampered my efforts. My attendance will be sporadic. Jonathan Tweet 01:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Prayerful best wishes for you and all others affected by the ongoing tragedy.

What better than RC to complete the sentence "In RC, purgatory is ..."? And, within RC, what better than a source with the standing of CCC? Lima 11:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the good wishes. I'm confident that they are genuine. What better than the CCC for a source? How about the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church? Or the Catholic Encyclopedia from a hundred years ago? The CCC is for Catholics. WP is not. Oxford is for readers looking for a nonsectarian authority. So is WP. Thus, Oxford is a better source than CCC. If you agree, please change the first sentence. If not, explain why something written for Catholics is a better source than something written for the general scholar. Jonathan Tweet 21:58, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Because, while saying that Purgatory is an invention of the (Latin-Rite) Catholic Church, you cannot at the same time disregard what the Catholic Church itself says that Purgatory is. Why go to a tertiary source for information easily available in direct form?

For a statement beginning: "In Lutheranism, justification is ...", most people would think a Lutheran source more authoritative than a non-Lutheran one. The same holds for the statement, "In RC, purgatory is ..." Lima 04:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, the rest of you, Lima's said his piece and I've said mine. Chime in. Jonathan Tweet 04:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've substituted in the standard definition used by nonsectarian experts in the field, until such time as we have consensus that we should deviate from the standard definition. Jonathan Tweet 14:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Standard definition"! Who but JT calls it that? And changing it without waiting for others to "chime in"! Lima 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Who indeed? Just the RC itself (1913 encyclopedia) and most standard references. This isn't the definition I chose. It's the one that I found over and over again when researching purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 23:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Britannica

We don't have to all agree about purgatory. We only have to agree what the standard, nonsectarian, reliable sources say about purgatory. I volunteer to summarize the Britannica article on purgatory, and then we can use that summary as the lead. Everyone can independently review the original and compare it to my summary, so you won't even have to trust me that I've been fair. Then, once we have a solid lead in place, we can use it as the outline to fill out the article. No more arguing about whether we have to explain venial sins, etc. We just humbly submit ourselves to a solid, reputable source and follow its direction, and then we don't have to agree among ourselves on the details. I know that Lima and LostCaesar will not like this deal (though I'm curious to read their explanations). I'm hoping that there's now another editor following this mess who would back me. Jonathan Tweet 14:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

JT either wants the article to speak of the Purgatory that the Catholic Church claims to know of through Sacred Tradition or of some other Purgatory.

If of some other Purgatory, which one? Dante's? The Purgatory presented in some modern films? That imagined by JT himself? That is not what the Britannica article sets out to describe. (Whether it succeeds in its task can be considered later.) That is not what people would look for in an article on Purgatory in any encyclopedia, even Wikipedia, except perhaps in a later part of the article under a heading like "Purgatory in literature and art" or "Trivia". If that is JT's idea of what the article should be, I disagree completely.

I have no such head-on disagreement with JT, if he thinks that the article is meant to give information about the Purgatory that is declared to be real and not imaginary, the Purgatory that the Britannica article intends to describe, the Purgatory that ordinary readers want to learn about. We don't have to all agree about Purgatory, whether it exists and in what it consists. But someone who wants to suggest that the idea of Purgatory is ridiculous should in all honesty make sure that what he is attacking is not just a straw-man Purgatory of his own or others' imagination. And the only way for him to make sure that he has not fallen into that trap is to see what the Church that holds and teaches the doctrine of the existence and nature of Purgatory really says about it. So we only have to agree what is the most reliable source for that information. Surely the Church in question is the surest source of information on that, not secondary or tertiary sources like encyclopedias, which are at best only as good as their sources.

(Although Purgatory in itself is not a doctrine, the editor from Leeds was right in thinking that what readers want to know is what does the doctrine of the existence and nature of Purgatory really say about Purgatory and why it says it.) Lima 16:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would WP readers want anything different from what Britannica readers get? What better source to use as our guideline? Jonathan Tweet 23:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Recommended reading: this International Herald Tribune article. Where do you think the writer of the EB article turned to for the information he put in it? Did he turn to secondary sources, as the "experts" mentioned in the IHT article did, and as JT is doing? (In JT's case the sources seem to be tertiary rather than secondary.) I presume that the EB writer did not receive some direct supernatural revelation! When we can get past the secondary (and tertiary) sources to an accurate easily accessible primary statement that can be quoted without interpretation, why should WP readers be satisfied with anything less? Lima 04:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(deleting my off-base comment) Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, I was wrong in thinking everybody could see that the International Herald Tribune article was about the way secondary sources sometimes copy each other without checking the facts, and not about Purgatory. Lima 08:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

My bad. You're saying that the WP policy of reliable sources doesn't apply here because what counts as a reliable source most of the time (e.g., a scholarly, nonsectarian reference) doesn't count as RS in this case. So instead of trusting RS, we should only trust RCC. I disagree. I want to found the article on EB. Let's get a request for comment on this topic: which information source should the WP purgatory article resemble? I say EB. I could live with ODCC. What's your alternative? That the WP article on purgatory be unlike any other encyclopedia entry on the topic? Jonathan Tweet 13:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying that. Lima 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're not saying that our article should be unlike anyone else's, than this will be easy. Just tell us what encyclopedia entry it should be like. I say EB or ODCC. What do you say? Jonathan Tweet 17:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Like other Wikipedia entries. Lima 17:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no other purgatory entries on WP. Like which encyclopoedia entry should ours be? Like EB? Like ODCC? Or like none other? Jonathan Tweet 21:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not "other Wikipedia purgatory entries". Other Wikipedia entries. Do you think they all had to be made in the image and likeness of an entry in some outside reference book? Lima 04:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from now. Other WP articles are unlike other encyclopedia articles, and you think this one should be, too. This entry should be unlike other encyclopedias' Purgatory entries. That's a fine opinion. Let's get a request-for-comment on that. "Should WP's Purgatory article resemble that of EB, or should it be unlike any other encyclopedia entry on Purgatory?" Does that sound like a good idea to you? Other WP articles don't have to look like this or that article, but other articles are balanced and informative. This one is POV and ugly. I've got a solution: model our miserable article after a respectable Purgatory article in some other encyclopedia. Do you think that this one is better than the EB article? If not, let's switch and follow EB's lead. Leadwind 02:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, WP articles are like, not unlike, other encyclopedia articles. Other encyclopedias too do not model their articles on articles in other encyclopedias.

Why do you keep erasing the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church account of what Purgatory is, thus pushing your POV? The article also has the description that you want, with "place" and "punishment". (If I may be permitted to speak frankly, the major ugliness in many parts of the article is due precisely to that POV-pushing.) Lima 04:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, so let's make our article like good articles out there. E.g., describe P in the standard way, not with a quote from CCC. "Place" and "punishment" aren't my POV. They are standard, and they're in the Catholic Encyc. Is the CE anti-Catholic POV? No. Then "place" and "punishment" aren't, either. Leadwind 13:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

That is still no excuse for erasing the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church account of what Purgatory is. Lima 14:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New user name

The old one attracted insults regarding my profession and my funny last name. The new one is anonymous. It's no secret who I am. Leadwind 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Every time I see the new name, I wonder: Lead, the metal? or the article introduction? or something else? No need to respond. Lima 16:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Lead" is the metal, the front part of an article, and a vanguard. "Wind" is both "gust" and "twist around." Human knowledge is ambiguous. Leadwind 20:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to other reference sources

To break a longstanding POV impasse, should we model WP's Purgatory article after the Purgatory article in Encyclopedia Britannica, or some other reference work?

Having looked at the article, I am very unclear as to the difficulty. The above sentence is very ambiguous. Could someone summarise the matter? Ritterschaft 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

After coming to this page after seeing it on WP:RFC, I have smilar confusion. There are certainly some stylistic/organizational improvements possible, as alluded to below, but I fail to see any (obvious) POV issues. It actually seems to be the skeleton of a really good article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

POV arguments on this page have concerned whether to define purgatory as a "condition or place," whether to make explicit the connection to venial and mortal sins, whether to compare purgatory to traditions outside of Christianity, etc. My suggestion is to follow another encyclopedia as a guideline so that those of us on opposite sides of a POV dispute don't have to agree on such things. Another way to look at it might be, if I find something in EB's Purgatory article, should I be able to include it here (on the assumption that if it's good enough for EB it's good enough for us)? Or should Catholic editors be able to exclude material from EB that they don't like to see on this page? Since Lima and I can't agree on what should even go on this page, getting a neutral, third source (e.g., EB) as our guide would liberate us from having to agree (which we are patently unable to do). Of course, just getting a few reasonable editors into the mix could go a long way, too. Leadwind 00:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

On or around Feb 27, a now-retired editor gave this whole page a POV overhaul. The work was very well done and apparently designed to look neutral, factual, fair, and complete. It's easier to see what went wrong if you are familiar with what the page used to include (e.g., a painting of a lost soul in purgatory, which was deemed "not edifying" by this editor). Check out this link [7] to see what's been deleted, altered, or muddled. The POV might become more apparent as I try (again) to add material that has been deleted before. Leadwind 01:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The resolution to the question ‘whether to define purgatory as a condition or place’ is to note that we should not define purgatory ourselves, but accurately represent pertinent views about the matter. Insofar as purgatory is a Catholic doctrine, the Catholic view should be drawn from the most current and most authoritative source about Catholic teachings. If there is a diversity of views on the matter, those most relevant could also be described subsequently.

We should only compare the doctrine of purgatory with purgation in other religions if a suitable source makes such a comparison in a relevant way. We should not undertake the comparison ourselves.

Another encyclopaedia can be a useful tool and guide, though too much extensive borrowing should be avoided. We should also keep a keen eye out for secondary sources, and not confine ourselves to one tertiary source. The only difficulty will arise if two sources give differing information. Ritterschaft 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

RS: " Insofar as purgatory is a Catholic doctrine, the Catholic view should be drawn from the most current and most authoritative source about Catholic teachings." So you say we should describe P the way the Catechism does instead of the way numerous, nonsectarian references do. Why is WP any different from EB, Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, etc.? Why not do what they do? This topic is a fine example of the slippery POV that marks this page. If Catholics can define purgatory as "purification of the elect," the subtext is that all Christians believe in some final purification of the elect. Thus, purgatory is the RC name for something that all Christians believe in. That's the RC POV, and it's in the CCC. Scholars, on the other hand, define purgatory as a condition or place of punishment and purgation. That's something that no other Christians believe in. Big difference. Other encyclopedias define P as a condition or place of punishment and purification. So should we. And accepting the discipline of modeling ourselves after another source would give us a ready answer to each one of these slippery, contentious points. Leadwind 13:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I now see what this so-called conflict is about. Calling this a POV issue is seemingly a strawman fallen back on only because you are asserting a false dichotomy, an unduly restricted either/or decision, this way or that way, without noticing the possibility of a both option. (Note your "instead".) Describe both facets, even including the intellectual relationship between them. This is really a style and writing issue, not a POV one. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe Baccyak4h has properly understood me. The point is to move away from the notion that we are responsible for defining purgatory, and understanding our purpose as one of faithfully rendering relevant views. This established, we no longer ask which one source is best, but which sources are pertinent and valued. Ritterschaft 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. We're not defining purgatory. We're telling readers how purgatory is defined. That's why I'd like us to follow standard practice when we tell readers how purgatory is defined, that is, it's a place or condition of punishment and purification. Leadwind 17:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Something is not getting through. Let me simply repeat the comment above by Baccyak4H, you are asserting a false dichotomy, an unduly restricted either/or decision, this way or that way, without noticing the possibility of a both option. Ritterschaft 19:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Must have missed this comment earlier. OK, so the message here is to describe P both as encyclopedias describe it and how RCC describes it? Leadwind 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Old comment: "Insofar as purgatory is a Catholic doctrine, the Catholic view should be drawn from the most current and most authoritative source about Catholic teachings." Yes, the RCC view should be drawn from authoritaitive Catholic statements. Agreed. Experts should draw views from legit sources and write their summaries in encyclopedias, where we find them and cite them. Leadwind 22:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe my wording may have been unfortunate and confusing. I referred to a longstanding POV dispute, but this dispute is not over whether to model this P article after some other P article. The dispute is over everything. Is purgatory a place? Is purgatory a doctrine? Do the EO essentially believe in P? Is P in the Bible and is that even relevant? Does P date from the time of Christ? Is the medieval Jewish belief of gehinom (a fiery spiritual forge in the afterlife where souls are purified) relevant to P? Is P a controversial belief? We have had little luck resolving this by trying to agree reasonably. I'm proposing using a third-party article as a guide as a way to put the POV disputes aside. We follow the third-party article and thus don't have to agree on particular points in order to move the article forward. Leadwind 02:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

May I try?

Seems like this page has been in dispute for some time. I think I can spot some ways to improve it, so I'm gonna start being bold. In doing so, I'm sure I'll accidently do something controversial-- if you could do me a favor: if at all possible, talk before just revert that's cool (if it's not, I understand, but it might be helpful given how long the dispute's gone one). If you must revert-- please please PLEASE revert only specific objections-- nothing's more frustrating than spending a hour or more cleaning up a page only to see it reverted wholesale.

rolling up sleeves --Alecmconroy 17:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright-- what do you think of the new intro? --Alecmconroy 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick perusal and it reads quite well. A couple quick points: Is the final PP re Eastern Catholics even necessary? It seems its only contribution is regarding tangental intraCatholic distinctions per se and nothing to do with Purgatory specifically. Second, a fine point, should the phrase "with few exceptions" qualifying Protestant views be as such, or "with a few exceptions" (emph only for clarity here)? The former seems to make the contrast in a very emphatic sense. The latter seems more qualifying and is generally the more common usage. Both are probably true literally, but which captures the references best? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally always thought the ECC paragraph in the intro was a bit much, but I let it stand because it seemed like I had suggested it in the past and it didn't take. But if you independently came to the same conclusion, I'd say we're on the right track, so i'll make that change.

The distinction between "with few exceptions" and "with a few exceptions" is interesting. I don't honestly know which would be more appropriate. Strictly speaking, I myself have never heard of any protestant denominations that had purgatory, but I'm far from an expert on the subject. Does anyone know if there even ARE any exceptions? --Alecmconroy 20:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

My advice would be to wait before making more unilateral extensive changes. I'm not objecting to the effort. To the contrary, I don't want to see your valuable time wasted. With a pending request for comment, and an ongoing debate (from the looks of the edit history), I imagine the article will be rather unstable until the matters at issue are sorted out. And, at any rate, new people coming to make a comment need to be able to comment on the article in a form that is more or less sedentary. I, for one, am confused enough about the issues at hand. Ritterschaft 21:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Better. Thanks Alec. Now that other editors are watching, I might try to add some more material that certain editors have, until now, excluded from this page as part of the POV dispute. A recurrent past pattern is that certain other editors resist and simply outlast new editors that come here to work on the page. Please stick around or at least circle back here every once in a while. The page is only this bad because it's languished in obscurity. Leadwind 01:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Your cleanup efforts look reasonable, esp. rm redundant ref metaciting, although I still fail to see how it was as bad as I take it you think it just now or in either of the diffs above (not that either version was above some work). But more eyes will continue to help, agreed. I also agree it's prudent to propose any larger scale changes here first, per spirit of Ritterschaft's comment. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Could we please be bold? The way that the POV on this article has been maintained is that certain editors simply outlast and wear out those who try to edit the page. If we take this slow, the same thing could happen again. The page has been bad for most of the last year and really bad since Feb. If the group decides to go slow, OK, it's just that I've seen this thing before on previous RfCs, etc. Leadwind 13:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the text of the EB article available anywhere? It certainly bears looking at. If it's not publically available, but you have a copry, perhaps you could email it to, and point out how you think we're differing from EB. --Alecmconroy 13:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory on EB online. This is why I'm fixated on EB. It's a source that everyone can check independently. My goal is to break through the POV logjam using readily available, reliable information. Leadwind 13:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you showed me only contains the first few sentences, since I don't have a description. Would you email me the rest? I'm sure that that qualifies as a fair use, given we're non-profit encyclopedia writers. --Alecmconroy 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Try the link in the External Links section. It works for me. Leadwind 13:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me for free, but I went ahead and acquired a copy of it anyway. I wonder how inappropriate it'd be to temporary add it as a subpage of talk so we can all examine in.

Anyway, now what I have it-- what is it you think EB is doing that we're not-- what are the salient differences, do you think? --Alecmconroy 15:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I say add it as a subpage. The salient differences are many, but I don't have time to review the whole article right now. Leadwind 17:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Place"

Just my two cent, but it seems like, in so far as we describe the MODERN concept, we shouldn't use the term place, because it seems to have been outdated. I know that once upon a time, people seriously believed that heaven was "above" us in the sky somehow, and hell "below us" in the earth somehow. Even those this imagery and these metaphors still persist, I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find someone who still believes heaven, hell, or purgatory are places.

Granted, the language still used that way-- "Go to heaven, go to hell" sounds as if it talks about a physical transport to a specific location-- not a flow-chart like transfer to a specific state, process, or plane of existence.

Now, historically speaking all bets are off, because prior to astrophysics and geology, people definitely did think they were physical places. --Alecmconroy 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So, in functional terms, we're going to have to mention place, because it has often been viewed as a place. But we shouldn't insist in including place when summarizing modern belief, because place seems to no longer be part of modern formal theology. --Alecmconroy 13:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to make explicit that Catholics no longer regard purgatory as a place as they once did, or that its punishments involve material flames. Leadwind 13:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

CCC in lead

I think we absolutely have to have CCC in lead, as it is the "most authoritative" description of what modern Roman Catholics believe. I don't see its inclusion as a POV per se-- , I mean, if Purgatory is a Latin-rite RC term, the CCC is a valuable point of view.

I do worry that we jump straight into the CCC just a tad too early-- the CCC has very "insider" language that's quite hard to parse if you're not familiar with RC or atleast christianity. I'd like to see us have a paragraph or a section where someone who knows almost nothing about christianity could pretty quickly get the gist of it, without they more technical language that we employ. But that's not really a POV concern, it's just a stylistic issue. --Alecmconroy 13:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we use too much jargon. Quoting the CCC is all well and good, but we need something clear for the uninitiated reader. Same goes for the body, where the meat of the article (what purgatory is) is basically quotes from the CCC. Leadwind 22:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead edit disputes and a generally long lead

Okay, having looked over the whole article, I think one of the reason we're having such a tough time is that the main article body is just too dense. Instead, we keep drifting toward writing a little "mini-article" as the lead. Additionally, we spend a HUGE amount of time caught up on this issue of what exactly Eastern views of Purgatory are. And now, I see we've even added a bit about Chinese view of purgatory in the intro-- which is interesting and somethign that merits coverage, but probably not in the intro.

So, let's invoke Wikipedia:Summary style, and cleave off some of these extended discussions of ECC, EO, Protestant, Dharmic, and Daoist into a new article: Purgatory and World Religions. Then we can add compare-and-contrasts of other religions to our hearts content. For example-- what does Islam say about the subject??

And then, we summarize in the main article. Because when the reader comes to an article on Purgatory, they will expect to see something that's mainly about roman catholicism, with a brief mention of other religions views very quickly summarized. --Alecmconroy 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant idea about the other page. I don't need to see "China" in the lead, but I like placing purgatory in the context of world religions. Leadwind 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Flowchart

I notice the flowchart I made a while ago didn't survive in the article very long. Why didn't it go over well? I think some sort of short visual like this would be very useful in conveying a quick introduction to the general scheme of things. Was the objection to some specific detail in the flowchart, or just to the general idea of it. --Alecmconroy 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was deleted because the clearer the explanations of purgatory are the less certain editors like it. Certain editors have preferred vague statements to clear ones. As far as the flowchart itself goes, technically, it's also possible to go to purgatory with no venial sin but with unremitted punishment for forgiven mortal sin. This idea that in purgatory you're suffering punishments for sins that have been forgiven, that's a fine point that sometimes gets lost in the shuffle. Leadwind 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe an unpublished chart drafted by a contributor would constitute original research. Ritterschaft 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't propose a novel conclusion, it's not OR. If it summarizes readily verifiable information, then it's OK. It's a visual summary, not an attempt to prove any particular conclusion, original or not. Or am I wrong? WP:OR Leadwind 17:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

And strictly speaking, I didn't actually come up with the idea for such a chart on my own anyway, I based it on a similar diagram on some catholic education website. Looking back, I see I didn't post the url of where I found the similar one, but I'm sure I could dig it up if the only problem is OR. Even still though-- if the CONTENT of the diagram is undisputed, i'm sure it's not OR. we use homemade illustrations like that in math articles all the time.--Alecmconroy 18:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally diagrams are permitted, even if composed by individual contributors, but, as you say, this is often in regards to diagrams of mathematical formulae, chemical formulae, chess manœuvres, or other rudimentary information. The risk here is an unverifiable synthesis and generalisation of data. I mention this because it was stated the image was previously removed, ergo I imagine there was some challenge of its contents. To include this image, it is necessary to produce a reliable published source that advances a like simplification. Ritterschaft 19:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay-- does anyone see anything WRONG or controversial with the flowchart? Is there anything inaccurate about it, or that otherwise should be changed? The OR issue isn't a problem, but are there any other objections to it?

I know it probably seems very elementary, "beginner" flowchart, but I really do think that's almost the level the article should be shooting for-- somebody who knows as much about RC as the average RC knows about Sikhism-- i.e. not much. --Alecmconroy 11:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The wording of the chart must correspond to what is authoritatively stated about Purgatory. Otherwise, we might as well draw our wording from Dante! It should therefore be based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paying particular attention to section 1472: "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." The purification in question is therefore not from "venial sins", as the present wording of the chart says, but from "an unhealthy attachment to creatures". To be prepared for union with God (what is called "Heaven") one must be cleansed of this unhealthy attachment to creatures, which is entailed in venial sin, but may well persist even when all sins, mortal or venial, have been remitted, and needs to be cleansed away either in this life or the next. Section 1473 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church expresses it this way: "The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the 'old man' and to put on the 'new man'." So the present wording is inaccurate in saying that souls free from sin go straight to heaven (they may well still need to be purified); that only souls with venial sins go to Purgatory (some whose sins, even venial, have been sacramentally forgiven may also go to Purgatory); and (implicitly) that what Purgatory does is to free from sins, which is quite false: the purification in question is cleansing from an unhealthy attachment to creatures, a cleansing that is also referred to as undergoing the temporal (not eternal) punishment due to sinfulness.

It is the misunderstanding of Purgatory that is reflected in the present wording of the chart that keeps people from seeing that there is a definite logic in the real doctrine about Purgatory: it would cost me trouble and pain to cleanse myself now of some unworthy attachments; if now I shirk the effort and pain, why should my dying before doing so free me from ever having to undergo any purification whatever, with its associated pain? Lima 12:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, it sounds like what I'm hearing you say is that the diagram doesn't properly explain aspects of formal theology that you feel are important to the doctrine? Am I understanding you correctly? Well to keep focus on the diagram, how would you like to see it improved?

We face a bit of a dilemma here. I understand that there are sets of formal terminology and definitions that you'd like to see incorporated, but at the same time, we have to consider our ability to clearly communicate with our readers. So, for example, we can't very well change the part of the diagram that says "souls with venial sins" to "souls with an unhealthy attachment to creatures"-- there's just no way for a lay reader to understand what that phrase means-- I'm not sure I completely understand myself. I'm eager to make the diagram as consistent as possible with the formal dogma while retaining its ability to communicate with newcomers-- but we can't make it reflect formal theology so closely that it becomes incomprehensible to our audience. This isn't just an issue we face in the diagram, it's something we face in the text as well. --Alecmconroy 01:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

If the diagram cannot be accurate, I think it should be omitted. For the middle flow I would suggest "souls in need of purification", followed by "souls now purified". This covers everyone's idea of what purification may be involved. For the upper flow, the best I can think of is "souls purified from improper earthly attachments before death", which is much less accepting of all sorts of ideas. For the third flow I would write: "souls in mortal sin".

The text would be much easier to fix. In any case, I don't think the text (the attentive rereading of which as a whole I am postponing until it settles down) does say that souls free from sin go straight to heaven; that only souls with venial sins go to Purgatory; and that what Purgatory does is to free from sins. If the text says this, it should indeed be corrected. Lima 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, we can definitely swap out "souls with venial sins" for "souls in need of purification". It avoids "venial sins", the inclusion of which has always bothered me since most people won't understand that, and if you think that text is a more accurate reflection of dogma, we can kill two birds with one stone.

Can't give ya "souls purified from improper earthly attachments before death", but we could go "souls purified before death". "improper earthly attachments" isn't just isn't clear what exactly that entails, and it think it's too much text to be clear anyway. But hopefully that should still do the job. --Alecmconroy 08:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly fine with me, since it neither says nor implies anything false. Lima 09:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Why mention other denominations in the lead?

After mentioning that Purgatory is a Roman Catholic belief, well, doesn't that in itself imply that non-Catholic denominations don't believe in Purgatory? Non-RC objections can be safely left to the main article, because anyone reading the lead will presumably have the wit to understand that Purgatory is a Catholic-specific belief, and that accordingly it's not accepted by Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or, for that matter, Hindus or Wiccans. Ehrbar 09:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You're way ahead of me. A sentence or perhaps two in the intro seems appropriate, but we've gone well beyond that, because we've been trying to summarize extremely dense and thorough material in the intro. Switching to summary style will let us discuss in subarticles, summarize in the main article body, and summarize the main article in the into. --Alecmconroy 10:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead needs to be cut approximately in half. The material on other denominations also had to be cut. The problem in the past has always been that short, clear statements to the effect that other churches regard purgatory as a serious error have always been expanded, muddled, conditioned, and made vague so that they don't discredit the RCC. We should mention other denominations not because they don't believe in P but because they actively regard it as a serious doctrinal error. Other churches might allow their clergymen to marry, but they don't regard RCC celibacy for priests to be the contentious topic that P is. It's salient that P is rejected in no uncertain terms over an over again by non-Catholic Christians. The lead should be able to stand alone as a summary of the whole topic (wee wp:lead, so we at least need something in the lead about other Christians regaring P as seriously false. How about: "Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally reject purgatory as an unbiblical, medieval innovation." Short, to the point, relevant. Leadwind 14:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

EO vs RC-- a disagreement or just different terminology?

So, I think I have gotten a feel for the first POV dispute since starting to look at the page again. The NPOV dispute template's been up, but there's so much housekeeping to do, I've largely ignored it. So, without in any way imply bad faith of the editor who made this edit, let's look at it.

One problem I see is way way way too much technical jargon-- "particular judgment", "Hades", "just", "wicked", "bliss", "Last Day", "Theotokos", "Blessed (the title)", "Final Theosis". In general, we need to move away from that style, and towards a style that could easily be grasped a reader only vaguely familiar with Christianity.

But, forgetting about the minor detail, I think we see in the edit the first sign of a POV dispute. (again, not implying any bad faith whatsover by anyone). Looking at some of the changes:

• EO Christian "generally reject" Purgatory -> "generally do not hold"
• EO theology "does not generally describe" purification as painful -> "has not regularly described"
• added: EO speak of this place as "Final Theosis" or Greek word "Hades" instead of Latin "Purgatory"

I think what we see here are two competing points of view. In one point of view, Purgatory is a RC doctrine and only a RC doctrine. It has been rejected by EO, and it's a point of contention between the two religions. EO have a totally separate concept of post-death purification which has both similarity to, and differences from, the RC Purgatory.

In a second point of view, there is basically no substantive difference between the EO and the RC on this issue. The disagreement is mostly a matter of translation, tradition, and minor details. Someone of this point of view might say that EO "basically" believe in Purgatory, more or less, although they use a different name, and differ on some of the details.

Am I right that both point of view exist? Further, am I right in thinking that the second point of view (mostly difference of translation and minor details) is the POV subscribed to by the RC christians?

If there is a legitimate dispute, we need to probably get to the bottom of what the NPOV looks like. Thoughts? --Alecmconroy 11:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I made the edits in question. The goal is accuracy in the face of certain facts about Eastern Orthodoxy. First, Eastern Orthodoxy is a fragmented group of churches divided, more or less, along ethnic lines. They do not act as one monolithic unit. For example, (if I recall correctly) in a recent ecumenical dialogue with Rome, the Russian contingent left, not because of a problem with Rome, but because of a (non-doctrinal) problem between them, the Estonians, and the Greeks, who were all in attendance. Second, there is no "pope" within Orthodoxy, instead the precedent of the 7 Councils stands, and when issues arise local synods are convened. Doctrines perceived as “Latin” are met with both admiration and suspicion, depending on a particular group’s sensibilities. Lastly, ecumenical dialogue is ongoing, and new documents are released regularly.

For all of these reasons I used the most cautious wording possible, avoiding sweeping generalisations. For example, “generally does not describe” was changed to “has not regularly described” exactly because there have been some local synods, and individual catechisms, that have made such a description.

I do accept and appreciate the distinction, and am glad to be called to an awareness of it, and will proceed with caution. The two ideas - whether the doctrines are different at their core, or different on the surface alone - are certainly worth keeping in mind when writing something up.

I don’t follow your division and association of the two views, however, ascribing the “linguistic differences” view to Catholics. It seems quite obvious that, while some Catholics might like this, others might be afraid of “watering down doctrine”, or abandoning Latin tradition in the face of pressure from the Greeks (whom they could, on an individual level, regard with suspicion or scorn just as well as love). Likewise, while some Greeks might want to purge their ranks of “Latinisms”, others might run to embrace Christian unity. So, to conclude, I think it’s unjustified to ascribe the two views each to one certain group. Ritterschaft 12:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just chime in up here to thank you for that, and thank you for the feedback. Your point about who believes what is well taken, and makes much sense when you explain in that way. I wasn't trying to actually argue that was the case, so much as assert it and see what feedback we got, so... thanks for said feedback. :) --Alecmconroy 08:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was User:L who put the POV tag on the article. He made the same complaint when he called other editors here (and how glad I am that you have come!). I do not at all believe he placed the tag because of the article's presentation of the doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church or of other Eastern Christian Churches.

The variety of opinions about Purgatory within the Eastern Orthodox Church is evident in what the Orthodox Wiki says of those expressed by the sources it quotes. Lima 13:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I put the POV tag on. The treatment of EO and RCC afterlife beliefs is one reason. The EO itself rejects purgatory as contrary to their tradition and legalistic. The RCC tries to treat this disagreement as a matter of semantics. Typically, Lima and LostCaesar have tried to downplay the contention over P between EO and RCC. The EO, however, rejects even the Western concept of particular judgment, without which purgatory is incoherent. (If you're curious about this, you might be interested to know that the RCC accepts EO as "churches" while dismissing Protestant churches as mere "associations.") Leadwind 13:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been debating too long with L to wish to continue unnecessarily. I will here say no more than that he keeps repeating the same statements about the Eastern Orthodox Church, which according to authorities like Callistus Wade is not necessarily opposed to the substance of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory and which explicitly declares its belief in the particular judgement of individuals as well as a later general judgement ("the Dread Judgement"): "This judgment following man's death we call the Particular Judgment" (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America); "there is a particular judgment" (Orthodox Confession of the Faith, Part I, Section C); et alia. Lima 14:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel as if my comments have been carefully read and considered. This is the second occasion when I have noticed this (previously was in regards to the writings of another). Specifically, my last paragraph seems to have been in vain. I don't understand why. Leadwind, could you please make an attempt to digest my comments - I'm interested in your thoughts on them. Ritterschaft 15:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I read those comments and understood the nuance you were alluding to. Without commenting on it directly (mainly because I am no expert there), it points out what I see as the biggest hurdle currently: several editors are attempting to flesh out what P is (in the WP verifiable sense), while Leadwind is apparently coming from the other direction: flesh out what it isn't. That leads to the difficulty of having to elucidate as many different contrasts as there are positions found verifiably (e.g., the many flavors of EO interpretations). More importantly, in the best case and with best faith, the resulting article would read very poorly, if done this way. If we describe what P is, then we can make statements like "A similar concept occurs in (say) EO with minor differences of interpretation among its adherents" and so on down the line. Then these nuances could be elaborated, in the spirit of what Alec is doing, in various sections or even in other articles (or both, hint hint to Leadwind). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC) my previous edit summary got cut; it meant to say "focusing on writing what P is" or somesuch. It was not meant as a sarcastic smiley implying editors here were not being focused! Sorry about that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Here be wisdom. --Alecmconroy 08:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to write about P the way other encyclopedias write about P. We should really cut back the material on orthodox and protestant opinions. But, the simple summary facts should remain, as we indeed see in other encyclopedias. So let's replace the long EO and Protestant sections with something short, like this: "Purgatory controversy Historically, purgatory has been a point of contention with Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches, which generally consider purgatory to be a medieval innovation." That way we include the information that other encycplopedias have, but it doesn't take up a lot of room. Leadwind 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RS, is there some reference work that you're using as your model for how to talk about EO and purgatory? Because your outlook doesn't match mine (EB and ODCC). As to why I ascribe the "just words" argument to the RCC is that RCC uses it all the time, especially with purgatory. God's truth is eternal, but man's language is ever-shifting. The RCC can see through the manmade confusion to the underlying reality, and they're the ones in the position to tell other churches whether the differences are semantic. With a damaged source of divine guidance, people other churches get caught up in the manmade confusion more than Catholics do. I've never seen EO authorities say that the differences are just semantic. Have you? It's certain that there are EO who think the difference is semantic, but that view is official in RCC and fringe in EO. If you can find an EO authority who says that there's not a real difference, show me. If you can find a nonsectarian reference that says that the EO often believe that the difference is semantic, cite it. Maybe I'm full of beans. Leadwind 03:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

(As an aside: Commentators may say the difference is semantic - though I can think of none who says precisely that over-simplification. But where does RCC say it?) Lima 04:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

My point of reference was to reintroduce referenced material already present in the article that was moved to another page, which I felt was still pertinent. I personally don't claim to know your outlook (or what EB and ODCC even mean). The current article contains no "just words" argument. I thank the other editor for calling to mind this possible issue, and its obverse, and I agree with using caution with selected words to avoid such argumentation, either way. I don't understand your points about "manmade confusion" - how does this concur with the article? I am still in the same confusion as before, since the article doesn't seem to have the stamp of pov pushing - rather it just seems a bit, eh, schlaksig. Ritterschaft 09:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RS, is there a purgatory article in a reliable dictionary or encyclopedia that likewise downplays the differences between EO and RCC on purgatory? EB (Encyclopedia Britannica) and ODCC (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church) both describe the EO view as at odds with P, not similar to P but with different wording. This section is an attempt to assemble evidence that there's little substantial difference (the RCC view). But is there a reliable, nonsectarian source that we can find that says the same? If not, our article should be like other articles: stating clearly for the reader that P is a point of contention between EO and RCC (based on fire, place, legalism, and tradition). It's not our job to survey the field, draw a conclusion, and present it. It's our job to find experts who've done that very thing and cite them. The experts I've found phrase things very differently. Leadwind 14:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I will have to consult the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church with your points in mind. Ritterschaft 14:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RS, When you look up P in the ODCC, please also check whether it says that prayer for the dead is unintelligible without an intermediate state. Some editor says it does, but I don't remember that being there. Leadwind 20:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I shall. Ritterschaft 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Simplify, Simplify

Okay, I've just done some partial reverting of Lima, and I wanted to explain it. He had gone over my edits and made a number of very valuable corrections. (I got the number of partiuclar churches wrong for example! big oops!) In the process though, he did reintroduce some of the problems that are endemic to this article, so the bear further discussion.

• We've gotta watch that unexplained technical jargon. The changes reintroduced "particular church", "forms of piety", "ordination", "deaconate", "Byzantine tradition"-- all of which are going to go straight over the heads of most of our readers.
• I included a one line example about how priests in LC are celibate, priests in some ECCs are not. This was expanded substantially, but remember, this isn't a comparative religion article. We can go into the precise differences in which classes of clergy are in which state in the Clerical Celibacy article. Don't get too hung up on specific of the marriage in ECC--- it was just a "for example" of a salient different that most people will instantly recognize.

• "One of the differences between LC and ECC concerns views about Purgatory" was changed to "There is no difference between the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches about the doctrine of Purgatory." I think the former statement is more appropriate than the latter. The existence of differences is the only reason to have an ECC subsection section-- otherwise we'd just have one RCC section. Don't worry-- the point that the LC and ECC are still accept dogmas is still made several times in the section.
• ECC and LC see their view on purgatory as "differing in no essential matter" is all well and good, but the whole thesis of the section is that differences exist, but they are not important differences. "Differing in no essential matter" is trying to get at that, I know, but it comes across as saying "There really aren't any real differences"-- which isn't a realistic summary.

In general, again not at ALL imply any bad faith, it does seem like we're spending a lot of effort to hammer home that Purgatory-like concepts exist outside of the LC. This is a valuable point to make, and the article will undoubtedly cover this-- but I worry that this one minor point has started to take over the whole article, so that the crux of the article is less about Purgatory, but more about how widespread Purgatory-like concepts are. Let's watch out for this, and farm as much of this material to the Purgatory and world religions article, leaving behind only very brief summaries, so that the focus can return explaining RC doctrine, rather than EO, ECC, and Protestant views. --Alecmconroy 07:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, I removed an extended discussion about RC and EO beliefs that had been inserted into the Protestantism section-- this is exactly the kind of thing that led to having such an incomprehensible article-- point, counterpoint, countercounterpoint, ad infinitum. Summarize here, have the full discussion as the subarticle. --Alecmconroy 08:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

While unnecessary jargon should be avoided, in an article about a theological topic, some theological jargon is to be expected. This is not Simple English Wikipedia. Those technical words exist for a reason, and if a user is unaware of their meaning then he can look them up (its just a click away). Ritterschaft 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Leaving all Purgatory-like matters for another article, Alecmconroy's idea, seems good to me. As does Ritterschaft's comment about terms that are just a wikiclick away, provided, of course, as Alecmconroy doubtless has in mind, that there is not a dense cloud of them at any one point. Lima 09:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It is WP policy to explain jargon. If we use jargon, we should explain it, not just reliy on a wikilink to explain it. The emphasis on how purgatory-like ideas are found in other Christian denominations and in Judaism (and not in pagan traditions) is an example of pro-RCC POV. Leadwind 13:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that jargon should be explained as is fitting. I don't understand the "pro-RCC pov" sentiment, however. As far as I know, purification in the afterlife is found in every religion except the Christian denominations (i.e. the Protestants), and I don't see why a Catholic would have any interest in avoiding such a statement. I would bet cavemen prayed for their dead. Is there a source that confirms this opinion about the RCC POV? Ritterschaft 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I think, and I'm just guessing here, is that it's the RCC pov that Purgatory is basically a concept held by almost all christian religions, just differing in detail. Whereas, an EO perspective, for example, is that Purgatory is NOT a widely help belief, it is a specific invention by the RC that dates to the middle ages. But that just my basic "vibe" i get from reading over the page-- i certainly wouldn't wanna put that into an article unless sourced. --Alecmconroy 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's POV is that it's what Catholics say and not what EOs say, and not what nonsectarian references say. Leadwind 20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the Roman Catholic Church has a POV on what others think. Whether Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox or Assyrians or any other group agree or disagree is, in short, indifferent for the Catholic Church: if others agree, that's nice; if others disagree, that's too bad ... for them. I think that is the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox Church also. So, leaving all that aside - I see no point in discussing it - let us just ask what do Eastern Orthodox think of Purgatory.

If you mean the word "Purgatory", they reject it. If you mean images of Purgatory such as those another editor wishes to project, they reject it. But do they reject the actual content of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory?

The Catholic doctrine is that the situation of the dead (unless they die in mortal sin) can progress from a worse to a better state, can improve, a process that the Catholic Church calls purification. The Catholic Church believes this because otherwise there would be no point in praying for the dead. The Eastern Orthodox Church also believes that its prayers for the dead are of benefit for the dead (if they died in the faith without having brought forth fruit worthy of repentance). They do not use the term "purification" or "purgatory", but they do believe there is benefit and improvement of the state of the dead. Does that mean they accept or reject the actual content of the Catholic teaching on Purgatory? I don't see why we the editors should answer that question. Isn't it enough to put down what it is they believe and leave it to the readers to judge whether it is the same reality as the Catholic doctrine or not?

The editor who thinks he knows better than the Catholic Church what precisely is the Purgatory that, according to Catholic teaching, exists may want the Catholic Purgatory to be presented as an actual locality in space to which one could at least in theory travel, either by digging into the ground or taking off in a spaceship, as Odysseus visited Hades by sailing across Ocean (Odyssey, XI). That is not Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church does not believe it. Pope John Paul II declared at a Wednesday general audience that it is not so. And I presume that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold similar ideas either. Protestants too speak of someone (Jesus, for example) being in Heaven, as if in a place; but in speaking of Heaven or some other after-life state as a place they do not mean an actual physical location, but rather a state or condition. Stressing the place image as if it were literal and essential to the subject reminds me of the mocking question a Soviet journalist put to Yuri Gagarin at the press conference held after his flight in space: "In your journey in heaven/the sky (same word in Russian), did you see God?" Lima 20:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I want to describe purgatory a "place or condition" because that's what good, nonsectarian encyclopedias say. We aren't better at writing articles about P than they are. These sources also point out areas where the EO specifically disagree with P. This isn't an "EO afterlife" section, this is a "EO's view of P" section. We should include the same sorts of material that EBO and ODCC do. Leadwind 21:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the help

Well, my RfC has already paid off. The words "place" and "punishment" are in the first paragraph of the lead, something that LostCaesar and Lima resisted. Two mediations and a previous RfC were not able to manage this feat. We still don't use these terms in the very first sentence, like standard references do. I can't think of any reason that we're different other than POV. Leadwind 14:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I too am happy and grateful, and, in the hope that we may agree on everything as on this, I refrain from making comments on presenting Purgatory as a literal location, on the phrase "temporal punishment", and on notions of POV. (I think it would be better too if restraint were exercised in making edits while others are active in reworking the article; otherwise I might be forced to follow suit.) Lima 16:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for refraining from reverting the stuff you don't like. But please, don't refrain from commenting. Comment! This is the talk page. Tell us what you think. You're as much a part of this as anyone. What do you think of defining P as a place of punishment? We know you disagree, so tell us why. I like it because it makes us like a good, nonsectarian encyclopedia. Leadwind 20:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

General revision coming up

Since those who kindly joined in seem, at least for the moment, to have acquiesced before the constant pressure of alterations by one editor, I intend to set about preparing this evening my own general revision of this article. In case my revision then suddenly disappears, I am asking those who are interested not to fail to express their opinion on a comparison between the general outline of the article as I will present it and the way it now appears. Criticism of details could, I think, wait until it is decided which general outline to work on. Unfortunately I cannot set about my own work immediately, so I expect to be able to present it only tomorrow. Lima 10:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have acquiesced temporarily, one because I was going to wait until I had the opportunity to review the section in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church before commenting further, and two because the tide of changes was too great to analyse without a good bit of time, of which I have little. I await the revision. Ritterschaft 13:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

LostCaesar, last Feb, did a POV overhaul of the article and I was too patient to revert it. If your revision makes our article look more like a good, nonsectarian article in another ancyclopedia, it's welcome. If it's similar to your earlier work, then maybe you should field it here on the talk page. Leadwind 13:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Here it is. Please discuss it. Lima 09:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is difficult to state how pleased I am with this revision. It seems to tackle all pertinent points concisely and clearly. I would strongly recommend the general acceptance of this version, with only minor emendations.

To give a couple constructive criticisms, the intro gives two presentations of the Catholic doctrine, one from the current Catechism, and one from the turn-of-the-century Catholic Encyclopaedia. There seems to be little reason for the redundancy, since the Catechism is both far more recent and more authoritative.

Also, I believe there is some work to be done on the section on the High Middle Ages, since we seem to have two conflicting sources juxtaposed rather awkwardly. I will be making good on my promise to consult the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and thereafter I may be able to assist.

Lastly, there may be a slight amount of material to reintroduce concerning the Eastern particular Churches, but that requires more reflection on my part before I decided for sure. Ritterschaft 11:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. The first two observations concern concessions made to the wishes of Lw, who has expressed his pleasure at the inclusion of the Catholic Encyclopedia description and who has such a high regard for the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, though some statements in it seem to be contradicted by other quite reliable sources, e.g. what it says of the views of Robert Bellarmine and that puzzling attribution to Aquinas of "the classic description of purgatory", which I seen quoted nowhere. Perhaps the Dictionary is correct, and I wish a response had been made to my request for an indication of what work of Aquinas was supposed to contain that "classic description".

As for the third observation, I personally see no need to go into explanations of what the Eastern Catholic Churches are, especially the Maronite, Syro-Malabar etc. As for those of Greek tradition, I think there is no need to say more than that, namely that they are Catholic and associated with the Eastern Orthodox Church, not with Oriental Orthodoxy etc. If others think it should be lengthened, I will not oppose strong resistence. Lima 12:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Still going over it, but there are LOTS of things in your revision that I like. I especially like tackling the issues of "punishment", "fire", and "place" head on, by having sections about them. This is a really brilliant innovation, that should allow people to mention the tradtion, while going on to mention that those traditions aren't part of the formal dogma and/or have fallen out of favor in modern Catholic tradition. I think that's a good solution.

Making real progress, but still assuming far too much on the part of the reader. The CCC and the dogmatic statements of councils will be nearly incomprehensible. The ECC presentation is problematic-- we should either gloss over the whole ECC minority (only 2%) or else we have to take to time to slowly explain what ECCs are. I'm split on which is best.

It's not perfect, but it gives us a lot to work with. Good work, Lima! :) --Alecmconroy 12:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Ritterschaft has already made the comment that this is not the Simple English Wikipedia. My own opinion is that in an encyclopedia it is more important to provide full and fully accurate information that the reader can study than to produce a journalistic-type overview. In my reply above to Ritterschaft, I have stated my view that it is unnecessary to explain here what Eastern Catholic Churches are: I see no point in lifting information from the Eastern Catholic Churches article and plonking it in here. Those who know what the term means will lament the time taken to get past it, and those who do not know and wish to know can easily consult the article on the topic. I think it would be unwise to omit the topic altogether: before very long, someone or other would want to insert information about it. Lima 12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My general view is that a person should be able to comprehend the article as it stands alone. If I printed it out and mailed it to someone, it should basically be comprehensible. The alternative is to abandon the whole idea of coherent narratives and just accept that people will, in the course of reading one article, be forced into reading other articles, with the hope that they will ultimately return to this article and finish reading where they left off.

And sure, it would suck for someone who already knows about the ECC to have to read about what he already knows in the middle of an article about purgatory. But what is more likely? That there's someone who knows all about the intricacies of the ECC, but doesn't know about purgatory? or that the reader who doesn't know about purgatory also doesn't know about the ECC.

That said, I wouldn't be too opposed to scrapping the whole ECC section and reducing it to statements like "The vast majority of the RCC believe in..." Latin rite is 98%, and of the extra 2% left over, what percentage is of greek tradition? we may be giving undue weight in even going over the detail. But if we do go over the detail, I don't know how to do it without explaining, slowly, what ECC are. --Alecmconroy 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Transient afterlife states (religious beliefs) would actually be a fascinating article to write (and read), but at this juncture we might be biting off more than we can chew. If we could get a single subarticle that captures just the compare-contrast with purgatory, I'd consider ourselves doing very well. If we could tackle the entire concept of all kinds of transient afterlife states, i'm be really amazed--- that's a huge topic. :) --Alecmconroy 12:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Alecmconroy, I was thinking about your concerns when reading through the dogmatic section. One thing to consider is that the statement from the compendium of the catechism is given first, followed my the more technical dogmatic decrees. It occurred to me that a reader who prefers to abjure from weighty theological information could simply pass over the dogmatic paragraphs, keeping in mind that he would have read the bit from the compendium already. If this is correct, then we should ask ourselves whether the compendium text is clear enough (my opinion is that it is), for if so then there is an option for the technically disinclined reader. Have another look and see if you agree. Ritterschaft 12:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for participating. The history section needs to be cut way back. I see you restored Harnack after we agreed to cut him. I'm happy to see "place" and "fire" addressed. Perhaps inevitably, it reveals the author's slant. For example, "No other Church teaches that for the dead there is a provisional state called purgatory." Is that really the most informative sentence you can give our reader on this topic? Why not, "Most Christian churches reject purgatory as a medieval innovation" or something? Why say half the truth (they don't have P) when we could say the whole truth (they think P is bogus)? Also, using quotes from primary sources is no substitute for telling readers in plain English what the belief is about. More later. Leadwind 13:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

History subarticle

Similarly, the history section is definitely large enough to merit its own subarticle: History of Purgatory --Alecmconroy 12:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Now we need to hack the history section down to about one paragraph per era: ancient, early mid, high mid, and modern. This task will be difficult because the more concise and clear the information is, the more threatening it is to the pro-P POV. This move also makes our article significantly different from a regular encyclopedia article. A regular encyclopedia article is mostly about purgatory's history. Here we have a legit reason to differ from EBO or ODCC: we have a sub article and they don't. Let's be careful that this distinction isn't used to exclude NPOV information from this page. In fact, this change could make us more like a standard encyc article because they hit only the high points, and so can we. For example, no one else talks about John Henry Newman, and now, neither shall we. Leadwind 14:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to do the hacking. Concise writing is something I learned at a young age. Ritterscchaft? Lima? Yak!? Alec's giving us the opportunity to trim this bulky article down to something lean. Should I move forward? Leadwind 14:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The history section needs to be cut way back now that we've spun it off as it's own page. I'll jump on it at some point unless someone beats me to it. Leadwind 13:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not like the history section to be cut, and I don't think it merits its own article. So much activity has been occuring that its difficult to keep up, and give my opinion promptly, but I disagree with moving this material off the page. I have not been given a reason as to why this would be a good thing. Ritterschaft 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We either need to cut the history section or delete Alec's subartcle. We can't have both. Leadwind 11:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The subarticle is unnecessary. Ritterschaft 15:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

False attribution of an editor's own idea to a source

I am further advanced on my project than I expected, but I still do not know at what time tomorrow I can finish it. Meanwhile I want to get the following out of the way.

One editor inserted the following:

Adolf Harnack, a nineteenth century church historian, argued that purgatory entered the Church via Hellenistic philosophy and thus represented an infusion of "unrealistic" and "unbiblical" ideas into Christianity.<ref>[[Adolf von Harnack|Adolph Harnack]], ''History of Dogma'', trans. Neil Buchanan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) e.g. vol. 2 p. 296 n. 1. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma2.ii.iv.ii.ii.html#ii.iv.ii.ii-Page_296 read online]</ref>

The source does not say this.

In footnote 624 (what the editor calls n. 1) on the Web page cited, Harnack, writing about "the idea of a kind of purgatory ... quite plainly found in Tertullian", stated his opinion that it was "a notion which does not originate with the realistic but with the philosophical eschatology".

Harnack was contrasting two eschatologies, the realistic and the philosophical, not contrasting "unrealistic" and "unbiblical" ideas with Christianity. He did not use the word "unbiblical". Neither of the words that the editor put in quotation marks is found in Harnack's text. Harnack did not speak of infusion. He did not say that purgatory entered the Church via Hellenistic philosophy ...

I assume good faith on the part of a fellow-Wikipedian, and so I presume that this was an honest mistake or case of wishful thinking. But I cannot help wondering how many more of the many statements he has attributed to books (usually without giving the page number or using quotation marks) are similar honest mistakes or cases of wishful thinking.

Or have I misunderstood in some way? Lima 18:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read Harnack, and LostCaesar overwrote this material when he segregated it into his Interpretations section, so I don't know what I originally wrote. When Harnack talks about "philosophical" eschatology, he's talking about Hellenistic influence. I'd be happy with "Adolf Harnack, a nineteenth century church historian, argued that the essential idea of purgatory (differentiated afterlife rewards) appeared in Christian belief in the 2nd century, originating with Hellenistic philosophy.<ref>[[Adolf von Harnack|Adolph Harnack]], ''History of Dogma'', trans. Neil Buchanan (London: Williams & Norgate, 1905) e.g. vol. 2 p. 296 n. 1. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma2.ii.iv.ii.ii.html#ii.iv.ii.ii-Page_296 read online]</ref>" Does my reference to Harnack saying that P is a 2nd century innovation still appear on the page, or did someone delete it as inconvenient? Leadwind 20:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even bothering with this source? Its over a hundred years old, and a lot has happened since then in the field of Church History. Ritterschaft 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've never seen an encyclopedia or dictionary claim that purgatory entered church doctrine in the 2nd century, and my new goal is to follow their leads, so I'll cut it. See how following a legit model makes this easier? This is why I want to use EBO (or something) as our model. Leadwind 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have looked over the history of some 600-900 changes ago (only a vague estimate) and I think that the attribution of these phrases to Harnack in the form in which they were was the result of a whole series of changes. I therefore declare that I do no longer think that the affirmations attributed to the source arose through a single mistake and so it cannot so easily be thought to be a mere case of wishful thinking. I apologize for what I now consider to have been, at least largely a misunderstanding, on my part.

On the other hand, I do not agree that Harnack is not worth quoting, especially if what he says can be doublechecked (as it can in my quotation of him) and if it is of particular interest because it shows someone averse to the idea of purgatory recognizing that the idea already existed and was indeed common by at latest about the year 300. Lima 16:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Harnack

I would like views, please, on whether, in view of the prestige attached to Harnack's name and his personal opposition to the notion of purgatory, what Harnack said about the early existence in Christianity of an idea of purgatory is indeed, as I believe, relevant and noteworthy. Lima 07:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to say whether it's noteworthy? Find an expert who says it's noteworthy. We're not experts. Leadwind 13:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that type of reasoning smacks too close to this for my agreement. A far better critique would seem where to include (idea: to demonstate earliest intellectual recognition in a particular history section). The wording should probably be pared: "Of perhaps special interest" is editorializing/POV (as well as tautological because of "perhaps"), and the whole "in spite of..." thing is too synthy. But as it conveys a benchmark in time, an "earliest known" statement essentially, some mention seems not only appropriate but desirable. Of course, if mention of an even earlier reference comes available, it can be omitted in favor of the new info. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The following was written before an edit conflict with Baccyak delayed its saving. I agree with what he says.

Surely we're not so helpless as to be incapable of making a judgement on what is appropriate for this article. I also think that attributing to Ritterschaft ("per Ritterschaft") an opinion that he has not expressed is premature. The opinion that he expressed earlier was about a statement that Harnack "argued that purgatory entered the Church via Hellenistic philosophy and thus represented an infusion of "unrealistic" and "unbiblical" ideas into Christianity." The statement about Harnack now is that he made a statement of fact, not that he proposed an opinion (something he "argued" for) - in fact he didn't - about an outside influence on Christianity at some imprecise time. A statement of fact about a particular writer at a particular time, a statement that we can check by looking up material immediately to hand on the Internet, which gives the full text of of the writer Harnack cited, is, I submit, quite a different matter. Ritterschaft may think such mere expressions of opinion are inappropriate, but that statements of fact are instead highly appropriate.

There was certainly no reason to cut the paragraph directing readers to the article about what transitional forms of afterlife, if any, other Churches believe in.

I would like views of others here on Lw's insertion in the lead of controversial statements (which I am provisionally deleting, while at the same time provisionally allowing his deletion of the Harnack paragraph) about the views of other Churches on purgatory. I could quote Callistus Ward who says some Orthodox do not agree with the Lw's statement about them, and also go into the question of whether it is really purgatory that they deny, quoting Lewis also about what the Reformers really denied ... If all that has to be gone into, the lead is not the place for it. For my part, I think the other article is the place for this discussion, where their views can be contrasted with the Catholic Church's teaching on purgatory, which is more familiar to most readers than their views. In this article, I think what is in the History section is quite enough.

Would Lw please take into account that the article is making allowances for his point of view about what should be in the article, in spite of the contrary opinions of others (see, for instance, my discussion with Ritterschaft above). Would Lw please make similar allowances and not be intransigent. Lima 14:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading the change to a "see also" type of construction, I can say I now have different issues with it. I agree a very broad theological summary here would do this article good. Elaboration in the body, what the new version points to, is great, but I would like to see some content delivered at the top, albeit in a more general objective way. Something along the lines of "Some other religions ({c/C}hurches/faiths/...) believe in (admit/allow/recognize/profess/...) various analogous concepts, albeit with specific theological distinctions and interpretations." Clearly the material now (after ec) reflects analogous concepts, without the implication that it is the identical concept, or that those faiths call it "Purgatory". Now I believe even my wording is a little loose, but I hope I have made clear the idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now found that Harnack's statement is already quoted in the long preceding paragraph. So there is no need for a separate paragraph about him, and no more need be said about that question.

If, in addition, the paragraph redirecting readers to the other article is allowed to stay, and if Lw does not insist on what Baccyak called his clawmarked paragraph, we can perhaps consider this discussion closed. Lima 17:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(EC) See my above comments, but now best pertaining to the redirecting paragraph. Otherwise yes this seems like progress. (one minor change I can see in the Harnack stuff...I'll get to it now) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Lima, "Surely we're not so helpless as to be incapable of making a judgement on what is appropriate for this article." This is exactly the point. You and I are not in any position to agree on what is appropriate for this article. That's why this article has been such a mess for such a long time. Plus, it's beside the point even to expect us to make that judgment. Let's just look to the experts, let the experts show us what belongs in a nonsectarian P article, and put that in. WP doesn't have to rely on your judgment or mine (thank goodness, because at least one of us must be seriously whack). Are we better at figuring out what goes in a P article than people who make religious dictionaries and nonsectarian encyclopedias for a living? No. Let's cut through the endless debate and just model our article after good articles that are already out there. You don't want to do that because a good, nonsectarian article will not say what you want people to read. And there's the problem: you do not want our article to say what a good, nonsectarian article about purgatory should say. If I may try to put it into your terms, the nonsectarian articles out there are false and the RCC is right. If we were trying to make this article be true, of course we'd look to the one source of real truth in this world, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But it's not WP policy to be true with a capital T. It's WP policy to say what experts say, even when they're wrong, as they are when they disagree with RCC. It's a tough policy, but it's the WP way. It's noble for you to stand up for what's really true in the face of mistaken expertise, but WP has no policy or system to support you. Good or ill, WP follows current expert opinion, even over the RCC's 100% reliable truth. Honestly, I can't see how we can stick to WP policy (take experts at their word) and make you happy (tell God's own truth about purgatory). Leadwind 12:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, a good nonsectarian article would say something I'd want people to read. No one pays me to be here, so I am not about to waste my time making articles worse. I could reply a lot more but I now recognize that as unecessary in lieu of this: please be aware that excessive sarcasm is not becoming here, not necessarily because it's in itself bad but because it is easy to misread in this venue and thus create a lot of unproductive distraction. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

By "we" I did not mean Lw and me alone. I meant all of us who are taking an interest at this juncture when the article is under collective scrutiny by editors called together to examine it, a juncture when I think it would be better if Lw did not make so many changes together: four in the lead, two deletions elsewhere, and a pruning of the "Further reading" section. It would be better to be able to discuss a few at a time. By the way, I don't see how information about something whose known existence is owed to the teaching of the Catholic Church can be more authoritative if not drawn directly from that Church's official teaching about it. That is by the way. I don't want this to be a discussion between Lw and me. I prefer it to be a discussion involving alll of "us". Lima 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The volume of activity I find difficult to keep up with. A little less than a week ago, LW made a point to me that I thought worth reflecting upon. A necessary element of this point was the presentation in the ODCC. After a few days I was able to secure a copy of the text, read it carefully, and thereby decide my opinion of LW's point. I also then examined the article and correct misuse of the source. I would like to add more information from this source into the article. However, in this short amount of time, so many changes have been made to so many places that it is almost impossible to keep up. Personally, I like to listen carefully to the points of others, spend time thinking about them, and then contribute my own idea. But discussion and action has moved so rapidly that I have not been able to do this. In my view, we should use the draft Lima wrote, since it was well received, and discuss each particular section. I have some ideas about the intro, and the history section, that I would like to share, but I've not been able even to get to this point, with all the changes. Lastly, with the way the ODCC has been used, I feel it was not carefully read by whoever used it, and this is indicative of another problem that happens with hasty editing. Ritterschaft 15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yak! "Actually, a good nonsectarian article would say something I'd want people to read." Amen. Let's keep moving the article in that direction. Leadwind 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on this section of the talk page: Lima, is this really your position, that the Harnack quote is worth a whole section on the talk page? This is a 100-year old quote from one of Harnack's footnotes. Who says that it's relevant, let alone worth its own paragraph? This minor point is a whole talk section by itself, meanwhile the lead is in flux, as is the scope of the page.

Now multiply this effort on every point where you and I differ. Is that how you think this page is going to get into shape? By arguing paragraph by paragraph?

My counterproposal is that we follow the experts' leads and let them tell us what to put on this page. Leadwind 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

what's up with the intro?

While I have not followed every edit meticulously but upon coming back today, I am struck by how poorly the final two paragraphs in the intro reflect on the reading of the article. I recognize everyone here has done good work, so so offense intended, but I have serious problems with this part.

The first of the two paragraphs is not even content but rather metacontent. It's not even "First tell 'em what you are going to tell them, then tell 'em, ...", rather it's tell them how you're going to tell them. With all due respect to all editors here, yuck. The last paragraph is a good faith attempt to paint the broader picture about the topic, but is worded so as to start reading like a catfight. This is a poor style in general for articles, but when done in the intro it becomes a very weaselly type of POV pushing. I have been hesitant to bring up the issues of POV before, since most of the issues could be resolved via style approaches, but the impact (even unintended) here is clearly POV.

In the first case, I just suggest the paragraph be deleted. In the second case, more transitional and comparative language would help greatly, conveying the verifiable information without the clawmark scars. I may or may not do these as I have been in and out, but I support anyone's efforts to make these improvements. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Again here, I agree with Baccyak. The second paragraph, the one with the clawmarks, was Lw's. Perhaps Baccyak would have little or no problem (I think in fact he would have no problem whatever) with the paragraph that Lw removed and that I have now restored. As for the first, it was put in because of Lw's insistence, at least in the past, on considering all sorts of legends, popular misconceptions and theological speculations as essential elements of purgatory. It may no longer be in any way useful. Lima 14:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind doing the things the metaparagraph talks about doing. In fact I would agree that they should be done to some extent. I just have an objection with, well, talking about doing them in the article itself. That should be done here (Talk), no?

I'll have a look at some of the other changes. I think everyone here has good ideas, although amalgamating all of them to read right is proving tricky. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church

I have before myself the third edition, revised, of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the same version cited in the article (published 2005). I am sure everyone will be please to hear that the article largely conforms to the present article here, especially the history section. This should assuage some fears raised earlier. On a less happy note, the text of the article is not being accurately represented at various points in our own article, and I will be removing the relevant sections presently. Any comments about the emendations would gladly be received by me following the edits. I will take this opportunity to answer two direct questions raised earlier. There was a question about the ODCC's use of St. Thomas. Though the text does not have citations, there is an appendix of notes, which cites Comm. in Lib. IV. Sent., dist. 21, qu. I. As for the question of the use of the phrase "unintelligible", it does indeed say that "Such prayer [for the dead, which it calls "a constant feature of both E. and W. liturgies"] is held to be unintelligible without belief in some interim state in which the dead might benefit." p. 1358. Ritterschaft 17:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Great to hear (both your acquisition, and most of the article). Fire away, and thanks for your efforts. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouragement. I would like to add, after my cleaning up of the references, that there is a good deal of useful material in this article that I will be adding in due course. It has some useful things to say about the reformation period and beyond, which shows that the understanding of the doctrine continues to develop, even today. For example, it carries on until the likes of von Balthasar. Ritterschaft 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And special thanks from me too. I have removed my mention of the Summa Theologica. I cannot find the commentary on the fourth book of Peter Lombard's Sententiae by Aquinas, but I would love to be able to read "the classic formulation of the doctrine" by that theologian. As for the Council of Florence matter, I think there is no absolute contradiction between the Orthodox site I quoted and what the Dictionary actually says, though the site cannot be said to support the to my mind slanted word "legalism". Lima 17:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that my effort was helpful. I myself would think "scholasticism" a better term than "legalism", but legalism is in the ODCC text (not that we're utterly bound to it). Ritterschaft 07:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I just now removed this sentence with a cite from the ODCC, which was added subsequent to my above emendations, "Eastern Orthodox churches reject purgatory as contrary to their afterlife beliefs, and Protestants reject is as unbliblical [sic]." Simply put, the article no where expressly states this. Perhaps the sentence is derived from inference after scanning the article, but it seems so much of an oversimplification as to not do justice to the text. Concerning "Eastern Orthodox churches", the closest it get is that it says, "The E[astern] Church refrained from defining it [an intermediate afterlife state]" in its section on antiquity, and perhaps the mention of the objections of "the Greeks" during Lyons and Florence. As for Protestants, it does note the rejection of Purgatory by the Reformers, but also says that Lutheran Confessions "do not expressly reject all ideas of purification after death", and mentions some more recent sentiments like that of the Tractarians which are contra the Reformers. It makes no broad claims about Protestants in the present. Ritterschaft 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In the article I read, it ended with a review of how P, and RCC particular judgment, contradict the EO view that the communion of saints achieves heaven at once. That's not in your version? Protestants not rejecting purification is a far cry from them not rejecting purgatory. Leadwind 11:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion supports the merits of a reword along the lines I proposed above, noting a spectrum of analogues with varying degrees of similarities and differences. Same info conveyed without the confrontational tone. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The article does not conclude with a statement to the effect of "Eastern Orthodox churches reject purgatory as contrary to their afterlife beliefs, and Protestants reject is as unbliblical." It concludes by discussing a contrasting distinction between Eastern and Western views of the general judgement and the escaton in the context of afterlife purification:

In the traditional W[estern] doctrine of purgatory, individuals are envisaged as attaining the Beatific Vision one by one in accordance with their deserts. In the teaching of the E[astern] Church (which in this matter Forbes [a Scottish clergyman] follows), the perfection of the whole Church awaits the individual, and so even the saints may be prayed for, as the fullness of beatitude will not be experienced by any until it is attained by all.

The relevance for purgatory would be that the utterly final completion of theosis is attained, as Eastern tradition stresses, only at the eschaton. Interestingly, the only mention of Protestantism is the reference to Forbes, thus mentioning a Protestant author who was in favour of some sort of afterlife purification. Ritterschaft 15:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RS, please review the ODCC and summarize what it says about Protestants and the EO as far as P is concerned. If I summarized it wrong, then summarize it right. But let's get that information on the page. "EO churches regard the RCC view of the afterlife to contradict their own eschatology"? "Unlike the RCC, EO churches teach that no one attains heaven until the entire church does"? Leadwind 14:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing both the ODCC article and the EB article, I would say that the latter has more of what you are looking for: direct statements about Eastern Orthodox and Protestant views in the present. The ODCC doesn’t mention Protestants in the present in a single statement. It mentions the Reformers attitude against purgatory, and then mentions many different protestants in favour of purification in the afterlife. The closest to a present attitude it gives is its statement that Lutheran confessions (still valid in the Lutheran faith) don’t explicitly exclude purification in the afterlife, and that the successors of the Tractarians interpret the Anglican Articles (not quite so binding today) in a very Catholic way. The article also does not mention Eastern Orthodox distinctly, though it does mention the “Eastern Church” and “the Greeks” in different places. If I could summarize the material on the “Eastern Church”, it would be that it does prayer for the dead since the dead are in an intermediate state and can be so benefited, but that this package of beliefs was not formally defined and, more generally, did not experience the same level of development that it did in the West. It does explicitly state that the term purgatory is used only in Western Catholic theology (yes it says “term”). Of course, I should add, nothing in the Eastern Church was formally defined if it was not addressed in the 7 Councils. I believe the current article contains just about all its going to get from the ODCC on Protestants and Eastern Orthodox – you’ll have to find another source for what you want. Ritterschaft 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Reading

A selection of books labeled as "sources" was recently removed by Leadwind, on the stated basis that the article has so changed that they are not sources anymore. I restored them as "further reading" simply because I thought the presentation of the texts could be preserved in this way. But I don't think their removal was baseless. Leadwind's idea seems worth discussing. I could go either way. Ritterschaft 07:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost none of these things are about purgatory. If we're serious about helping the reader find more stuff on Purgatory, let's take the further reading material from the back of the EBO article and put it here. Leadwind 11:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It would pay to check these out per WP:EL, one by one if necessary, because each source has its own merits (or lack thereof perhaps). No objections, and it also looks like Lw has started. Good. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

metacontent

I cut the metacontent comment at the head of the article. If this isn't going to simply be an article about purgatory (which would need no meta comment), then let's agree on talk what it's going to be. Predictably, I think our article should resemble a good, nonsectarian encyclopedia article and should include the sorts of topics that other such articles include. Such an article needs no meta comment. Leadwind 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Regardless of what's included or how its organized (split off History article or not, split off discussing comparative theology or not, split off discussing secular references or not, if at all, etc.), such a comment doesn't read well, and its function can be subsumed by well constructed redirects, among other things. Under any scenario which uses it, a better alternative can be found that does not use it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Flowchart

I feel certain Alecmconroy would have given consideration to the following, if he had noticed it: "Here insert Alecmconroy's chart, corrected so that it no longer speaks of "Earth" (the planet) - as if heaven and hell were other planets! - but refers to "earthly life" or some such phrase. There also seems to be no need to use capitals for so many words, some of them entirely in capitals." Lima 09:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

general comment: trimming

We need to prune in a serious way.

This poor article has been a battlefield in a POV war between LostCaesar and Lima on one hand and me on the other. It has suffered as a result. A year ago, our MO was to find references that supported our respective sides and to squeeze them in. LC found a Harnack quote about purgatory being in the early church. So I found a Harnack quote about purgatory developing from Hellenistic philosophy. LC found a quote from a book by and for Catholics about purgation being in the Bible, so I found a quote from a historian about purgatory being invented in the 12th century. Etc etc etc. I was new to WP so I didn't have a good handle on protocol, and I underestimated the tenacity of my adversaries. I didn't do things right. As a result of this back-and-forth editing, the page is bloated, unwieldy, and poorly organized.

I want to move past the contest of finding quotes that shore up our respective positions. I'm willing to give up a bunch of things that I think are true and relevant but that I don't see in standard references. For example: Mary's special role regarding P, the interconnection between P and other RCC-only tenets (penance, confession, the Pope, etc.), the overview of who goes to what afterlife and why, the startling fact that the RCC is the only church that teaches that the saved start suffering at death instead of enjoying their reward, etc. I could find references for these things, and I think they're relevant, but who am I to decide what's relevant? More important than pushing my own POV is seeing to it that no one's POV gets pushed.

My proposal is that we voluntarily adopt the discipline of following the leads of the experts, look to standard references, and paraphrase them. We have all seen now how the littlest thing is a fight. Lima wants to have a paragraph about a footnote that Harnack wrote 100 years ago because it suits his POV. Should we fight over that issue and every other issue on the page? No. We should let the experts tell us whether to include it.

Regardless of how well other editors like the idea of following experts' examples, it's clear that this page needs to be trimmed. The Sources section was largely bogus and may be entirely bogus. Editors have pulled in every reference to P they could find to bolster the idea that it goes back to Jesus. The page doesn't make it easy for a naive reader to get a handle on the concept.

I'd be happy for us to cut everything that doesn't have a top-end source and that smacks of arguing, presenting evidence, exaggerating positions, etc. Frankly, I'd be happy for us to scrap the page and start over by paraphrasing ODCC and EBO and whatever else we can find. Leadwind 14:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

While I can agree that the article could use some copyedits, I still fail to see any systematic POV issues, and am getting quite frustrated you are presenting it as such (that is not to conclude it's not the case, but only I've tried hard to recognize what you claim, and as yet fail to do so; I do see other explanations, as I have pointed out). There have been minor POV improvements by both you and Lima, I should gladly point out (your shoot-the-messenger pruning, his weaselly cattiness pruning), and Ritterschaft has apparently been fixing source misrepresentation, another potential POV pushing vehicle (which, BTW, is probably a far more insidious long term threat to NPOV than literally true but slanted language - just check out the last few weeks of AN/I, ArbCom, etc. to see what I mean).

I have an alternative suggestion to starting over. I see the main issues as one of style; you like to write in a very confrontational style (point-counterpoint, not incivil), and Lima doesn't, albeit is considerably more verbose than yourself. There has been other support for lessening the point-counterpoint thing, which would also be consistent with the style guide. There is also other support to trim. Let's keep RSed content, but clean it up to make it more concise, and minimize the confrontational writing.

If you do not know what the latter means, please review my last week or so of contribs here, and you'll find clarification. Articles written in a confrontational style, even if neutral, tend to read like POVs, because the relevant conflicts are given more focus (and readers find it easier to feel their own POV affronted!). For the other point, there is a lot of rich, varied, diverse, and even contradictory information to be had, but like a tool, it can be put to either good or ill use. So long as we present and not endorse (by conforming to WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, etc), we can write a really good article.

My hope is that once that's done, it will be easier to spot any systematic POV issues that I may still be missing. Then, in the end we can have an article which is not only neutral, but written in a way the experts can be proud of. I think you would approve of those two goals, no? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the thoughts of Baccyak4H. I am struggling to see the POV issue. I have recently had the experience of sitting down with the ODCC article, and this Wikipedia article, and I am rather pleasantly surprised to find them by and large the same. So, when you advocate using established sources as a guide, I fail to see how that would take the article in a different direction. I do think there is room for improvement. There are a few times when the article presents conflicting information when such a presentation is unnecessary. I think a fair amount of this might be the result of misued source material, as a good deal of the points were resolved when I reviewed the ODCC article. However, some issues remain (the presentation of Robert Bellarmine in the ODCC and the Catholic Encyclopaedia, for example). I think, if we take each of these points one by one on talk, we can resolve them and, in so doing, slim the article. Ritterschaft 16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RS, "I am struggling to see the POV issue." Thank you for your patience. In the year that I've been working on this page, I've become attuned to the subtle POV championed primarily by LostCaesar. Perhaps my antennae have become oversensitive, so let's look at the case together and see. Try this exercise. Read the history section and ask yourself which parts were written by someone trying to explain the history P and which parts were written by someone trying to demonstrate how pervasive purgatorial ideas and writing were before 1000 AD. Those are two different goals, and they produce different result from the very same material. For example, there's a chunky quote from St. Fursa but no quote from Augustine. Who's more influential on P? Augustine. Who gets the quote? Fursa. Why? Because the Fursa quote is amenable to P. Why doesn't Bede's afterlife vision get a quote? Because it doesn't match P (no purgation, a triple division among the saved, etc.). Augustine gets a mention along with several other early writers. Why doesn't A get the attention he deserves? Because the editor who put this section together wants to show how many people wrote about purification without going into detail. If we pursue the idea that A was influential, it implies change in teaching over centuries, which is the opposite of what LC was trying to prove. So instead of having a history that shows how major thinkers (e.g. Augustine) influenced afterlife beliefs over centuries, we have a list of names and quotes picked to suggest that Christians have been writing about P since forever. It looks like a good page. It has lots of names and links and quotes and references. But does it match, say ODCC? Does ODCC give more time to Fursa than to Augustine? Why is ours different? Because the history section has been misused as a place to lay out evidence for the ancient pedigree of P. We'd do well to burn the whole ancient history section to the ground and start over with the reliable sources we have. The worst POV problems that this page used to have are now handled, but a subtle bias pervades the page, abetted by the page's bloat. If we started over, we could built a lean framework and build onto it. What were' doing now is layering more things onto a pile. Plus, one need go no further than our first sentence to see POV. The primary definition of P in standard references uses the word "punishment" and the word "place." Why doesn't our primary definition use those words? Because that's not how Lima wants to present P to the world. Leadwind 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you elaborate as to why demonstrating purgatorial ideas and writing before 1000 AD (regardless of either their pervasiveness, or lack thereof) is not simply a subset of the history itself? I fail to see why that focus is problematic; we all have areas we feel more comfortable contributing about. You are not in the wrong at all to desire sourcing for such material, but given the good faith assumption that that can be done, good faith attempts to contribute productively to a particular part of this history should be welcomed, I would think, and not seen as some POV conspiracy, esp with the lack of any other evidence. And what you presented above is not such evidence unless ones buys the apparently false dichotomy that writing about part of the history is incompatible with writing about all of it. I do not know about the older editor's history here, but my other experience with him/her leads me to see them similarly as a good editor with very focused knowledge and interests, but nothing untowards. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot to look into. I believe there is a bit of a mistake concerning St. Fursey and Bede. The text of the article presents them as two different things, since they come from two sources (the Vision of Fursa and Bede’s History). But when Bede gives his description of the afterlife abodes, he (if my memory serves) is recounting Fursey’s vision. I’ll have to check. But its that’s right, then Bede isn’t being left un-quoted over Fursey for some nefarious reason – it’s the same text.

As for who was more influential, Bede (w/Fursey section) or Augustine, here is my opinion. Bede was very popular. More than Augustine? I’d have to say no – but Augustine doesn’t talk about purgatory all that much. I only know of two remarks in his De Civitate Dei and one in his Enchiridion. I think we should mention both Bede and Augustine, of course; my point here is that I can’t from this deduce bias in the article.

The ODCC mentions, in this order: the vision of Dinocrates in the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Scriptural texts, Odilo of Cluny, St. Thomas Aquinas, Councils of Lyons and Florence, Dante, Catherine of Genoa, Martin Luther, John Fisher, Council of Trent, William Forbes, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Robert Bellarmine, and Alphonsus Liguori.

Part of the reason I would like to keep the history section around is that I would like to improve it. But improving it doesn’t entail “burning it to the ground” in my view. I would agree that an overt argument in favour of purgatory would be point of view, though I am having trouble seeing it in the article. But I can understand, in the abstract, that packing the section on antiquity with every conceivable tangential reference to purgatory would be a skewed presentation. But, just the same, omitting texts that are relevant would seem to be also pushing a position. Maybe when I’m done with the history section you can review it and see if there is, in your mind, still a point of view problem. Ritterschaft 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, "The ODCC mentions, in this order: the vision of Dinocrates in the Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Scriptural texts, Odilo of Cluny, St. Thomas Aquinas, Councils of Lyons and Florence, Dante, Catherine of Genoa, Martin Luther, John Fisher, Council of Trent, William Forbes, Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Robert Bellarmine, and Alphonsus Liguori." OK, here's my suggestion, we put each one of these works/people into the article. Furthermore, I'd suggest commenting the rest of the material until this material is in place. Once this material is in place and is good, then we can dump any number of extra details on it. Leadwind 01:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yak, if I had no other evidence for Lima's POV, then I'd be a crank. If you would like to see whether he is defending a POV, ask him to show you his version of what the lead should look like. Or, ask him to summarize thse paragraphs and put them into the article.

In general, the origins of purgatory may be sought in the worldwide practice of praying for the dead and caring for their needs. Such ministrations presuppose that the dead are in a temporal state between earthly life and their final abode and that they can benefit from the generosity or transferred merit of the living. Purgatory answers the human need to believe in a just and merciful cosmos, one in which ordinary people, neither hardened sinners nor perfect saints, may undergo correction, balance life's accounts, satisfy old debts, cleanse accumulated defilements, and heal troubled memories. Since these are universal concerns, there are parallels to the Christian conception of purgatory in many religious and cultural traditions. purgatory.

According to classical Buddhism, for example, rebirth in any of the six realms—whether as a god, human, demigod (asura), animal, hungry ghost, or hell being—is a temporary state conditioned by the character of the intentional actions performed in a person's past lives (karma). Donations to a monastic community, altruistic practice of spiritual disciplines, and good deeds are ways of generating merit that may be dedicated to relieving the purgatorial suffering of beings imprisoned in sorrowful rebirths or in transit between lives. In medieval Chinese Buddhism, the classical Buddhist understanding of rebirth and transfer of merit merged with traditional practices and beliefs concerning the veneration of ancestors and the placation of potentially troublesome ghosts. The Chinese Buddhist afterworld is perceived as an imperial bureaucracy in which the deceased is subjected to a series of trials whose outcome depends largely upon the offerings made by family members. The monastic community, as a “field of merit” for lay donors, serves an intermediary function. The popularity of the annual Ghost Festival (rite in which offerings are made to ancestral ghosts), as well as the persistence of other seasonal, domestic, and esoteric rites for the care and feeding of the dead, demonstrates that responsibility for beings in “purgatory” is an enduring preoccupation of Chinese society—as it is in other East Asian cultures. (EBO)

I agree that one should assume good faith, but I've seen Lima at work for months, on a dozen pages. I know who I'm talking about. I assumed good faith, but the rule isn't "maintain good faith despite the evidence."

But whatever, the page is moving forward for the first time since February, so thank you again. Leadwind 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Another way to find POV is to find out who deleted well-cited information that was unflattering toward P. There's the intermediate state stuff from ODCC, and there's the "universal human expression" material from EBO. Leadwind 03:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you've stumped me again (just don't tell anyone). How can something be unflattering towards purgatory? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

How can something be unflattering to purgatory? Flattering: purgatory was taught by the Church Fathers. Unflattering: purgatory was basically formulated in the Middle Ages. Flattering: belief in purgatory arises from the direction of the holy spirit. Unflattering: belief in purgatory arises from the universal human concern for the dead. Flattering: Christians have always believed pretty much what the RCC now teaches about the afterlife. Unflattering: The concept of the intermediate state was unimportant to the first Christians, but grew in importance, especially in the West. Flattering: EO believes in purgatory, they are just in denial. Unflattering: Purgatory doesn't square with EO teaching. Etc. Leadwind 04:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Eureka moment is upon me. Those examples are as revealing as they are absurd. None of those statements can properly be called flattering to purgatory; they are flattering, or not, to potential points of view regarding the very unflatterable reality, be it historical, metaphysical, or intellectual, or some amalgam of all, of purgatory. That distinction is paramount. So really there is nothing (substantial) to see here regarding POV. But many thanks for the clarification, as it makes it clear where I should spend my efforts on. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's more unflattering material that got cut. In my experience on this page, I've observed a pattern of solid, referenced material being cut if it's not flattering to purgatory. For one reason or another, the information summarizing this paragraph was cut. Would someone else like to take a crack at summarizing it?

Among Christians, the biblical warrant for purgatory is contested. Supporters of the Roman Catholic belief cite biblical passages in which there are intimations of the three major components of purgatory: prayer for the dead, an active interim state between death and resurrection, and a purifying fire after death. These texts yield a consistent notion of purgatory, however, only when viewed from the standpoint of the formal Roman Catholic doctrine, which was defined at the councils of Lyon (1274), Ferrara-Florence (1438–45), and Trent (1545–63) after a prolonged period of development by lay Christians and theologians. (EBO)

Can you people read the material at the other end of my EBO links? Leadwind 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghost in Hamlet and heaven and hell as places

On second thoughts, I doubt that the mention of controversy about the nature of the ghost in Hamlet is either necessary or useful. I won't resist anyone who removes it. Lima 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Being a matter of literary interpretation, it does seem somewhat petty. Agreed.

A little less trivially, I was about to remove your in-line comment about the whole "place" thing, without prejudice against (or for) your point itself, but rather that that type of discourse belongs here on Talk. Feel free to reintroduce it here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I accept the suggestion. Query: Do we really have to demonstrate by citations that heaven and hell, not purgatory alone, are thought of as places? My own opinion is that it is silly to do so, and that the citations I gave in answer to the questioning ought to be removed. But, if the answer is yes, I am willing to add more examples of heaven being imagined as a place (there must be hundreds, no, thousands), and to start doing the same for hell. Lima 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor point of clarification might be useful here. There can be theological descriptions as being a place, as well as linguistic ones (common colloquial usage of the terms as well as certain literary uses as e.g. metaphors). I would think the latter is both obvious enough and ancillary enough to not demand citations (but they don't actually hurt of course). The former is a relevant enough description that a citation would improve the article. That said, if possible at all it should be very easy to do so, as you allude to. But have a recheck of the article; I think between all the current cited content there and the ref you added, there is no issue anymore, although improvements are not ruled out of course. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update. After reading Lima's edit summary, I can see I was confused slightly by the phrase "Christian writers", taking the Hades imagery to be theological writings or at least interpretation, when it is not completely clear this wasn't purely literary. So I have struck out my resolution about the citation issue above. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of talk, now action

If you haven't noticed, I have put my money where my mouth is and started to edit the article in the ways I have been advocating. Essentially no removal or addition of current content (except some ancillary and tangental stuff which could be cut; in borderline cases I only commented it out). But some reorgs/rewords so the logical flow and style is improved, as well as written more like an article and less like a debate team transcript (slight hyperbole admitted). If I did screw up something tangibly, misrepresenting a source for example, advance apologies and please let me know about it here.

I do hope that this makes my editing philosophy clearer. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, on first read. The Paul quote is here to help prove that prayer for the dead is Biblical even for Protestants (who reject the Pharisaic 2 Maccabees). I wouldn't be surprised if we could find a reference to Paul praying for the dead in a Purgatory reference, but until then we should cut it. Leadwind 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have done quite a bit more, and you and Lima have pitched in too. I will take a break and let the dust settle, giving a chance to hear some feedback.

Lima, I consolidated the Paul ref into another simple verse ref at the top of the doctrinal section, with the commentary in the note itself, showing up at the bottom. I was tempted to just pare down the commentary, but decided this alternate course. With this much material, I don't favor putting it all in the body, but if you like to summarize it, I can reconsider. I don't like the Protestant stuff in this section (in the footnote may be OK though), and would instead recommend incorporating it into the Protestant part of the body. But as I said, feedback appreciated. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind's latest

I leave it to others to judge the following observations.

1. Rather than spend time discussing Lw's demand for "scholarly references" in the "Attitude of Eastern Catholic Churches of Greek tradition" section (are they wanting even for the part that he has rewritten and abbreviated?), should we just drop the section?
2. In the "High Middle Ages" section, Lw's change to "the place of purification had acquired the Latin name ..." (in place of "the process of ...") seems to me POV. The logical order would seem to be the opposite: it was the acquisition of a particular name that made it easier to think of the purification as a place. To accommodate Lw's opinion, should we write simply "the purification", omitting "process/place of"?
3. The paragraph that Lw has commented out of the same section must be rewritten, because (even if for no other reason) with the omission of the "Attitude of Eastern Catholic Churches of Greek tradition" section or even of the part that Lw has excised, we can no longer say "As seen above". The paragraph would perhaps be better placed after the following paragraph about Aquinas and the two councils at Lyon. The paragraph has a good citation about there being only two doctrinal points in Catholic teaching about purgatory, something that, in any case, a reader can see by reading the two dogmatic definitions or the CCC. Belief in these two points ("1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state") is indeed amply illustrated earlier in the article.
4. Still in the same section, I don't understand the purpose of Lw's "citation needed" tag with regard to "legends", when examples are in fact given in the text. Lima 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The point of the ECC material has always been to show that P is compatible with Eastern theology, and (in LocstCaesar's hands) to blur the distinction between RCC and EO. I don't see ECC in the references on P that I've used, so this whole section could go away. The ECC is also a terribly confusing point for the average reader. That said, it's a very interesting test case, and the ECC is worth knowing about for those trying to get into the topic in detail.

The term "purgatorium" was, per Le Goff, applied to a place, not to a process. And it derives immediately from "purgatorial," not from "to purge." It's a shortening of phrases such as "purgatorial suffering" and "purgatorial places." See Le Goff.

Don't lay out evidence for the reader so they can agree with you. Just find a reliable source and quote it. If you can't find a source, then this is not your place to make your pitch.

Who says that Sabbatine privilege is a "legend"? Who says it's not real? The Church has never said it's not real. You want to call it a legend to distance it from P. But the Carmelites who have promulgated Sabbatine privilege don't call it a legend. Who says it is?

Leadwind 13:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The linguistic issue is interesting but could you clarify it, as written and as you describe it sounds circular. Isn't purgatorial derived from purge itself? Even if not, I find that confusing - I wish I had Lo Goff.

And BTW, I think statements such as "this is not your place to make your pitch" and "You want to [do whatever]" are not assuming good, well, you know </intentionally avoided pun>. And no, I fail to see evidence to the contrary. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) replies to Lima:

(1): That was the next section I was going to look at. It did need some serious help, and it still might. I suspect we can arrange something sourced to say about it rather than drop it all together, but it may be not be easy, because of the fractured but subtle differences that provide relevant context and background. I have nothing to offer that section except potential copyedits, however.

(2): "Process" does seem more general and inclusive than "place", and I would think both could be supported by refs. If there is still editorial disagreement on these (although I would ask fervently, aren't there bigger fish to fry?), "the purification" is perfectly acceptable.

(3): Agreed, that material is useful, but may need to be reorged, per your suggestion or another. And probably reworded; it did sound slightly synthy. I seem to recall also that one of the refs was reused and may be able to be consolidated with a "name" label, but I'd have to recheck.

(4): A couple of the examples themselves are unreffed, but in principle you're right. Moving the tag to the relevant examples would seem a good solution.

Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Sabbatine privilege has never been declared a legend. Catholics widely regard it as a legend, but I don't know whether there's a declaration on it. The Carmelites apparently do not promulgate it, but that doesn't make it false. Like Purgatory, this is a topic on which the less said the better. Therefore, I doubt anyone's declared it to be legendary. If they have, just cite them. Sabbatine Privilege might be one of those things that is seemingly false and therefore shouldn't be spoken of among the uneducated (per Trent). Leadwind 02:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking better guys

I'm so sorry I haven't had the time to devote to this article that it deserves. I had planned to do a major rewrite, but other things have interfered.

That said-- after a cursory glance, the page is looking much much better. The suggestions I'd make are:

• Fork off history, the same way we did with world religions
• Write a very basic discussion of purgatory before launching straight in dogma.
• Insofar as possible, try to summarize as much as possible. We always have subarticle and Wikisource for extended quotes.
• Watch the jargon like a hawk. Wikipedia needs a discussion of Purgatory that is comprehensible to somebody who's never set foot in a christian church, and this article isn't there yet.
• I'm sorry I used "Earth" instead of "Earthly Life". I think (hope) readers will understand that "Earth" in the flowchart does not actually refer to the planet, but I agree we could come up with something better than that. I just copied the word "Earth" from the source diagram. I'll try to chnage it at some point, or you guys can change it yourself using free software called Gimp.

Keep up the good work. I know there's lots of disputes, real progress IS being made. -14:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alec on all counts. Lima? Yak? Ritterschaft? I note that none of these suggestions are related to POV issues, they're all format issues. I'll add my own asterisk: * Include mention of everyone on Ritterschaft's list from the ODCC. Leadwind 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

re Fork, I would prefer not, unless this gets too long. IMO we are not there yet. But not a pressing distinction.

re predogma intro, in principle I agree, and two or three sentences should be adequate. I have my reservations that agreeing on this very important and concise material will be easy though. :-)

re summarize quotes, agree, and add that passing some quoted content to the footnotes can be a useful option in some cases.

re jargon, agree to minimize (although not completely exclude). Another possibility to pass verbatim more difficult language to footnotes as above.

re "Earth", agree but no sweat.

re ODCC, no problem assuming space not an issue. How to do it is another matter, but done well would be worth doing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll tardily suggest that restoring solildly referenced material that was cut without discussion should also be a bullet-point item. Leadwind 15:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My only comment is that I like the history section where it is. Ritterschaft 19:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, I'll take that to mean you don't disagree with anything else. Alec, it looks as though we've got general agreement on what needs to be done. Lima? Leadwind 14:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Jargon

To clarify-- when I warn against jargon-- actually jargon is fine. What we can't use is 'unexplained jargon. The problem is Jargon which is not first explained, in simple terms, in the text. Using jargon is okay, when necessary, but we have to explain, and it takes quite a lot of words to actually explain jargon. (indeed, the first half of the article is basically an attempt to explain what the jargon word "purgatory" means).

I know there's a prevalent view, not just on this article but on wikipedia in general, that it's okay to use unexplained jargon if you hyperlink to it-- because the user can just go to the article and learn what the jargon means. This sounds good, but in practice, it usually means that to comprehend a single article, a reader would have to read quite a large amount of material.

There's nothing "wrong" or at all "badfaithy" about hyperlinking jargon, it's just not good writing and we can do better. The goal to shoot for is for us to be able to print this article out onto paper, hand it to a somebody who's never set foot in a christian culture, and have them be able to understand it. A hard goal, but we're getting there. --Alecmconroy 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

By now everyone knows that I see POV everywhere, so it will surprise no one when I say that jargon on this page is a POV issue. My recurrent thesis is that the clearer and more scholarly we are, the less plausible P seems (because it's not real). LC and others have defended P by eliminating information (including RS cited material), segregating unwelcome information, framing unwelcome information in particular ways, or using impenetrable jargon. I want to explain jargon because I want the naive reader to walk away with a clear understanding of P. Luckily, wanting the reader to understand the topic is something that even a POV defender has a hard time disagreeing with, so let's all agree to explain jargon. And, yes, my contention that P is false is POV. I recognize that and am willing to discipline myself with RS in order to prevent my POV from slanting the article. I would hope that those whose POV is that P is real would do the same. Leadwind 14:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any editor should aim to prove that the purgatory that the Catholic Church teaches is either real or false: they should just state opinions about it objectively. As for the straw-man purgatories that Lw thinks are false, I too think they are false. They should not be confused with the purgatory that the Catholic Church teaches. Lima 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Transient afterlife

I think Transient afterlife state in World Religions would be a really awesome article. I don't have the background to write it, but it would be really interesting. For the moment though, all we have is an article which compares/contrasts the specific concept of Purgatory to other religions-- which is a very different beast from an article that would equally cover all religions, rather than compare-contrast one religion's doctrine (purgatory) with other religions. Two very different article, but both would have a place here. If someone wanted to dive into making a complete survey Transient afterlife state in World Religions, that'd be worth doing (just, of course, remember to do it from a religioun-neutral perspective, rather than the "how do others compare to RC" perspective we'd employ in this article and its subarticles) --Alecmconroy 21:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the other article as developing into something less ambitious than that, limited to "Transient afterlife states (Christianity)". If the article were to remain as at present, it would be difficult to justify its separate existence, since it is as yet no more than a "Negative views on Purgatory by other Christian Churches" section of the Purgatory article (though, of course, with a positive view on the part of the Church that teaches purgatory). I would like it to grow so that it will indicate what these Churches do believe about the situation of souls between death and their definitive fate, explaining their ideas positively, not just saying negatively that they do not believe in purgatory. An attempt at a summary for the Eastern Orthodox Church would run something like this: Except for a few privileged souls, who are taken straight to heaven, the dead await the general judgement either with dread or pleasant anticipation in line with the particular judgement that is passed on each; the living can help them by prayers, good works and offering the Eucharist. Protestants would be distinguished between those who believe that the dead encounter their eternal fate immediately (no transient state) and those who believe in the "soul sleep" that seems of special interest to one of the present editors.

(Just for Alecmconroy: I have been unable to download successfully the executable form of Gimp, so as to fix the flowchart.)Lima 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep the wikilink aimed at the article's name until the article's name changes. Leadwind 14:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No objection, really. But I am hoping to provoke suggestions about what would be a suitable pacifically acceptable name for the other article. I think that, at this point, any formal proposal to move the other article to a new name would almost certainly provoke heated opposition. In any case, even as I changed the text here, the wikilink continued to be aimed, through piping, at the article's present name. Lima 17:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

basic discussion

"Write a very basic discussion of purgatory before launching straight in dogma." Done. The distinction between mortal and venial sins is tricky, and the distinction between the guilt of mortal sin and the punishment due for mortal sin is really hard for the newbie to grasp. Do we need to tease these distinctions apart better? In general, let's keep moving forward. Another point we've agreed on is to summarize more and include big block quotes less. Leadwind 14:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

linguistic issue: purgatory from purgatorial

In English, "blind" can be an adjective or a noun. Same with Latin in general. "The purgatorial" means "the purgatorial (thing)." Theologians in the West used the term "purgatorium" all the time as an adjective. There were purgatorial pains, purgatorial fires, and purgatorial places. In the 12th cent., the noun that the adjective modified dropped away and the adjective assumed noun status. Where people used to say that you burned in purgatorial fire, now you burned in "Purgatory." The noun form came into place not to name an abstract process (let's call that "pre-Judgment purification"), but to name the place where the souls of the saved were purified. This is a POV issue when editors try to link purgatory to a process (which is abstract enough to be comaptible with modern thought.), and deny that it was ever taught to be a place (incompatible with modern thought). Leadwind 02:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I get the general linguisitic idea, although the details are still somewhat cloudy. I only ask because I thought the relevant text was poorly worded (whatever its point was), and wanted to be better informed to improve it. I am not at the point where I feel competent enough to do it, but others may try. About this POV thing, consider allowing for the possibility of a "both/and" solution rather than only an "either/or" one. A lot of the contention you see will evaporate when you allow for this. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In my last edit I took out the distinction between purgatorius, a, um (adj.) and purgatorium, ii (n.). The difference between a substantival adjective and a noun is effectively nil. I don't think the reader needs a complete etymology. Ritterschaft 19:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

intermediate state, request for Ritterschaft

Ritterschaft, someone deleted the referenced material I had about the intermediate state. I think it was deleted for POV reasons, but who can say? Would you please look up the intermediate state business in the ODCC and summarize it in the article? Something about Christians looking less and less toward an imminent Judgment Day and more and more toward the intermediate state betweenn death and judgment day. Especially in the West (Augustine, Gregory). Leadwind 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't recall doing that, I probably did. Either unintentional collateral damage of another edit, or something I though belonged better elsewhere but not where it was, and just never relocated it. Certainly not POV (in my opinion!). You can always check the history. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother checking the history. We're moving forward. Leadwind 04:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When I read the article I thought this passage was one of the more difficult sections, because it raises the issue of the overall apocalyptic nature of the early Church, which is a subject with diverse opinions and which we could not do justice in a little article about purgatory.

The text says that one of the elements of purgatory is that not all souls are condemned to hell or worthy of heaven at the moment of death. It then says that this notion developed slowly because Christian attention was focused on the immanent eschaton, rendering ideas of an interim state less interesting.

The subject is difficult – I believe the ODCC knows this and for that reason is rather vague about all this. Whether or not the early Church was all that focused on an immanent Parousia is a scholarly debate that is hard to summarise, especially given then complex tension within the evidence, including the Biblical texts. Ritterschaft 19:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The ODCC is confident enough to say that the Church looked for an imminent end of the world so there was little interest in an intermediate state. If ODCC can say that, why can't we? Let's just cite it until we find an RS that contradicts it. Leadwind 14:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

"confrontational"

I've been called confrontational. I have three things to say in my defense. First, I'm an English major born and bred, and I learned on my daddy's knee to say things very directly. Second, one tactic that some editors have used to defend a POV is to confound the issue with half-truths, tangents, counterpoints, etc. until the main idea is lost. Very simple, clear statements are my friend (I think) because I'm right (I think). Third, I'll try to be less confrontational. Now that the page is moving, maybe I should lighten up, slow down, and take it easy on the other editor. Let's please just keep sticking our collective nose in ODCC, EBO, and anything else really solid we can find. Leadwind 03:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

captions

Is there a WP policy about captions? I'd like to see them refer to the text so that our poor, overwhelmed reader to use them as touchstones and highlights of the material. People tend to stop at pretty pictures and look at them. They are our chance to help the reader skim the page. Ritterschaft and others apparently prefer that the captions explain the picture rather than refer to purgatory. Leadwind 16:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I was not trying to make a general statement about all captions. I restored the text about the painting of Gregory because I prefer it - it tells me about the subject of the picture (Gregory and the dove), draws me in, and is altogether quaint and interesting. I just happen to like it. Ritterschaft 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Certain editors have had the practice of eliminating information about P from the page, apparently in defense of their POV. So when in doubt I like to add or retain information about P. Since your caption isn't about P, I'd like to use one that is about P, or at least add the P information back in. Leadwind 14:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

High Middle Ages

I don’t like these things about the High Middle Ages section. We digress into bits about what the essential points of the doctrine are, and what sort of notions of purification existed in antiquity. I’m not sure why. We mention Hugh of Saltrey’s Tractatus de Purgatorio S. Patricii, but only to say that its part of larger purgatorial literature. If no information is given about the text, then there is nothing to put in context. We also talk about Gertrude the Great, but c. 1475 is pushing the limits of the word “medieval”, and the “Latin-American legend of the Anima sola” surely blows well by that limit. Maybe this material (at least some of it) would be better placed in the literature section? I don't know, but the whole thing is confusing. Ritterschaft 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are inconsistencies with particular chronological content being in a wrong section timewise, clearly fixing that would be desirable. I did notice some confluence of theological development and of literary use when I was doing massive copyediting, and wouldn't mind partitioning them apart, although that may be intrinsically difficult, since each infuences the other, and it may require a large reorg. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

reverted Lima

Please check out my revert[8] and if you're not Lima and you disagree please unrevert him. The "fire" image was moved away from the Fire section, Dante moved out of the literature(!), more distancing P from associated beliefs (sabbatine privilege, etc.), none of it OKd on talk. I've been patient before about not reverting bad edits, but that patience has never been rewarded, so I'm being bold. Leadwind 14:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a list of the changes I made. I have confidence that they will be given due consideration and either reversed, accepted, or (if not accepted as they are) improved by the group of editors involved:

• a proposal for the title of the other article, as explained on this Talk page
• in the first two paragraphs, changed smart quotes to straight quotes, for uniformity
• removed a Hard Return before "Purgatory as taught by the Roman Catholic Church
• moved the Anima sola image (tentatively) to where the Anima sola is mentioned
• changed "and was incorporated in the legend written in that century by Hugh of Saltry" to "as is shown by the legend ..." in response to Ritterschaft's puzzlement about why the legend was mentioned
• moved the mention of Dante's poem to "High Middle Ages" and moved material that Ritterschaft rightly said did not belong to "High Middle Ages" to after the Council of Trent
• Inserted a new heading "Continuation of speculation and legendary development" (this could certainly be improved) to separate post-Trent developments within the Catholic Church from the account given immediately before of Protestant attitudes. I also slightly retouched the opening words of the paragraph that I separated from the Protestant account.
• I added to this the paragraph about "Sabbatine Privilege", "Anima sola". etc. that Ritterschaft thought was out of place under "High Middle Ages", and also the very short paragraph about post-Trent (or post-Protestant Reformation) works of literature that was previously under the heading "Literature"

There may be other retouches that I miss now because of wanting to get this list done before others start studying the changes. They can be identified by examining each of my edits singly, instead of examining just Lw's reversal as a whole, as I have done now.

I personally think all of the changes listed were improvements. Lw thinks they were all bad edits. What do others think? Lima 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt they were not bad edits, but otherwise most of these are subtle editorial issues. My op:

title: as written, the previous is clearly a better descriptor of how the article reads currently. But as it reads poorly, and needs more than a bit of work to avoid readling like a POV fork, I really would consider time better spent improving that article than quibbling about its title now.

I prefer smart quotes in general, but like English variant spellings, I prefer consistency over any particular choice. So no problem/big deal.

Return: so long as there is one (as there apears to be to me), that is all that is needed. Extra ones should go, I agree (although again, no big deal).

Anima Sola: It seems the image is actually not by where it's mentioned; I would think it better to go there, as you suggest, although I suspect the move away was collateral damage from reverting something else.

Saltry: it really depends on what that paragraph tries to do. "incorporated" suggests the discussion is about the use of the concept in legends, and there is another legend discussed at the end of the paragraph. Conversely, the first sentence starts with a phrase "was already well developed" which is deserving of a source, and "shown" connects to the source. But in either case, the paragraph still has subtle faults (orphaned opening claim in former, off topic factoid at end in latter). So either would work but ideally still leave some minor cleanup to be done. I have no strong opinion either way which is better.

I don't see the heading, think the title would need considerable work, but in principle think a well worded heading there not unreasonable.

I agree with trying to get content's chronology right, although don't have the sources available so leave it to others. One mior point: I am not sure I like having a "Literature" section, only because I think there would be a lot of overlap with legends and such. But that type of organization is somewhat arbitrary, so not a big deal. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Baccyak. (The reason you "don't see the heading" is that Lw removed it.) I see Ritterschaft is working on the article. I will wait till he has finished before touching the article myself. This will also give some time to allow Lw to express his views on Baccyak's comment. And Ritterschaft may want to undo his deletion of the mention of "Sabbatine privilege" and the like, perhaps by putting it where I put it. Lw seems to have thought that I had done what Ritterschaft has now done. Lima 05:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The smart quotes are my fault. If someone could change them, I'd like that. I don't know how to easily do it. In my edits I removed the text about the Anima Sola and the Sabbatine privilege. I really didn't know where to stick the Anima sola, but it surely doesn't belong in the Medieval section if its a practice from a part of the world not even discovered at the time. The Sabbatine privilege seems ok to use, but I put in a good bit of text about medieval visionary literature, so maybe its not needed anymore. I didn't really know just where to put it and, since it might be redundant now, I just left it out. The pic of the anima sola is by the fire section, since it has fire in it. Maybe its not the best picture there, but oh well; I tried. Ritterschaft 06:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Ritterschaft again did excellent work. I have restored those of my reverted changes that he has not covered, so that they can be considered, preferably one by one and not globally. It seems that what other editors (Baccyak and Ritterschaft) looked at was only Leadwind's reverted text, and I would like them to be able to consider (reject, accept, improve) what I have proposed.

I think the text had come to present 2 Tim 1:18 as too certainly a case of prayer for the dead, and so I have weakened it. But this NT text still seems decidedly pertinent.

Leadwind should be pleased that I have restored Sabbatine Privilege, Prayer of St. Gertrude, Anima Sola, placing them in the later historical period. Though I do not see them as important, he does.

As for smart quotes, word processors allow choice of form (Microsoft Word at Tools/AutoCorrect Options/AutoFormat); when that is done, a simple "Replace all" command fixes all, literally at a stroke. For some, the simplest way of ensuring straight quotes is to do at least a revision, if not the actual composing, within Wikipedia itself, which always interprets the quotes keystroke as straight quotes. This, I suppose, is why in Wikipedia quotes are usually in the straight form.

Leadwind has commented out the "Further reading" section. Since nobody has objected since then, should we now delete that section? Personally, I am in favour of doing so. Lima 12:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

To chime in on Lima's changes

• Transient Afterlife States doesn't exist yet-- make it, then link to it, not the other way around. (and just renaming the title isn't really what's needed).
• Reinsertion of Eastern Orthodox, , Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and The Scottish Liturgy beliefs into the Prayer for the Dead section. We're trying to keep focus on RC, and keep comparative religion to a minimum in this article.
• Moving the Lonely Soul image seems questionable. A picture of a soul in a fiery purgatory seems perfectly suited to a section discussing the contentious issue of fire. Similarly, the new text that discusses Anima Sola is problematic-- even if many of the luminaries of catholicism do no subscribe to it, we can't just call it a "legend". I also don't know that specific concept is important enough to merit discussion in this article's text.
• Moving Dante into history is good.
• Later "speculation" seems unduly harsh. Later "views" better.

I'm sufficently confident in the above points that I would revert, but I don't have the time to sort through the good vs the bad, so I won't revert edit wholesale, but if anyone agrees with me and has the time, that's what'd I'd do. --Alecmconroy 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) --Alecmconroy 13:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's see how many I can accept immediately.

• Objection to placing here a proposed new name (linked by piping) to the other article. I must make my proposal in some other way.
• Mention of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and explicit mention of Anglican with regard not to prayer for the dead, as Ritterschaft said, but only with regard to 2 Tm 1:18 (the Anglican quotation was already there). Very well, then we reduce the references with regard to this Scripture text to the Catholic Encyclopedia and to a Protestant encyclopedia.
• Change "speculation". To "ideas"?

With Baccyak, I think the Anima Sola image should be where the Anima Sola idea is mentioned. There must surely be non-copyright images available of souls in purgatory, crowds of souls, not just one. Unfortunately, I do not know where to look for non-copyright images except in Wikipedia.

Thanks for expressing agreement on Dante. Lima 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

On Anima Sola-- why mention it at all? It's inclusion as an image makes sense, because we wanted an image of "fiery purgatory" as opposed to "cold purgatory". Overtly discussing a Latin American prayer card image is probably undue weight. --Alecmconroy 14:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But does Leadwind? Lima 14:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong-- it's a GREAT image for the purpose of illustrating the belief of Purgatory as a fiery place of suffering (a belief that IS notable and prevalent, even if not dogmatic and canonical). The Folio you've suggested doesn't even come close, in my estimation. I suggest chopping the discussion of the A.S. in the history section and moving the image back to the Fire section. --Alecmconroy 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lima, I would like to offer my thanks on the improvements, including the quotation formatting (and advice thereabout), and the restoration of material that I found no suitable place for. I also concur that the 1 Timothy quote is more properly represented in its ambiguity. Lastly, I will not object to the removal of the “further reading” section, given the lack of interest.

Alec, first thank you for your work on the flowchart. I am sure it is not enjoyable to see one’s work nit-picked, but I believe this fourth rendering is certainly worth the efforts at revision. My only other response is on your comment about Lima’s moving of the anima sola pic on the basis that it is apt for the fire section due to its flames. I too felt that the fire in the work lent it for such a location (though I can’t call myself enthusiastic about it), but I would point out that the pic Lima has added also has flames on it, and at any rate the old pic is currently next to the anima sola text.

As for the inclusion of anima sola in general, I must say that I know nothing about it. It hasn’t come up in any of the literature. Given that Leadwind is so committed to adhering to encyclopaedic models, I would think he would favour its removal. Ritterschaft 14:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ritterschaft, naturally you are right that I agree we shouldn't talk about AS on this page. When I included reference to Gertrude, Sabbatine Privilege, and Anima Sola, it was as "see also" entries with no text. None of these seem really important enough to mention when we still don't cover all the material from the ODCC or the EBO. Someone else took these "see also" links and turned them into a paragraph about legends. We should provide links to minor WP articles related to P (e.g., Gertrude), but there's no reason to waste space describing them. Let's focus on doing the things that Alec's proposed and that we've agreed to. Leadwind 15:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put into "See also" the article Lw here proposes.

In view of the ambiguity of the significance of the Anima Sola image, I think it is inappropriate to use it as an illustration of purgatory.

Thanks to Alecmconroy for doing the job I could not do myself. Apologies for my delay in thanking him. Lima 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

forbidden information

File:Lonelysoul.jpg

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

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.

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.

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)

Alec's list

Please excuse my dullness. Where is "Alec's list"? Lima 14:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[9] Leadwind 03:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is the neutrality still disputed, or can the box be removed? Ritterschaft 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Given no objections over the past several days, I take it that is a yes. Ritterschaft 09:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Our primary definition of purgatory doesn't match that found in standard references. The article gives undue weight to quotes and items that are in line with purgatory while giving short shrift to evidence that makes purgatory look more like a medieval innovation. Reliable material that's unflattering to the pro-Purgatory POV has been removed. The page is a lot better, and I want us to keep moving forward, but it's still a full step or two from NPOV. Leadwind 03:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

ECC

The material on the Eastern Catholic Churches is tough. The topic is confusing. It's not covered in ODCC or EBO. Someone changed it to mostly a block quote and (per Alec's list) we're tying to cut back on the block quotes. We can't agree on how to present this information. Let's cut it. Leadwind 03:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)