Do Fundamentalist believe in doing penance?

[ignatius777]

You you’re the time travelers!

No by the grace and mercy of God we are allowed to witness and partake in that saving love of Jesus. You may think its funny to mock the power of God but I dont. Its amazing to me how so many people can refuse to believe something just because it doesnt fit in with their human understanding of things as if thats superior to the wisdom of God. Its quite fascinating

 

[StTommyMore]

You really have to come up with a better way of explaining this. Awhile back, I spent about a month trying to figure out whether or not some Catholics believe Jesus’ body, blood, soul, and divinity travels through time in some way.

Here’s a suggestion: Maybe clarify that Jesus actually went through the sacrificial process only once, and there were specific temporal boundaries at which the passion began and ended. But there’s also the concept of Jesus presenting Himself to the Father and continuing to re-present Himself after the Crucifixion. The way you described it, it’s really difficult to avoid the conclusion that maybe you believe Jesus is experiencing the passion at many different moments in time rather than re-presenting Himself well after the fact.

I realize that must be exactly what you mean by “the Sacrifice is ongoing//not rooted to a single moment in time,” and I’m sure it clears things up very nicely when you’re talking to other Catholics. But when you’re talking to Protestants, it has quite the opposite effect.

Have you never read the Apocalypse? This closing book of the Canon is a very explicit description of the heavenly liturgy depicting the Sacrifice as an eternal, rather than a temporal event. I really do not have time to go into a more complete description at this time as I have a summary of analytic approaches to systematic theology due in a couple of hours.

 

[cooterhein]

The topic is on “…doing penance” is it not? In my opinion the scene I am talking about between Jesus and Peter speaks specifically to the topic of “…doing penance” whereas I think the issue of translations is much more off topic. Why dont you read the scene between Jesus and Peter in whatever translation you like and then come back and tell us what you think is going on in that scene?

One of the issues brought up by the OP is the choice of wording in 2 Peter 3:9, having to do with choosing “penance” from much older translations or “repentance” from all the newer ones. That’s right on the topic that was selected by the person who made this topic.

But let’s look at John 21, just for fun. Jesus and the disciples eat breakfast. Jesus engages in three-part repetition with Simon son of John, asking if he loves him. Peter says yes every time and Jesus says “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my lambs,” and “Feed my sheep.” Then he makes a reference to the way Peter will die. After this, Jesus says “Follow me.”

That is what’s happening in this passage.

No word similar to μετάνοιαν appears in this passage, and even if it did, I haven’t seen anything in the way of a good argument for why that should be translated “penance” instead of “repentance.” So what’s your deal with this passage? What’s it doing for you?

 

[cooterhein]

Have you never read the Apocalypse? This closing book of the Canon is a very explicit description of the heavenly liturgy depicting the Sacrifice as an eternal, rather than a temporal event. I really do not have time to go into a more complete description at this time as I have a summary of analytic approaches to systematic theology due in a couple of hours.

You’ll notice that I selected the word “passion” when I was talking about limiting something to a temporal event. That’s what I was hoping you would take away from my advice- perhaps you can continue talking about an eternal sacrifice at this and all other times, but clarify a belief in a temporal passion as long as you’re talking to Protestants. It would really help a lot. Thanks.

 

[Silyosha]

It might depend what you mean by penance.

many would agree that if you have done a wrong to someone, you should make up for it. Many would agree that if you have trouble with a particular sin, there might be things you can do to help you avoid that sin in the future.

But I don’t imagine they would accept the more particularly Catholic view of penance, as something you need to accomplish to be forgiven for your sins. Of course other non-Catholic, non-Protestant Christians don’t either. As far as I am aware, it is an idea pretty much limited to Catholics and perhaps the most Romish Anglo-catholics.

Keep in mind that the repentant is given absolution before they even do their penance. I understand what you’re trying to say, but if penance really was viewed as something you need to do TO be forgiven, wouldn’t absolution come after? Anyone correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[benidict]

You you’re the time travelers!

hi Cooterhein. this is probably not the best way to put it. but you are close to understanding something here. much more happens at the Mass than meets the eye. when the Sanctus is recited, time and space Are changed. we truly are at the foot of the Cross. not just us, but the entire Church, and the Angels. if protestants truly understood what the Mass was about, and what was lost with the reformation, there would be a stampede back to Rome. we worship as ONE Church my friend. not just the believers who are still on earth, but those who have arrived in the full presence of God. as always your insights are appreciated. Peace and prayers for you and yours.

 

[StTommyMore]

You’ll notice that I selected the word “passion” when I was talking about limiting something to a temporal event. That’s what I was hoping you would take away from my advice- perhaps you can continue talking about an eternal sacrifice at this and all other times, but clarify a belief in a temporal passion as long as you’re talking to Protestants. It would really help a lot. Thanks.

Sorry. No can do. I will not accept Protestant belief to talk to Protestants. I will hold to Catholic belief.

 

[ignatius777]

One of the issues brought up by the OP is the choice of wording in 2 Peter 3:9, having to do with choosing “penance” from much older translations or “repentance” from all the newer ones. That’s right on the topic that was selected by the person who made this topic.

But let’s look at John 21, just for fun. Jesus and the disciples eat breakfast. Jesus engages in three-part repetition with Simon son of John, asking if he loves him. Peter says yes every time and Jesus says “Feed my lambs,” “Tend my lambs,” and “Feed my sheep.” Then he makes a reference to the way Peter will die. After this, Jesus says “Follow me.”

That is what’s happening in this passage.

No word similar to μετάνοιαν appears in this passage, and even if it did, I haven’t seen anything in the way of a good argument for why that should be translated “penance” instead of “repentance.” So what’s your deal with this passage? What’s it doing for you?

Three times Jesus makes Peter say “Yes” for the 3 times Peter denied Jesus. Thats penance my friend. Jesus then just instruects Peter on his priestly duties.

 

[cooterhein]

No by the grace and mercy of God we are allowed to witness and partake in that saving love of Jesus. You may think its funny to mock the power of God but I dont. Its amazing to me how so many people can refuse to believe something just because it doesnt fit in with their human understanding of things as if thats superior to the wisdom of God. Its quite fascinating

I’m not mocking the power of God. I’m having some laughs at the way in which Catholics and Protestants consistently fail to communicate effectively when they’re talking about sacraments, and the Eucharist in particular.

When I respond in these kinds of ways, this is how you should interpret it: You attempted to explained something, I immediately said “I’ve seen that explanation lots of times before and it still causes more confusion than clarity”, and then I decided to find the humor in it instead of getting frustrated.

I apologize if this has led you to some frustration of your own.

 

[cooterhein]

Three times Jesus makes Peter say “Yes” for the 3 times Peter denied Jesus. Thats penance my friend. Jesus then just instruects Peter on his priestly duties.

Fascinating. Tell the OP. I’m sure that will work.

 

[benidict]

Three times Jesus makes Peter say “Yes” for the 3 times Peter denied Jesus. Thats penance my friend. Jesus then just instruects Peter on his priestly duties.

hi Ignatius. help me out here. i cant remember what my priest taught on this. it most certainly was penance. which is why Christ, if im not mistaken. used 3 different terms for love in this passage, which is why peter became so upset. peter was actually admitting he did not love Christ as he should have. and Christ was telling him in this passage that he would settle for Peters love as a friend. im not a scholar, and i dont know greek. but if i remember correctly there was something much deeper in this passage. it truly is about deep penance. Peace and thank you in advance

 

[ignatius777]

I’m not mocking the power of God. I’m having some laughs at the way in which Catholics and Protestants consistently fail to communicate effectively when they’re talking about sacraments, and the Eucharist in particular.

When I respond in these kinds of ways, this is how you should interpret it: You attempted to explained something, I immediately said “I’ve seen that explanation lots of times before and it still causes more confusion than clarity”, and then I decided to find the humor in it instead of getting frustrated.

I apologize if this has led you to some frustration of your own.

Well I too have seen that response over and over from protestants when something is explained to them and it still causes me to believe its mocking. Sorry I mean no offense but its how I interpret that response.

No need to apologize we just need to accept that what others believe is as vaild and true to them as what I believe is to me

 

[benidict]

Fascinating. Tell the OP. I’m sure that will work.

He has and i am quite happy with his responses.

 

[ignatius777]

Fascinating. Tell the OP. I’m sure that will work.

Do you disagree? If yes please explain why. Thank you

 

[ignatius777]

hi Ignatius. help me out here. i cant remember what my priest taught on this. it most certainly was penance. which is why Christ, if im not mistaken. used 3 different terms for love in this passage, which is why peter became so upset. peter was actually admitting he did not love Christ as he should have. and Christ was telling him in this passage that he would settle for Peters love as a friend. im not a scholar, and i dont know greek. but if i remember correctly there was something much deeper in this passage. it truly is about deep penance. Peace and thank you in advance

That all makes wonderful sense to me. No matter how we “translate” the words Jesus made Peter perform penance for his willful denial of Jesus. The beauty of this passage however is that even though Peter denied Jesus through repentance and penance Peter became the head of the church Christ established on earth.

 

[cooterhein]

Well I too have seen that response over and over from protestants when something is explained to them and it still causes me to believe its mocking. Sorry I mean no offense but its how I interpret that response.

No need to apologize we just need to accept that what others believe is as vaild and true to them as what I believe is to me

I certainly do accept that that you believe is valid and true to you. I’m not trying to “debunk the sacraments” or anything of the sort. At this stage (and certainly on this particular thread), I’m not not even trying to better understand that aspect of the Eucharist. I understand it much better now, thanks to about a month’s worth of carefully worded inquiries on this forum.

What I am doing is letting you know when I see explanations with wording that is extremely familiar to me because at some point, it led to a month’s worth of kind-of-tedious exploration that was worthwhile and everything, but I could have gotten it done a lot faster if it had been explained a little differently up front.

 

[benidict]

That all makes wonderful sense to me. No matter how we “translate” the words Jesus made Peter perform penance for his willful denial of Jesus. The beauty of this passage however is that even though Peter denied Jesus through repentance and penance Peter became the head of the church Christ established on earth.

exactly. penance had to follow repentance, for this to happen. penance is wholey biblical. this is why crimes such as murder and rape are so serious. the murderer cannot give the person back the life they have taken. penance would be extremely difficult in this case. in the other case i believe its almost impossible, because that crime is far worse than murder. the victim is robbed of so many things that cannot be replaced . Peace

 

[ignatius777]

exactly. penance had to follow repentance, for this to happen. penance is wholey biblical. this is why crimes such as murder and rape are so serious. the murderer cannot give the person back the life they have taken. penance would be extremely difficult in this case. in the other case i believe its almost impossible, because that crime is far worse than murder. the victim is robbed of so many things that cannot be replaced . Peace

Good point. The message Jesus leaves us in that scene with Peter seems quite clear to me and I struggle to see how some people can miss it.

 

[cooterhein]

Do you disagree? If yes please explain why. Thank you

This all started with a conflict over word choice- “penance” or “repentance”? If you could address the significance of those choices here, maybe talk about the validity of setting up the choices in that way, and discuss the implications of choosing one over the other, that would be a start. We aren’t really looking at the language, though, and we’re talking about assigning words to an exchange that don’t appear in the exchange itself. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it also means we can’t pick a Greek word from the text and compare it to all the same Greek words in the New Testament. It winds up being treated more like something in isolation.

Additionally, this still has something to do with the whole transition from “penance” to “repentance” that I was on about earlier…in my first post, actually, which you transitioned from but were unwilling to talk about. From my perspective, I feel like I’ve presented an argument whereby the word “penance” (as it is now used) never appears in the Bible, and while the word is used 53 different times when you’re speaking a more ancient form of English, it was used no differently than “repentance” is now used in all the modern translations. Furthermore, the modern meaning of the word “penance” means it has no place in any English translation of the Bible.

Again, this is just my perspective, but it seems like you’ve sailed right past that point, conceded (to a certain extent) that this is true, and moved on to show me where a clear example of penance happens even if the word itself is not used. And again, there’s nothing wrong with doing this, but I’m just checking to see if that is, indeed, what you intended to do. And as far as giving advice to the OP (which I’m sure is on your mind), would you advise that the OP concede that “penance” is not a legitimate translation of 2 Peter 3:9 into modern English but that the OP should pursue examples of penance being demonstrated even if no related words are actually used?

 

[ignatius777]

This all started with a conflict over word choice- “penance” or “repentance”? If you could address the significance of those choices here, maybe talk about the validity of setting up the choices in that way, and discuss the implications of choosing one over the other, that would be a start. We aren’t really looking at the language, though, and we’re talking about assigning words to an exchange that don’t appear in the exchange itself. There’s nothing wrong with that, of course, but it also means we can’t pick a Greek word from the text and compare it to all the same Greek words in the New Testament. It winds up being treated more like something in isolation.

Additionally, this still has something to do with the whole transition from “penance” to “repentance” that I was on about earlier…in my first post, actually, which you transitioned from but were unwilling to talk about. From my perspective, I feel like I’ve presented an argument whereby the word “penance” (as it is now used) never appears in the Bible, and while the word is used 53 different times when you’re speaking a more ancient form of English, it was used no differently than “repentance” is now used in all the modern translations. Furthermore, the modern meaning of the word “penance” means it has no place in any English translation of the Bible.

Again, this is just my perspective, but it seems like you’ve sailed right past that point, conceded (to a certain extent) that this is true, and moved on to show me where a clear example of penance happens even if the word itself is not used. And again, there’s nothing wrong with doing this, but I’m just checking to see if that is, indeed, what you intended to do. And as far as giving advice to the OP (which I’m sure is on your mind), would you advise that the OP concede that “penance” is not a legitimate translation of 2 Peter 3:9 into modern English but that the OP should pursue examples of penance being demonstrated even if no related words are actually used?

You seem like a very bright person and I am about the biggest knucklehead you will ever run across. Does whatever translation of whatever bible you read have this interaction between Jesus and Peter in it? All I want to know is what YOU think is going on i nthe scene. Why is that so hard? I am not really interested in the translation because they are insignificant to the question I posed to YOU and that is what do YOU think is happening. The word “trinity” isnt used in scripture but I take it you believe in the “trinity”, correct? We see it in the presence of other words and examples. Repentance and penance are revealed in other ways, just like the “trinity”, in scripture. All I want is YOUR thoughts on whats happening in that scene between Jesus and Peter.