Does the treasury of merit exist?

[joe370]

Bluegoat;8344590]Making retribution is the paying of a debt, by definition.

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.
3. Theology Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.thefreedictionary.com/retribution

When I said making retribution to God’s justice (something justly deserved) - I was referring to temporal punishment of sins already forgiven. If I am wrong and you are right, and there are no consequences or repercussions for our forgiven sins then every soul destined for heaven will be ushered into heaven immediately, upon their death, and like I mentioned to dzheremi I hope that really is the case…

It certainly is. IIRC the Catholic Encyclopedia addresses it in some detail. It relates to the source of the merits in the supposed treasury. Whereas most people do not manage to work off their temporal debt for sin, supposedly many saints, especially Mary, have no temporal debt. But they continued through their good works and penances to gain merits - more than they themselves needed to avoid purgatory. These “extra” merits are deposited into the Treasury of Merit, and it is these that the Church draws out when it grants indulgences.

If by temporal debt the Catholic Encyclopedia means temporal penance (aka punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin or a penitential discipline imposed by church authority, or in this case, imposed by God, as per Mr. Webster) - justly deserved, regarding sins already forgiven, and they do, then I agree.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“What do you mean sin itself is a category? We are talking about the RC division of sin into various categories, are we not?”

Your spirituallity is only one catagory, and again in the strictest sense of the word so is sin.

For example is getting drunk on News Year Eve a sin? Most definate its not of the degree or level of Murder? One might even say its not a sin. However if the body is the temple of God, then how could it not be?

“On the other hand should the repitition become a verbal issue with a priest, then I imagine they would pick on it on this and correct this on their level.”

Often souls will verbalize the same session of confession over and over not because they haven’t been forgiven, they just haven’t forgiven themselfs. This is so true with people who carry guilt and hurt and thus its a situation of one becoming incapsulated by there feeling.

You know I seen that show on China and I want to see it once again. it was informative, EWTN pretty much is. Horrible situation in China very sad.

Well I have to run out, we’ll talk again. Peace

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi, I believe the paradigm for temporal punishment of a forgiven sin, is spelled out in the early councils, embraced even by most protestants. For example, temporal penance, aka punishment of the penitent, has always been a discipline imposed by the catholic church, as demonstrated in the following canon from the first ecumenical council of Nicea. It states that those who had lapsed from the faith without persecution were to spend twelve years as public penitents before they might be readmitted to the sacraments – and then of course only if a sincere conversion be evidenced by perseverance in a new life.

*“Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.”
*

Here we see a temporal punishment was imposed by Jesus’ church for the penitent, and this was quite normal for grave sins. It was understood that, given the weakness of fallen humanity, stern discipline/punishment was required to guide the penitent… Why? Why wasn’t the sacrament of confession enough?

I am not attempting to make the case for purgatory per se, where temporal punishment is thought to take place, (believed by the CC) - but rather the case for temporal punishment of the penitent, by the church.

 

[dzheremi]

Gary:

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it. I do not believe that people can be spiritually dead by definition, but by unrepentant sin. You specified “by definition”, so “by definition”, no. If it were otherwise, what was the point of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and everything our Lord did and preached in between?

Joe370:

then every soul destined for heaven will be ushered into heaven immediately, upon their death, and like I mentioned to dzheremi I hope that really is the case…

And as I wrote in reply to you, this is a false choice, and an idea fought against by early Christians such as Origen.

And I’m still not buying the supposed distinction you’re making re: retribution. “Recompense” is less objectionable (as Christ did atone for our sins, after all), but within the context in which it is invoked, it seems obvious that you don’t mean only Christ’s atonement for us, but Christ’s atonement within the context of the Father’s sense of justice. So this is still the penal substitution/debt framework that the Orthodox reject. They would say as the two hymns I linked earlier say: Christ, through His crucifixion, death, and resurrection, broke the power that sin and death had over us, brought life to those in the grave, and has given us the hope of rising with Him. This used to be in large part the Latin understanding as well, as evidenced by this c.10th century Templar chant: Crucem Sanctam Subiit

The text is as follows:

He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power He rose again the third day
Alleluia
Christ has risen
And shone upon His people whom He has bought back with His own blood
Alleluia
He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power He rose again the third day
Alleluia
Christ has risen
Now He does not die, death will not master Him
Alleluia
He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power He rose again the third day
Alleluia
Christ has risen
The stone that the architects rejected he has become the chief cornerstone
Alleluia
He bore the holy cross who broke the power of hell
He was girded with power He rose again the third day
Alleluia

I must admit, I love this chant, even from a purely musical viewpoint. The fact that its text is Orthodox (I took from a Coptic Orthodox channel, in fact) is most important, though. The only line that could even potentially be construed as following the modern Catholic understanding would be “…that He purchased with His own blood”, but hopefully it is clear from the context that the “purchasing” that is going on is not from the Father, but from the wages of their sin (death) and the domain of Hades to which we were relegated before His coming to save us.

If the Latin church were to return to this kind of understanding, discussions with the Orthodox at all levels would be much more fruitful.

 

[dzheremi]

I am not attempting to make the case for purgatory per se, where temporal punishment is thought to take place, (believed by the CC) - but rather the case for temporal punishment of the penitent, by the church.

I’m not disputing that at all. All apostolic churches have confession, and confession entails some kind of penance (I wouldn’t say punishment; you’re being corrected by your spiritual father, as is absolutely right and always done in a loving manner).

 

[joe370]

I’m not disputing that at all. All apostolic churches have confession, and confession entails some kind of penance (I wouldn’t say punishment; you’re being corrected by your spiritual father, as is absolutely right and always done in a loving manner).

Good to see that we see eye to eye on that point. One minor thing though: I am fairly certain, if your spiritual father, as a penance, told you to spend twelve years as public penitent before you could be readmitted to the sacraments - you might have no problem referring to it as a penalty or punishment, just as those penitents in the early church didn’t, and these sort of penances were quite common in the early church too.

Penitents sure live in a different time today…

 

[GaryTaylor]

Gary:

I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it. I do not believe that people can be spiritually dead by definition, but by unrepentant sin. You specified “by definition”, so “by definition”, no. If it were otherwise, what was the point of the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and everything our Lord did and preached in between?

Are you confusing what someone else is saying and talking about, and our conversation? You took a left at the light and went out into the night.

They are not spiritually dead. Where did I say that? Its a void, we are talking allegory here from the start of Treasury. Which of course isn’t what I am saying. I’m defending the inverted thinking. And the theology behind it, its correct. When you ask me how would I know? Thats why I am inverting. I thought we were having a foward converstion. Seems we lost it. I related the monetary connection Bible then the Treasury. Do I know if you can have a saving account in Heaven? I do not know that. What I know and think are two different truths

God created Man in His image, which was Perfect! Man is not perfect. And your spiritual level can be depleted or increased. I believe that is the Allegory. Thats the point I am making. Who said your on Zero or totally void of your Soul?

Also these are not my words you attributed to me here. I don’t know how you related this to me? Or why, it has absolutely noting to do with what I’m saying?

"then every soul destined for heaven will be ushered into heaven immediately, upon their death, and like I mentioned to dzheremi I hope that really is the case… "

Me? I don’t believe anyones going right to heaven but Saints. In other words I believe you could go right to Heaven and its scripture and CC.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi
Joe370:

And as I wrote in reply to you, this is a false choice, and an idea fought against by early Christians such as Origen.

I understand. You said, “It’s not as though because I do not believe in purgatory, I therefore believe that souls go on some sort of fast track to heaven.”

Perhaps some sort of divine way station…

And I’m still not buying the supposed distinction you’re making re: retribution. “Recompense” is less objectionable (as Christ did atone for our sins, after all), but within the context in which it is invoked, it seems obvious that you don’t mean only Christ’s atonement for us, but Christ’s atonement within the context of the Father’s sense of justice. So this is still the penal substitution/debt framework that the Orthodox reject.

And I am still not attempting to sell it to you. It’s just what I came to believe, and, I’m not talking about penal substitution/debt regarding atonement theology. I’m simply talking about a temporal/transitory penance imposed by God on the penitent, for sins already forgiven, which was also practiced in the catholic church, from the very beginning as I have illustrated.

 

[dzheremi]

Are you confusing what someone else is saying and talking about, and our conversation?"

Nope. Post #176, by you, asks:

You:

Then the question inverted is, could you be spiritually bankrupt? Of course by Definition?

They are not spiritually dead. Where did I say that?

See my reply, post #178.

Its a void, we are talking allegory here from the start of Treasury.

Which I don’t believe in. (Is this the root of our communication problem?)

Which of course isn’t what I am saying. I’m defending the inverted thinking. And the theology behind it, its correct. When you ask me how would I know? Thats why I am inverting.

I don’t know what this means.

Who said your on Zero or totally void of your Soul?

Nobody. You asked if a person could be spiritually bankrupt by definition, and I said not by definition, no.

Also these are not my words you attributed to me here. I don’t know how you related this to me? Or why, it has absolutely noting to do with what I’m saying?

"then every soul destined for heaven will be ushered into heaven immediately, upon their death, and like I mentioned to dzheremi I hope that really is the case… "

Me? I don’t believe anyones going right to heaven but Saints. In other words I believe you could go right to Heaven and its scripture and CC.

Please re-read carefully the post you are responding to. This was clearly marked as a response to Joe370 (as were several point before this). The portion that is to you is marked similar to avoid confusion between my conversation with him and my conversation with you.

 

[dzheremi]

Perhaps some sort of divine way station…

Such speculation is not profitable. The bottom line: We do not dogmatize such things, no matter how they’re conceptualized.

And I am still not attempting to sell it to you. It’s just what I came to believe, and, I’m not talking about penal substitution/debt regarding atonement theology. I’m simply talking about a temporal penance imposed by God, for sins already forgiven…

I think maybe this particular idea is a non-starter. You are not seeing how the words you are using and the framework within which you are using them in effect endorses debt/satisfaction/penal substitution ideas; I do not see how they are not doing so. Apparently I’m not the only one, either (I keep checking under my name to make sure I’m not a Classical Anglican, but nope…still says Coptic Orthodox Catechumen). But enough. I don’t want to beat up on you for our very different mindsets. I absolutely do not see how you can maintain what you are maintaining here, but it’s not my theology anyway. Peace.

 

[GaryTaylor]

(Is this the root of our communication problem?)

That is where we would have left off. You do not believe Souls are lost, walking around lost and on their way to being saved? Just in church we see the levels. Those just starting yet in and out of sin and church etc. . The idea is a perpetual state of grace. Your familar with?

So couldn’t we say allegorically as scripture does theirs an increase and decrease of Grace by God.

 

[dzheremi]

(Is this the root of our communication problem?)

That is where we would have left off. You do not believe Souls are lost, walking around lost and on their way to being saved? Just in church we see the levels. Those just starting yet in and out of sin and church etc. . The idea is a perpetual state of grace. Your familar with?

“Perpetual state of grace”? No.

So couldn’t we say allegorically as scripture does theirs an increase and decrease of Grace by God.

Sure. That wasn’t the question I was replying to, though. Asking if grace can be decrease or increase is a different question than asking (as you did) if a person can be spiritually bankrupt by definition. Here is a pamphlet on Divine Grace by Fr. Tadrous Malaty which explains the concept in the Alexandrian tradition. Note that there is a chapter on the “The Growth or Loss of Grace”, which would be a weird thing to write about if it weren’t part of the Alexandrian tradition (Fr. Tadrous is a Coptic Orthodox priest). But again, this was not the question I was originally replying to.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well even bankrupt in America isn’t living in the Desert in a tent. So even Bankrupt has its levels of monetary being.

Do you believe we should strive to remain sin free through our lifes, church, eucharist etc? I believe we are striving for a State of Grace.

dzheremi…Tell me, how do you believe Grace occurs?

 

[joe370]

Such speculation is not profitable. The bottom line: We do not dogmatize such things, no matter how they’re conceptualized.

I think maybe this particular idea is a non-starter. You are not seeing how the words you are using and the framework within which you are using them in effect endorses debt/satisfaction/penal substitution ideas; I do not see how they are not doing so. Apparently I’m not the only one, either (I keep checking under my name to make sure I’m not a Classical Anglican, but nope…still says Coptic Orthodox Catechumen). But enough. I don’t want to beat up on you for our very different mindsets. I absolutely do not see how you can maintain what you are maintaining here, but it’s not my theology anyway. Peace.

You are right; I do not see how the words I am using and the framework within which I am using them regarding temporal penance of sins forgiven, are in effect endorsing debt/satisfaction/penal substitution ideas of atonement theology; no biggie though…

Don’t worry; you are not beating up on me; I’m pretty thick skinned. By the way, I would never let a difference of opinion become a stumbling block between 2 brothers in Christ. You are set in your ways and I am most definitely set in my ways; ain’t no big deal brother…

Peace right back at you…

 

[Bluegoat]

1. Something justly deserved; recompense.
2. Something given or demanded in repayment, especially punishment.
3. Theology Punishment or reward distributed in a future life based on performance in this one.thefreedictionary.com/retribution

When I said making retribution to God’s justice (something justly deserved) - I was referring to temporal punishment of sins already forgiven. If I am wrong and you are right, and there are no consequences or repercussions for our forgiven sins then every soul destined for heaven will be ushered into heaven immediately, upon their death, and like I mentioned to dzheremi I hope that really is the case…

I’m not sure I see your point here, I understood that you were talking about temporal punishment for sins. “Owing recompense” for that is owing a debt.

If by temporal debt the Catholic Encyclopedia means temporal penance (aka punishment undergone in token of penitence for sin or a penitential discipline imposed by church authority, or in this case, imposed by God, as per Mr. Webster) - justly deserved, regarding sins already forgiven, and they do, then I agree.

Then I don’t understand why you said that no Catholics believe that saints and others can do more than required by God?

 

[joe370]

Hey Bluegoat…

I’m not sure I see your point here, I understood that you were talking about temporal punishment for sins. “Owing recompense” for that is owing a debt.

Thanks for seeing that I was merely talking about temporal punishment, as opposed to eternal punishment. By the way, I am not trying to convince you of anything; I respect your wishes to believe what you want to believe; I am merely sharing what I believe, and that does not mean that I am right, but rather I believe that I am right, just as you do…

Owing recompense to God’s justice for the consequences/repercussions of sins committed and forgiven, is not the same as atoning for one’s sins and thereby escaping hell, as far as I am concerned. If you see it differently, as does dzheremi, that’s cool! Of course that would negate Jesus’ work of atonement on the cross, and a case of utter blasphemy, and as I have illustrated below, temporal punishment for the penitent, from the very beginning, was imposed by the catholic church, and this was quite normal for grave sins and this train of thought was included in the following canon from the first ecumenical council of Nicea.

Leaving purgatory and indulgences and the TOM’s out of it for the moment, do you agree with following?

My post to dzheremi:

I believe the paradigm for temporal punishment of a forgiven sin, is spelled out in the early councils, embraced even by most protestants. For example, temporal penance, aka punishment of the penitent, has always been a discipline imposed by the catholic church, as demonstrated in the following canon from the first ecumenical council of Nicea. It states that those who had lapsed from the faith without persecution were to spend twelve years as public penitents before they might be readmitted to the sacraments – and then of course only if a sincere conversion be evidenced by perseverance in a new life.

“Concerning those who have fallen without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius, the Synod declares that, though they have deserved no clemency, they shall be dealt with mercifully. As many as were communicants, if they heartily repent, shall pass three years among the hearers; for seven years they shall be prostrators; and for two years they shall communicate with the people in prayers, but without oblation.”

Here we see a temporal punishment was imposed by Jesus’ church for the penitent, and this was quite normal for grave sins. It was understood that, given the weakness of fallen humanity, stern discipline/punishment was required to guide the penitent… Why? Why wasn’t the sacrament of confession enough?

I am not attempting to make the case for purgatory per se, where temporal punishment is thought to take place, (believed by the CC) - but rather the case for temporal punishment of the penitent, by the church.

Then I don’t understand why you said that no Catholics believe that saints and others can do more than required by God?

I agree with that comment but I don’t recall saying it to you. Saints in heaven work within the confines of God’s Will - period.

 

[dzheremi]

Blue:

You raise a good point about “recompense”. I should have been more careful when I wrote that it is less objectionable. I figured if we were going by dictionary definitions, it could be argued that recompense is in part “to repair”, as this is one of the secondary definitions in my dictionary (pointing more to the aim of the recompense, I suppose). Christ certainly did repair our relationship to God (as no one but God can do that), just not in the context that Joe370 is invoking: Not as a debt paid, or the satisfaction of vengeance, or anything like that. Such ideas are deeply disturbing, when questions are asked of them as to their logical ends.

Well even bankrupt in America isn’t living in the Desert in a tent. So even Bankrupt has its levels of monetary being.

This is essentially what I wrote in #178 or thereabouts (somewhere nearby, when I was trying to work with this idea without really knowing how you meant it).

Do you believe we should strive to remain sin free through our lifes, church, eucharist etc?

Of course.

I believe we are striving for a State of Grace.

Alright. I’m not sure I like this “state” business, as grace is not something static, but if that’s the term you use to mean all the stuff you said above it, then I agree (though I would wonder how it could be called a state if you’re always striving to reach it? Is it that you reach it and then you stop and remain there, or what? How is it a state? That would be in violation of centuries of teaching of Orthodoxy, because even the monks never cease to pray as you would expect them to as the holy men they are, if this “state” were a matter of being rather than doing.)

dzheremi…Tell me, how do you believe Grace occurs?

As I understand it (and I have yet to read all of Fr. Tadrous’s book, linked earlier, but I highly recommend that you do so if you want to know the Orthodox interpretation of grace), grace is a word used to denote the active presence of God in the believer. This is important in so far as the Orthodox do not maintain a belief in “created grace” as RC’s do, but rather in a distinction between God’s energies (His active presence in the world and the believer) and his essence (who He is). I think this is most explicit in the EO, but I was watching Coptic TV on Youtube last night and saw a program with one of the bishops where he talked about how the Copts believe in this distinction, too. Anyway, it is the active presence of God, which is not so much an occurrence (is it right to say God “occurs”, as though He some sort of flighty spirit, here when we’re doing good and gone when we’re not?), but could conceivably be measured with reference to occurrences in the individual believer’s life that either lead to a growth in grace or a loss in grace (hence St. Paul’s writing to the Thessalonians, “Do not quench the Spirit” in 1 Thess. 5:19). In that case, it is not God who is any less, but that our sinfulness takes over us and leads us to despise the Spirit (Heb. 10:29; Rom. 7:15-17) and turn from Him.

 

[dzheremi]

My post to dzheremi:

Hey, I replied to this already!

Or are you highlighting it for Blue’s benefit, for some reason? Because I will repeat what I said in my earlier reply: I agree in penance assigned through the Church as a means of healing spiritual ills. This does not follow any such understanding of purgatory, a treasury of merits, etc. I know you say you’re not trying to sell me on those things, but it’s kind of hard not to see it that way since they are being brought up in connection to them. If they are truly separate (and I believe they are, as I believe in many of the concepts RCs connect to these unacceptable ideas without embracing said ideas), then they can’t really be taken as a point in favor of your theology.

Aside: It should be noted that the Orthodox understanding of these things it shares in a broad way with Catholics and Protestants is often very different than how either of those churches see them…hence I’m experiencing the strangely familiar sensation of agreeing more with you guys as time goes on and we find ourselves having to speak more broadly about the existence of grace, penance, etc. (yes, I agree that those are real), and also less regarding those very same subjects (no created grace, no grace as a static state, no “bankruptcy” by definition, etc.)

As England and the United States are two countries divided by a common language (well, that and all that water), the Orthodox and the Catholic are two churches divided by some common theological terms (not all, e.g., energies/essence), understood in sometimes quite different ways. This gets back to the idea of mindsets and ontological difference, and at that point I have to step away from the computer and rest for a while. Peace!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Asking if grace can be decrease or increase is a different question than asking (as you did) if a person can be spiritually bankrupt by definition.

The increase of Grace results in Heaven…Full, Rich nothing lacking.

The decrease in Grace results in hell. Zero Grace Bankrupt.

Everything inbetween is you heading one way or the other. Still a “no” on bankruptcy?

However your words…

“I think maybe this particular idea is a non-starter. You are not seeing how the words you are using and the framework within which you are using them in effect endorses debt/satisfaction/penal substitution ideas; I do not see how they are not doing so.”

and here…

“Asking if grace can be decrease or increase is a different question than asking (as you did)”

Grace can increase and decrease. Since its a foregone conclusion the allgory conclusion exists in Bible of monetary gain relating to spiritual gain. .We have resolved this or we shall have to return to Bible.

Bankrupt by definition can also apply since we have plus and minus system in economy and we stand on Ground Zero. Spiritually you hit below ground zero you are Bankrupt my friend.

“Through the abundant Grace of our Lord” …only is in line with what I am simply stating to you Stength and Weakness is used in your Coptic quote. The comment on what the CC use to believe I think was uncharitable. But thats not of issue. The conversation is. Coptic probly believe we were uncharitable after the council. I wasn’t there.

So the basis of the thinking of Increase, Decrease, you words from link…Strength/Weakness Monetary Gain or loss all are allegorical.

Coptics do believe in hell, and as with Catholicism, they also tend to emphasize meritorious works in salvation along with liturgical ritual rather than salvation through a perssonal Christ correct? I understand were the fallout was. However not the issue.

So “meritorious” works are not far off from treasury of “merit”.

google.com/url?q=http://www.gotquestions.org/Coptic-Christianity.html&sa=U&ei=en5qTubSLsjl0QGG98nsBA&ved=0CBsQFjAC&usg=AFQjCNHiFQ0osyBkZtraIUAZWKAAS554KA

Meritorious is from this link.

“Invert” is reverse to, which I believe is why I typed Bible verse here with Rich/Poor and Christs word.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi…

You raise a good point about “recompense”. I should have been more careful when I wrote that it is less objectionable. I figured if we were going by dictionary definitions, it could be argued that recompense is in part “to repair”, as this is one of the secondary definitions in my dictionary (pointing more to the aim of the recompense, I suppose). Christ certainly did repair our relationship to God (as no one but God can do that), just not in the context that Joe370 is invoking: Not as a debt paid, or the satisfaction of vengeance, or anything like that. Such ideas are deeply disturbing, when questions are asked of them as to their logical ends.

Certainly you believe that the CC teaches that Christ, (as no one but God can do) - repaired our relationship to God? I absolutely do!

Bottom line:

If you are right, or what your church teaches is right, rather, for they have been doing this a lot longer than you, as you so aptly stated, and once a person has received absolution from God via one of God’s ministers/priests, for grave sins committed, and then sadly dies shortly thereafter without committing anymore “intentional sins” - then they need not fear any kind of possible punishment or purification, prior to their entrance into heaven?

Is that a fair assessment? If so, I will respect it and leave well enough alone.

Regarding the OP, I think it is safe to say that you agree that the treasury of merits exist (even though you don’t prefer that particular catholic term) - if in fact that “treasury of merits” - consists of the intercessory prayers of the saints in heaven who can strongly assist those of us still sojourning here on earth via their prayers, of course minus the CC’s involvement, eg indulgences…?