Does the treasury of merit exist?

[GaryTaylor]

Sure. “Meritorious” is not an adjective I would use

However, the Catholic Church did use the word. Do they not have the authority to do so?

Let me ask you another question. Being that Vatican City is an independent province. Do they not have the authority to define their own doctrine?

One more question, what is justice?

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

Those EO I have spoken to about this said. They really dislike the debt aspect of purgatory, the debt aspect of penance, and the whole idea of the Treasury of Merit.

Agee’d, we are talking different moral models so thus we should expect difference?

So why would I take an Orthodox understanding to quantify the Catholic Church understanding?

What would make one more valid than the other?

I suppose there are things Catholics really dislike {that is the word “you” chose, Dislike} about the Orthodox. I can’t help but wonder why you specifically chose that word?

{ I don’t carry that feeling around with me “dislike” for it has to mean disapproval, and that has to mean judgement} Thus it must then “lack” the basic Christian fundementals. Does the EO have the right to “judge” the CC? {You must help me to understand this focused thinking, I honestly can’t relate to it, nor do I believe it true.}

…

Not to go off track, let me just relay another fact.

I do not know what others think, truth is, we only hear 1/8th of the depth of thought verbalized by a person, 7/8ths remain a mystery. There is a lot of mystery out here with humans, and there is a supernatural world existing also{do you not agree}. Lot of mystery.

I suppose we should consider another aspect. When they are not the elect of their church, what should we believe as far as “dislike”. I would suppose then we would have to look at the overall picture once again and invert.

This is my truth, I can only certain to that which I know. Church became a passion and not my education, so I am in the laity of the church. So I can’t say I “know” it. In this sense I have been involved in the CC since baptism as a child. We have souls who arrive here in the catechism aspect of their own church reflecting on the truth of another church? They can’t state for fact the church they are in is a truth yet, how is that possible? How could you possibly know? We have souls who bounce from church to church, then view the one they left, yet were not rooted in, with a critical eye? How do we know they are not faulty? On an internet level with so many different faiths and senerio’s, they are many aspects to filter through.

My next question would be "Those EO you have spoken to who have “judged” the CC do they have a Seminary degree, are they in the heiarchy of the EO church? If this is a truth, then I would love to read their work, can you link this?

One more question what does the heirarchy of the EO specifically state about the CC? Do you have a link for that in regards to Purgatory? They don’t seem to “define” very much? With all do respect, I find it hard to believe this stated fact would exist.

I was under the “assumption” they got on very well {the EO and CC elect}. Is this just the 1/8th we are seeing? Are they just being polite and not sincere? Even though we can only know the 1/8th, I would have to state this here is a truth, for these are followers of Christ. I believe we can appove of the 1/8th here. I do not see where the elect of either church “judge” each other. I do see where there may be concerns, which we then comprehend and magnify as individuals in the laity. However this becomes our issue not either church’s issue. Which we should then take back to our “own” church to clarify through the elect. Then if they have specifics they related, you could actually quote them with respect to whom they are. Right or Wrong? So where are these individuals quotes? {Of course judge above is in context with your above quoted statement}

Of course I am relating “all” this to the word “dislike” above, and of course to purgatory in the larger context of the two church’s actual statements on this.

Peace

 

[dzheremi]

What are you talking about, Gary? All I wrote was that I wouldn’t use it because it’s not in my vocabulary. I didn’t even slightly imply that the Vatican couldn’t use it. And I don’t understand what Vatican City’s political status has to do with anything, or your question about justice for that matter.

However, the Catholic Church did use the word. Do they not have the authority to do so?

Let me ask you another question. Being that Vatican City is an independent province. Do they not have the authority to define their own doctrine?

One more question, what is justice?

Peace

 

[GaryTaylor]

What are you talking about, Gary? All I wrote was that I wouldn’t use it because it’s not in my vocabulary. I didn’t even slightly imply that the Vatican couldn’t use it. And I don’t understand what Vatican City’s political status has to do with anything, or your question about justice for that matter.

I simply asked you two questions?

However, the church being in truth its own country, there lies a different responsibility I would imagine for all involved to clarity. Though the actual Merit as you see from earlier posts where my thinking lies, I also see a larger responsibility, and not just for Rome but for all Christians.

 

[joe370]

What are you talking about, Gary? All I wrote was that I wouldn’t use it because it’s not in my vocabulary. I didn’t even slightly imply that the Vatican couldn’t use it. And I don’t understand what Vatican City’s political status has to do with anything, or your question about justice for that matter.

That was kind of what I meant when I mentioned that is was merely semantics, that for the most part, separated the CC and the EOC’s, doctrinally speaking, notwithstanding doctrines such as the Petrine office etc…

Paul grants a pardon by lessening the penance for sin committed by a straying brother in 2 Cor 2:6-11, which he had previously imposed on him in 1 Cor 5:3-5 and this continues to be essence of how the CC views it.

Penance imposed (temporal punishment):

“As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.”

Pardon or remission of penance granted by the church (an indulgence regarding temporal penance):

“The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.”

Your thoughts?

 

[joe370]

Hey Dzheremi I should clarify the fact that the punishment (dismissal of the immoral man from the church) - imposed and eventually remitted by the church was for a mortal sin depriving the man of divine grace, (as opposed to an indulgence which is the remittance granted by the church of a forgiven sin) - but I do believe that those verses illustrate the church’s authority, as per the binding and the loosing, to impose a punishment on a member of Christ’s Body as well as a pardon.

 

[Bluegoat]

Agee’d, we are talking different moral models so thus we should expect difference?

So why would I take an Orthodox understanding to quantify the Catholic Church understanding?

What would make one more valid than the other?

I suppose there are things Catholics really dislike {that is the word “you” chose, Dislike} about the Orthodox. I can’t help but wonder why you specifically chose that word?

{ I don’t carry that feeling around with me “dislike” for it has to mean disapproval, and that has to mean judgement} Thus it must then “lack” the basic Christian fundementals. Does the EO have the right to “judge” the CC? {You must help me to understand this focused thinking, I honestly can’t relate to it, nor do I believe it true.}

…

Not to go off track, let me just relay another fact.

I do not know what others think, truth is, we only hear 1/8th of the depth of thought verbalized by a person, 7/8ths remain a mystery. There is a lot of mystery out here with humans, and there is a supernatural world existing also{do you not agree}. Lot of mystery.

I suppose we should consider another aspect. When they are not the elect of their church, what should we believe as far as “dislike”. I would suppose then we would have to look at the overall picture once again and invert.

This is my truth, I can only certain to that which I know. Church became a passion and not my education, so I am in the laity of the church. So I can’t say I “know” it. In this sense I have been involved in the CC since baptism as a child. We have souls who arrive here in the catechism aspect of their own church reflecting on the truth of another church? They can’t state for fact the church they are in is a truth yet, how is that possible? How could you possibly know? We have souls who bounce from church to church, then view the one they left, yet were not rooted in, with a critical eye? How do we know they are not faulty? On an internet level with so many different faiths and senerio’s, they are many aspects to filter through.

My next question would be "Those EO you have spoken to who have “judged” the CC do they have a Seminary degree, are they in the heiarchy of the EO church? If this is a truth, then I would love to read their work, can you link this?

One more question what does the heirarchy of the EO specifically state about the CC? Do you have a link for that in regards to Purgatory? They don’t seem to “define” very much? With all do respect, I find it hard to believe this stated fact would exist.

I was under the “assumption” they got on very well {the EO and CC elect}. Is this just the 1/8th we are seeing? Are they just being polite and not sincere? Even though we can only know the 1/8th, I would have to state this here is a truth, for these are followers of Christ. I believe we can appove of the 1/8th here. I do not see where the elect of either church “judge” each other. I do see where there may be concerns, which we then comprehend and magnify as individuals in the laity. However this becomes our issue not either church’s issue. Which we should then take back to our “own” church to clarify through the elect. Then if they have specifics they related, you could actually quote them with respect to whom they are. Right or Wrong? So where are these individuals quotes? {Of course judge above is in context with your above quoted statement}

Of course I am relating “all” this to the word “dislike” above, and of course to purgatory in the larger context of the two church’s actual statements on this.

Peace

Dislike just means dislike, for whatever reason. This being a theological issue, they tend to have theological reasons for disliking it.

It is possible to have different theological models for taking about the faith that are equally good. It’s also possible to have ones that are not as good. In this case, I believe that is what is being said by the EO - that the Latin Church has on this issue developed a model that has problems, and that do not reflect the Faith.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Dislike just means dislike, for whatever reason. This being a theological issue, they tend to have theological reasons for disliking it.

It is possible to have different theological models for taking about the faith that are equally good. It’s also possible to have ones that are not as good. In this case, I believe that is what is being said by the EO - that the Latin Church has on this issue developed a model that has problems, and that do not reflect the Faith.

You’re entitled to your own opinion. I think you should reconsider.

 

[dzheremi]

That was kind of what I meant when I mentioned that is was merely semantics, that for the most part, separated the CC and the EOC’s, doctrinally speaking, notwithstanding doctrines such as the Petrine office etc…

See, I just don’t agree with this. When I wrote that I wouldn’t use that term because it’s not part of my vocabulary, I meant it, but the reason why it’s not part of my vocabulary is that I don’t have an outlook developed that categorizes things as “meritorious”, or for that matter in terms of venial vs. moral sins, valid vs. invalid sacraments, or many of the other distinctions that Catholic theological language has developed to reflect. This is one point that I’ve tried to make over and over across many threads: It’s not so much that the RC says X while the Orthodox say Y (where X ≈ Y, if you follow the RC viewpoint), but that the RC sees fit to develop particular understandings of issues that the Orthodox generally do not see a need to peer into either way. So, the questioning or rejection of this or that other RC idea (at least when it comes out of me; I can’t speak for others) is always in terms of why such and such a thing should be so. whether we’re talking about the particular interpretation of a given verse that is not shared by churches outside of the Roman communion, the dogmatizing of certain philosophy, or anything else.

(Biblical passages, omitted for length considerations)

Your thoughts?

Indulgences, mortal vs. venial sin distinctions, etc. are not a part of my church’s understanding of the faith. As with most things, I can see that you understand the passages as supporting these uniquely RC ideas, but I do not see them as proof of the truth of those ideas.

 

[joe370]

dzheremi;8338979]See, I just don’t agree with this. When I wrote that I wouldn’t use that term because it’s not part of my vocabulary, I meant it, but the reason why it’s not part of my vocabulary is that I don’t have an outlook developed that categorizes things as “meritorious”…

Seems reasonable…

or for that matter in terms of venial vs. moral sins…

This I did not know about the eastern orthodox churches; thanks for the clarification. I just assumed they made the distinction in light of the following:

If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, **and there is sin that does not lead to death. **

Sacraments vs invalid sacraments…

Invalid sacraments? Are referring to protestantism regarding invalid sacraments?

…or many of the other distinctions that Catholic theological language has developed to reflect. This is one point that I’ve tried to make over and over across many threads: It’s not so much that the RC says X while the Orthodox say Y (where X ≈ Y, if you follow the RC viewpoint), but that the RC sees fit to develop particular understandings of issues that the Orthodox generally do not see a need to peer into either way…

Understood…

Indulgences, mortal vs. venial sin distinctions, etc. are not a part of my church’s understanding of the faith. As with most things,

Which was why I was attempting to approach the whole penance/pardon thing from a scriptural point of view.

I can see that you understand the passages as supporting these uniquely RC ideas, but I do not see them as proof of the truth of those ideas.

Just that those verses support the notion that the church has the authority to impose a penance aka punishment as well as remit it…

 

[joe370]

You’re entitled to your own opinion. I think you should reconsider.

Perhaps Blue shouldn’t if she cannot bring herself to believe it. No one should embrace a belief if they can’t in good conscience, whole-heartedly believe it, which was why I left the world of protestantism?

 

[dzheremi]

Joe, just FYI, the Coptic Orthodox Church is not Eastern Orthodox, it is Oriental Orthodox. The two are not in communion, and where they differ (to the extent they do), the views of one cannot be taken to extend to the other. In the case of mortal vs. venial sins, I think this is one thing that neither communion believes in, but I’m not sure.

If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

Hmm. I’ll ask about this. I have read commentaries on this from HH Pope Shenouda III, but I’m having trouble tracking them down right now. Until then (or until I can ask my priest myself), here is an interesting discussion from a Coptic messageboard about this topic. The consensus seems to be that there is no such distinction, and the verse provided (which is also given by one person in the discussion who apparently see such a distinction in it) is not supporting such a view.

Invalid sacraments? Are referring to protestantism regarding invalid sacraments?

No, I’m talking about the RC concern of “validity” or “invalidity” of sacraments, which is not part of the Orthodox conception of sacraments.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

Perhaps Blue shouldn’t if she cannot bring herself to believe it. No one should embrace a belief if they can’t in good conscience, whole-heartedly believe it, which was why I left the world of protestantism?

The same will (God permitting) someday happen to me.

But I can’t quite grasp the Mary being Queen concept. But that’s off topic and not a dogma.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The same will (God permitting) someday happen to me.

But I can’t quite grasp the Mary being Queen concept. But that’s off topic and not a dogma.

The BVM being promoted in the Church is only getting stronger. Since Christ being the Head, Mary being the neck, the Holy Spirit the Heart, and the body being the Laity and Elect. Is taught daily.

The mistake is understanding the elect and their Responsibility which many assume they use as Authority, In truth they serve as the Goverment {since they cannot be “Politicians”]which is the true meaning of Justice. The Master to serve the servant. I’m almost postive thats established with Plato and the Republic.

The same theory the USA and remainder of the world must embrace or fail.

Peace

 

[joe370]

The same will (God permitting) someday happen to me.

But I can’t quite grasp the Mary being Queen concept. But that’s off topic and not a dogma.

Hey Swiss Guy I will definitely keep you in my prayers brother regarding your journey and discernment vis-a-vis our mother Mary. As a former non-Catholic, Mary’s queen-ship was actually not that big of deal for me, but I did have other obstacles, but with much prayer and the 100% realization that the CC was in fact the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem on Pentecost, forever guided by the Holy Spirit into all truth, against which the gates of hell can never prevail, (which in my opinion, must include doctrinal preservation) - I finally let go of my struggle, put all my trust in Jesus and His Mystical Body, since He is the one guiding His Church, and eventually everything fell into place, but it certainly didn’t happen quickly. There are still certain things in catholicism that don’t make absolute sense to me just as there are certain things in scripture that are not crystal clear, such as Isaiah 7:14 and Zechariah 14, but for me they are nothing compared to the inconsistencies that I discovered in protestantism.

Receiving the Body and Blood of our Savior in the holy Eucharist is so worth it…

Good luck brother…

 

[joe370]

Joe, just FYI, the Coptic Orthodox Church is not Eastern Orthodox, it is Oriental Orthodox. The two are not in communion, and where they differ (to the extent they do), the views of one cannot be taken to extend to the other. In the case of mortal vs. venial sins, I think this is one thing that neither communion believes in, but I’m not sure.

Hmm. I’ll ask about this. I have read commentaries on this from HH Pope Shenouda III, but I’m having trouble tracking them down right now. Until then (or until I can ask my priest myself), here is an interesting discussion from a Coptic messageboard about this topic. The consensus seems to be that there is no such distinction, and the verse provided (which is also given by one person in the discussion who apparently see such a distinction in it) is not supporting such a view.

No, I’m talking about the RC concern of “validity” or “invalidity” of sacraments, which is not part of the Orthodox conception of sacraments.

I clicked on that message board link and this was what I got:

Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-8393.html could not be found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

 

[dzheremi]

Very strange! The links I have shown you seem to cause trouble. My apologies. Obviously it loads for me or else I would not have recommended it. Here then are some highlights, again, not to function in place of guidance (which I will ask for), but to give a general idea of how Coptic Orthodox people understand this:

“…we disagree with the idea of mortal/venial sins. This, from my understanding, is true. We don’t have the concept of degrees of sin because it is for God to judge and “…the wages of sin is death.”(Romans 6:23). At the very least, we don’t have it in the same understanding that Catholicism does. Catholics classify sins committed intentionally under either the category of mortal or venial depending on its severity. We have no such distinction. The verse from the epistle of St. John is interpreted by the church fathers to cover sins of ignorance or unintentional sins…”

One poster quotes HH Pope Shenouda III (from his book “Many Years With People’s Questions Part III”, which I don’t have):

“Sins are actually alike in that they exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven, but even those who go to hell suffer different degrees of torture, which is why the Lord said, referring to all the cities which rejected Him and rejected the faith and rejected His disciples: " Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Matt. 10:15)

In other words, the idea that sins are of different levels of gravity is acceptable, but not the ranking or ordering of specific sins into categories of “mortal” and “venial”. I agree with the interpretation of John offered above, that it makes more sense to think of “sins leading to death/sins not leading to death” in terms of intentional vs. unintentional sins (and would ask you to note that this is not talking about specific sins, but about the sinner’s foreknowledge) because at the close of each of the Coptic hours, we pray for forgiveness of sins, specifically “those which we have committed knowingly and those which we have committed unknowingly”, showing that very early in the church THIS was the distinction that was understood, not the “mortal” vs. “venial” distinction of the RC.

I clicked on that message board link and this was what I got:

Not Acceptable

An appropriate representation of the requested resource /PNphpBB2-viewtopic-t-8393.html could not be found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

 

[joe370]

Hey dzheremi, I certainly understand why you steer clear of catholic jargon such as mortal/venial, and I suppose the following is one way to interpret the following passage:

“If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, (unintentional sin) - you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death (unintentional sin). There is a sin that leads to death (intentional sin). I am not saying that you should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death ( unintentional sin).”

 

[dzheremi]

The point is that the believer’s intention is in focus in the Coptic Orthodox interpretation, which I guess relates it back to my reply to your bankrobber situation: Anyone who wants to repent needn’t worry about “venial” or “mortal” sins, because through repentance our sins may be forgiven regardless of how we might classify (or not classify) them. Likewise, anyone who does not repent ought not to take solace that such a sin might be thought of as “venial” or somehow less grave, because for sure all sins are grave. As HH writes, “Sins are actually alike in that they exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven.” A very serious reality.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Very strange! The links I have shown you seem to cause trouble. My apologies. Obviously it loads for me or else I would not have recommended it. Here then are some highlights, again, not to function in place of guidance (which I will ask for), but to give a general idea of how Coptic Orthodox people understand this:

“…we disagree with the idea of mortal/venial sins. This, from my understanding, is true. We don’t have the concept of degrees of sin because it is for God to judge and “…the wages of sin is death.”(Romans 6:23). At the very least, we don’t have it in the same understanding that Catholicism does. Catholics classify sins committed intentionally under either the category of mortal or venial depending on its severity. We have no such distinction. The verse from the epistle of St. John is interpreted by the church fathers to cover sins of ignorance or unintentional sins…”

One poster quotes HH Pope Shenouda III (from his book “Many Years With People’s Questions Part III”, which I don’t have):

“Sins are actually alike in that they exclude one from the Kingdom of Heaven, but even those who go to hell suffer different degrees of torture, which is why the Lord said, referring to all the cities which rejected Him and rejected the faith and rejected His disciples: " Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!” (Matt. 10:15)

In other words, the idea that sins are of different levels of gravity is acceptable, but not the ranking or ordering of specific sins into categories of “mortal” and “venial”. I agree with the interpretation of John offered above, that it makes more sense to think of “sins leading to death/sins not leading to death” in terms of intentional vs. unintentional sins (and would ask you to note that this is not talking about specific sins, but about the sinner’s foreknowledge) because at the close of each of the Coptic hours, we pray for forgiveness of sins, specifically “those which we have committed knowingly and those which we have committed unknowingly”, showing that very early in the church THIS was the distinction that was understood, not the “mortal” vs. “venial” distinction of the RC.

I follow what you saying. I have thought about this many years. In specific areas I would rather not point out, which I have heard Catholic’s debate since I was a child.

However, while I also agree that the actual seperation of venial and mortal is very difficult to dissect. I can’t conclude as an affirmative the CC wrong in this aspect. How could anyone? This BIble verse doesn’t prove anything but sola scriptura reading. Where is the consistant context of scripture here? By you own indication of this verse being valid, they why wouldn’t the verse on the Treasury of Merit be valid?

The seperation in reality is only to separate what needs to be confessed through Priest or what could be brought to Mass and confessed through the Holy Sacrifice. This was never an issue in V-I for the simple reason “everything” needed to be confessed with a Priest. However, this repetition of behavior and repetition of confession caused a reluctance for individuals to continue. For, they felt stupid week after week confessing the same issue. So then confession became both a positive and negative. I believe the church was right to create a seperation in which man could be more enticed to correct his error. However is it for man to judge his own behavior? Well we both see the folly in that I would hope. So venial is painstakenly reduced to the point of eliminating error. Moral is not reduced its magnified so the church cannot error in this manner. This fine line is where we as Catholic’s argue. However, once one actually really knows his confessors behavior. You understand by his penance given really what is viewed as significant and not so significant. Though this and rightfully so, cannot be discussed with you in confession, nor afterwords. It can be discussed on an objective level with a spirtual advisor who may in fact be your confessor, I do not know what each individual does here at this point, only what I do. This is precisely why I go to two different churchs. Both of which I have for a very long time.

So then I would say the degree of sin which is rejected, cannot be correctly understood. I fail to see error on the side of the CC here, contary as hard as this was for me to understand, I believe they have it right.

You ever seen confession’s on Christmas or Easter in the CC? There are lines waiting to confess. Add to this the need then for venial sin to enter the confessional and its a problem. Which was corrected through V-II. If a man become’s detered through his own behavior confessing Mortal sin, what do you suppose happens with venial? It becomes an impossible situation where souls are actually pushed away from God by their repetitive behavior which they have not yet corrected, but are yet working through.

Peace