Does the treasury of merit exist?

[dzheremi]

No. Its a family analogy.

Yes, but as I wrote earlier, it is the financial aspect of it, not the familial, that I am hesitant about.

You don’t believe you are a child of God?

I wrote that I have no opinion on the use of this familial analogy with reference to the treasury of merit idea, not that I am not a child of God.

Patristic quotes

Just as you see no reason to reject HH Pope Shenouda’s interpretation of Matthew 6:20 as they do not preclude the RC understanding of the same, I see no reason to accept your interpretation of these quotes because they do not align with the Orthodox understanding of the same, which has not led to the understanding that Catholics embrace. While I can certainly see why you would think that these quotes support your idea (perhaps Ignatius of Antioch especially, as he also uses a sort of financial metaphor), I do not see them this way. Again, in keeping with the viewpoint I expressed earlier (that what the treasury is isn’t the point), I don’t really even see these as necessarily connected to the doctrine which they are brought up to support. “Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” could just as easily be understood as “you get what you give” without reference to or support for the treasury of merit (or, rather, that could also support the treasury of merit, but doesn’t have to; as I have written several times to Joe370, what it boils down to for me is that this is an unnecessary concept, like purgatory which it supports/relies on).

So, instead of a treasury, which is the metaphor used in Scripture, the Word of God, you would prefer a metaphor of your own.

Huh? We’re discussing the same passage. Obviously I have no problem with the passage itself, but I do disagree with your interpretation of it because I think it is focusing on the wrong aspect of our Savior’s words in focusing on the treasury itself rather than its location.

That’s fine. But you still have something to store. And if you are Orthodox, then you also believe you are storing works.

Perhaps (again, this idea has not come up among the Orthodox I know, but I will ask my priest about it next time I have the opportunity to talk to him). If I had to guess, in advance of being able to talk to Fr. Marcus, I would bet that any objections to this concept would be the way it is intimately tied to purgatory, which the Orthodox do not believe in.

I posted a few Patristic witnesses above.

I disagree with your interpretation of those passages as supporting the RC treasury of merit idea.

You are wrong. Those apostolic churches which broke with the Catholic Church, REJECTED one or another aspect of Christ’s teachings. That is all.

The fullness of Truth, is in the Catholic Church.

These are your beliefs, and I respect your right to hold them and voice them, but I very much disagree.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, but as I wrote earlier, it is the financial aspect of it, not the familial, that I am hesitant about.

Since you claim to understand that this is a metaphor and you still call it “financial”,
then you are hesitant to accept the teaching of Jesus Christ:
Mark 12:42-44
King James Version (KJV)
42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

So, be certain, that the so called, “financial aspect” of this metaphor, came from Jesus:
Matt 25:
14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. …29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 20

1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.2And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard … 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

I wrote that I have no opinion on the use of this familial analogy with reference to the treasury of merit idea, not that I am not a child of God.

And because you have no opinion, then it isn’t true? Before you deny that the familial analogy is appropriate, shouldn’t you inform yourself about it?

Just as you see no reason to reject HH Pope Shenouda’s interpretation of Matthew 6:20 as they do not preclude the RC understanding of the same, I see no reason to accept your interpretation of these quotes because they do not align with the Orthodox understanding of the same, which has not led to the understanding that Catholics embrace.

Whether Orthodox teaching aligns with Catholic doctrine is of no concern to me. Any teaching by any other Church is false, which does not align with Catholic teaching.

While I can certainly see why you would think that these quotes support your idea (perhaps Ignatius of Antioch especially, as he also uses a sort of financial metaphor), I do not see them this way.

You can twist them all you want in your anxiety to leave the True Church, but you are only fooling yourself.

Again, in keeping with the viewpoint I expressed earlier (that what the treasury is isn’t the point), I don’t really even see these as necessarily connected to the doctrine which they are brought up to support. “Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you” could just as easily be understood as “you get what you give” without reference to or support for the treasury of merit (or, rather, that could also support the treasury of merit, but doesn’t have to; as I have written several times to Joe370, what it boils down to for me is that this is an unnecessary concept, like purgatory which it supports/relies on).

The treasury analogy is directly from Jesus and it is the most elegant. Any other construct which you invent only twists the logic and mars the message of Jesus Christ.

Huh? We’re discussing the same passage. Obviously I have no problem with the passage itself, but I do disagree with your interpretation of it because I think it is focusing on the wrong aspect of our Savior’s words in focusing on the treasury itself rather than its location.

But you keep denying the “financial” aspect of the metaphor. Therefore, you are rejecting the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps (again, this idea has not come up among the Orthodox I know, but I will ask my priest about it next time I have the opportunity to talk to him). If I had to guess, in advance of being able to talk to Fr. Marcus, I would bet that any objections to this concept would be the way it is intimately tied to purgatory, which the Orthodox do not believe in.

Purgatory is a teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ didn’t make up the “financial” analogy in order to support Purgatory. Your church denies Christ’s teaching of Purgatory and therefore seeks to deny anything which they think can possibly be associated with that teaching. In the end, they’ll wind up denying the entire Gospel. Because that financial aspect is taught by Jesus very frequently.

I disagree with your interpretation of those passages as supporting the RC treasury of merit idea.

These are your beliefs, and I respect your right to hold them and voice them, but I very much disagree.

You don’t have to agree. The truth stands whether you agree or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Hesychios]

And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury:

Obviously, the woman did not put more money in the treasury than the other folk. So, she cast something of greater value in the heavenly treasury.

What she did was give all that she had, she was a poor widow, two mites was everything. Leaving her completely vulnerable.

For another person, to give an equivalent to the temple could be like donating a house, a car, a stock portfolio… all of it.

 

[CopticChristian]

Since you claim to understand that this is a metaphor and you still call it “financial”,
then you are hesitant to accept the teaching of Jesus Christ:
Mark 12:42-44
King James Version (KJV)
42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

So, be certain, that the so called, “financial aspect” of this metaphor, came from Jesus:
Matt 25:
14For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. …29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 20

1For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.2And when he had agreed with the labourers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard … 15Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good? 16So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

And because you have no opinion, then it isn’t true? Before you deny that the familial analogy is appropriate, shouldn’t you inform yourself about it?

Whether Orthodox teaching aligns with Catholic doctrine is of no concern to me. Any teaching by any other Church is false, which does not align with Catholic teaching.

You can twist them all you want in your anxiety to leave the True Church, but you are only fooling yourself.

The treasury analogy is directly from Jesus and it is the most elegant. Any other construct which you invent only twists the logic and mars the message of Jesus Christ.

But you keep denying the “financial” aspect of the metaphor. Therefore, you are rejecting the teaching of Jesus Christ.

Purgatory is a teaching of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ didn’t make up the “financial” analogy in order to support Purgatory. Your church denies Christ’s teaching of Purgatory and therefore seeks to deny anything which they think can possibly be associated with that teaching. In the end, they’ll wind up denying the entire Gospel. Because that financial aspect is taught by Jesus very frequently.

You don’t have to agree. The truth stands whether you agree or not.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I am not sure if the answer to this question might shed light. Do Orthodox understand, believe in what you are describing “treasury merity”.

 

[De_Maria]

I am not sure if the answer to this question might shed light. Do Orthodox understand, believe in what you are describing “treasury merity”.

I’m not Orthodox. Nor have I studied Orthodox theology in any serious capacity. As I understand dzheremi however, they do not. He may be a better person to ask.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[dzheremi]

Since you claim to understand that this is a metaphor and you still call it “financial”,
then you are hesitant to accept the teaching of Jesus Christ:

Let me clarify this. I am hesitant about the financial metaphor because of what it is applied to in this instance – that is, the Roman Catholic church has built an entire system around this metaphor that ties into some ideas that are definitely not acceptable to me. I do not have a problem with any quotes from the Bible or the saints that you may come up with in defense of the RC system, because obviously the RC interpretation of them that supports such understandings is only one of many.

Mark 12:42-44
King James Version (KJV)
42And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. 43And he called unto him his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which have cast into the treasury: 44For all they did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.

So, be certain, that the so called, “financial aspect” of this metaphor, came from Jesus:

I agree with Hesychios. The lesson here is that she gave all she had. I don’t see anything in it about an “economy of grace” or whatever other stuff has been brought up in this thread. Ditto the other passages you’ve quoted, which I have deleted due to space considerations.

And because you have no opinion, then it isn’t true? Before you deny that the familial analogy is appropriate, shouldn’t you inform yourself about it?

What? No. Because I have no opinion on it…I have no opinion on it. And I’m pretty sure you’ve informed me about it by pointing out that you meant for the focus to be on the familial aspect. That’s fine. Like I said, I don’t really have anything to say about that. It’s your metaphor; you can employ it however you want.

Whether Orthodox teaching aligns with Catholic doctrine is of no concern to me. Any teaching by any other Church is false, which does not align with Catholic teaching.

Well you sure are spending a lot of time and seemingly becoming very frustrated over this, but okay. It’s not your concern. I can respect that. I would say it is similarly not my concern. When I originally replied to this thread it was because (as I have written several times) this concept never came up when I was RC, so I was curious as to what it was all about. I like learning new things, even when it turns out I don’t particularly agree with them.

You can twist them all you want in your anxiety to leave the True Church, but you are only fooling yourself.

Wow. This is just getting uncharitable and frankly kind of weird. Joe370 is no less Catholic than you and yet has not made my personal journey to Orthodoxy a focus of his posting. I don’t really see what that has to do with my disagreement with you, but still…I hope that you recognize this is not a very effective kind of apologetics.

The treasury analogy is directly from Jesus and it is the most elegant. Any other construct which you invent only twists the logic and mars the message of Jesus Christ.

I attempted to explain it in a way that is consistent with other verses in the Bible that say similar things, in order to show that I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect of this teaching. How exactly does it “mar the message of Jesus” when we don’t even take the same lesson from the verse? I thought you wrote earlier: “Catholic doctrine does not restrict any passage to one interpretation.” If this is true, I do not see how you maintain that I am doing wrong, especially when you had no problem with the interpretation of HH Pope Shenouda III on which I base my own understanding of the passage in question.

But you keep denying the “financial” aspect of the metaphor. Therefore, you are rejecting the teaching of Jesus Christ.

I am not denying it; obviously, money is a good metaphor to use or else we wouldn’t find it in the Bible or in the writings of the saints. But I am denying what it is employed to support in this case. I hope you understand the distinction I am trying to make.

Purgatory is a teaching of Jesus Christ.

No it isn’t. Purgatory is the Latin understanding of certain teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers.

Jesus Christ didn’t make up the “financial” analogy in order to support Purgatory. Your church denies Christ’s teaching of Purgatory and therefore seeks to deny anything which they think can possibly be associated with that teaching. In the end, they’ll wind up denying the entire Gospel. Because that financial aspect is taught by Jesus very frequently.

Please, we’re talking about different interpretations of the same passages that we both accept as the true word of God. The Orthodox church in no way denies the Gospel.

You don’t have to agree. The truth stands whether you agree or not.

I admire your zeal, but this type of argumentation does not work with me.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well I believe you bring up a valid point CopticChristian, is this strickly the CC teaching?

I follow whats being stated, and I understand the logic. Lets look at this from reverse. Should I follow the teaching of the church, sacrements, Holy Sacrifice etc. Then in truth you or I are following church teaching. Now when we add a Catholic devotion to this what do we gain?

In other words wouldn’t this only apply “if” you were not correctly following the faith? Thus you would somehow arrive at a point where you needed a stored Grace for this reason?

In other words I believe its fine to have a devotion when in “addition” to your faith. Thus you would be increasing your faith through the devotion. But let me ask, would it not be incorrect to think…"Well, I fell short in this or that area, “BUT” I have a Treasury of Merit existing? Thus to depend on this and not correct worship?

If I’m not mistaken this “is” what Jesus Christ talked about to the Seer at Fatima in regards to the Reparation of Sinners?

Or lets for example state, you have arrived before the Lord on your day of judgement. You are a border line situation leaning slightly to the negative, so then the thinking is the Treasury of Merit would tip the scales in your favor?

In other words lets for sake of arguement say we all understand. How is this applied?

I’m sorry guys, I love you all dearly but you will have to explain this clearly.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not Orthodox. Nor have I studied Orthodox theology in any serious capacity. As I understand dzheremi however, they do not. He may be a better person to ask.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Catholocism, purgatory and indulgences are part and parcel of Treasury of Merit I believe.

I found this at another site.

Eastern Orthodox usually object to the idea of indulgences and thus the Treasury of Merit because they don’t draw a distinction (AFAIK) between the eternal punishment due to sin and the temporal punishment (this is also their objection to Purgatory). However, they do pray for the faithful departed souls.

Your explanations for Treasury of Merit may not boad well with Orthodox ears. I believe that Dzheremi may not be of the Purgatory, Indulgences mindset that this notion comes from.

 

[De_Maria]

Let me clarify this. I am hesitant about the financial metaphor because of what it is applied to in this instance

I understood that.

– that is, the Roman Catholic church has built an entire system around this metaphor that ties into some ideas that are definitely not acceptable to me.{/quote]

The key phrase here is, “acceptable to me”.

I do not have a problem with any quotes from the Bible or the saints that you may come up with in defense of the RC system, because obviously the RC interpretation of them that supports such understandings is only one of many.

Ok.

I agree with Hesychios. The lesson here is that she gave all she had. I don’t see anything in it about an “economy of grace” or whatever other stuff has been brought up in this thread. Ditto the other passages you’ve quoted, which I have deleted due to space considerations.

Neither you nor Hesychios noticed that all she had, in reality, was far less than the rich who put into the treasury. Therefore the “all she had” which is greater than the what the rest put in is a spiritual element. An element which we call “merit” or “favor” in God’s eyes.

What? No. Because I have no opinion on it…I have no opinion on it. And I’m pretty sure you’ve informed me about it by pointing out that you meant for the focus to be on the familial aspect. That’s fine. Like I said, I don’t really have anything to say about that. It’s your metaphor; you can employ it however you want.

You certainly have said much considering you have nothing to say. First you said that this doctrine was made up by the Catholic Church to justify another doctrine. Then you said that the doctrine is false because it is not common to the ancient Churches before they broke up. Then you said that the Early Fathers didn’t treat of this doctrine.

Yeah, for someone who has nothing to say about this doctrine, you’ve said a mouthful.

Well you sure are spending a lot of time and seemingly becoming very frustrated over this, but okay.

Not frustrated. If I were frustrated, I would have no response.

However, although you begin to speak very politely, you forcefully deny Catholic teaching and then forcefully make false allegations about inventing doctrines to justify other doctrines. I reply to these allegations with equal force. You are wrong.

If you can claim that the Church is wrong. I can claim that you are wrong. And I can explain how you are wrong, rather than say, “I have nothing to say”. Or “I don’t believe it even though I don’t understand it.”

If you want to have a mild conversation with me, do not charge the Church with any wrong doing.

It’s not your concern.

Correct. No disrespect intended. Didn’t you also say that you didn’t care about the Catholic teaching?

I can respect that. I would say it is similarly not my concern. When I originally replied to this thread it was because (as I have written several times) this concept never came up when I was RC, so I was curious as to what it was all about. I like learning new things, even when it turns out I don’t particularly agree with them.

If you want to discuss, then discuss. But saying, I don’t agree, even though I don’t understand, is not a discussion. It is a simple denial of that which has been explained to you without the courtesy of explaining why.

On the other hand, saying, the Church does this to justify purgatory, is a simple, unsupported objection to the Catholic faith. At this point, it is no longer a discussion but a debate.

I’ve not attacked anyone’s church in this discussion. But one thing I know. Any Church which deviates from Catholic Teaching, has deviated from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Wow. This is just getting uncharitable and frankly kind of weird. Joe370 is no less Catholic than you and yet has not made my personal journey to Orthodoxy a focus of his posting. I don’t really see what that has to do with my disagreement with you, but still…I hope that you recognize this is not a very effective kind of apologetics.

You’ve made it public. Haven’t you made it the focus of this discussion?

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

I attempted to explain it in a way that is consistent with other verses in the Bible that say similar things, in order to show that I think you are focusing on the wrong aspect of this teaching. How exactly does it “mar the message of Jesus” when we don’t even take the same lesson from the verse? I thought you wrote earlier: “Catholic doctrine does not restrict any passage to one interpretation.” If this is true, I do not see how you maintain that I am doing wrong, especially when you had no problem with the interpretation of HH Pope Shenouda III on which I base my own understanding of the passage in question.

It is different to say, “This verse says this, but not this.”
Than to say, “This verse also says this”.

You embody the first. Since you claim that the Catholic Church has invented this doctrine to support Purgatory, effectively denying the doctrine.

Whereas I said, that there is room in that verse for both your Pope’s explanation and the Catholic explanation.

As for whether you are doing wrong. It is not wrong to show that a verse doesn’t say a particular message. I do that all the time, but then I explain why.

Whereas, you denied the message of the verse and then recused yourself saying, “I don’t know enough to speak on the matter.” I suppose you thought this would make things right. I simply reserve the right to respond to any challenges to the Catholic faith.

I am not dying it; obviously, money is a good metaphor to use or else we wouldn’t find it in the Bible or in the writings of the saints.

Money is a “financial” matter.

But I am denying what it is employed to support in this case. I hope you understand the distinction I am trying to make.

Not without your explanation.

No it isn’t. Purgatory is the Latin understanding of certain teachings of Christ, the Apostles, and the Fathers.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

Please, we’re talking about different interpretations of the same passages that we both accept as the true word of God. The Orthodox church in no way denies the Gospel.

That we BOTH ACCEPT?

Ok, now I’m confused.

I admire your zeal, but this type of argumentation does not work with me.

Ok, I understand. It is apparent from the previous statement, that we don’t understand each other. As has apparently been the case from the very first message.

Bye.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[dzheremi]

The key phrase here is, “acceptable to me”.

Well, I do have my own spiritual path to walk, and my own conscience to answer to, and all that jazz. I doubt that the same would not be true of you or any other Catholic. So we are essentially on the same ground. Don’t Catholics also work out their salvation with fear and trembling? I think they do. It’s not anything bad. It’s essential.

Neither you nor Hesychios noticed that all she had, in reality, was far less than the rich who put into the treasury. Therefore the “all she had” which is greater than the what the rest put in is a spiritual element. An element which we call “merit” or “favor” in God’s eyes.

Okay.

You certainly have said much considering you have nothing to say. First you said that this doctrine was made up by the Catholic Church to justify another doctrine. Then you said that the doctrine is false because it is not common to the ancient Churches before they broke up. Then you said that the Early Fathers didn’t treat of this doctrine.

Is this doctrine of a “treasury of merit” (which, yes, I maintain is not found in the ECF; again, it was not defined in the RC until the 14th century) not used to support the idea of purgatory? Do they not work together in that way? You find writing on this “treasury of merit” concept in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry on indulgences – are these not intimately connected to the concept of purgatory? What have I said that is wrong?

However, although you begin to speak very politely, you forcefully deny Catholic teaching and then forcefully make false allegations about inventing doctrines to justify other doctrines. I reply to these allegations with equal force. You are wrong.

Yes, I deny RC teachings when necessary. I fail to see the problem with that.

If you can claim that the Church is wrong. I can claim that you are wrong. And I can explain how you are wrong, rather than say, “I have nothing to say”. Or “I don’t believe it even though I don’t understand it.”

The only thing that I have written that I have nothing to say about is your explanation of the familial metaphor you yourself came up with. Again, as it is your metaphor, you can use it however you’d like. But please do not present this conversation as though I have not responded to other points just because I have nothing to say about that particular point.

If you want to have a mild conversation with me, do not charge the Church with any wrong doing.

I have not charged the church with any wrongdoing. I have written that this treasury of merit concept does not really make sense to me, and as it is intimately tied to doctrines that I do not share, I am disinclined to believe in it. If it bothers you to encounter non-Catholic opinions that are at variance with your church, then I am definitely not the person that you want to have conversations with. I do not go out of my way to badmouth the RC, but where it is wrong or where I have reason to doubt it I will openly and honestly voice my concerns.

Correct. No disrespect intended. Didn’t you also say that you didn’t care about the Catholic teaching?

I said “I would say it is similarly not my concern”, meaning, that I do not live by RC presuppositions about what is included in the faith any more than you live by Orthodox ones.

If you want to discuss, then discuss. But saying, I don’t agree, even though I don’t understand, is not a discussion. It is a simple denial of that which has been explained to you without the courtesy of explaining why.

I participated in this thread to gain that understanding since, as I wrote, this is not a topic that came up when I was RC. My concerns about what has been presented thus far have been explained. You may not like my explanations, but I have answered all responses to put to me to the best of my ability.

On the other hand, saying, the Church does this to justify purgatory, is a simple, unsupported objection to the Catholic faith. At this point, it is no longer a discussion but a debate.

This doctrine and the doctrine of purgatory work in concert, do they not? If so, then I do not see what is wrong with what I have written.

I’ve not attacked anyone’s church in this discussion. But one thing I know. Any Church which deviates from Catholic Teaching, has deviated from the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As you see it. I obviously disagree.

You’ve made it public. Haven’t you made it the focus of this discussion?

After you asked me, sure. Just like I responded to Coptic Christian’s question in another thread. As I explained earlier, I don’t want anyone to think that I am purposely being deceptive or secretive about my position, but just the same I do not think it is worth the time that has already been spent on it, and I certainly think that analysis hinging on my supposed “anxiety” over having left the Catholic church is entirely unwarranted and not at all related to the topic at hand.

 

[dzheremi]

It is different to say, “This verse says this, but not this.”
Than to say, “This verse also says this”.

You embody the first. Since you claim that the Catholic Church has invented this doctrine to support Purgatory, effectively denying the doctrine.

Okay.

Whereas I said, that there is room in that verse for both your Pope’s explanation and the Catholic explanation.

Okay.

Whereas, you denied the message of the verse and then recused yourself saying, “I don’t know enough to speak on the matter.” I suppose you thought this would make things right. I simply reserve the right to respond to any challenges to the Catholic faith.

I’m not sure to what you’re referring to here. Again, the only thing I have avoided expressing an opinion on is a metaphor that you made up. And I have been upfront about my reasons for wondering about this doctrine (it doesn’t show up among the Orthodox I know, and it also was never discussed when I was RC). I do not see how you can say that I am avoiding any issues. I have disagreed with various interpretations of the verses you have presented, and presented alternative explanations when I feel that these show the correct interpretations of the verses under consideration. I don’t know what more I can do, or should be expected to do.
Money is a “financial” matter.

Not without your explanation.

The problem is not the metaphor, full stop. The problem is the RC understanding of the metaphor and the system built around this understanding. Whereas St. Ignatius of Antioch can and does use financial metaphors in his writing, it is not (as I am reading it) to support the Catholic doctrine of the treasury of merit, but to explain, as I put it earlier, that you get what you give. It is the Catholic understanding that connects this to the wider systemic concept of the treasury of merit, which as I understand it seeks to explain a certain “economy of grace” that I do not find reference to in any of the evidences you have thus far brought.

You seem to be contradicting yourself there.

How so? You wrote that purgatory is a teaching of Christ, and I responded that it is not, it is the Latin understanding of certain teachings and writings. In other words, you will not find the Latin doctrine of purgatory discussed by our Savior at any point, but you will find evidence for it in various passages if you read the Holy Bible with the mindset that it is in there somewhere.

That we BOTH ACCEPT?

Ok, now I’m confused.

The Orthodox church and the Roman church both accept the entire Bible as the word of God. We differ in some cases in our understanding of specific passages, and moreover it could be argued in our approach to the text itself (I’m not sure what tradition predominates in the Roman Catholic Church, but I’d guess that it is probably in some ways significantly different than the highly metaphorical Alexandrian tradition). This does not change the fact that we both accept and preach the Gospel. Neither church denies the Gospel.

Ok, I understand. It is apparent from the previous statement, that we don’t understand each other. As has apparently been the case from the very first message.

It would appear so. That’s okay. I’m not here to enjoy discussions in an echo chamber. Peace be with you.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is different to say, “This verse says this, but not this.”
Than to say, “This verse also says this”.

Purgatory,

That we BOTH ACCEPT?

Ok, now I’m confused.

Ok, we don’t understand each other. As has apparently been the case from the very first message.

Bye.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DeMaria,

I ask you to visit this website and see what is said about Purgatory or Treasury of Merit.

copticchurch.net/

These are Dzheremi’s first few posts and if you visit the site provided there are great teachings on prayer.

**I don’t understand **why this idea has developed regarding the prayers of the saints. The mechanics seem much less important to ponder (much less develop an entire hypothetical scenario based on logical prerequisites) than the effects of the prayers.

I am tempted to say “it doesn’t matter whether this concept exists, because the saints exist regardless and their prayers are effective regardless of how we conceive of them operating.”

I didn’t answer the question because the concept does not make sense to me. Is there a way to explain this concept so that it is something other speculation for speculation’s sake? It’s hard to write too much about the possible existence of a theoretical construct…

I guess I’m not really seeing how this concept of a “Treasury of Merit” is explicitly (or even really implicitly) connected to the scripture you quoted. By that, I mean that I believe in everything stated (incense has long been connected with prayer, and of course our prayers are brought before God in heaven) but do not see how it adds up to this "treasury of merit", which as I understand it is more about the transactional details/exchanges than about what you’ve mentioned in connection with it.

So, yes, maybe, though I am personally disinclined to believe in it (since I don’t see why it is necessary to believe in it).

Ah, I see. Well, I would not say “if the saints x, y, z” to begin with, as that is one thing I would not treat as speculation, as we have more than enough evidence from tradition to show the** prayers **of the saints working miracles. See, for instance, a a short list from Bishop Mettaous’ book “The Sublimity of Monasticism”.

Again, this is something that I believe is absolutely true, but I do not see how it leads to a belief in the

concept of a treasury of merit.

“Christ has unlimited merits by his death on the Cross”…

What do you guys mean

when you talk about “merits” or “meritorious” qualities (of prayers or what have you)?

Here is what I see. I see the nascent understanding of treasury of merit in what Dzheremi posted. The notion of Purgatory is not Orthodox. Christ’s unlimited merit, prayer, saints is all part of what Dzheremi has posited as belief. Understanding is not there and charity is needed by all.

youtube.com/watch?v=SnO9Jyz82Ps

Sometimes people communicate differently than others depending on their premises and understanding.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks, Coptic Christian. I would only point out that the quotation “Christ has unlimited merits by his death on the Cross” is from another poster’s post. I was asking what that means, because I didn’t understand what you guys mean when you talk about merits.

 

[CopticChristian]

Thanks, Coptic Christian. I would only point out that the quotation “Christ has unlimited merits by his death on the Cross” is from another poster’s post. I was asking what that means, because I didn’t understand what you guys mean when you talk about merits.

Christ died for all. I would not worry about it. You will learn in your catechetical studies this and more. With knowlege comes understanding. Knowledge comes with study. Study and patience and all of these bring Faith, Hope and Charity. The greatest of which is Charity.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Are they really owed, or simply vouchsafed? The rest makes sense, but I’m not sure if the word add is correct; I could be wrong of course. Perhaps our merits, derived from God’s infinite grace, as “co-heirs with Christ,” or co-laborers with Christ, are joined to (as well as partake of…) - the infinite treasury of merit that Christ “purchased” by his death on the Cross? I only suggest that because friends of mine have insisted, when I used the word add, that somehow I was suggesting that something was lacking vis-a-vis the infinite merits of Christ. Forgive me if I misunderstood your use of the word “add.”

I think you have. Sorry about that. I’m not really sure how our “merits” (whose source is Christ) fit in with the treasury of merit. That was the only way I could figure out how it would work in my own head . But they in no way detract from Christ’s infinite merits.

Joey.

 

[joe370]

Thanks, Coptic Christian. I would only point out that the quotation “Christ has unlimited merits by his death on the Cross” is from another poster’s post. I was asking what that means, because I didn’t understand what you guys mean when you talk about merits.

Both prayer and work are meritorious - right? After all scripture reminds us that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone, and said works can garner merit. Seems reasonable…

“You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone… For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is also dead.”

Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that it is by the grace of God that we are all saved via faith. Salvation of course is a gift and there is nothing we can do, on the order of our own merit, to earn salvation. It seems that grace by faith, which is a gift from God, and works which lead to merit, are a collaborative effort.

" For it is by grace that you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves. It is God’s gift, and is not on the ground of merit."

 

[De_Maria]

What she did was give all that she had, she was a poor widow, two mites was everything. Leaving her completely vulnerable.

For another person, to give an equivalent to the temple could be like donating a house, a car, a stock portfolio… all of it.

Jesus said she gave more than all the rest. Since she only gave two mites, where did all the rest come from? Obviously Jesus is not talking about material goods, but spiritual.

And this is where the merit comes in. God is much more pleased with her offering than with the ones who were offering from their plenty. Her reward in heaven will be greater than theirs.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Well, I do have my own spiritual path to walk, and my own conscience to answer to, and all that jazz. I doubt that the same would not be true of you or any other Catholic. So we are essentially on the same ground. Don’t Catholics also work out their salvation with fear and trembling? I think they do. It’s not anything bad. It’s essential.

You’ve changed the entire line of reasoning here. You said you were:

… hesitant about the financial metaphor because of what it is applied to in this instance – that is, the Roman Catholic church has built an entire system around this metaphor that ties into some ideas that are definitely not acceptable to me…

But you’re more than hesitant. You deny it all together and you have stated prior, you believe the Catholic Church is making up doctrine to justify other made up doctrines.

I have provided for you the basis from Scripture, the witness of the Early Fathers and you already know the Catholic doctrine as defined today. But it doesn’t matter what anyone provides, you have already made up your mind that it is “not acceptable to you.”

That is why the key phrase there is “definitely not acceptable to you”. All this stuff about I have my own walk to walk, no one denies. No one even mentioned it.

Let me ask you, if these Catholic doctrines are “DEFINITELY not acceptable to you”, what need is there for a discussion?

Dont’ think that I’m trying to end the discussion. I love to prove Catholic doctrine correct, over and over again. But what is your true motive?

Is this doctrine of a “treasury of merit” (which, yes, I maintain is not found in the ECF;

It is only necessary for me to provide one instance in order to disprove that statement:
Ignatius of Antioch

"Be pleasing to him whose soldiers you are, and whose pay you receive. May none of you be found to be a deserter. Let your baptism be your armament, your faith your helmet, your love your spear, your endurance your full suit of armor. Let your works be as your deposited withholdings, so that you may receive the back-pay which has accrued to you" (Letter to Polycarp 6:2 [A.D. 110]).

again, it was not defined in the RC until the 14th century)

Did you not understand the previous explanation of when doctrines are defined? Or are you simply ignoring what I write?

Again, doctrines are defined when they are challenged or when the people of God asks them to be plainly defined.

An example of a doctrine which was defined when it was challenged is the Divinity of Christ. An example of a doctrine which was defined when it was requested by the people of God, is the Immaculate Conception.

not used to support the idea of purgatory?

Purgatory is a fact. The doctrine of merit is a fact. None were invented to support the other.

2 + 2 = 4 The numbers weren’t invented to explain the equation. Nor was the equation invented to explain the numbers.

The only thing which can be said to have been invented is the naming conventions. Purgatory and merit. These are words used to explain the economy of grace which God had already set in place.

Do they not work together in that way? You find writing on this “treasury of merit” concept in the Catholic Encyclopedia under the entry on indulgences – are these not intimately connected to the concept of purgatory?

Yes. They are intimately connected.

What have I said that is wrong?

You have stated that one doctrine was created to explain the other.
You said:

(and I have to believe that Catholics have developed this “treasury of merit” concept to work in tandem with their idea of purgatory, which of course is not shared across all apostolic communions),

In other words, you strongly implied that the Catholic Church makes up doctrine. But She doesn’t. She explains the doctrines of Jesus Christ in more and more detail as the Holy Spirit guides and inspires Her so to do.

Yes, I deny RC teachings when necessary. I fail to see the problem with that.

As indicated before, I don’t have a problem with anyone denying Catholic doctrine. I will however prove you wrong. And so far, you are batting zero. I’ve proved your denials are based upon false assumptions. And all you have to support your claim is, “I don’t have anything to say on that subject.”

Cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The only thing that I have written that I have nothing to say about is your explanation of the familial metaphor you yourself came up with. Again, as it is your metaphor, you can use it however you’d like. But please do not present this conversation as though I have not responded to other points just because I have nothing to say about that particular point.

Let me quote you:

I do not understand faith in economic terms, so I have no such understanding to contribute.

I have not charged the church with any wrongdoing.

Accusing the Church of making up doctrine is a charge of wrongdoing.

I have written that this treasury of merit concept does not really make sense to me,

That’s not all you said. I already quoted you above on this one also.

and as it is intimately tied to doctrines that I do not share, I am disinclined to believe in it. If it bothers you to encounter non-Catholic opinions that are at variance with your church, then I am definitely not the person that you want to have conversations with.

It troubles me not a whit. I simply prove them wrong. However, it always troubles them when they are proved wrong.

I do not go out of my way to badmouth the RC, but where it is wrong or where I have reason to doubt it I will openly and honestly voice my concerns.

Not a problem. Simply be prepared to be corrected.

I said “I would say it is similarly not my concern”, meaning, that I do not live by RC presuppositions about what is included in the faith any more than you live by Orthodox ones.

Glad we agree.

I participated in this thread to gain that understanding since, as I wrote, this is not a topic that came up when I was RC. My concerns about what has been presented thus far have been explained. You may not like my explanations, but I have answered all responses to put to me to the best of my ability.

First you claimed not to know. Then you claimed to be very well informed on the matter. Even to knowing who had written what on the matter from both the Western and Eastern Traditions. Then you claimed not to know again.

You seem to be fluent in English, so it doesn’t seem to be a matter of not knowing the language.

If you want to gain understanding on the matter, I’m sure many people will be glad to provide you understanding. But if you want to insinuate that the Catholic Church makes up doctrines, I’m sure many folks, including myself, will be glad to meet that challenge as well.

This doctrine and the doctrine of purgatory work in concert, do they not? If so, then I do not see what is wrong with what I have written.

The doctrines are intimately connected. But the doctrines were not invented as you first insinuated.

As you see it. I obviously disagree.

We can discuss any of those doctrines one by one anytime you’re ready.

After you asked me, sure.

You had already brought up the subject of your conversion. But I misunderstood. I thought you had converted to Catholicism, not out of it. That is why I was helping you to understand the topic.

Just like I responded to Coptic Christian’s question in another thread. As I explained earlier, I don’t want anyone to think that I am purposely being deceptive or secretive about my position, but just the same I do not think it is worth the time that has already been spent on it, and I certainly think that analysis hinging on my supposed “anxiety” over having left the Catholic church is entirely unwarranted and not at all related to the topic at hand.

Since you have produced nothing to support your objections. And much has been produced to support the doctrines to which you’re objecting. The only thing that can be keeping you from understanding the doctrines is your presuppositions against them. It is certainly not the Word of God, as it is explicit. And it is certainly not the Patristic data, as it is explicit. Not to mention the more modern Catholic Teaching, which is more detailed and explicit than either of those.

Sincerely,

De Maria