M
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
True, I’m not aware that the Church teaches specifically what form the purification after death takes. But she does say “The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned”. Which suggests that purgatory involves aspects that are at least superficially like punishment.You said …“it might also be the case…”
Sounds like speculation.
M
mardukm
Guest
This is a sincere question. When I as a Catholic (and an Oriental) use the word “Magisterium,” every item you stated is included AS WELL AS the Magisterium of today.It was the Holy Scripture, The seven Holy Councils, Holy Tradition, and the teachings of the holy Church Fathers which led me to Holy Orthodoxy.
Why do you not include your current hierarchy in your description? Or perhaps it is implied somewhere? If so, where?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Judging by your appeal to a pretty horrendous description of Latin teaching in one of your earlier posts, would it be fair to assume that your moving away from the Catholic Church depended on your study of the sources you mentioned, AS WELL AS some anti-Catholic propaganda you had imbibed?I am happy for you.
Yes, it was difficult for me to separate the truth of what the magisterium claimed to teach, from the half-truths which were being fed to me by those commissioned to teach the magisterial truths. When all was said and done–my journey was similar to yours. It was the Holy Scripture, The seven Holy Councils, Holy Tradition, and the teachings of the holy Church Fathers which led me to Holy Orthodoxy.
Blessings,
Marduk
R
rinnie
Guest
So Mickey if you don’t mind me asking. Do you agree or disagree with the RCC teaching on purgatory. Or are you not sure?
F
FCEGM
Guest
I’ll save you the trouble:
It’s not. St. Augustine is famous for saying stuff like “The God who created you without your cooperation will not save you without your cooperation.” Therefore, the necessity of “works” (of love) and therefore Augustine’s belief in the reality of free will, which Luther denied is a reality. Luther was a Scholastic Nominalist; Augustine was nothing of the sort.Excuse me? Check out #s 2, 5, 8, 10, 13, 18, 24, 34, 52, 75, 83, 87, and 95. While, in his 95 Theses, Luther never directly denies Purgatory or Papal authority (since to do so would have automatically branded him as a dogma-denying heretic), one must read the 95 Thesis with the Germanic air of sarcasm in which they were intended. IOW, Luther is already opposed to Purgatory and thinks that Papal authority is a scam; but he attacks them indirectly and with the presumption that people will draw “obvious conclusions” via their own “common sense” based on the issues he raises. This becomes most evident in Luther’s later teachings when, once formally separated from the Papacy, he makes his true positions very well know. And, from that point on, he is clearly a liar in regard to any solidarity with St. Augustine. …unless, as I said, he never read St. Augustine.
Not so. Rather, he keeps up the pretense of holding to Purgatory, indulgences, and Papal authority. He does this to “stay in the game” and to participate actively in Catholic intellectual debate (which is what the 95 Theses were proposed to do - spur debate within the Church at the university level).
But, if you read Luther’s arguments carefully, he already denies some of the key aspects of the Catholic belief in penance and indulgences. IOW, he takes his opposition to the abuse of selling indulgences and the need for personal, interior conversion of heart entirely too far, and limits the Church’s Christ-given power to “bind and loosen” (Matt 16:19; 18:17-18) and to “forgive” and “bind” sin (per John 20:23) to exercises of canonical authority alone. This is Luther’s first mistake.
Along with it, he already shows a personal ignorance of the true Apostolic theology of indulgences, given that he confuses the guilt of sin with the damages caused by sin (see thesis #s 6, 7, 36, and 76). Indulgences and penance do not apply to the guilt of sin, which is freely forgiven by the grace of God. Rather, they only apply to the “effects” or the damage cause by sin. Any non-nominalist in the Church would know this automatically; but Luther’s Nominalism causes him to mis-apply the context and reveal his sub-par education. Thus, he’s arguing against something that did not exist.
Formally and openly. But, the theology which led him to draft the 95 Theses (i.e., imputed justification), which is what also led him to split from the Catholic Church, was already fully formed in his mind. His objective through the 95 Theses was to position himself so he might “educate” the “poor, deluded Catholic episcopacy” in the “truths” of the Gospel, which required him to approach the matters diplomatically and in the guise of a faithful Catholic, rather than an obvious “revolutionary.”
M
mardukm
Guest
A better question would be, “do you agree or disagree with the CC DOGMATIC teaching on purgatory: 1) That there exists an intermediate state where purification can occur and in fact occurs before the final judgment; 2) That the Church on earth can aid those in this state of purification with its prayers, suffrages, and sacrifices (especially the Sacrifice)?”So Mickey if you don’t mind me asking. Do you agree or disagree with the RCC teaching on purgatory. Or are you not sure?
Blessings,
Marduk
R
rinnie
Guest
Either way its the same teaching. Intermediate state, we just give it a name. But okay Mickey either way, do you agree or disagree with the teaching’s of the church? The above question is fine.
M
Mickey
Guest
No. I understand the RC teaching and I do not agree with it.
But thanks for your concern.
M
Mickey
Guest
Disagree.
BTW–I am under the impression that the Eastern Catholics do not accept the “doctrine” of purgatory as taught by the Latin Church. Is this accurate?
R
rinnie
Guest
okay mickey if you don’t mind me asking what do you not agree with that it exists at all or the RC understanding of it?
M
Mickey
Guest
It is very simple rinnie. Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition does not point to such a doctrine. When the Churches were one, such an odd doctrine did not exist.
ps–I also do not accept the RC theory of development of this doctrine after the Churches split.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Short answer …
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
You want an authoritative source why Christ’s atonement was not enough and why we have to undergo purification / punishment in purgatory? How about the Bible in Hebrews 10:26-27 …
For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.
R
rinnie
Guest
Okay then in the story I told you about the rich man and Lazarus where was the rich man?
R
rinnie
Guest
Also here is something I will never understand the RC theory is all we had before the Church’s split which I think we can agree on. And it was the first theory and beings that it was, and it was the teachings of the church which the apostles taught, how could it be wrong? Just wondering.
M
Mickey
Guest
Wha?
M
mardukm
Guest
We fully accept the dogmatic portions which I already noted above. I find it strange that you as an EO would not. We do not accept the particularly Latin pious opinions/Traditions on the matter.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
Mickey
Guest
This refers to apostacy from the truth…not purgatory.
M
Mickey
Guest
He was experiencing the foretaste of eternal damnation (hell).
M
Mickey
Guest
What does this mean?
- Status