B
bookgirl32
Guest
He’s not?And he’s not exactly a flower pluckin’ liberal
- Status
P
Padrej
Guest
The Catholic catechism is the source as you can see in the post, what statement do you have a problem with?
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Here’s the link for all interested:
insidethevatican2.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=letter-33-and-so-it-begins.html&Itemid=169
insidethevatican2.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=letter-33-and-so-it-begins.html&Itemid=169
P
Padrej
Guest
Here is the post in question:Darn, I was honestly hoping you had given up saying that 1 corinthians 3:15 referred to our lifetime…I would think the imagery of judgement, placed in the context of “The Day”, would set the stage for the exact opposite…I guess we will agree to disagree. I think I made some pretty good points for you to chew on though, not necessarily the “same ole”
I hope you consider things. God Bless.
1Cor2:15 says: If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, But only as through fire.
This cannot refer to eternal loss in hell, for there no one is saved. Nor can it refer to heaven, because no one suffers. If refers to a middle state where the soul temporarily suffers loss so that it may gain heaven. This is essentially the definition of purgatory.(San Juan Catholic seminars Beginning Apologetics book 1)
My reply:
If one looks at the context of the whole chapter the verse is pulled from however, AS stated in earlier posts, it ONLY implies in this world. It can only imply such if you can read Biblical Greek as well.(I Can)
What I am trying to get at here, I am not disagreeing on “the day” being a day of judgment. The day, here in Greek is “emera” meaning, “from sun up to sun down,” “24 hours,” or “a point in time.” When taken in there context with, earlier verses of “I have planted, Apollos watered….” Vs 6 “He that plants shall receive his own reward, and he that waters one…” Vs 8 “No other foundation can one lay…” Vs 11 “ If any man builds on this foundation…Vs 12, Now our verse in question, It becomes obvious it is over a lifetime that the work gets tested either while we are here of after we are gone.
The Greek used for “reward” is not “stathanos” as in other writings but rather “misthon” indicating “wages/ reward/ payment.” Tell me then how does “reward” that is wages tie to purgatory?
P
Padrej
Guest
Glad I didn’t have a drink in my hand on that one!!Another minor quibble, Padre, is that when he stated that he agreed with what the Church has taught since the beginning without change, this would to the Catholic mind refer to dogma and Doctrine. Theological speculation may change on the nature of purgatory, but the doctrine itself hasn’t been changed since being defined, I think we can both agree on that. I’m sure that’s what he meant. However, he IS correct in stating that those kernels of truth, though not stringently defined, have been taught and implicit from the beginning. Cut him some slack.
I can certainly agree to the above
Besides, the issues of ambiguity concerning the language in the Second Vatican Council is being addressed later this very month by the Holy Father Benedict. And he’s not exactly a flower pluckin’ liberal
Interesting on your link it mentions "We hope the discussions will allow us to dispel the grave ambiguities that have spread through the Catholic Church since (the Council), as John Paul II himself recognised.” I am wondering what the “grave ambiguities” are?
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Padre, I would consider your comment about “day” as a 24 hour time period a bit misleading, since this same word is used to refer to Judgement day as well in other contexts, and apparently the translators think so too beause they capitalize it to set it apart from a normal “24 hour” period. Honestly most Protestants I have met don’t try to argue this point in quite the same way, so I am intrigued, but I think it’s a bit of a cracked argument. It would perhaps be more honest to say it *can *refer to a 24 hour day, context dependent.
As for speaking of purgatory as a reward, I think it’s a bit of a misunderstanding on how purgatory is viewed. Remember my whole idea of God as a refining fire? Well His holiness refines those that have jewels and those that have built with straw and wood alike. Those with the jewels built up are rewarded with those jewels, because he “built up his treasure in heaven.” The man who does not will suffer loss through that fire, but he still will be saved. Personally, if purgatory is stepping through the door of heaven, I consider it a reward, since what is separating me from God is being burned away. Guess it’s how you view things.
Add to that the “destoyers of God’s temple” who will be destroyed by God (again evoking Judgement day), and you have, essentially, three groups of people in the context of judgement after death. Those that are damned, those that are saved immediately, and those saved that go through purgatory, of whom I am sure I will be counted. God Bless.
As for speaking of purgatory as a reward, I think it’s a bit of a misunderstanding on how purgatory is viewed. Remember my whole idea of God as a refining fire? Well His holiness refines those that have jewels and those that have built with straw and wood alike. Those with the jewels built up are rewarded with those jewels, because he “built up his treasure in heaven.” The man who does not will suffer loss through that fire, but he still will be saved. Personally, if purgatory is stepping through the door of heaven, I consider it a reward, since what is separating me from God is being burned away. Guess it’s how you view things.
Add to that the “destoyers of God’s temple” who will be destroyed by God (again evoking Judgement day), and you have, essentially, three groups of people in the context of judgement after death. Those that are damned, those that are saved immediately, and those saved that go through purgatory, of whom I am sure I will be counted. God Bless.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Well it mentions later on that people had this idea that the Pope could just change liturgy; that people were losing their faith in the “givenness” of the liturgy. I am curious if perceived ambiguities in the “salvation outside of the Church” will be addressed, since that is an issue oftentimes brought up by Traditionalists. I guess we will find out. I’m intrigued, to say the least.
C
ccolley2
Guest
You know, if you want to really debate Catholics that have intimate knowledge of Scripture and can really help you “teach Protestants” then I suggest that you really challenge yourself by going to www.chnetwork.org and see what they have to say. The other place that I would suggest is… www.biblechristiansociety.org …listen to some of those apologetics downloads. Cause if these guys are wrong, then I want to know about it.
CC
P
Padrej
Guest
WAIT a minute. How can a person be saved immediately IF we all have spots of sin on us? Don’t the saved immediately go through Purgatory too? It would seem that a double standard just got set up here, or at least it just did to me. I thought you and others said that every one of us had a sinful nature and because no sinful thing can enter heaven we all have to pass through Purgatory. Who are in the “saved immediately” category? I guess that needs to be cleared up for this thought pattern to go on for me.
P
Padrej
Guest
I have already taken a course in Catholic apologetics from Catholic U thank you. I am very familiar with the sites you already have listed. What are you trying to dig at here? Are you saying that I do not know how to teach seminary now?
Are you saying that I should not try and help you to debate protestants who are going to be ready to meet your arguments when you come up with the same scriptures time and time again. There are others on this post whom I can see that have now been given tools to better deal with Protestants than they were since they have been on this thread. My chalenge was to get them to think outside of the box and they have done the same to me.
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
Saints, Padrej. Purgatory is an extension of God’s salvific plan, but I do believe I stated earlier in the thread that it is not 100 % necessary for everybody.
Concupiscence is not sin in and of itself, however, it does lead in the case of almost every person to attachments to vice, imperfections, etc, hence perhaps I incorrectly made it sound as though concupiscence itself is a corrupt nature in the Protestant sense. These Concupiscence-caused attachments are what cannot enter heaven, and I was unclear and appeared to conflate the two.
I apologize, I saw what you meant immediately as soon as you said it, and you were correct, that would have been a humdinger of a double standard.
There are saints, as the Catholic Church believes. However, given the state of humankind and the very small list of canonized saints, it’s safe to say most people are in, or have passed through purgatory.
As for the jewels, I am aware of the danger in my argument, I am also aware of the fact that the works of the believer are being tested. So is the believer himself, if the works are not up to par, and James in his epistle does not differentiate between sin and poor or nonexistent works. Protestants have only the view of their works being rewarded, not being cleansed for sin. That keeps me sufficiently Catholic in my view of this passage.
Concupiscence is not sin in and of itself, however, it does lead in the case of almost every person to attachments to vice, imperfections, etc, hence perhaps I incorrectly made it sound as though concupiscence itself is a corrupt nature in the Protestant sense. These Concupiscence-caused attachments are what cannot enter heaven, and I was unclear and appeared to conflate the two.
I apologize, I saw what you meant immediately as soon as you said it, and you were correct, that would have been a humdinger of a double standard.
There are saints, as the Catholic Church believes. However, given the state of humankind and the very small list of canonized saints, it’s safe to say most people are in, or have passed through purgatory.
As for the jewels, I am aware of the danger in my argument, I am also aware of the fact that the works of the believer are being tested. So is the believer himself, if the works are not up to par, and James in his epistle does not differentiate between sin and poor or nonexistent works. Protestants have only the view of their works being rewarded, not being cleansed for sin. That keeps me sufficiently Catholic in my view of this passage.
P
Padrej
Guest
I think here is where I have one of my smaller sticking points that I spoke of against conversion.
In Christian theology, concupiscence is selfish human desire for an object, person, or experience. Although the idea of concupiscence is Latin in origin, it has been co-opted and our understanding of it has been developed by Christianity. Based on conflicting ideas of original sin, **Catholics and Protestants have ideas of concupiscence that also contradict one another. **For Catholics the term has two meanings. In its widest sense, “concupiscence is any yearning of the soul for good; in its strict and specific sense, it means a desire of the lower appetite contrary to reason.” For Protestants, concupiscence refers to what they understand as the orientation, inclination or innate tendency of human beings to do evil. “Concupiscence” is derived from the Latin word concupiscentia, meaning “an intense desire”.
There are nine occurrences of the word in the Douay-Rheims Bible: Wisdom 4:12, Romans 7:7, Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5, Epistle of James 1:14, James 1:15, 2 Peter 1:4, and 1 John 2:17.
There are three occurrences of the word in the King James Bible: Romans 7:8, Colossians 3:5 and I Thessalonians 4:5.
“Concupiscence” is the English translation of the Koine Greek epithumia (ἐπιθυμία). Epithumia occurs 38 times in the New Testament: Mark 4:19, Luke 22:15, John 8:44, Romans 1:24, Romans 6:12, Romans 7:7,8, Romans 13:14, Galatians 5:16,24, Ephesians 2:3, Ephesians 4:22, Philippians 1:23, Colossians 3:5, 1 Thessalonians 2:17, 1 Thessalonians 4:5, 1 Timothy 6:9, 2 Timothy 2:22, 2 Timothy 3:6, 2 Timothy 4:3, Titus 2:12, Titus 3:3, James 1:14,15, 1 Peter 1:14, 1 Peter 2:11, 1 Peter 4:2,3, 2 Peter 1:4, 2 Peter 2:10,18, 2 Peter 3:3, 1 John 2:16,17, Jude 1:16,18, Revelation 18:14. The word “epithumia” is variously translated: desire, longing, lust, passion, covetousness, impulses, concupiscence.
Who decided the saint did not even spend a few seconds in Purgatory? I mean if the Church has the power to say, “ok this person is a saint so they go straight to heaven no purgatory, while the rest of us have to go through it…” It seems like to me that the church also has the power as I have said earlier in some of the binding and loosing comments to say, “Nathan passed right over it too after his conversations with Padrej.” I remember that one of my old Sunday school teacher who was a lapsed Catholic had a paper that she loved to wave around that said upon her death she was going to go straight to heaven, NO PURGATORY, because she taught the catechism for 3 years. (She even went so far as to brag that she could commit any sin she wanted because of this letter). If the church has the power to do such as this, why does it not have the power to declare all its people “out of Purgatory?” You have them on one hand saying, saints are in heaven, people with certain types of indulgences are in heaven, but on the other hand everybody else they have to go through it??? I hope you see that I am not poking fun at you because I am not as this cannot be conveyed through these words. Can you explain this what seems a double standard to this inquiring mind?
P
Padrej
Guest
According to the Catholic encyclopedia an indulgence is: “An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God’s justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.”
A “plenary indulgence” is a total wiping away of temporal punishment according to the same encyclopedia) that can be given by the church through this “binding and loosing power” (power of the keys used in this section of the encyclopedia). And these can be obtained in many ways. My question is from the list that I have read, most DEVOUT Catholics do many on the list to start with, so would they not have an automatic Plenary indulgence and pass right over Purgatory?
The list can be found on: fisheaters.com/indulgences.html
A “plenary indulgence” is a total wiping away of temporal punishment according to the same encyclopedia) that can be given by the church through this “binding and loosing power” (power of the keys used in this section of the encyclopedia). And these can be obtained in many ways. My question is from the list that I have read, most DEVOUT Catholics do many on the list to start with, so would they not have an automatic Plenary indulgence and pass right over Purgatory?
The list can be found on: fisheaters.com/indulgences.html
N
Nathan_Wagar
Guest
That’s an interesting point, Padrej. Im not sure how it can be reconciled in the sense that you want since I don’t know the temporal relationship between here and purgatory. It’s sort of like when Dan Barker wanted a clear cut line draw between Jesus’ humanity and divinity. I couldn’t give it, because I didn’t know. As I understand plenary indulgences from the link, it is a total wiping away of temporal punishment, but it is dependent on whether or not you have any attachment to any venial sin, otherwise it is a partial. I think most of us do, so the mere fact that that is a prerequisite seems to imply the person is practically a saint to begin with. There is only one I am aware of that is an indulgence of that truly all-inclusive caliber, and that is feast of the Divine Mercy, if you make a valid confession and take part in the host.
Protestants have many verses that can point to a corrupt, depraved state, but Catholics can counterbalance-that with our own. I go with the Church and tradition on this issue, because that is all one can do; pick a tradition.
However, considering the canonization process, they canonize those they believe to be in heaven right then. So I imagine it is entirely possible for even Saints to have passed through a bit of purgatory, and I believe I have read something to this effect at some point. Even a house made of jewels built around a man wearing a ruby-encrusted fire-proof vest still might have a few blades of grass stuck on the outside.
In essence, I view purgatory as largely restorative, as a spanking is largely for the good of the child. Some people learn their lesson on earth, and some don’t. Most don’t. And if by some miracle of grace you do ( because yes grace can do it all, but you have to cooperate with it) then when you pass through God’s fiery love to be in communion with Him, you don’t get singed in the process.
So I imagine purgatory is dependent on the one thing that we have always had since the beginning: the will. Our nature may change, Padrej. It can be corrupted, wounded, inclined to sin, however you want to see it. But Luther was dead wrong about the “bondage of the will.” I think what it really boils down to is do we always “will God.” Concupiscence is what we have, the inclination, but the Church is careful with her terms to not define it as sin in and of itself. It’s neutral, but it doesn’t help. However God does not excuse us for our predicament, we stand without excuse, because He gives us the grace to deal with all in proportion to our circumstances, and our WILL is free. I imagine our will is what determines purgatory for us.
Protestants have many verses that can point to a corrupt, depraved state, but Catholics can counterbalance-that with our own. I go with the Church and tradition on this issue, because that is all one can do; pick a tradition.
However, considering the canonization process, they canonize those they believe to be in heaven right then. So I imagine it is entirely possible for even Saints to have passed through a bit of purgatory, and I believe I have read something to this effect at some point. Even a house made of jewels built around a man wearing a ruby-encrusted fire-proof vest still might have a few blades of grass stuck on the outside.
In essence, I view purgatory as largely restorative, as a spanking is largely for the good of the child. Some people learn their lesson on earth, and some don’t. Most don’t. And if by some miracle of grace you do ( because yes grace can do it all, but you have to cooperate with it) then when you pass through God’s fiery love to be in communion with Him, you don’t get singed in the process.
So I imagine purgatory is dependent on the one thing that we have always had since the beginning: the will. Our nature may change, Padrej. It can be corrupted, wounded, inclined to sin, however you want to see it. But Luther was dead wrong about the “bondage of the will.” I think what it really boils down to is do we always “will God.” Concupiscence is what we have, the inclination, but the Church is careful with her terms to not define it as sin in and of itself. It’s neutral, but it doesn’t help. However God does not excuse us for our predicament, we stand without excuse, because He gives us the grace to deal with all in proportion to our circumstances, and our WILL is free. I imagine our will is what determines purgatory for us.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the cannonization of a saint does not mean that they did not suffer purgatory. It means that at the time of the cannonization they are definitely in Heaven. No word on purgatory either way. The only two human beings that the Church officially holds have not suffered Purgatory are Jesus and Mary. I think.
P
Padrej
Guest
I don’t agree with Luther either. “The more the sin the greater the grace” come on that clearly runs counter to ALL of Paul’s writings and would be and insult to God just to say “I am going to sin just because I can so you can forgive me all the more.” I also do not like that he referred to the book of James as the “epistle of straw;” BAD theology. Sadly that thought conveniently rears its ugly head when a faith and works argument comes up in Protestant circles and nobody of right thinking wants to try and connect James to the rest of the cannon of scripture. So I guess if you want to we can both walk past his grave and spit.That’s an interesting point, Padrej. Im not sure how it can be reconciled in the sense that you want since I don’t know the temporal relationship between here and purgatory. It’s sort of like when Dan Barker wanted a clear cut line draw between Jesus’ humanity and divinity. I couldn’t give it, because I didn’t know. As I understand plenary indulgences from the link, it is a total wiping away of temporal punishment, but it is dependent on whether or not you have any attachment to any venial sin, otherwise it is a partial. I think most of us do, so the mere fact that that is a prerequisite seems to imply the person is practically a saint to begin with. There is only one I am aware of that is an indulgence of that truly all-inclusive caliber, and that is feast of the Divine Mercy, if you make a valid confession and take part in the host.
From an outsiders perspective, this almost sounds like (PLEASE no nasty comments back) “Indian Giving.” I mean you give full pardon and then say, “Oh wait a minute, you have this one little piece of lint on you of sin so it is only a conditional pardon.” I tell you I would be popping Rolaids worrying if I was really forgiven or not. With all due respect, where is the assurance of forgiveness and pardon that Protestants have?
Protestants have many verses that can point to a corrupt, depraved state, but Catholics can counterbalance-that with our own. I go with the Church and tradition on this issue, because that is all one can do; pick a tradition.
This is where a Protestant tends to rely more on scripture than tradition, not that traditions are bad.
However, considering the canonization process, they canonize those they believe to be in heaven right then. So I imagine it is entirely possible for even Saints to have passed through a bit of purgatory, and I believe I have read something to this effect at some point. Even a house made of jewels built around a man wearing a ruby-encrusted fire-proof vest still might have a few blades of grass stuck on the outside.
I think I can agree with you there. I do believe reading somewhere that saints do not pass through Purgatory though. That is why I questioned who decided who gets it considering the church has that power of the keys and binding and loosing as mentioned in the catechism.
In essence, I view purgatory as largely restorative, as a spanking is largely for the good of the child. Some people learn their lesson on earth, and some don’t. Most don’t. And if by some miracle of grace you do ( because yes grace can do it all, but you have to cooperate with it) then when you pass through God’s fiery love to be in communion with Him, you don’t get singed in the process.
Maybe if it was explained as being restorative I could swallow it.
So I imagine purgatory is dependent on the one thing that we have always had since the beginning: the will. Our nature may change, Padrej. It can be corrupted, wounded, inclined to sin, however you want to see it. But Luther was dead wrong about the “bondage of the will.” I think what it really boils down to is do we always “will God.” Concupiscence is what we have, the inclination, but the Church is careful with her terms to not define it as sin in and of itself. It’s neutral, but it doesn’t help. However God does not excuse us for our predicament, we stand without excuse, because He gives us the grace to deal with all in proportion to our circumstances, and our WILL is free. I imagine our will is what determines purgatory for us.
P
Padrej
Guest
My question is has any person really questioned like I have or have you just followed blindly? Scripture tells us to “test all things and hold fast to that which is good.” The way I read the catechism the church has the power to grant plenary indulgences which is the wiping away of the punishment of the temporal punishment of Purgatory so why can’t it wipe it away for any saint that it wants to also?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I asked a friend about this; here is her response:
A brief response to your question would be: The Church can grant a plenary indulgence to anyone who seeks it, but she cannot retroactively apply it to someone who is dead. It requires the active cooperation of the one who seeks it, not a passive acceptance. In other words, the Church has a storehouse of spiritual treasures, based most heavily on Christ’s sacrifice, which also contains other people’s sacrifices, almsgiving, and so forth, their corporeal and spiritual acts of mercy. She can apply it to those seeking to amend their lives and who cooperate with God’s Will.
If the Church just flat-out granted them to anyone she sees fit or anyone who says he wants one but doesn’t want to do what’s required to gain one, she is denying the role of free will in our salvation. She would then in essence become like a overindulgent parent, letting children get something for nothing. That is the Lutheresque model; sit back, stay sinful, and let God do all the work. Yes, He gets the credit, but there’s a whole lot of Scripture that contradicts such quietism.
Since Christ requires us to drink the cup He drank and be baptized in the baptism He underwent, He expects us to take up our crosses and follow Him. We are called upon to suffer and make sacrifices, for our own spiritual good and the good of others around us.
In other words, we don’t get the bonus without the onus. Even a plenary indulgence (which is incredibly difficult to get, by the way) requires our cooperation, free will actions and some sort of sacrifice, and even then, it’s not a guaranteed ticket to Heaven. We can toss it away if we commit another mortal or even venial sin. It isn’t permanent.
And with all possible respect, this bishop has it exactly backward: From its earliest days, the Church recognized miracles as a sign of extraordinary holiness. The Apostles performed them regularly to establish the Divinity of the Gospel. Later generations didn’t have the Apostles, but every one had its saints, special men and women who performed miracles while living and even after death. The Church still requires miracles (which can, as in the case of Thomas Aquinas or Mother Teresa, be a body of work that impacted Christianity or the world positively) as proof of holiness.
One bad canonization would undermine the whole process. That’s why there is such care exercised to be certain that a person wasn’t just good enough to make it into purgatory or even Heaven, but so heroically good that they manifested God’s grace via miracles while still on the earth or even when having left it behind in death.
Regarding the part about you having it backwards, it may be that I did not convey your question correctly. Perhaps I was the one who had it backwards!
I do sincerely hope this is helpful.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Randy had a good answer for you on the indulgence question. As far as questioning, I can only speak for myself. I’ve questioned almost everything at one time or another. But you can question without leaving the Church. Just because I’ve never left the Catholic Church doesn’t 'mean I haven’t seriously questioned. And most of the questioning has come from interaction with Protestant friends prior to me ever finding this board. Some of my very best friends are evangelical Christians and we talk about it a lot. The questioning has made me study harder and look further, and has honestly always brought me back to the Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
As iron sharpens iron, so a [wo}man of God sharpens a [wo]man of God."
- Status