L
Lampo
Guest
I don’t mind one bit. I like it.
I don’t think the Catholic Church is that precise. The Church doesn’t state where or how long purgatory is. It is a process of purgation so that nothing unclean will enter heaven.
Yes.
- Status
L
Lampo
Guest
Could God apply the prayers that we say for the deceased to that person before they died? We (Catholics) believe He could and does since God is beyond time and space.
G
gcnuss
Guest
God can most assuredly do whatever he wills whenever he wills.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well ole Gurney stood in line at St. Mary’s Catholic Church today for an HOUR in a line of about 30 people to go to confession. The Catholics around here function under the motto of “all must and WILL!” 
St. Mary’s is always very very awesome about people coming to Confession. There were six priests with about 30 people in each line! And people kept coming into the church and replacing those that just confessed for an hour and a half. It’s been like this for a week! Thousands have confessed. It’s always that way here and not just at Advent and Lent, seriously, all year long! Crazy…
St. Mary’s is always very very awesome about people coming to Confession. There were six priests with about 30 people in each line! And people kept coming into the church and replacing those that just confessed for an hour and a half. It’s been like this for a week! Thousands have confessed. It’s always that way here and not just at Advent and Lent, seriously, all year long! Crazy…
Ugh haha…you’re absolutely right. At a former parish, the priest offered it on Saturday mornings at 8 am. If the goal was to discourage it since “none must,” he clearly succeeded.
G
Genesius
Guest
First, I would like to comment on redemptive suffering. In one post someone had mentioned how there was a saint who was a cancer survivor. Can I be a saint? I’m a Leukemia survivor…LOL. 
But seriously, folks…I also wanted to explain my understanding of “purgatory” as a convert. My convert friend explained it to me in Protestantese very well before I fully converted. Basically, along with what has been stated already, to me it’s just another term for “the sanctification process”. It occurs in this life and the next. That’s the difference. We believe it is a state of being that can also occur in the afterlife. What isn’t specified is how time works there. For instance, one could speculate that it might seem like a fraction of a second, so it might seem like you just go directly to heaven.
What is different of course from the other views is that we believe that there are at least some, if not the majority of people at the moment of death who are not completely sinless or comletely sanctified. Since no unclean thing can enter heaven (which we have all established we concur on), although we are positionally made perfect in Christ through His redemption, in actuality we still sin. That sin still needs to be purged somehow for us to enter heaven. As far as biblical references, I will present them in another later post.
But seriously, folks…I also wanted to explain my understanding of “purgatory” as a convert. My convert friend explained it to me in Protestantese very well before I fully converted. Basically, along with what has been stated already, to me it’s just another term for “the sanctification process”. It occurs in this life and the next. That’s the difference. We believe it is a state of being that can also occur in the afterlife. What isn’t specified is how time works there. For instance, one could speculate that it might seem like a fraction of a second, so it might seem like you just go directly to heaven.
What is different of course from the other views is that we believe that there are at least some, if not the majority of people at the moment of death who are not completely sinless or comletely sanctified. Since no unclean thing can enter heaven (which we have all established we concur on), although we are positionally made perfect in Christ through His redemption, in actuality we still sin. That sin still needs to be purged somehow for us to enter heaven. As far as biblical references, I will present them in another later post.
G
Genesius
Guest
**Biblical References To Purgatory: **Though the term is never used in Sacred Scripture, the concept is there.
1 Jn. 5:16-17 speaks of a sin that is deadly and a sin that is not deadly. Where do people whose sin is not deadly go when they die? Not to heaven since no unclean thing will enter (Rev.21:27), and certainly not hell since John indicates the sin is not deadly.
Mark 9:49 - [words of Jesus] “Everyone will be salted with fire.”
Matt. 12:32 “…whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.” clearly implies that expiation or atonement can occur after death.
II Mac. 12:42-46 - “The noble Judas…took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing so he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view…Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”
Judas could not have been praying for the dead if they were in hell, since it would not have benefitted them in the least. And if they were in heaven, prayer would hardly have been necessary.
Btw, I personally saw bibles with the Deuterocanon when I was Lutheran (ELCA) in their very sanctuary.
1 Jn. 5:16-17 speaks of a sin that is deadly and a sin that is not deadly. Where do people whose sin is not deadly go when they die? Not to heaven since no unclean thing will enter (Rev.21:27), and certainly not hell since John indicates the sin is not deadly.
Mark 9:49 - [words of Jesus] “Everyone will be salted with fire.”
Matt. 12:32 “…whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this age or the age to come.” clearly implies that expiation or atonement can occur after death.
II Mac. 12:42-46 - “The noble Judas…took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing so he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view…Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”
Judas could not have been praying for the dead if they were in hell, since it would not have benefitted them in the least. And if they were in heaven, prayer would hardly have been necessary.
Btw, I personally saw bibles with the Deuterocanon when I was Lutheran (ELCA) in their very sanctuary.
P
pablope
Guest
Hi, Jon,
Read the article, though not all of it…I find it interesting to know that the Reformers were not against Purgatory per se…but the indulgences and the idea of fire or punishment (if I recall right)…attached to it and of course, the abuses.
There is some cleansing, the Catholics call it purgatory, the Reformers have no name for it, as they wanted to disassociate it from the Catholic teaching of it…as II understood from some of the paragraphs. Please correct me if I got this incorrectly.
I expect that you are essentially correct, though perhaps there’s more to it, such as, in that time, Purgatory seemed to be viewed in terms of time spent, as well.
If I recall correctly, somewhere along the lines the reformers said something to the effect of: get rid of the extra stuff (indulgences, satisfactions, etc) and we can talk about it. My sense is that the cleansing (that we agree on) takes place at the moment of death by the mercy and grace of God, for Christ’s sake. If we agree on this, and Catholics wish to call it Purgatory (a time of purgation), I personally have no problem with the designation.
Jon
E
Esdra
Guest
HiBtw, I personally saw bibles with the Deuterocanon when I was Lutheran (ELCA) in their very sanctuary.
yes, that’s nothing uncommon. Most Lutherans use Bibles with the apocrypha. (even in Services). [That’s the very difference to bible-onlyists like Baptists or Pentecostals, where you will NEVER find a Bible with the Deuteros! In the German speaking countries they do use the Luther Bible i.e. but ALWAYS without Deuteros.
Even in my Baptist Church in Austria we use the Luther Bible - but without Apocrypha/Deuteros]
I even know, for example, that the Luther study bible for children/young adults, which is used in RI (Religious instruction) in school and at confirmation study, has the Apocrypha (=Deuterocanonical Books) in them.
Esdra
G
Genesius
Guest
Even in my Baptist Church in Austria we use the Luther Bible - but without Apocrypha/Deuteros]
I even know, for example, that the Luther study bible for children/young adults, which is used in RI (Religious instruction) in school and at confirmation study, has the Apocrypha (=Deuterocanonical Books) in them.
Esdra
Esdra, not to pick on you. It’s actually a common mistake. But the “apocrypha” is actually different than the “Deuterocanon”. It has books that are not included in the Deuterocanon. I bought an apocrypha while I was on my journey home to Rome and noticed that. I asked about it from a Catholic source and they confirmed my suspicion. So many times when a non-Catholic Christian alludes to the “apocrypha” they may or may not be alluding to it. JFYI.
Btw, Merry Christmas.
L
Lampo
Guest
The Deuterocanons were never considered “aprocypha” until ML removed them based on his own authority 1,100 years after the canon of scripture was infallibly established.
Which truly ecumenical council infallibly established the canon of scripture 1,100 years ago, and if this is the case, why:
- does Orthodoxy not have the same canon as Rome?
- did people as notable as Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus question the canon of scripture in similar ways to Luther?
Cajetan: *“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the Apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as is plain from the Prologus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” *
Cajetan here claims, based not on Luther, but on St.Jerome himself, the the D-C’s are out of the canon and in the Apocrypha!!
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
He then took it a step further and rejected the authority of the Church because he thought he knew better than the Church. It’s one thing to question, debate and dispute and quite another to go against the authority of the Church based on a personal feeling. I could question, debate and dispute a dogma of the Church, but at the end of the day must still accept it as the deposit of faith and to be true as revealed by God. After all, who am I? ML had a pride problem.
Saint Jerome questioned the canon also but ultimately yielded to the Catholic Church.
“I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.” - St. Augustine.
G
Genesius
Guest
Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith.
The above quote is rather vague and seems to allow for a lot of private interpretation. In other words, what other books could fall in this category? Perhaps Hebrews, James, etc.? How about 1st and 2nd Esdras? That’s a deuterocanonical book not even mentioned in the entire quote Jon gave.
But, again, going back to my original post on this, like I said…the “apocrypha” that I bought (and I suspect there could be two different works with this title) has some books that are not even found in the DC, and as I understand it, some of them are even heretical in nature or would have a questionable date and authorship. However, I have also heard there is another set of books that Protestants call the “apocrypha” which are part or all of the DC. But again, these are intertestamental books; that is, most of them record events that took place during the 400 “silent years” between the last OT book period and the events at the beginning of the NT era. Whether one considers them canonical or not, I find that to be an interesting point.
The above quote is rather vague and seems to allow for a lot of private interpretation. In other words, what other books could fall in this category? Perhaps Hebrews, James, etc.? How about 1st and 2nd Esdras? That’s a deuterocanonical book not even mentioned in the entire quote Jon gave.
But, again, going back to my original post on this, like I said…the “apocrypha” that I bought (and I suspect there could be two different works with this title) has some books that are not even found in the DC, and as I understand it, some of them are even heretical in nature or would have a questionable date and authorship. However, I have also heard there is another set of books that Protestants call the “apocrypha” which are part or all of the DC. But again, these are intertestamental books; that is, most of them record events that took place during the 400 “silent years” between the last OT book period and the events at the beginning of the NT era. Whether one considers them canonical or not, I find that to be an interesting point.
E
Esdra
Guest
HiEsdra, not to pick on you. It’s actually a common mistake. But the “apocrypha” is actually different than the “Deuterocanon”. It has books that are not included in the Deuterocanon. I bought an apocrypha while I was on my journey home to Rome and noticed that. I asked about it from a Catholic source and they confirmed my suspicion. So many times when a non-Catholic Christian alludes to the “apocrypha” they may or may not be alluding to it. JFYI.
Btw, Merry Christmas.
don’t worry, I know about that fact.
But since Protestants (even Lutherans) call the Catholic Deuterocanonicals also Apocrypha, I think that’s okay.
In my NRSV Catholic Edition there are also Catholic Apocrypha in: 1 Esdras, 3 Maccabees, (Prayer of Manasseh), Psalm 151, 2 Esdras, 4 Maccabees.
The other existing Apocrypha are not to be found in the Septuagint (except Psalms and Odes of Solomon, which were rejected in the Council of Rome 382 AD and are not found in any Canon, not even in the EO Church!).
And most of the NT Apocrypha are not Christian, but Gnostic.
Esdra
Lampo,
Regarding the canon, what specific act did Luther do that was outside the Catholic Church?
We all have a pride problem.
Jon
E
Esdra
Guest
Although I am not Catholic anymore, I think Lampo ment that Luther rejected the one and other dogma or so, and so became a heretic.
Considering Luther’s Canon, I guess, from the Catholic perspective, he acted outside the CC by calling the Deuteros Apocrypha and put them in the end of the OT. And that there are also Luther’s Bibles that don’t contain them (I have a Luther Bible with and without Deuteros!)
Well, and maybe that Luther also wanted to remove i.e. Hebrew and James as “Apocrypha”. (At least this is what I have read the one or other time here in CAF!)
Esdra
L
Lampo
Guest
Yes. Luther was right that *men *in the Church needed reformed. He was wrong to think *doctrines *needed reformed.
Yes.
And Revelation and Jude.
Esdra
Yes, that would be the Catholic position, but not related to the canon of scripture.
And Cardinal Cajetan said the exact same thing. This was not against the Church until Trent, and even at Trent the debate regarding the D-C’s continued. My point to Lampo is that the canon of scripture was not infallibly defined (for Catholics) until Trent. As for putting them at the end, to my knowledge, the order and numbering were also not infallibly defined.
What people after Luther did to his translation has nothing to do with what Luther did. Luther, by 1534, had translated and included 74 books. It was not until long after his death that Protestants began excluding them. Even the 1611 KJV had them. I, personally, do not believe Luther would approve of their exclusion. If he took the time, made the effort, to translate these 8 books (the D-C’s and the Prayer of Manasses), it seems reasonable to conclude 1) he thought they should be in the Bible, 2) that they were valuable to the Church.
Wanted to remove? Not likely. He questioned the authorship of the Book of James, not a new event, as the quote below from Eusebius shows. Eusebius called them *Antilegomena *, or “disputed” books.
One can disagree with Luther regarding the canon, but prior to Trent, Catholics had the liberty to question the canon, and Luther acted within that liberty.
Jon
L
Lampo
Guest
That’s not true, JonNC. The charism of infallibility is in place when all the bishops, in union with the pope, make a declaration. This is precisely the case when the councils or Rome, Hippo and Carthage decided the canon of scripture in the late 4th Century.
“The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Joshua [Son of] Nave, one book; Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; Kings, four books [ie., 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings]; Paralipomenon [Chronicles], two books; Psalms, one book; Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles, one book; likewise Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,…lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee … Nahum … Habacuc … Sophonias … Aggeus … Zacharias … Malachias … Likewise the order of the historical [books]: Job, one book; Tobit, one book; Esdras, two books [Ezra and Nehemiah]; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; Maccabees, two books.” Council of Rome, Decree of Pope Damasus (A.D. 382).
“That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture. Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture. But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows: Genesis. Exodus. Leviticus. Numbers. Deuteronomy. Joshua the Son of Nun. The Judges. Ruth. The Kings, four books. The Chronicles, two books. Job. The Psalter. The Five books of Solomon. The Twelve Books of the Prophets. Isaiah. Jeremiah. Ezechiel. Daniel. Tobit. Judith. Esther. Ezra, two books. Macchabees, two books.” Council of Hippo, Canon 36 (A.D. 393).
“[It has been decided] that nothing except the canonical Scriptures should be read in the Church under the name of the divine Scriptures. But the canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon, two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon [Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Sirach], twelve books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobit, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Maccabees.” Council of Carthage III, Canon 397 (A.D. 397).
Protestants must argue that the canon of Scripture is fallible because they know that the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture at councils in A.D. 382, 393 and 397. If they admit that the Catholic Church made an infallible decision concerning the canon (which is true), then they would have to explain why they don’t follow the Catholic Church’s other infallible teachings. To skirt the issue, they must argue that the canon is only a fallible collection of infallible books.
If the canon were only a fallible collection of infallible books, then why should we believe that the books in the canon are themselves infallible? The infallible books do not tell us what the canon should be, and this forces us to look outside the infallible books to understand how the canon was selected. This outside source was the Holy Catholic Church, who made the infallible decision concerning what Scriptures were inspired and canonical, and what Scriptures were not.
Moreover, if the canon is only a fallible collection, then this means other books could be added to the canon, and books currently in the canon could be removed. This means that, if the canon of Scripture is infallible, its determination had to come from an infallible source as well. Arguing for a fallible canon also means that Protestants have no basis to deny the canonicity of other religious writings such as the book of Mormon, etc. They have no authority to do so.
- Status