Does the treasury of merit exist?

[CopticChristian]

cont’d

Let me quote you:

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

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

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

Not a problem. Simply be prepared to be corrected.

Glad we agree.

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.

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

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

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.

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

De Maria,

You are a seasoned member of this forum. I agree with your understanding of Purgatory. The Orthodox do not. Dzheremi is a novice in Chrstiainity moving towards Orthodoxy and has yet to be fully catechized. May I suggest some websites for you.

orthodoxforum.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=414

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pugatory_orthodox_church_catholic_church.htm

davidmacd.com/catholic/purgatory.htm

It may be something to post a thread about, Orthodoxy and Purgatory. You have doctrine understood.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi I was thinking about something you said yesterday about the saints in heaven and your belief that the church draws great strength from their intercession. You know, I used to wonder things like: why Jesus would even view the intercession of the saints in heaven, as a great strength to His church, or what could they possibly have to offer that God hasn’t already provided. Ultimately, in what capacity could the saints in heaven contribute to the salvation of the members still sojourning here on earth.

How would you answer those questions?

 

[dzheremi]

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.

Again: Does the doctrine as stated support the Latin doctrine of “purgatory” or not? I still fail to see the problem with anything I’ve written.

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.”

Well purgatory isn’t acceptable…

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.

Which is the entire reason I brought those other things up. You have a problem with the fact that I wrote that it is unacceptable to me. I replied by saying that I have myself to look out for in my spiritual life, so why shouldn’t I trust my instincts in this way? It would be one thing if I had decided so on my own in isolation, but the entire reason I am able to write that (for instance) purgatory is not acceptable is because the Orthodox sources I have read, the Orthodox people I have talked to, and the saints of the church who have shared their knowledge on the true faith with regard to how it differs from the Roman Church have stated as such. So while it is not acceptable to me, it is also true that I am not merely relying on my own opinion. My understanding is being informed by the teachers of the Orthodox faith, from antiquity to today.

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

To understand what others believe and why, I suppose. It has been quite beneficial on the whole, I think.

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?

See above, or any of my interactions with Joe370.

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]).

Yes, I read that quote last time you provided it, and again I disagree with the use of this quote to support the treasury of merit, though I certainly see why and how you would use it that way.

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.

Yes, I saw what you wrote. I am basing my assertion on what is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that it was not defined until 1343. You would no doubt maintain that there was some challenge or need for the doctrine to be defined at that time. That’s fine. I don’t think it was necessary (other churches don’t have it, and are no worse for the wear), but then I’m not Catholic…

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

I’m not sure you’re quite following me. As I have written several times by now: This doctrine is intimately connected to other doctrines. This is why you find the treasury of merit written about under the entry on indulgences in the Catholic Encyclopedia. They work together in that way. That’s what I’m saying.

You said:
Quote:
(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)

Yes. Unsurprisingly, I agree with me. This concept of the treasury of merit, I hope you’ll agree, was not just fabricated out of thin air. As it is intimately connected to the concept of purgatory (as you have agreed), I fail to see anything wrong in what I’ve written: The concept was developed, and does work in tandem with the concept of purgatory.
You have stated that one doctrine was created to explain the other.

As indicated before, I don’t have a problem with anyone denying Catholic doctrine. I will however prove you wrong.

According to you and other Catholics, sure.

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.”

Once again, the only thing I have said I have no opinion on is your financial/familial metaphor. The other instance you brought up was when you asked me for my understanding of the “economy of faith”, and I replied that I don’t understand the faith in such terms, so I have no such understanding to contribute (because it is outside my worldview).

 

[dzheremi]

Let me quote you:
Quote:
I do not understand faith in economic terms, so I have no such understanding to contribute.

Within the context from which this is excised, I really don’t have anything to contribute, because I do not even view the faith in the terms I was asked to explain. It would be like if I asked your miaphysite Christology…

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

You give yourself too much credit.

Not a problem. Simply be prepared to be corrected.

No need to repeat myself here…

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.

When I entered this thread, I hadn’t been exposed to this idea. In the process of preparing responses, I read both Catholic and Orthodox sources. I’m still doing so.

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

Once again, you are verging on some very uncharitable territory here. Yes, I speak English. The problem is as it always is in topics like this: We have very different approaches to the faith. What seems obvious or even explicit to you is neither to me.

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.

Again, you have taken my words in a slightly different way than I meant them. I blame myself for not being explicit enough to begin with. I hope I was able to clarify in my previous post what I meant by connecting the treasury of merit to purgatory, as you likewise agree they are connected.

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

The word I used was “developed”, but anyway…

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

I’d rather not, as there is little to be gained by extending this conversation to every other issue on which we might disagree.

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.

I see.

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.

Yes, you certainly have written a lot, I’ll give you that. I find neither your scriptural nor patristic citations convincing, however, as they rely on me sharing your approach to the faith and outlook, which I apparently do not. Nothing wrong with that, we’re just very different.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Joe. I’ve never wondered those things (never had any problem with saints, intercession, etc.), but here’s what Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty of the Coptic Orthodox Church says in his book “Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church”:

"The Saints in Paradise are the triumphant members of the same one church in which we are militant members. We, the triumphant and the militants, are members of the Church, which is the one Body of Jesus Christ. The triumphant become invisible members because of the death of their bodies, and then militants are the visible ones. This is man’s point of view, but in God’s sight, we are all one visible holy family.

They departed from earth, but did not leave the church; their love toward their brothers did not cease by their departure and dwelling in Paradise. The death of their bodies does not sever the bond of mutual love between them and us; on the contrary it increases in depth and strength. Their prayers for the salvation of all the world never cease. They pray for us, and we venerate them as they are our holy and dear friends." (pg. 265)

This should seem very familiar to you, as our churches share this belief that the saints are our intercessors. Fr. Malaty then gives various scriptural and patristic supports for the intercession of saints, which are probably among those that Catholics would give for the same.

Hey dzheremi I was thinking about something you said yesterday about the saints in heaven and your belief that the church draws great strength from their intercession. You know, I used to wonder things like: why Jesus would even view the intercession of the saints in heaven, as a great strength to His church, or what could they possibly have to offer that God hasn’t already provided. Ultimately, in what capacity could the saints in heaven contribute to the salvation of the members still sojourning here on earth.

How would you answer those questions?

 

[joe370]

Hi Joe. I’ve never wondered those things (never had any problem with saints, intercession, etc.), but here’s what Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty of the Coptic Orthodox Church says in his book “Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church”:

"The Saints in Paradise are the triumphant members of the same one church in which we are militant members. We, the triumphant and the militants, are members of the Church, which is the one Body of Jesus Christ. The triumphant become invisible members because of the death of their bodies, and then militants are the visible ones. This is man’s point of view, but in God’s sight, we are all one visible holy family.

They departed from earth, but did not leave the church; their love toward their brothers did not cease by their departure and dwelling in Paradise. The death of their bodies does not sever the bond of mutual love between them and us; on the contrary it increases in depth and strength. Their prayers for the salvation of all the world never cease. They pray for us, and we venerate them as they are our holy and dear friends." (pg. 265)

This should seem very familiar to you, as our churches share this belief that the saints are our intercessors. Fr. Malaty then gives various scriptural and patristic supports for the intercession of saints, which are probably among those that Catholics would give for the same.

Those words of Fr. Tadros were awesome and inspiring! You know, very little, doctrinally speaking, separates the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church. The unity between the east and west is very important to Jesus. For example, after Pope John Paul’s visit to Damascus (Miracles of Damascus - Our Lady of Soufanieh) - he ordered that all catholics in Syria should celebrate holy week, and therefor Easter on the same day as the Orthodox, no mater what year it was, after which, Christ said to Mirna, in 1989:

“You will not hear my voice again, until the feast has been unified.”

Unifying Easter is clearly symbolic of unifying the two Churches. It is worth noting that Myrna’s stigmata, as promised by Jesus, opens only when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches celebrate Easter together. The other years, nothing happens, not even a droplet of oil, neither during the Catholic Easter nor during the Orthodox one.

I think that says so much…Below is a testimonial by the Richard Salbato who is a world renown expert on true and false apparitions. It barely scratches the surface regarding all the miracles that took place there but if this eye witness doubting Thomas believes so do I.

soufanieh.com/TESTIMONIALS/19891200.usa.eng.richard.salbato.pdf

 

[dzheremi]

Hmm. I don’t really agree with the idea that there is little doctrinally separating the Orthodox and the Roman communion, but just the same the intercession of the saints is one thing that we do share, so that’s good. It’s good to recognize commonalities rather than just points of difference. As my Palestinian friend Fred said to me when I was still RC (he is Greek Orthodox, so he celebrates Christmas in January): “So your Jesus is a few days older than ours. Who cares? It is the same Christ!”

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi, actually that pdf I sent you doesn’t really touch on all of the miracles per se, and boy are there a lot of them. It’s more about him authenticating the apparitions first. He has a 3 step process that he employs before he even begins to examine the supernatural aspects. Things like obedience and integrity, etc. It’s a really good story though…Give it a read if you get a chance. It’s not that long…

 

[GaryTaylor]

the saints in heaven and your belief that the church draws great strength from their intercession. You know, I used to wonder things like: why Jesus would even view the intercession of the saints in heaven, as a great strength to His church, or what could they possibly have to offer that God hasn’t already provided. Ultimately, in what capacity could the saints in heaven contribute to the salvation of the members still sojourning here on earth.

How would you answer those questions?

Joe you ever hear of…“Dulia”? Here’s a link…

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kU3l2RO4RUAYI9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1a2kxODFzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOV8xNjM-/SIG=11ubn9dgh/EXP=1315243959/**http%3a//www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

They don’t offer anything God hasn’t already provided. However, they are His plan complete by the course of their life. They are role-models. The closer we view them, we realize they observed their own sin and fault, then they correctly picked up the Cross and lived the sermon on the mount. So we the church venerate them in honor. Through the Keys of the Kingdom, what is bound here is bound in Heaven. And so is the Treasury of Merit.

However, there is a perspective to understand also.

The circle come’s back around to God, Eucharist, you and your sin first. This is the proper perspective. However, this also doesn’t take into consideration the Saints or BVM can intercede for you. Yet, they can only Echo God. So then they cannot intercede for anything not of His will.

The incorrect concept is the self-centered idea of a promise from God through a devotion, without correct worship of God. I don’t know what to tell you with this. The chance of success must be slim to none. For you start on the wrong foot to begin with, there are no short-cuts to the Cross. That Cross is your Cross. Your heart, your witness, your fault, all comes to light here. Only what is true stands. There are no skeletons in the closet. And this isn’t what it might appear to be to you, or what one might think…it is whats true, what is reality. People perceive themself incorrectly through ego-image, facade, God doesn’t recognize this as real.

Again what I am saying…proper perspective!

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hmm. I don’t really agree with the idea that there is little doctrinally separating the Orthodox and the Roman communion

Neither do I.

Peace

 

[CopticChristian]

Neither do I.

Peace

If so, then certainly Christians would have no problem viewing these meritorious prayers of the heavenly saints, as a treasury of merit - right?

Meritorious prayers and a treasury by any other name is the Kindgom of God. How we understand and describe should not detract from our agreement.

 

[joe370]

Meritorious prayers and a treasury by any other name is the Kindgom of God. How we understand and describe should not detract from our agreement.

Absolutely. Understanding how the whole thing works is what keeps people, I think, from adhering to any one definition of the doctrine. Of course I feel that the CC has the God given authority to do so just as the CC has done regarding doctrines such as the Trinity, Theotokos, and the codification of scripture…Heck, if the CC can define the NT at a time when 7 books of our NT were doubted by many, well you do the math…

What Thomas Aquinas said makes perfect sense:

“All the saints intended that whatever they did or suffered for God’s sake should be profitable not only to themselves but to the whole Church.”

And included in that treasure, found in the Kingdom of God, are the prayers comprising the communion of the saints and of course our prayers and sacrifices as well.

It’s all for the building up of Jesus’ Mystical Body…

 

[joe370]

Neither do I.

Peace

Well, a lot of it is semantics. For example, the EOC’s must embrace some kind of purgatory, otherwise they wouldn’t pray for those who have passed on. They simply refuse to put a label on it. I think that the primary differences occur due to the fact that the CC, rightfully so, in my opinion, has taken further steps to officially define their beliefs when they are challenged.

Few more examples, and correct me if I am wrong:

The EOC’s embrace such things as error free doctrine (aka infallibility) - Mary’s sinlessness and assumption, yet they leave it completely undefined, unlike the CC. Things such as the fillioque and unleavened bread simply are not enough for the 2 to be separated in my opinion. Of course things such as the Petrine office are obviously enough to maintain the wedge that exists…

 

[De_Maria]

Again: Does the doctrine as stated support the Latin doctrine of “purgatory” or not?

Already answered. The doctrines exist to explain existing spiritual realities.

I still fail to see the problem with anything I’ve written.

I’ve already answered that in detail also. If you make allegations or accusations against the Catholic Church, be prepared to defend them. I will definitely be prepared to prove you wrong.

Well purgatory isn’t acceptable…

To you. Purgatory is a reality whether you accept it or not.

Which is the entire reason I brought those other things up. You have a problem with the fact that I wrote that it is unacceptable to me.

Nope. You seem to be stuck between two worlds. You claim you want to learn, but you respond to all my answers as though you want to debate. Which is it?

If you want to learn, then when I respond to your questions, I expect an, “oh” or “all right”.

But if you respond with “its unacceptable to me”, then I am expecting some reasonable argument or another.

I replied by saying that I have myself to look out for in my spiritual life, so why shouldn’t I trust my instincts in this way?

Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

Hebrews 13:7
Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.

1 Peter 3:15
But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

It would be one thing if I had decided so on my own in isolation, but the entire reason I am able to write that (for instance) purgatory is not acceptable is because the Orthodox sources I have read, the Orthodox people I have talked to, and the saints of the church who have shared their knowledge on the true faith with regard to how it differs from the Roman Church have stated as such.

Then provide their reasons. Because if all you picked up is some Orthodox guy saying, “its unacceptable to me”, YOU have a problem.
Ephesians 4:14
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

So while it is not acceptable to me, it is also true that I am not merely relying on my own opinion. My understanding is being informed by the teachers of the Orthodox faith, from antiquity to today.

Then expound on their teaching. I will prove them wrong. Whenever any Christian (or anyone at all) deviates from the Teachings of Catholicism, they deviate from the Truth.

To understand what others believe and why, I suppose. It has been quite beneficial on the whole, I think.

If that is true, then why do you disagree with what I believe. I didn’t ask you whether you agreed. I know that the Catholic Church is the Fullness of Truth.

See above, or any of my interactions with Joe370.

Ok. If that is your true motive, then please be careful about insinuating that the Catholic Church is making up doctrine. Because when I hear those type of allegations, then I begin to think that this person who is leaving the Church is simply bashing the Church.

Especially when the only response in defense of their allegations is, “its not acceptable to me” and “I don’t know enough to say anything”.

I hope you understand.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, I read that quote last time you provided it, and again I disagree with the use of this quote to support the treasury of merit, though I certainly see why and how you would use it that way.

I didn’t ask for your agreement or disagreement. If you’re asking for my reasons, in order to understand what I believe, why are you disagreeing? Don’t you understand that this is inconsistent with your stated purpose?

If you disagree with what I’ve said, then you should be polite enough to give reasons. And not just, “its not acceptable.” You need to produce well thought out arguments. If you want to be polite.

Yes, I saw what you wrote. I am basing my assertion on what is written in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that it was not defined until 1343. You would no doubt maintain that there was some challenge or need for the doctrine to be defined at that time. That’s fine. I don’t think it was necessary (other churches don’t have it, and are no worse for the wear),

“You don’t think it was necessary”? Who are you? God? The Pope?

The question of “necessity” is moot. God could have done the same thing in thousands of different ways. This is the way He chose. This is therefore what the Church explains.

but then I’m not Catholic…

Anymore. What you’re going to find out, is that you’ve never known enough about the Catholic Church to make an intelligent decision about it. You are leaving the fullness of Truth.

Yeah, I have a great respect for the Orthodox. They are much closer to the truth than the Protestants. But they are NOWHERE near the fullness of Truth taught by the Catholic Church.

I’m not sure you’re quite following me. As I have written several times by now: This doctrine is intimately connected to other doctrines. This is why you find the treasury of merit written about under the entry on indulgences in the Catholic Encyclopedia. They work together in that way. That’s what I’m saying.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yes. Unsurprisingly, I agree with me. This concept of the treasury of merit, I hope you’ll agree, was not just fabricated out of thin air. As it is intimately connected to the concept of purgatory (as you have agreed), I fail to see anything wrong in what I’ve written: The concept was developed, and does work in tandem with the concept of purgatory.
You have stated that one doctrine was created to explain the other.

When? Please quote me. Because what I’ve said over and over is that both doctrines explain existing spiritual realities.

I fail to see anything wrong in what I’ve written:

Perhaps you didn’t do it intentionally. But your words insinuated an accusation that the Church makes up doctrines.

Now, I’ve seen various messages that say something like, “oh, he’s a nice guy and he’s just learning.” But, correct me if I’m wrong. Aren’t you an adult and didn’t you make an informed decision to leave one church for another?

According to you and other Catholics, sure.

See, there you go again. That doesn’t sound like someone who simply wants to hear what we believe. That sounds like someone who will take every opportunity to challenge what we believe. Which is it?

Once again, the only thing I have said I have no opinion on is your financial/familial metaphor.The other instance you brought up was when you asked me for my understanding of the “economy of faith”, and I replied that I don’t understand the faith in such terms, so I have no such understanding to contribute (because it is outside my worldview).

Ok.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[joe370]

Joe you ever hear of…“Dulia”? Here’s a link…

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kU3l2RO4RUAYI9XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1a2kxODFzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA01TWTAwOV8xNjM-/SIG=11ubn9dgh/EXP=1315243959/**http%3a//www.newadvent.org/cathen/05188b.htm

They don’t offer anything God hasn’t already provided. However, they are His plan complete by the course of their life. They are role-models. The closer we view them, we realize they observed their own sin and fault, then they correctly picked up the Cross and lived the sermon on the mount. So we the church venerate them in honor. Through the Keys of the Kingdom, what is bound here is bound in Heaven. And so is the Treasury of Merit.

However, there is a perspective to understand also.

The circle come’s back around to God, Eucharist, you and your sin first. This is the proper perspective. However, this also doesn’t take into consideration the Saints or BVM can intercede for you. Yet, they can only Echo God. So then they cannot intercede for anything not of His will.

The incorrect concept is the self-centered idea of a promise from God through a devotion, without correct worship of God. I don’t know what to tell you with this. The chance of success must be slim to none. For you start on the wrong foot to begin with, there are no short-cuts to the Cross. That Cross is your Cross. Your heart, your witness, your fault, all comes to light here. Only what is true stands. There are no skeletons in the closet. And this isn’t what it might appear to be to you, or what one might think…it is whats true, what is reality. People perceive themself incorrectly through ego-image, facade, God doesn’t recognize this as real.

Again what I am saying…proper perspective!

Peace

I believe dulia is a term signifying the honor paid to the saints. I’ll check out that link. Of course there are no short-cuts to the Cross, nor would I ever suggest that! Sorry but I do not know what you mean when you say:

For you start on the wrong foot to begin with, there are no short-cuts to the Cross.

I agree with what you said here:

The Cross is your Cross. Your heart, your witness, your fault, all comes to light here. Only what is true stands. There are no skeletons in the closet. And this isn’t what it might appear to be to you, or what one might think…it is whats true, what is reality. People perceive themself incorrectly through ego-image, facade, God doesn’t recognize this as real.

We know that the injustice of sin has a two-fold consequence which entails two types of punishment: eternal and temporal. No one other than Christ can make satisfaction for anyone’s justification.

Merits of Christ:

If a person falls from grace, by way of mortal sin, his/her restoration to a state of sanctifying grace is accomplished only by the merits of Christ. No saint can make satisfaction for anyone’s justification; I just assumed this was a foregone conclusion…

Merts of the saints:

If a person has not fallen from a state of grace, by way of mortal sin, he/she can benefit from the merits of the saints in heaven as well via Jesus’ church by way of an indulgence, because of what those saints accomplished and suffered here on earth, for the sake of Jesus Christ and His heavenly Kingdom. There sacrifices, charitable works and prayers, accrued here on earth, as well as their prayers from their heavenly home, **(which constitute the treasury of merits) **- become profitable not only to us but to those experiencing purgatory…

Of course what a saint in heaven cannot do is make satisfaction for anyone’s justification; only Christ can do that!!!

I like to think of the treasury of merit of saints, as the sum of the whole, of all that the saints did while exiled from their eternal home for faith without works is dead. …

 

[De_Maria]

Within the context from which this is excised, I really don’t have anything to contribute, because I do not even view the faith in the terms I was asked to explain. It would be like if I asked your miaphysite Christology…

We aren’t asking the questions, you are. And when we answered, you challenged our response. Then when we asked you to defend your objection, you ran for cover.

You give yourself too much credit.

No need to repeat myself here…

When I entered this thread, I hadn’t been exposed to this idea. In the process of preparing responses, I read both Catholic and Orthodox sources. I’m still doing so.

Once again, you are verging on some very uncharitable territory here. Yes, I speak English. The problem is as it always is in topics like this: We have very different approaches to the faith. What seems obvious or even explicit to you is neither to me.

??? Didn’t you say that you were Catholic and were leaving the faith? How then can our approaches be so foreign to you?

Again, you have taken my words in a slightly different way than I meant them. I blame myself for not being explicit enough to begin with. I hope I was able to clarify in my previous post what I meant by connecting the treasury of merit to purgatory, as you likewise agree they are connected.

The word I used was “developed”, but anyway…

]I’d rather not, as there is little to be gained by extending this conversation to every other issue on which we might disagree.

I see.

Ok.

Yes, you certainly have written a lot, I’ll give you that. I find neither your scriptural nor patristic citations convincing, however, as they rely on me sharing your approach to the faith and outlook, which I apparently do not. Nothing wrong with that, we’re just very different.

I didn’t ask for your agreement or disagreement. Nor did I write to convince you of anything. I simply answered a question.

When you challenged my answer, I responded accordingly as well.

Anyway, nice talking to you. Perhaps next time, if there is a next time, we’ll understand each other better.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;8328102]Again: Does the doctrine as stated support the Latin doctrine of “purgatory” or not? I still fail to see the problem with anything I’ve written.

Yes. If a person has not fallen from a state of grace, by way of mortal sin, he/she can benefit from the merits of the saints in heaven as well, via Jesus’ church by way of an indulgence, because of what those saints accomplished and suffered here on earth, for the sake of Jesus Christ and His heavenly Kingdom. There sacrifices, charitable works and prayers, accrued here on earth, as well as their prayers from their heavenly home, (**which constitute the treasury of merits) **- become profitable not only to us but to those experiencing purgatory… That is the teaching of the CC as I understand it…

Well purgatory isn’t acceptable…

I certainly respect that, for I felt the same way as a former protestant, but unlike EO Christians most protestants do not pray for those who have passed on, for they believe there is no need to pray for those souls perfectly united to God, in heaven, for they have become perfectly conformed to God’s Will, and no need to pray for those poor lost souls in hell for there is no escape from hell. Of course I hope they are wrong about that…

The question remains: Where are those souls that do and can benefit from our prayers? The CC tells us and the EOC is silent. I am inclined to believe what the CC teaches upon reading the works of the ECF’s and what the canonized saints of the CC had to say, but hey, that’s just me.

Which is the entire reason I brought those other things up. You have a problem with the fact that I wrote that it is unacceptable to me. I replied by saying that I have myself to look out for in my spiritual life, so why shouldn’t I trust my instincts in this way?

Can’t argue with that logic for we are all drawn to a church by doing the exact same thing.

It would be one thing if I had decided so on my own in isolation, but the entire reason I am able to write that (for instance) purgatory is not acceptable is because the Orthodox sources I have read, the Orthodox people I have talked to, and the saints of the church who have shared their knowledge on the true faith with regard to how it differs from the Roman Church have stated as such.

Again, totally understandable. Perhaps, when you get the chance, you could send me some of those orthodox sources you have read and some citations from those saints of the church who have shared their knowledge on the true faith with regard to how it differs from the Roman Church ? If you get the chance, perhaps you could PM them? Thanks Dz…

 

[dzheremi]

Then provide their reasons. Because if all you picked up is some Orthodox guy saying, “its unacceptable to me”, YOU have a problem.

“…] we definitely reject this belief because if the purifying fire will cleanse us from sin, then Christ’s death was in vain. The only way we are saved and purified is by the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Another proof against the concept of purgatory is that on the Cross, the Lord said to the thief, ‘Today you will be with me in Paradise’ (Luke 23:43), not Purgatory.”

– Bishop Moussa (“Youth Concerns”)

HH Pope Shenouda III makes this same point in his “The Seven Words of Our Lord on the Cross” (p. 35):

"The word ‘today’ undoubtedly proves that there is no purgatory as some Christians believe."

There is much more against the RC concept of purgatory on the Southern Diocese’s website at the following page: The Purgatory

There are relatively few places that I have found that address purgatory and related concepts in the level of depth you’d probably like. Since this isn’t an Orthodox idea, it is not often talked about (and I would guess even less so among the Copts than among the EO, given the longer period of estrangement with Rome).

For an EO viewpoint on purgatory and related issues, I highly recommend the following podcast by a priest of the Antiochian Orthodox Church: Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy with Fr. Andrew S. Damick

I find nothing objectionable in it, and would only caution that the OO as far as I know do not subscribe to the concept of “toll houses” as some EO do (where it is in no way a dogmatic belief anyway).

If that is true, then why do you disagree with what I believe.

Because you have to listen to what others have to say to get along in the world?

 

[dzheremi]

“You don’t think it was necessary”? Who are you? God? The Pope?

Who do I need to be?

Again, I have not made it unnecessary myself by simply declaring so, but I find it unnecessary by simply reading and hearing and absorbing the theology of the Orthodox church, which has existed for 2000 years without this dogma. If the dogma were there in the Orthodox church, of course I would have to conclude that it WOULD BE in fact necessary, using whatever Patristic witness and other defense that would be given. But it isn’t. And the churches get along perfectly well without it, just as without an infallible bishop, without universal jurisdiction for their Pope (in the case of the Copts), etc.

The question of “necessity” is moot. God could have done the same thing in thousands of different ways. This is the way He chose. This is therefore what the Church explains.

I would say rather than a question, I’ve come to see it as a criterion. Certainly we are not a “bare minimum” church like those of the Protestants who say “just do X and you will be saved”, but just the same we don’t approach the faith and theology as the Western churches do. So there are many fewer dogmatic pronouncements in the Eastern or Oriental churches as a result. If there is not a necessity to come down on this or that issue with a particular correcting spirit (which need not result in dogmatic definition anyway), then it won’t happen. This is one of the things that I love about Orthodox Christianity: It neither says too little (as that could encourage the faithful to go off on all kinds of spiritually dangerous flights of fancy, in the absence of guidance), nor too much (as that could crush the spirit and the mystery which is essential to the practice and understanding of the faith). In goldilocks’ parlance, it’s just right.

Anymore. What you’re going to find out, is that you’ve never known enough about the Catholic Church to make an intelligent decision about it. You are leaving the fullness of Truth.

No. What I’ve found out is that the Orthodox faith, as foreign as can seem in some ways (mostly external, since I’m about as non-Egyptian as a person can be), is the light to my feet and comfort to my soul that I was struggling to find while in union with Rome. As to who is leaving/has left what, obviously from an Orthodox perspective the situation is opposite the way you’ve put it, but that’s okay. God guides all who will listen and go forth in humility and repentance, and I am learning with His help to do both. I hope that others can learn the same in their churches, and be guided to the fullness of the true faith that is Orthodoxy alone. But if they are not, I certainly won’t begrudge them or judge them as individuals. Everyone’s spiritual journey is their own, and only God can know where your heart is.

When? Please quote me. Because what I’ve said over and over is that both doctrines explain existing spiritual realities.

Forgive me, this is overstated on my part. What I take from the fact that you do agree that they are intimately connected (#79), and your explanation that doctrines are defined “when the people of God asks them to be plainly defined” (#78) is that we essentially agree, in so far as the doctrine of merit explains purgatory in greater detail by providing a means to clarify some of the mechanisms by which a person’s tenure in purgatory may be effected: merit feeds into the understanding of indulgences, indulgences into purgatory, etc. It’s all a rich tapestry or something. That’s what I meant regarding the relation of purgatory to merits – not that either were invented out of thin air or anything, but that they allow the people who want such details to know the details of what they are to believe. I’m sorry that I’ve phrased things so poorly as to make you think that I’m saying that they were invented out of nothing. I thought I had said the exact opposite at one point in this thread, but I can’t find the reply it’s in, so maybe I didn’t.

Now, I’ve seen various messages that say something like, “oh, he’s a nice guy and he’s just learning.” But, correct me if I’m wrong. Aren’t you an adult and didn’t you make an informed decision to leave one church for another?

Of course, yes. I take full responsibility for every step of my spiritual journey. We all have to.

See, there you go again. That doesn’t sound like someone who simply wants to hear what we believe. That sounds like someone who will take every opportunity to challenge what we believe. Which is it?

It’s not one or the other, as both are an opportunity to further discussion. I have learned a great deal from my discussion in this thread, and also had the opportunity to try to explain some of the problems that I have with what I have been told. I’m pretty sure that’s the sign of a good conversation, so long as we do not devolve into some kind shouting match or what have you.