M
mercygate
Guest
Painted copies of the mandylion date from the 6th century. The oldest is in St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai. Other representations are found in the catacombs.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
They actually didn’t - the concept of “inspiration of Scripture” as we understand it today did not even exist until the late 300s AD. The Jews would not have known what you were talking about if you asked them to list the books that were “inspired by God.”
If you were to ask them which books are suitable to be read out in the Synagogue or at the Temple, they would have given you different lists depending upon which sects they belonged to - the Sadducees recognized only the writings of Moses, while the Pharisees recognized the writings of Moses, David, Solomon, and the Prophets, with varying numbers of books depending upon which region of the country you were in (some recognized five Books of Solomon, while others recognized only two, while considering the other three to be forgeries).
(St. Paul and St. Timothy, being of the Greek school, would have recognized 46 books of the Old Testament, as we have in the Catholic Church - which stands to reason, because we actually got our Old Testament Bible from them; unlike the Protestants, we didn’t turn to unconverted Jews to tell us what the Old Testament is.)
They knew that there were certain books suitable to be read out at Mass, but there was no firm list of these books - some thought that the Shepherd of Hermas was okay, while avoiding the Book of Revelation, and others, the reverse. Some avoided the Letter to the Hebrews because of its unknown provenance, while others attributed it to St. Paul or St. Barnabas, and thought it was okay to use.
But as for a bound-together “biblios” (library of books) containing these books and no others, like you can buy in pretty much any bookstore today - such a thing did not exist until St. Jerome created the very first one, in the early 400s AD.
M
mercygate
Guest
M
mercygate
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
Actually, the only part that you don’t see is that they were in Rome. The Magesterium of the Church (the Apostles) started out in Jerusalem. They were carried away by force to Rome, and by the time it was safe to leave Rome (300 years later) there was nothing left in Jerusalem to return to, and they had already established a solid infrastructure in Rome, so they have simply remained in Rome ever since.
No, Jesus didn’t leave us a Bible. In Matthew 28:16-20. we don’t see Jesus handing the Apostles a Bible and saying, “Hey, put one of these in every hotel room in the world, and pass it out from door to door.” No, instead, Jesus gives the Oral Tradition - the rituals and teachings of the Catholic Church.
Not one word of the New Testament was written down for at least 27 years after His ascension into Heaven. What Jesus left us was a Church, and it was that same Church that created the Bible over the period from 50 AD until 405 AD, and then protected it and distributed it in the time since then.
A
anthony022071
Guest
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).
You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force. (Ignatius of Antioch,Letter to the Romans)
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).
Where was Marcion then, that shipmaster of Pontus, the zealous student of Stoicism? Where was Valentinus then, the disciple of Platonism? For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,–in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,–and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus. (Tertullian,Demurrer Against the Heretics)
We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church. (Cyprian to Pope Cornelius,Letter 48:1,3)
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).
“I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).
“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).
W
wanner47
Guest
Which doesn’t answer my question. It’s a yes or no question.
Are you referring to the “Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday” argument or something else that escapes my brain right now?
It may be “basic knowledge,” but as you can see from my signature, I am currently suffering from a severe case of pregnancy brain.
Lately I have difficulty remembering where I put my car keys, let alone every single one of the anti-Catholic arguments relating to Easter.
M
Metaron
Guest
I read the Didache, and I guess it amy be debatably as to whether it’s liturgical or not, but, it seems liturgical enough to me.
Besides all this, worship in Heaven described in the Bible seems to be highly liturgical: Incense, an altar, golden censers, repetative prayers, “Holy, holy holy…” prostration, bowing, lampstands/candlesticks… etc, etc, etc… would it not follow that the worship God recieves in Heaven is most pleasing to Him? Would he not also want us to worship the same way as the saints and angels in Heaven? With our best? After all, the three kings offered their best material things: gold, frankincese, and myrrh.
I’m glad you concede this, and I guess all that is now to discuss is Apostolic Succession…
From Apostolic hands comes the transmitted authority to teach, rule and sanctify. We read, in the Acts of the Apostles, that Paul and Barnabas, his immediate subordinate, preached the Faith in Derbe, Lystra Iconium and Antioch in the region called Galatia of Asia Minor; and “they appointed presbyters for them in each church” (Acts 14:21-22). The possession of special gifts of the Holy Spirit (charismata)—tongues, miracles, prophecies or the like—gave no authority to its possessors. Authority only comes from designation by one already possessed of it; and so all authority in the Christian Faith must come from the Apostolic source (see also 1 Cor 12:25; 14:2). It is clear that the Apostles had a unique power; but to their authority, by their own transmission, there succeeded the new hierarchy of episcopoi and presbyteroi. These Greek names indicated the rulers of the local Church; and their powers were given to the bishop (episcopos) of the local Ecclesia, who was aided by his subordinates, the presbyteroi. The Apostles laid hands on men to whom they transmitted their priesthood and episcopacy, who, in their turn, taught and governed. St. Paul instructed Timothy to combat false teachers energetically and engage actively in the work of organizing the community. As a bishop, he is to be blameless and care for the Church of God (1 Tim. 3:2-5). Titus, who is addressed by St. Paul as “beloved son”, was entrusted with the care of the Church in Crete and as bishop died there. He, like Timothy, was to be blameless, to exhort in sound doctrine and to confute opponents (Titus, 1:6,9).
M
Metaron
Guest
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST:
It would be wrong to suggest that there are no interpretive problems with the New Testament documents on these offices. The terms “bishop” and “presbyter” tend to be used imprecisely at times, and, in any case, none of the New Testament books gives an extensive treatment of Church structure. This last point, however, becomes a strength, because “founding documents” typically address structures, and the relative silence of the New Testament on this point is actually an argument in favor of the contextual theory that the books presuppose an existing traditional structure from the first, as an unbiased reading of Acts and the Epistles will suggest. The treatment in this tract, therefore, emphasizes the historical argument: From the late apostolic age on forward, we have continuous documentation of the exercise of the authority of popes and bishops throughout the Church.
This transmitting of Apostolic authority is found in the early Church’s exertion of the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. St. Clement I, who was the third Pope after Peter, ruling from 91 to 110, reminded the people of the Church in Corinth that they were to be guided by the fixed rule (canons) in doctrine, liturgy and in discipline. He wrote:
It would be wrong to suggest that there are no interpretive problems with the New Testament documents on these offices. The terms “bishop” and “presbyter” tend to be used imprecisely at times, and, in any case, none of the New Testament books gives an extensive treatment of Church structure. This last point, however, becomes a strength, because “founding documents” typically address structures, and the relative silence of the New Testament on this point is actually an argument in favor of the contextual theory that the books presuppose an existing traditional structure from the first, as an unbiased reading of Acts and the Epistles will suggest. The treatment in this tract, therefore, emphasizes the historical argument: From the late apostolic age on forward, we have continuous documentation of the exercise of the authority of popes and bishops throughout the Church.
This transmitting of Apostolic authority is found in the early Church’s exertion of the power of teaching, ruling and sanctifying. St. Clement I, who was the third Pope after Peter, ruling from 91 to 110, reminded the people of the Church in Corinth that they were to be guided by the fixed rule (canons) in doctrine, liturgy and in discipline. He wrote:
The Martydom of Polycarp:
And again:
Seems like Catholic veneration to me!
It was not universally acceptable in the beginning; many of the former Jewish converts, I’m sure, were more adamant against images than their Gentile brethren; at any rate, maybe the iconography was not completely developed, but it was their; such as the Christ, the Good Shepherd, from the 2nd century (I think) the early Madonna with Balaam from the late 2nd century/early 3rd century, in the Catacombs, etc, etc… I did not mean to state that there was an enormous proliferation of images in every church. But images are definitately not foreign to Christianity, either.
M
Metaron
Guest
CONTINUED:
The Bible (“This is My Body” and “My Body is food indeed”… etc,)
The* Didache *(Called a Sacrafice)
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
Serapion
St. Ephraim
St. Athanasius
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianz
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
The Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo I
St. Caesar of Arles
St. Fulgene of Ruspe
…and many, many other references.
*Clement believes in the apostles selecting people and then the congregations picking their leaders. *
Clement of Rome
A list of Church Fathers and documents that stated belief in the Real Presence:
The Bible (“This is My Body” and “My Body is food indeed”… etc,)
The* Didache *(Called a Sacrafice)
St. Clement of Rome
St. Ignatius of Antioch
St. Justin Martyr
St. Irenaeus of Lyons
St. Clement of Alexandria
St. Cyprian of Carthage
Aphraates the Persian Sage
Serapion
St. Ephraim
St. Athanasius
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
St. Hilary of Poiters
St. Basil the Great
St. Epiphanius of Salamis
St. Gregory of Nazianz
St. Gregory of Nyssa
St. John Chrysostom
St. Ambrose of Milan Egeria
Aurelius Prudentius Clemens
St. Jerome
The Apostolic Constitutions
St. Cyril of Alexandria
St. Augustine
Marcarius the Magnesian
St. Leo I
St. Caesar of Arles
St. Fulgene of Ruspe
…and many, many other references.
*Clement believes in the apostles selecting people and then the congregations picking their leaders. *
Clement of Rome
Ignatius of Antioch
Irenaeus
M
Metaron
Guest
CONTINUED:
Tertullian
{QUOTE]Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”[iii]
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
Tertullian
{QUOTE]Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origin of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just this same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles. Let the heretics invent something like it. After their blasphemies, what could be unlawful for them? But even if they should contrive it, they will accomplish nothing; for their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.
Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine. Then let all heresies prove how they regard themselves as apostolic, when they are challenged by our Churches to meet either test. But in fact they are not apostolic, nor can they prove themselves to be what they are not. Neither are they received in peace and communion by the Churches which are in any way apostolic, since on account of their diverse belief they are in no way apostolic (The Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:1 [A.D. 200]).
Clement of Alexandria
Firmilion of Caesarea
“The prayer of the righteous can help to obtain forgiveness for a sinner, even if he is already dead. By praying for the dead we hope that God will be merciful and grant them pardon of their sins. In II Maccabees 12:44-45 [which was considered a part of the Jewish canon of Scripture at the time of Christ] we read about a sin offering made by Judas Maccabeus[ii] +166 BC] on behalf of his dead soldiers:
For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.”[iii]
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
M
Metaron
Guest
“Tertullian +230] also testifies to the regularity of the practice of praying privately for the dead (De Monogam., x, P.L., II, 942)…. St. Cyprian [of Carthage, +258] writes to Cornelius that their mutual prayers and good offices ought to be continued after either should be called away by death (Ep. lvii, P. L., III, 830 sq.), and he tells us that before his time (d. 258) the African bishops had forbidden testators to nominate a priest as executor and guardian in their wills, and had decreed, as the penalty for violating this law, deprivation after death of the Holy Sacrifice and the other offices of the Church, which were regularly celebrated for the repose of each of the faithful; hence, in the case of one Victor who had broken the law, “no offering might be made for his repose, or any prayer offered in the Church in his name” (Ep. lxvi, P. L. , IV, 399). As a further testimony from the Western Church we may quote one of the many passages in which St. Augustine [of Hippo, +430] speaks of prayers for the dead:
The universal Church observes this law, handed down from the Fathers, that prayers should be offered for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their proper place at the Sacrifice" (Serm. clxxii, 2, P.L., XXXVIII, 936).
…Hence in the Early Church, as St. Augustine expressly assures us (Serm. cclxxv, 5, P.L., XXXVIII, 1295), and as is otherwise abundantly clear, prayers were not offered for martyrs, but to them….
As evidence of the faith of the Eastern Church we may refer to what Eusebius [of Caesarea, +c. 340] tells us, that at the tomb of Constantine “a vast crowd of people together with the priests of God offered their prayers to God for the Emperor’s soul with tears and great lamentation” (Vita Const., IV, lxxi, P. G., XX, 1226). St. Epiphanius [of Salamis, +403], who records and refutes [the] views [of Acrius of Pontus, who denied the legitimacy and efficacy of prayers for the dead], represents the custom of praying for the dead as a duty imposed by tradition (Adv. Haer., III, lxxx, P. G., XLII, 504 sq.), and St. Chrysotom +407] does not hesitate to speak of it as a “law laid down by the Apostles” (Hom., iii, in Philipp., i, 4, P.G., LXII, 203).”[iv]
St. Macarius of Alexandria +394-5] besought the angel who accompanied him in the desert to explain to him the meaning of the Church’s commemoration on the third day, the angel replied to him:
When an offering is made in church on the third day, the soul of the departed receives from its guardian angel relief from the sorrow it feels as a result of the separation from the body. This it receives because glorification and offering is made in the Church of God which gives rise in it to blessed hope, for in the course of the two days the soul is permitted to roam the earth, wherever it wills, in the company of the angels that are with it. Therefore, the soul, loving the body, sometimes wanders about the house in which his body had been laid out, and thus spends two days like a bird seeking its nest. But the virtuous soul goes about those places in which it was wont to do good deeds. On the third day, He Who Himself rose from the dead on the third day commands the Christian soul, in imitation of His resurrection, to ascend to the Heavens to worship the God of all.
St. Macarius of Alexandria, discussing the state of man’s soul after the death of the body, says:
After the second adoration …The soul is borne about these various places of torment for thirty days, trembling lest it itself be imprisoned therein [he is speaking of Hell]. On the fortieth day it is once again borne aloft to adore the Lord God, and it is at this time that the Judge determines the place of confinement proper to it in accordance with its deeds. This is a great day for the deceased, for it determines his portion until the Dread judgment of God, and therefore, the Holy Church correctly commands that fervent prayer be made for the dead on this day.
“Already in the fifth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem +386], a participant in the Second Ecumenical Council, in explaining the structure of the divine services and mysteries to the catechumens that had entered the Church in his time, wrote apropos the church’s commemoration of the dead at the Liturgy:
Very great will be the benefit to the souls for whom supplication is offered at the time when the holy and dread sacrifice is set forth. (Mystagogic Instruction 5, Chapter 9)
Particles taken out from the prosphoras in commemoration of the living and the dead are placed on the discos at the foot of the Lamb, where they remain until that moment when they are put into the chalice with the words:
By Thy precious Blood, O Lord, wash away the sins of those commemorated here, through the prayers of Thy saints.”[v]
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST.
The universal Church observes this law, handed down from the Fathers, that prayers should be offered for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their proper place at the Sacrifice" (Serm. clxxii, 2, P.L., XXXVIII, 936).
…Hence in the Early Church, as St. Augustine expressly assures us (Serm. cclxxv, 5, P.L., XXXVIII, 1295), and as is otherwise abundantly clear, prayers were not offered for martyrs, but to them….
As evidence of the faith of the Eastern Church we may refer to what Eusebius [of Caesarea, +c. 340] tells us, that at the tomb of Constantine “a vast crowd of people together with the priests of God offered their prayers to God for the Emperor’s soul with tears and great lamentation” (Vita Const., IV, lxxi, P. G., XX, 1226). St. Epiphanius [of Salamis, +403], who records and refutes [the] views [of Acrius of Pontus, who denied the legitimacy and efficacy of prayers for the dead], represents the custom of praying for the dead as a duty imposed by tradition (Adv. Haer., III, lxxx, P. G., XLII, 504 sq.), and St. Chrysotom +407] does not hesitate to speak of it as a “law laid down by the Apostles” (Hom., iii, in Philipp., i, 4, P.G., LXII, 203).”[iv]
St. Macarius of Alexandria +394-5] besought the angel who accompanied him in the desert to explain to him the meaning of the Church’s commemoration on the third day, the angel replied to him:
When an offering is made in church on the third day, the soul of the departed receives from its guardian angel relief from the sorrow it feels as a result of the separation from the body. This it receives because glorification and offering is made in the Church of God which gives rise in it to blessed hope, for in the course of the two days the soul is permitted to roam the earth, wherever it wills, in the company of the angels that are with it. Therefore, the soul, loving the body, sometimes wanders about the house in which his body had been laid out, and thus spends two days like a bird seeking its nest. But the virtuous soul goes about those places in which it was wont to do good deeds. On the third day, He Who Himself rose from the dead on the third day commands the Christian soul, in imitation of His resurrection, to ascend to the Heavens to worship the God of all.
St. Macarius of Alexandria, discussing the state of man’s soul after the death of the body, says:
After the second adoration …The soul is borne about these various places of torment for thirty days, trembling lest it itself be imprisoned therein [he is speaking of Hell]. On the fortieth day it is once again borne aloft to adore the Lord God, and it is at this time that the Judge determines the place of confinement proper to it in accordance with its deeds. This is a great day for the deceased, for it determines his portion until the Dread judgment of God, and therefore, the Holy Church correctly commands that fervent prayer be made for the dead on this day.
“Already in the fifth century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem +386], a participant in the Second Ecumenical Council, in explaining the structure of the divine services and mysteries to the catechumens that had entered the Church in his time, wrote apropos the church’s commemoration of the dead at the Liturgy:
Very great will be the benefit to the souls for whom supplication is offered at the time when the holy and dread sacrifice is set forth. (Mystagogic Instruction 5, Chapter 9)
Particles taken out from the prosphoras in commemoration of the living and the dead are placed on the discos at the foot of the Lamb, where they remain until that moment when they are put into the chalice with the words:
By Thy precious Blood, O Lord, wash away the sins of those commemorated here, through the prayers of Thy saints.”[v]
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST.
M
Metaron
Guest
St. Cyril of Alexandria +444, the major figure at the Third Ecumenical Council] says:
At Our soul’s separation from the body, there will stand before us on one side warriors and powers of Heaven, and on the other side the powers of darkness, the princes of this world, the aerial publicans, the torturers, the prosecutors of our deeds… Seeing them, the soul is dismayed, it shudders, and in consternation and horror will seek protection from the angels of God; but being received by the holy angels and passing through the aerial space, lifted on high under their protection, it encounters the toll-booths, as it were, certain gates or toll houses in which taxes are exacted which will bar its way into the Kingdom, will halt and hold back its progress towards it. At each of these toll-booths an account is demanded for particular sins.
Toll-booths (Gr. telonion) – a term borrowed from the history of the Hebrew nation and used metaphorically to describe the barriers souls encounter in the ascent to Heaven. In Roman Palestine, the publicans stood at special tax-collection booths at which they extorted money from the populace. The Fathers of the Church, notably St. Cyril of Alexandria in his “Homily on the Departure of the Soul” (PG 77.981), applied this term to the aerial places of torment the soul meets after death. Further evidence of the toll-booths, or aerial customs, may be found implied in Homily XXII of St. Macarius of Egypt (+390) in his Spiritual Homilies, and in] the Ladder of Divine Ascent [Step VII:50] by St. John Climacus +605].
Venerable Theodora [of Constantinople (+940)], as she passed through the toll-booths, was greatly aided by the intercession of her elder St. Basil the New +944], which served to outweigh the torments for those sins not covered by repentance.[vi] Thus does commemoration benefit departed sinners.
St. John Chrysostom +407] very clearly mentions the commemoration of the dead performed on Tuesday of St. Thomas week in his Homily on the Cemetery and the Cross:
For what cause did our fathers, leaving their houses of prayer in the city, establish the practice of assembling outside the city on this day and in this very place? In as much as here rests a multitude of the departed; today Jesus Christ went down to the dead; thus we also gather here. Why, this very place is called a place of sleep (cemetery), that you might know that they [who] have died and lie here have not died, but rest and sleep.[vii]
St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome +604], sets before us a remarkable example of the effectiveness of prayer and the bringing of offerings for the departed, which took place in his monastery:
One brother, for breaking the vow of poverty, was deprived of a church funeral and prayers after his death for a period of thirty days, in order to strike fear in the hearts of the others. But later, out of compassion for his soul, the Bloodless Sacrifice and prayers were offered up for him for the space of thirty days. On the last of these days, the deceased appeared in a vision to his brother, whom he had left among the living, and said: ‘Until now it has gone badly for me, but now I am at peace, for today I received communion.’
This same holy Father, in his dialogues with the Deacon Peter, tells of the apparition of a dead man who begged a priest to help him by praying for him to God:
From this it is obvious how profitable the Sacred Sacrifice is for souls; for the souls themselves ask it of the living, and indicate the means by which they are cleansed of sins.
“St. Gregory the Great, in answering in his Dialogues the question, “Is there anything at all that can possibly benefit souls after death?” teaches:
The Holy Sacrifice of Christ, our saving Victim, brings great benefits to souls even after death, provided their sins (are such as) can be pardoned in the life to come. For this reason the souls of the dead sometimes beg to have Liturgies offered for them … The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves during life what we hope others will do for us after death. It is better to make one’s exit a free man than to seek liberty after one is in chains. We should, therefore, despise this world with all our hearts as though its glory were already spent, and offer our sacrifice of tears to God each day as we immolate His sacred Flesh and Blood. This Sacrifice alone has the power of saving
the soul from eternal death, for it presents to us mystically the death of the Only-begotten Son.”[viii]
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
At Our soul’s separation from the body, there will stand before us on one side warriors and powers of Heaven, and on the other side the powers of darkness, the princes of this world, the aerial publicans, the torturers, the prosecutors of our deeds… Seeing them, the soul is dismayed, it shudders, and in consternation and horror will seek protection from the angels of God; but being received by the holy angels and passing through the aerial space, lifted on high under their protection, it encounters the toll-booths, as it were, certain gates or toll houses in which taxes are exacted which will bar its way into the Kingdom, will halt and hold back its progress towards it. At each of these toll-booths an account is demanded for particular sins.
Toll-booths (Gr. telonion) – a term borrowed from the history of the Hebrew nation and used metaphorically to describe the barriers souls encounter in the ascent to Heaven. In Roman Palestine, the publicans stood at special tax-collection booths at which they extorted money from the populace. The Fathers of the Church, notably St. Cyril of Alexandria in his “Homily on the Departure of the Soul” (PG 77.981), applied this term to the aerial places of torment the soul meets after death. Further evidence of the toll-booths, or aerial customs, may be found implied in Homily XXII of St. Macarius of Egypt (+390) in his Spiritual Homilies, and in] the Ladder of Divine Ascent [Step VII:50] by St. John Climacus +605].
Venerable Theodora [of Constantinople (+940)], as she passed through the toll-booths, was greatly aided by the intercession of her elder St. Basil the New +944], which served to outweigh the torments for those sins not covered by repentance.[vi] Thus does commemoration benefit departed sinners.
St. John Chrysostom +407] very clearly mentions the commemoration of the dead performed on Tuesday of St. Thomas week in his Homily on the Cemetery and the Cross:
For what cause did our fathers, leaving their houses of prayer in the city, establish the practice of assembling outside the city on this day and in this very place? In as much as here rests a multitude of the departed; today Jesus Christ went down to the dead; thus we also gather here. Why, this very place is called a place of sleep (cemetery), that you might know that they [who] have died and lie here have not died, but rest and sleep.[vii]
St. Gregory the Dialogist, Pope of Rome +604], sets before us a remarkable example of the effectiveness of prayer and the bringing of offerings for the departed, which took place in his monastery:
One brother, for breaking the vow of poverty, was deprived of a church funeral and prayers after his death for a period of thirty days, in order to strike fear in the hearts of the others. But later, out of compassion for his soul, the Bloodless Sacrifice and prayers were offered up for him for the space of thirty days. On the last of these days, the deceased appeared in a vision to his brother, whom he had left among the living, and said: ‘Until now it has gone badly for me, but now I am at peace, for today I received communion.’
This same holy Father, in his dialogues with the Deacon Peter, tells of the apparition of a dead man who begged a priest to help him by praying for him to God:
From this it is obvious how profitable the Sacred Sacrifice is for souls; for the souls themselves ask it of the living, and indicate the means by which they are cleansed of sins.
“St. Gregory the Great, in answering in his Dialogues the question, “Is there anything at all that can possibly benefit souls after death?” teaches:
The Holy Sacrifice of Christ, our saving Victim, brings great benefits to souls even after death, provided their sins (are such as) can be pardoned in the life to come. For this reason the souls of the dead sometimes beg to have Liturgies offered for them … The safer course, naturally, is to do for ourselves during life what we hope others will do for us after death. It is better to make one’s exit a free man than to seek liberty after one is in chains. We should, therefore, despise this world with all our hearts as though its glory were already spent, and offer our sacrifice of tears to God each day as we immolate His sacred Flesh and Blood. This Sacrifice alone has the power of saving
the soul from eternal death, for it presents to us mystically the death of the Only-begotten Son.”[viii]
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
M
Metaron
Guest
St. Gregory the Dialogist also relates that during the lifetime of St. Benedict of Nursia +547] there lived two women who had the unfortunate habit of judging their neighbors, speaking evil and reproaching others. Learning of this, the Venerable Benedict said to them: “Curb your tongues, or I will have to excommunicate you from the Holy Mysteries.” But, all the same, they did not cease their evil habits and even said nothing in reply to the saint’s paternal admonition. Several days later both women died in their virginity and were buried together in the church. When the Divine Liturgy was served and the deacon exclaimed: “Catechumens, depart!”, many Christians beheld the two virgins leaving their tombs and the church, for they were unable to remain there during the Divine Liturgy. This occurred at each Divine Liturgy. When St. Benedict discovered this, he took pity on them and, taking a prosphora, he commanded them to take it to the church and to remove a particle from it for the repose of their souls. He also ordered them commemorated during the performance of the Mysteries of Christ. After that, none of the Christians saw them leaving the church. From this, all understood that, owing to the Holy Church’s prayer for the departed and the offerings, the departed virgins had received forgiveness from God.[ix]
“In his funeral oration for his brother Satyrus St. Ambrose [of Milan, +397] beseeches God to accept propitiously his “brotherly service of priestly sacrifice” for the deceased (“De Excessu Satyri fr.”, I, 80, P. L., XVI, 1315); and, addressing Valentinian and Theodosius, he assures them of happiness if his prayers shall be of any avail; he will let no day or night go past without remembering them in his prayers and at the altar (“De Obitu Valent.”, 78, ibid., 1381).[x]
St. John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria +616-20] often celebrated the Divine Liturgy for the dead, and stated that it is a great aid to their souls. To corroborate this, he cites the following:
There was a certain prisoner whose parents, considering him dead, had the Liturgy served three times a year for him—on Theophany, Pascha and Pentecost. After he had been released from captivity, returning unexpectedly to his parents, he recalled that on those very days a certain man of glorious appearance came to him in prison carrying a torch. The fetters fell from his hands and he was freed; the rest of the days he was again in chains as a prisoner.
The Greek Emperor Theophilus lived carelessly and did not concern himself with the salvation of his soul. Death found this sovereign in the midst of his sinful life. The Empress St. Theodora +867], Theophilus’ consort, was horrified at the heavy lot that would befall her husband in eternity. At her behest, prayers were increased in the churches, alms were distributed, good works were performed. And what was the result? The prayers of the Church reached the Lord. Theophilus was forgiven, to the spiritual joy of his grieving spouse and to the consolation of the Church, which has so merciful and mighty a Lord, Who gives life to the dead and leads them forth from the abyss of hell, not only bodily, but spiritually.[xi]
St. John of Damascus +780] asks:
But who can number, all of the testimonies found in the biographies of holy men, in the accounts of the lives of the holy martyrs and the divine revelations, which clearly indicate that even after death tremendous benefit is rendered to the departed by prayers, Liturgies and the distribution of alms for them? For nothing given to God perishes in return, but is rewarded by Him with the greatest interest.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
“In his funeral oration for his brother Satyrus St. Ambrose [of Milan, +397] beseeches God to accept propitiously his “brotherly service of priestly sacrifice” for the deceased (“De Excessu Satyri fr.”, I, 80, P. L., XVI, 1315); and, addressing Valentinian and Theodosius, he assures them of happiness if his prayers shall be of any avail; he will let no day or night go past without remembering them in his prayers and at the altar (“De Obitu Valent.”, 78, ibid., 1381).[x]
St. John the Merciful, Patriarch of Alexandria +616-20] often celebrated the Divine Liturgy for the dead, and stated that it is a great aid to their souls. To corroborate this, he cites the following:
There was a certain prisoner whose parents, considering him dead, had the Liturgy served three times a year for him—on Theophany, Pascha and Pentecost. After he had been released from captivity, returning unexpectedly to his parents, he recalled that on those very days a certain man of glorious appearance came to him in prison carrying a torch. The fetters fell from his hands and he was freed; the rest of the days he was again in chains as a prisoner.
The Greek Emperor Theophilus lived carelessly and did not concern himself with the salvation of his soul. Death found this sovereign in the midst of his sinful life. The Empress St. Theodora +867], Theophilus’ consort, was horrified at the heavy lot that would befall her husband in eternity. At her behest, prayers were increased in the churches, alms were distributed, good works were performed. And what was the result? The prayers of the Church reached the Lord. Theophilus was forgiven, to the spiritual joy of his grieving spouse and to the consolation of the Church, which has so merciful and mighty a Lord, Who gives life to the dead and leads them forth from the abyss of hell, not only bodily, but spiritually.[xi]
St. John of Damascus +780] asks:
But who can number, all of the testimonies found in the biographies of holy men, in the accounts of the lives of the holy martyrs and the divine revelations, which clearly indicate that even after death tremendous benefit is rendered to the departed by prayers, Liturgies and the distribution of alms for them? For nothing given to God perishes in return, but is rewarded by Him with the greatest interest.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
M
Metaron
Guest
CONTINUED FROM LAST POST
St. John of Damascus also relates:
A certain holy man had a disciple who was living heedlessly. And what happened? Death found him in the midst of his carelessness. The merciful Heavenly Father, roused by the tears and cries of the elder, revealed to him the youth burning in flames up to his neck, like the merciless rich man mentioned in the parable of Lazarus. And when the saint subjected his flesh to strict mortification, fervently beseeching God for the forgiveness of his disciple, he beheld him enveloped in flame up to his waist. Finally, when the holy man had increased his ascetic labors yet more, God revealed him in a vision to the elder, removed from the flame and completely free.
The holy Martyr Perpetua +203] relates:
One day, at the time of general prayer in prison, I unexpectedly uttered the name of my dead brother Dinocrates. Struck by this unusual occurrence, I began to pray and sigh for him before God. On the following night I received a vision: I saw Dinocrates come forth, as though from a dark place. He was in intense heat, tormented by thirst, filthy in appearance and pallid. On his face was the wound from which he had died. Between us yawned a deep crevasse, and we were unable to approach each other. Beside the place where Dinocrates stood there was a full cistern, the lip of which stood much higher than my brother’s stature, and Dinocrates stretched, trying to reach the water. I was filled with pity, for the height of the rim prevented my brother from drinking. Immediately after this I awoke and realized that my brother was in torment. But believing that my prayer could help him in his suffering, I prayed all day and night in the prison, with cries and lamentations, that Dinocrates be treated mercifully. And on the day on which we were kept in chains, I received a new vision: the place which before I had seen had been made bright, and Dinocrates, with a clean face and beautiful apparel, was enjoying its coolness. Where he had had a wound, I saw only a trace of it. The rim of the cistern was no higher than the waist of the young man, and he was able to draw water from it without effort. On the rim of the cistern stood a golden cup full of water. Dinocrates approached it and began to drink from it, but the water in it did not decrease. Satisfied, he stepped away from it and began to rejoice. With this the vision ended. I then understood that he had been released from punishment.
I’m exhausted… :whacky:
St. John of Damascus also relates:
A certain holy man had a disciple who was living heedlessly. And what happened? Death found him in the midst of his carelessness. The merciful Heavenly Father, roused by the tears and cries of the elder, revealed to him the youth burning in flames up to his neck, like the merciless rich man mentioned in the parable of Lazarus. And when the saint subjected his flesh to strict mortification, fervently beseeching God for the forgiveness of his disciple, he beheld him enveloped in flame up to his waist. Finally, when the holy man had increased his ascetic labors yet more, God revealed him in a vision to the elder, removed from the flame and completely free.
The holy Martyr Perpetua +203] relates:
One day, at the time of general prayer in prison, I unexpectedly uttered the name of my dead brother Dinocrates. Struck by this unusual occurrence, I began to pray and sigh for him before God. On the following night I received a vision: I saw Dinocrates come forth, as though from a dark place. He was in intense heat, tormented by thirst, filthy in appearance and pallid. On his face was the wound from which he had died. Between us yawned a deep crevasse, and we were unable to approach each other. Beside the place where Dinocrates stood there was a full cistern, the lip of which stood much higher than my brother’s stature, and Dinocrates stretched, trying to reach the water. I was filled with pity, for the height of the rim prevented my brother from drinking. Immediately after this I awoke and realized that my brother was in torment. But believing that my prayer could help him in his suffering, I prayed all day and night in the prison, with cries and lamentations, that Dinocrates be treated mercifully. And on the day on which we were kept in chains, I received a new vision: the place which before I had seen had been made bright, and Dinocrates, with a clean face and beautiful apparel, was enjoying its coolness. Where he had had a wound, I saw only a trace of it. The rim of the cistern was no higher than the waist of the young man, and he was able to draw water from it without effort. On the rim of the cistern stood a golden cup full of water. Dinocrates approached it and began to drink from it, but the water in it did not decrease. Satisfied, he stepped away from it and began to rejoice. With this the vision ended. I then understood that he had been released from punishment.
But they certainly DO give you a view of what early Christianity taught and believed. Good luck with your studies, buddy.
I’m exhausted… :whacky:
M
Metaron
Guest
Rightlydivide, and anyone other who wants to see my rebuttal, please refer to the **ENORMOUS MULTI-POST **I made above. It took too long to make for everyone to ignore it…
R
Reuben_J
Guest
For the less scholarly like some of us, I would put it in rather plain language. I gather two pertinent points from his discussion:
(1) The Bible does not interpret itself, otherwise how do we interpret verses like these?
(a) John 6:54-55. “…Whoever eats (munch, gnaw) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. …” (NAB)
or
(b) Matt 26:26. Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body”. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, …”. (NAB)
Are these to be taken literally or symbolically?
Some more …
(c) Matt 28:19-20 “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I commanded you. …” (NAB)
or
(d) John 20:22-23 … “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (NAB)
or
(e) Matt 16:19 “ … I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (NAB)
These are words spoken to the apostles or specific apostle. Are these commissions meant for them only and after they died, that was it?
What did the authors wanted to convey? Only the apostles would know. This knowledge was preserved and passed down in succession through the centuries so that all the people may know. The only correct interpretation therefore must be the apostles’. We need to refer to them or their successors in order to be right.
We see that the Bible does not interpret itself. It is a fallacy to say it does. Though generally it is not difficult to understand, we need someone to tell us what certain verses mean.
Point 2. The church is continuous in its history. NEVER had it disappeared for a while and then resurfaced again. This church is the Catholic Church, even if it was called just the church then, which was rightly so, because there was no other church. Nevertheless, the people and the practices then were the same as they are being followed, documented and remembered today. Incidentally the present Pope can be traced back with clear and detail succession line to the apostle Peter.
God bless.
(1) The Bible does not interpret itself, otherwise how do we interpret verses like these?
(a) John 6:54-55. “…Whoever eats (munch, gnaw) my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life . … For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. …” (NAB)
or
(b) Matt 26:26. Jesus took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and giving it to his disciples said, “Take and eat; this is my body”. Then he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, “Drink from it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, …”. (NAB)
Are these to be taken literally or symbolically?
Some more …
(c) Matt 28:19-20 “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations … teaching them to observe all that I commanded you. …” (NAB)
or
(d) John 20:22-23 … “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (NAB)
or
(e) Matt 16:19 “ … I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (NAB)
These are words spoken to the apostles or specific apostle. Are these commissions meant for them only and after they died, that was it?
What did the authors wanted to convey? Only the apostles would know. This knowledge was preserved and passed down in succession through the centuries so that all the people may know. The only correct interpretation therefore must be the apostles’. We need to refer to them or their successors in order to be right.
We see that the Bible does not interpret itself. It is a fallacy to say it does. Though generally it is not difficult to understand, we need someone to tell us what certain verses mean.
Point 2. The church is continuous in its history. NEVER had it disappeared for a while and then resurfaced again. This church is the Catholic Church, even if it was called just the church then, which was rightly so, because there was no other church. Nevertheless, the people and the practices then were the same as they are being followed, documented and remembered today. Incidentally the present Pope can be traced back with clear and detail succession line to the apostle Peter.
God bless.
R
Rightlydivide
Guest
I did read it and I agree you spent a lot of time preparing it. You have a very good working knowledge of your faith and should be complimented on itRightlydivide, and anyone other who wants to see my rebuttal, please refer to the **ENORMOUS MULTI-POST **I made above. It took too long to make for everyone to ignore it…
Part of the problem is I do not have 5 hours to respond to it! If there is a particular point that you would really like me to respond to, I would be happy to but I cannot respond to all of it…as you can surely understand!
L
love4mary
Guest
I will be asked a question about my faith practice from Protestant friends (and not so friends) that I simply can’t answer. They point out bible verses to “back” up what their claims that Catholics don’t preach/teach/follow the Word of God. To be honest, this leaves me wondering and in a small way, even doubting what I believe. “Could they be right?” I will ask myself.
So I pick up scripture and read. I read more of St. Paul’s letters then I do the Gospels, I (and I am wrong for this–Note to self: read the Gospels more) am always amazed although I shouldn’t be, that my faith is strengthened and re-confirmed through my readings. Every doubt about the Catholic Church being the One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic Church founded by Jesus on the Rock of Peter melt away.
I continue to thank Protestants (and they are well meaning and are truly concerned for my soul and may God shower His Graces on each of them) for challenging me, by pointing out in scripture what they believe to be unbiblical about the Catholic Church. I read what they point out to me, and always come away from it a Stronger Catholic.
So keep “nit-picking” certain “proof” verses against the Catholic Church, you challenge me to know my faith better that way and to read the bible more…Which is a good thing for Everyone to do. After all, it is Gods Written Word to us.
My one big prayer is that some day I will be able to articulate myself about my faith like so many posters here in the forum can. As a side note: I find myself kinda intimidated by the incredible knowledge of many posters here and their ability to express and defend the faith.
But I have learned so much from all of you.
So I pick up scripture and read. I read more of St. Paul’s letters then I do the Gospels, I (and I am wrong for this–Note to self: read the Gospels more) am always amazed although I shouldn’t be, that my faith is strengthened and re-confirmed through my readings. Every doubt about the Catholic Church being the One-Holy-Catholic-Apostolic Church founded by Jesus on the Rock of Peter melt away.
I continue to thank Protestants (and they are well meaning and are truly concerned for my soul and may God shower His Graces on each of them) for challenging me, by pointing out in scripture what they believe to be unbiblical about the Catholic Church. I read what they point out to me, and always come away from it a Stronger Catholic.
So keep “nit-picking” certain “proof” verses against the Catholic Church, you challenge me to know my faith better that way and to read the bible more…Which is a good thing for Everyone to do. After all, it is Gods Written Word to us.
My one big prayer is that some day I will be able to articulate myself about my faith like so many posters here in the forum can. As a side note: I find myself kinda intimidated by the incredible knowledge of many posters here and their ability to express and defend the faith.
But I have learned so much from all of you.- Status