Does the treasury of merit exist?

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi…

“We definitely reject this belief because if the purifying fire will cleanse us from sin, then Christ’s death was in vain.”

Even as an on the fence protestant, upon reading the CCC - I understood that the purifying fire had nothing to do with justifying a person. That can only come from Christ’s atoning work on the Cross.

The cleansing fire, lit by God, as per the CC, is designed to burn away the residual/pardonable impurities of a soul - a soul who has already been saved by Christ. If the CC taught what I think you are suggesting, boy would I have to reconsider things. That’s why an indulgence is defined as the remission of temporal punishment of sins already forgiven.

 

[dzheremi]

I think that’s the point though, Joe: HG Bishop Moussa is stating that Christ’s death has cleansed us from sin. There is no need for purgatory in this understanding.

From the Southern diocese website (previously linked in my reply to De Maria):

The Coptic Orthodox View on the Purgatory

1. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Atonement and Redemption

Roman Catholics believe that purgatory is a place where “we atone for our sins” while atonement is the work of our Lord Jesus Christ alone. The Basis of the doctrine of Atonement and Redemption is that man is incapable of paying for the Divine Justice no matter how much he does, he suffers, or is punished.

The Holy Bible says,

* "Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed" (Rom 3:24-25)

* "If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 Jn 2:1-2)

* "In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins." (1 Jn 4:10)

1. Purgatory is against the doctrine of Salvation

Salvation is only by blood and only the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ is the only purge. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” (1 Jn 1:7). ‘All sin’ refers to every kind of sin mentioned by the Catholics the mortal, the venial or any other. The only condition is repentance “confess our sins” “walk in the light” (1 Jn 1:7,9). St Paul says, “But with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12). Purgatory is an insult to the work of the Cross for we say that on the Cross appeared the Divine Love “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (Jn 3:16) How would that love agree with the pain of purgatory for forgiven sins and unintentional sins?

To believe in the purgatory is to believe of a partial salvation as if Christ came to save us from the shame of sin not from its penalty.

1. Purgatory is against the sacrament of repentance

Repentance blots sin, God forgives it and does not remember it.

1. Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. (Acts 3:19)

1. I have blotted out, like a thick cloud, your transgressions, and like a cloud, your sins. (Isa 44:22)

1. And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, nailed to the cross. (Col 2:13,14).

1. I, even I, am He Who blots out transgressions for My own sake and I will not remember your sins. (Isa 43:25).

The Coptic Orthodox view on the Prayer for the Departed

We pray for those who departed from this world not because we believe in the purgatory but following St. Paul who prayed for Onesiphorus saying, “The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy from the Lord in that Day” (2 Tim 1:18). In that Day meant in the Day of Judgment, as he said “Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.” (2 Tim 4:8) St. Paul was not asking for mercy in the purgatory but on the Day of Judgment when he stands before the Just Judge. We pray for the departure that God may grant them rest in the place of waiting for the Day of Judgment has not come yet. Those departed are awaiting without worry or unrest. The litany for the departed does not mention the purgatory at all. We pray saying, “Sustain them in a green pasture, by the water of rest in the paradise of joy, the place out of which grief, sorrow and groaning have fled away” This is definitely not the description of the purgatory for the purgatory contrarily is a place of grief, sorrow and groaning.

Our Church absolves the soul of the departed during the prayer. She absolves her from all the sins she committed while in the flesh. We say to God, 'this soul has departed from us absolved by the church. We do not retain any sin for her … we intercede for her for You O Lord know the weakness of man.

 

[joe370]

I think that’s the point though, Joe: HG Bishop Moussa is stating that Christ’s death has cleansed us from sin. There is no need for purgatory in this understanding.

Heck, I hope you are right brother. The idea of the catholic purgatory doesn’t sound too fun. However, like you, I have to follow my gut, intellect and instincts and most importantly, like you, the church I believe to be the house of the living God forever guided into all truth, until Jesus’ return.

In the bible, sin, to me anyway, seems to have 2 basic consequences: guilt and punishment. Guilt, thanks to Jesus Christ, is washed away when a person seeks forgiveness, blotting out the sin, but scripture doesn’t say anything about the punishment of the sin forgiven. Correct me if I am wrong. Logically, to me anyway, the need for punishment, on some level could still remain if the damage, to the person sinned against is not repaired. It would seem to me that divine justice would demand it as human justice demands it, but I would have no problem being wrong about this one. LOL… The OT sort of provides a precedent. Of course Jesus forgives us for all sin and He payed the price for all sin, past present and future. But He, who is the same as His Father - Who also forgave sins (OT folks) – still understood that although His children were forgiven, there was still a punishment to be incurred by the person him/herself, and this plays out in 2 Samuel 12:13-14. God forgave King David for his murder and concupiscence, yet, although entirely forgiven by God, David was still punished. As a former protestant, I thought to myself: Why was David still punished even though he incurred total forgiveness of his sins from God?

If Christ is one and the same with the Father, and the forgiveness of God and the forgiveness of Christ are one and the same, and if Christ was sent to do the Father’s will, and God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, then the same punishment that applied to King David regarding his sin forgiven by God, should apply to all - maybe?

Again, I really do hope you are right, and once a person is forgiven by God,* (wiping his/her sin slate clean, for whatever he/she did to another person, and ultimately God)* - regardless of whether or not he/she repaired the damage their offense caused - they will simply go right to heaven, absorbing no punishment for the forgiven sin. However, I can’t help but have my doubts…

One more thing occurred to me as a former protestant: why does St. Paul remind us that we need to be cleansed by fire if Christ did all the cleansing in His Passion on the cross at Calvary?

Your thoughts friend?

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi, your thoughts on the following hypothetical:

If someone robs a bank and walks away with 100,000 dollars, and never gets caught, and eventually feels deep remorse and seeks forgiveness from God by going to confession, and eventually receives absolution, even though he did not return the 100000 dollars, and then dies shortly thereafter, should he go directly to heaven or should divine justice demand punishment for the sin forgiven by God?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Joe, have you ever thought about “why” Catholic’s constantly work with the Poor?

In regards to ecumenism, we as Catholic’s are waiting to see “if” Pope Benedict can actually have a private conversation in Russia.

To put the Theology in better perspective. The churchs and the elect can perform Mass in a dungeon if need be. This grand illusion of what is “suppose” to be only validates each others postion.

The simple answer to the question must be, did the Catholic Church lose the Truth? Well, the answer to that my brother is who is holding the Keys to the Kingdom?

Peace

 

[dzheremi]

Dzheremi, your thoughts on the following hypothetical:

My first thought would be how repentant could the criminal be if he did not make some attempt to return the money? “Faith without works is dead” and all that. My second thought would be that I believe that the example of the thief on the cross contradicts this idea that sin once forgiven by God should somehow remain. “Today you will be with Me in paradise” means just that, does it not? For me it is enough that the Oriental Orthodox churches do not believe in this concept. The EO would similarly reject the Latin Catholic interpretation, if not perhaps the concept itself (if I understand the discussion in places like Orthodoxwiki. Orthodoxinfo gives a more historical understanding of the reasons the EO reject the Latin concept. It seems like this might be one area where the OO and EO have substantially different viewpoints, as I have yet to run into anything on the OO side that endorses the concept of purgatory (I’m not saying it’s not out there, but when HH Pope Shenouda III writes a tract called “Why do we reject Purgatory?”, it’s kind of hard for me to come to some other conclusion.)

More answers could be found in documents like this one, with the understanding that not much is said about this since it doesn’t often come up among Copts (they tend to be more attracted to Protestantism than Catholicism in the diaspora).

If someone robs a bank and walks away with 100,000 dollars, and never gets caught, and eventually feels deep remorse and seeks forgiveness from God by going to confession, and eventually receives absolution, even though he did not return the 100000 dollars, and then dies shortly thereafter, should he go directly to heaven or should divine justice demand punishment for the sin forgiven by God?

 

[Bluegoat]

There is a big problem with arguing the Treasury of Merit is a metaphor - which in fact, it is.

It is a metaphor that was pretty late in its development; which has very limited Scriptural support (in that the Scriptural passages used to support it don’t actually indicate anything like a “Bank of Merit” exists; which became popular at that time partly due to social developments; and is based on other metaphors regarding an economic understanding of the atonement.

We are talking not about the ancient practice and teaching of the Church, but a metaphor based on a metaphor about how just that works. Well, fine, theologians like to think of many things and imagine many different ways to describe them. Sometimes they can be helpful to get people to understand the ideas they are trying to point to.

But the CC has actually developed practices which are supposed to be effective based on what is a huge structure developed in the imagination of theologians. The whole idea of Grace and becoming closer to God as a “merit” is just an invention to describe something indescribable. We don’t really know that there is any way to “bank” something like this, even that it really involves units. And of course it impact the theologians suppositions about purgatory and other things as well.

The difficulty is that building new doctrines based on this kind of building an intellectual structure will always get bigger and bigger and never end. One thing leads to another, and you make a new chain or reasoning based on the new doctrines that lead to another metaphor that is dogmatized, and then that will lead to other ideas.

It becomes a morass where it is impossible to separate the seed of the true Faith from the imaginations of theologians. This is the kind of problem St Thomas realized so profoundly shortly before his death. Without an appreciation for apophatic theology, we will make mistakes about how to treat cataphatic theology.

A metaphor developed well on in the life of the Church, and only by one small section of it, is not a good candidate for setting up as doctrine.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi…

My first thought would be how repentant could the criminal be if he did not make some attempt to return the money? “Faith without works is dead” and all that.

You raise a really good point. I have often wondered what an Eastern Orthodox or Catholic priest is suppose to do in a situation like that. Does he grant absolution even if the person fails to do his penance/punishment which logically would be to return the money? If not, then upon the persons demise, after receiving absolution from Jesus via His church for that particular sin does God demand some sort of penance/punishment that was overlooked on earth?

My second thought would be that I believe that the example of the thief on the cross contradicts this idea that sin once forgiven by God should somehow remain. “Today you will be with Me in paradise” means just that, does it not?

That’s another good point. But in that same vein that man on the cross next to Jesus was not baptized by water into Christ nor had he received the holy Eucharist and yet, like you said, Jesus still said, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.” Does that mean that those 2 sacraments are not necessarily required for eternal life and that indulgences lack any kind of effective influence for the remission of forgiven sins? I am getting a headache just thinking about it. LOL…

For me it is enough that the Oriental Orthodox churches do not believe in this concept.

That’s cool.

It seems like this might be one area where the OO and EO have substantially different viewpoints, as I have yet to run into anything on the OO side that endorses the concept of purgatory (I’m not saying it’s not out there, but when HH Pope Shenouda III writes a tract called “Why do we reject Purgatory?”, it’s kind of hard for me to come to some other conclusion.)

Of course. We must follow our respective leadership.

I suppose everyone will one day find out the truth regarding the matter.

 

[joe370]

Hey Gary…

GaryTaylor;8332279]Joe, have you ever thought about “why” Catholic’s constantly work with the Poor?

Yup…

In regards to ecumenism, we as Catholic’s are waiting to see “if” Pope Benedict can actually have a private conversation in Russia.

I don’t think that I brought up the topic of ecumenism? Perhaps you have someone else in mind…

The simple answer to the question must be, did the Catholic Church lose the Truth? Well, the answer to that my brother is who is holding the Keys to the Kingdom?

Peace

Peter.

 

[joe370]

Bluegoat;8332977]There is a big problem with arguing the Treasury of Merit is a metaphor - which in fact, it is.

It is a metaphor that was pretty late in its development; which has very limited Scriptural support (in that the Scriptural passages

Just as was the case with the definition of the Trinity, which was formally defined in the 4th century. If you could go back in time and ask a 1st century Christian about the Trinitarian dogma he/she would not have a clue. Heck, I can’t even find, in scripture, where scripture explicitly or implicitly claims that the Son and the Holy Spirit are one or that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. Just the Father and the Son, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the dogma…

We are talking not about the ancient practice and teaching of the Church, but a metaphor based on a metaphor about how just that works. Well, fine, theologians like to think of many things and imagine many different ways to describe them. Sometimes they can be helpful to get people to understand the ideas they are trying to point to.

But the CC has actually developed practices which are supposed to be effective based on what is a huge structure developed in the imagination of theologians. The whole idea of Grace and becoming closer to God as a “merit” is just an invention to describe something indescribable.

Kind of like sola scriptura, something believed by no one until the 16th century.

Of course I respect you decision to believe that friend…

We don’t really know that there is any way to “bank” something like this, even that it really involves units. And of course it impact the theologians suppositions about purgatory and other things as well.

I think it’s the Livre. LOL…

The difficulty is that building new doctrines based on this kind of building an intellectual structure will always get bigger and bigger and never end. One thing leads to another, and you make a new chain or reasoning based on the new doctrines that lead to another metaphor that is dogmatized, and then that will lead to other ideas.

Good point and the was very reason why I had to leave protestantism. Again, if you believe that the CC invents new doctrines as they go along, that is your right…

It becomes a morass where it is impossible to separate the seed of the true Faith from the imaginations of theologians. This is the kind of problem St Thomas realized so profoundly shortly before his death. Without an appreciation for apophatic theology, we will make mistakes about how to treat cataphatic theology.

If you feel this way about catholicism then surely you must feel the same about protestantism? St. Thomas also was a devout catholic who deferred to the CC even when he didn’t always, 100% agree.

A metaphor developed well on in the life of the Church, and only by one small section of it, is not a good candidate for setting up as doctrine.

You could be right. I’m not gonna argue that supposition, just as the 16th century doctrine sola scriptura which developed well on in the life protestantism is not a good candidate…Martin Luther would be appalled if he could see the state of SS today, and I am speaking as a former Lutheran…

Thanks for your evaluations Blue…

 

[Bluegoat]

Joe, you do like to change the focus, don’t you? Deriding any particular Protestant doctrine in no way hides errors in Catholic doctrine, whether or not it distracts people from the subject at hand. FWIW, you assume far too much about what other people believe - I don’t support either sola scriptura nor development of doctrine as the Catholic Church understands it.

Just as was the case with the definition of the Trinity, which was formally defined in the 4th century. If you could go back in time and ask a 1st century Christian about the Trinitarian dogma he/she would not have a clue. Heck, I can’t even find, in scripture, where scripture explicitly or implicitly claims that the Son and the Holy Spirit are one or that the Father and the Holy Spirit are one. Just the Father and the Son, but that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in the dogma…

Not really, no. The Trinity is an idea found in the earliest Christian belief, although the word we use for it came slightly later. The Treasury of Merits is not really in the same catagory as Trinitarian doctrine for many reasons: it is later, the practices associated with it come from after the doctrine was defined, the development didn’t happen to fight heresy, and it has not been accepted without dispute by the whole of the Church.

Kind of like sola scriptura, something believed by no one until the 16th century. Of course I respect you decision to believe that friend…

Sola scriptura is a practice rather than a belief. And it was a response to serious error in the Catholic Church. And again - don’t assume things you don’t have any idea about.

I think it’s the Livre. LOL…

If you mean the Bible, I think you will find that is not really all that clear. Remember, a metaphor for a thing is not really the thing itself, and some metaphors are meant to be understood differently than others.

Good point and the was very reason why I had to leave protestantism. Again, if you believe that the CC invents new doctrines as they go along, that is your right…

Well, yes, it is. And I think if you look into it carefully you will find much of the goal of the early Protestants was to strip away the development of this type. They were at times (sometimes often) unsuccessful, but that was the goal - not creating new intellectual edifices for no reason. You can still see that stream of thinking among modern Protestants as well.

If you feel this way about catholicism then surely you must feel the same about protestantism? St. Thomas also was a devout catholic who deferred to the CC even when he didn’t always, 100% agree.

Perhaps you don’t really understand Protestantism, though that isn’t usually I word I apply to myself. Maybe it is rather more broad than you imagine. And then we wouldn’t get distracted from the topic of the discussion, the Tresury of Merit.

St Thomas really didn’t live in a time where that was a question for him one way or the other to leave that Catholic Church. And yes, I think his insight in this instance was worth thinking about.

You could be right. I’m not gonna argue that supposition, just as the 16th century doctrine sola scriptura which developed well on in the life protestantism is not a good candidate…Martin Luther would be appalled if he could see the state of SS today, and I am speaking as a former Lutheran…

Thanks for your evaluations Blue…

Really - bringing in other issues doesn’t help your argument.

 

[joe370]

Hey Bluegoat…

Joe, you do like to change the focus, don’t you? Deriding any particular Protestant doctrine in no way hides errors in Catholic doctrine, whether or not it distracts people from the subject at hand. FWIW, you assume far too much about what other people believe - I don’t support either sola scriptura nor development of doctrine as the Catholic Church understands it.

Blue, I am just trying to keep the posts light and breezy friend. You always seem so serious when we dialogue…Nothing wrong with joking around while we dialogue…

Also, I was not insinuating that you support sola scriptura… I was merely juxtaposing the two.

Not really, no. The Trinity is an idea found in the earliest Christian belief, although the word we use for it came slightly later. The Treasury of Merits is not really in the same catagory as Trinitarian doctrine for many reasons: it is later, the practices associated with it come from after the doctrine was defined, the development didn’t happen to fight heresy, and it has not been accepted without dispute by the whole of the Church.

To a degree, I most certainly agree that certain members don’t always believe what the magisterial ministers of the CC teach, eg indulgences and the true presence, but that doesn’t make them right.

Regarding the topic at hand, the treasury of merit is quite scriptural if one believes that those Christians in heaven, (like those on earth) - can, as commanded by scripture, pray for others, and if one views that treasure as being comprised of the prayers of the saints in heaven aka, the triumphant church in heaven and, the early church has alway believed that that treasury comprised of the prayers of the saints in heaven can strongly impact the faith and infusion of grace, in those members still sojourning here on earth, even if they didn’t refer to the belief as the “treasury of merits.”

Sola scriptura is a practice rather than a belief. And it was a response to serious error in the Catholic Church. And again - don’t assume things you don’t have any idea about

I have heard SS advocates call it both a doctrine and a practice and I have devoted much time, even here at CAF trying to pin down one single definition of SS and there simply isn’t one which is why I assume absolutely nothing regarding the doctrine/practice.

And again, please lighten up a little. No reason we can’t enjoy our dialogues. After all you and I are both Christians in pursuit of the same thing.

It’s your contention that SS was a response to the indulgence abuses?

By the way, the livre is a monetary unit and I was merely joking around regarding a comment you made…

Perhaps you don’t really understand Protestantism, though that isn’t usually I word I apply to myself. Maybe it is rather more broad than you imagine. And then we wouldn’t get distracted from the topic of the discussion, the Tresury of Merit.

Perhaps I simply wasn’t sharp enough to grasp the principles of protestantism, but that’s neither here nor there; the fact remained, it simply made no sense to me.

Again, I wasn’t distracted from the topic of the discussion; I was merely making a valid comparison via sidebar, but if it bothers you then I will refrain from making those comparisons in the future, and, I was not insinuating that you support sola scriptura…

Got to run…Talk to you later friend…

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi, I think I have a grasp of the EO teaching regarding sins forgiven, but correct me if I am mistaken? Once the sins of a person are forgiven via the atoning work of Christ on the Cross, provided the Christian has been baptized into Jesus’ Mystical Body, and properly disposed regarding the sacrament of confession, the person need not undergo any penance** for the sins forgiven** for both the sins forgiven** as well as the penance or penalty of the sins forgiven,** have been expunged by being nailed to the cross?

In other words, when the sin is removed, any associated debt or penalty is removed as well?

 

[joe370]

Dzheremi, I meant to add this to the preceding post but forgot:

Is it the Eastern Orthodox belief (or at least the Coptic) - that there are no consequences for the sins forgiven by God?

 

[dzheremi]

You raise a really good point. I have often wondered what an Eastern Orthodox or Catholic priest is suppose to do in a situation like that. Does he grant absolution even if the person fails to do his penance/punishment which logically would be to return the money?

I do not know.

If not, then upon the persons demise, after receiving absolution from Jesus via His church for that particular sin does God demand some sort of penance/punishment that was overlooked on earth?

I honestly don’t think that this is a very good example. If a person is unrepentant does this really support your idea of purgatory? It would seem that this would be an example of a person NOT being repentant, and then he dies. I don’t think either of our churches wonder what could happen in that event. We don’t need to. All are relegated to the judgment of God, and those who have refused guidance from Him in this life will be treated accordingly. God is merciful and just.

That’s another good point. But in that same vein that man on the cross next to Jesus was not baptized by water into Christ nor had he received the holy Eucharist and yet, like you said, Jesus still said, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.” Does that mean that those 2 sacraments are not necessarily required for eternal life and that indulgences lack any kind of effective influence for the remission of forgiven sins? I am getting a headache just thinking about it. LOL…

That’s not really in the same vein at all, though. No Christian of any church that I am aware of would look for some sort of loophole whereby they could avoid the sacraments based on this extraordinary incident. That’s the thing, though: The necessity of baptism is EXPLICITLY given by our Lord Himself (most famously in John 3:5), and He Himself was baptized. Baptism is uncontroversial and has been held since the very beginning of the church. The “treasury of merit” is, by contrast, controversial to say the least (to the extent that those outside of the RCC see fit to address it at all), not explicit in scripture (supporting verses, as pointed out by Bluegoat, are not explicit), and not found explicitly in the Fathers or anywhere else in the early church. If it is to be considered so crucial by analogy to baptism, then why was it considered so crucial during those early times? Because it was not present. It is a later development, borne of certain cultural and philosophical ideas used as soteriological putty in the Roman church only.

 

[dzheremi]

You should ask EO Christians, who are many here on CAF, about any questions you have regarding the particulars of EO beliefs.

I do know that the Orthodox in general (EO and OO) do not not have a debt/satisfaction understanding of atonement, though, so some of what you’ve written would likely seem inappropriate or at least foreign to them.

Dzheremi, I think I have a grasp of the EO teaching regarding sins forgiven, but correct me if I am mistaken? Once the sins of a person are forgiven via the atoning work of Christ on the Cross, provided the Christian has been baptized into Jesus’ Mystical Body, and properly disposed regarding the sacrament of confession, the person need not undergo any penance** for the sins forgiven** for both the sins forgiven** as well as the penance or penalty of the sins forgiven,** have been expunged by being nailed to the cross?

In other words, when the sin is removed, any associated debt or penalty is removed as well?

 

[joe370]

I do not know.

I honestly don’t think that this is a very good example. If a person is unrepentant does this really support your idea of purgatory? It would seem that this would be an example of a person NOT being repentant, and then he dies. I don’t think either of our churches wonder what could happen in that event. We don’t need to. All are relegated to the judgment of God, and those who have refused guidance from Him in this life will be treated accordingly. God is merciful and just.

That’s not really in the same vein at all, though. No Christian of any church that I am aware of would look for some sort of loophole whereby they could avoid the sacraments based on this extraordinary incident. That’s the thing, though: The necessity of baptism is EXPLICITLY given by our Lord Himself (most famously in John 3:5), and He Himself was baptized. Baptism is uncontroversial and has been held since the very beginning of the church. The “treasury of merit” is, by contrast, controversial to say the least (to the extent that those outside of the RCC see fit to address it at all), not explicit in scripture (supporting verses, as pointed out by Bluegoat, are not explicit), and not found explicitly in the Fathers or anywhere else in the early church. If it is to be considered so crucial by analogy to baptism, then why was it considered so crucial during those early times? Because it was not present. It is a later development, borne of certain cultural and philosophical ideas used as soteriological putty in the Roman church only.

All really good points and I agree. One thing though, I wasn’t suggesting that the "TOM’s were somehow as crucial as baptism. Heck, there is no comparing the 2. I was just attempting to illustrate that the thief on the cross made it to heaven without the need of baptism…

I think it’s safe to say that we both, in the end, can agree on one thing: the meritorious prayers of the saints in heaven are beneficial to those of us here on earth.

 

[Bluegoat]

Hey Bluegoat…

Blue, I am just trying to keep the posts light and breezy friend. You always seem so serious when we dialogue…Nothing wrong with joking around while we dialogue…

Light and breezy is fine, but bringing up other theological issues isn’t really helpful, it just looks like you are trying to discredit people.

To a degree, I most certainly agree that certain members don’t always believe what the magisterial ministers of the CC teach, eg indulgences and the true presence, but that doesn’t make them right.

I didn’t mean Catholics, I meant members of the other apostolic churches.

Regarding the topic at hand, the treasury of merit is quite scriptural if one believes that those Christians in heaven, (like those on earth) - can, as commanded by scripture, pray for others, and if one views that treasure as being comprised of the prayers of the saints in heaven aka, the triumphant church in heaven and, the early church has alway believed that that treasury comprised of the prayers of the saints in heaven can strongly impact the faith and infusion of grace, in those members still sojourning here on earth, even if they didn’t refer to the belief as the “treasury of merits.”

No, you are adding a ton of stuff here. I think all here agree that the prayers of the saints, and other people as well, can be really effectual in some way. We might compare them to treasures as they are valuable. But are those prayers really anything much like a treasure or a monetary unit? Can they be saved up and “banked”, for example? Is it even a plural, things, rather than a singular thing like good will? Is it possible to have “extras” to put in the bank at all, or are required to spend everything there is. Maybe this good-will is more like fire, in that it spreads and catches and grows, and is not in pieces or parts in the way something like money is. Or like light that we shine on others.

Using a metaphor like light will cause us to come to very different conclusions about the prayers of the saints. So no, simply believing that prayers for others can be efficacious does not lead inevitably to acceptance of the TofM.

It’s your contention that SS was a response to the indulgence abuses?

In part. At the Reformation, the various reformers and groups who broke off of the CC came to the conclusion that the CC was teaching serious error. These errors had often been justified on the grounds of Tradition and the infallibility of the Church.

The reformers, though they considered themselves to still be the Church, did not claim infallibility in the same way the CC had, and they could not trust everything that had been taught as Tradition. So their problem was to sort out good Traditions from what was being taught erroneously and to identify some reliable guide for Christianity in general. The only real answer for them was to look to Scripture - Scripture could be a guide and it could sort out good traditions from bad ones.

By the way, the livre is a monetary unit and I was merely joking around regarding a comment you made…

Ah, I was thinking of a book.

 

[Bluegoat]

Dzheremi, I meant to add this to the preceding post but forgot:

Is it the Eastern Orthodox belief (or at least the Coptic) - that there are no consequences for the sins forgiven by God?

Those EO I have spoken to about this said that there are temp[oral consequences for sins, but they are the things that actually happen to us. So, you over-eat, and you get fat.

But the Orthodox understanding of the afterlife is a bit different and it doesn’t necessarily mean their is no purification of some kind -a leaving behind of some aspects of sin which we have taken to ourselves. But that does not represent some kind of debt. They really dislike the debt aspect of purgatory, the debt aspect of penance, and the whole idea of the Treasury of Merit.

 

[dzheremi]

All really good points and I agree. One thing though, I wasn’t suggesting that the "TOM’s were somehow as crucial as baptism. Heck, there is no comparing the 2. I was just attempting to illustrate that the thief on the cross made it to heaven without the need of baptism…

I think it’s safe to say that we both, in the end, can agree on one thing: the meritorious prayers of the saints in heaven are beneficial to those of us here on earth.

Sure. “Meritorious” is not an adjective I would use (it’s just not a part of my vocabulary), but I do agree that the prayers of the saints can and do affect us and are to be requested as much as possible. There are so many prayers of intercession in the Coptic church that even in English Copts will refer to them as “Hitenis” (and in Arabic as “Hiteniyat”), from the first (Coptic) word of all the hymns (they follow a somewhat standardized format) where the saint is asked to intercede for us so that God may forgive us our sins. The most common one is for St. Mary (though there as many possible as there are saints, I guess): “Through the prayers of the holy Theotokos St. Mary, O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins”. Depending on the season or other occasion, there are many others. For instance, during the Feast of the Apostles, a Hiten is said for Sts. Peter and Paul, for the Fast of Jonah (also called the Fast of the Ninevites), a Hiten is said for Jonah, etc. Last time I was at liturgy it felt like we just kept adding more and more people…I don’t think it was some sort of special liturgical day or anything, ether; they just do that. It’s a good thing I like the tune, I guess.