G
Ginger2
Guest
“Let us consider how terrible are the pains of hell or of purgatory which we have deserved;” p. 286, 1924 catechism
- Status
R
rinnie
Guest
What does it mean Ginger to make Due satisifaction? You tell me. What does that mean to you? What does the Church teach? You should know, even if you disagree with the Church teaching? What does your Church teach?
R
rinnie
Guest
What is the Church telling you there Ginger. There is a teaching here. A very important one. What is it?
J
Jason_1977
Guest
OOOOh…OOOOOOH…ME…ME…I know…I KNOW!!! LOL
W
whm
Guest
Are you referring to an addition of the “Baltimore Catechism”? Just curious, because the current catechism (of the entire Church) was first published in 1992.
R
rinnie
Guest
I know you do my love, but lets hear what she has to say. After all she is the one who seems to disagree with the teaching. So if you disagree with a teaching, you have to understand what the teaching is first! Right
By way Jason not that it matters but I am a her not a him. She was wrong about that too!
J
Jason_1977
Guest
You wouldn’t happen to have an up to date catechism with you would you? Like the 2nd edition would you? Something more recent & up to date? Kinda hard to follow along. I hate taking someones word for things, and some changes and reform have taken place since 1924. You’re right, pennance is punishment. That’s not the same thing as sanctification. That is what purgatory does. It’s the final purification. YES, it is good to go to confession & receive absolution for venial sins. The PENETENTIARY RITE is the part of the mass where we as forgiveness for our sins & the lesser ones are absolved in the mass. IT IS good practice to go to confession though. I like to face my sins & own up to them. It also gives me a closer relationship with my priest. Does what you loose on earth so shal be loosed in heaven? The verbatum may be off, but the point is If your sins are absolved then they are absolved. You are once again in a state of grace. The ONLY sins I know of that are NOT ABSOLVABLE are sins against the Holy Spirit “Neither forgiven in this world or the next” or something to that effect. I dont have my bible handy at the moment. SO, yes, those are entirely accurate to a fault…the notion of purgatory being a punishment. It drives the human mind insane to think when one dies, they MAY not go DIRECTLY to heaven without collecting $200. Know what I mean? THAT thought is torture in and of itself. THAT is what kinda spurs us ahead & keeps us striving to remain in a state of grace. It’s not a punishment, it’s a final sanctification IF you’re not in a state of grace at the time of death. I wish I could take a look at that 1924 catechism, I love old books!!! I’m about to get my 1st DOUAY-RHEIMS version of the bible pretty soon. That’s like the KJV for catholicism, lol. It’s strange to look at, but it’s all there. Pretty kewl.I know that the Catholic Catechism says that, now. But it used to plainly state people had to be punished for their sins despite Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross.
I have a copy of the RC catechism copyright 1924
Here are some highlights:
Penance is “the punishment by which he (a man) atones for the sins committed” p. 279
#54 p. 289
“We are not, indeed, required to confess venial sins; yet it is good and wholesome to do so.”
"70 When God remits the sin, does He also remit all the punishment due on account of it?" p. 292
“…always the eternal punishment…He does not always remit the temporal punishment…”
"71 What is the temporal …?" p. 292
“It is that punishment we have to suffer either here on Earth or in Purgatory”
"72 Why …?" p. 292
“…His justice demands that, by the enduring of the punishment we should make some reparation for the injury done to Him; and …by the fear of such punishment…”
Ginger
G
Ginger2
Guest
Seems you are the one who is wrong. I assumed you are a woman. It was plain_me who referred to you as “he”.By way Jason not that it matters but I am a her not a him. She was wrong about that too!
But, why does it matter? Just something else for you to complain about?
I am amused the way Catholics continue to tell others they are wrong, only to discover it is the Catholic who was confused or misunderstood.
W
whm
Guest
Whatever she is quoting from is not going to be as comprehensive as the 1992 Catechism (1st or 2nd edition) that we are used to. It is likely a version of the old Baltimore Catechism which versions were written starting in the 1880’s and used for confirmation classes. CCD etc.
G
Ginger2
Guest
I check it for changes against the online version.
That’s the point!
Ginger
C
CHESTERTONRULES
Guest
You’re kidding, right?
Jesus didn’t write a single word of the New Testament.
He did, however, start a Church. The members of this Church wrote down his teachings and dedicated themselves to preserving and proclaiming the truth of his message.
G
Ginger2
Guest
The version I quoted is a revision of Joseph Deharbe’s “A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion”, which “immediately won universal approval.” and quickly became the “common catechism for the whole kingdom”
Ginger
Ginger
W
whm
Guest
Danke!
R
rinnie
Guest
And I stand to be correctedSeems you are the one who is wrong. I assumed you are a woman. It was plain_me who referred to you as “he”.
But, why does it matter? Just something else for you to complain about?
I am amused the way Catholics continue to tell others they are wrong, only to discover it is the Catholic who was confused or misunderstood.
Now Ginger still waiting for your reply to my questions
G
Ginger2
Guest
The “Church” tells me they once thought purgatory was a place of torment and punishment for sins - even after those sins had been forgiven, but in modern times has changed their teaching to state purgatory is simply a place of final purification.And I stand to be corrected
Now Ginger still waiting for your reply to my questions
Final “purification” is also something Protestants believe in. We will be made perfect.
R
rinnie
Guest
Ginger I just gave you the quote from the CCC. Where did it state that Purgatory was not a place for the punishment for our sins. Could you please show me that?
ALL I ever said is that as Roman Catholics we do not look at it as a bad thing because we accept this suffering with great joy because the reward is ahead of us. We do not look at it as a punishment as much as we do a Grace from God. We know its suffering but we also know that after that cleansing comes Heaven.
Now can you show me where the Church ever changed its teaching. Again I gave you the CCC. Would love to see how, and when they changed it.
R
rinnie
Guest
[SIGN][/SIGN][SIGN][/SIGN]
[SIGN][/SIGN] When and how did they do that?
G
Ginger2
Guest
L
Luke65
Guest
Right, that was what I felt was your best point…
But this is an unwarranted leap. Look, Jesus was dying on the Cross. Is it possible they didn’t understand what He said? We’re talking about one syllable here (twice). But the sacred authors infallibly tell us Jesus was quoting the Psalm and said, “My God, My God…” - not Elijah. So the people clearly misunderstood the whole quote! Never mind one word. Or maybe there’s a different reason, which we’ll see momentarily. But if they didn’t even realize that Jesus was quoting the Psalm, why would you assume that they understood “Eloi” correctly? That doesn’t make sense. But here are a couple more possible solutions from the Fathers, from Fr. Haydock’s commentary:
Ver. 47. This man calleth for Elias. St. Jerome thinks these might be some of the Roman soldiers, who understood not Syriac, but who had heard of the prophet Elias. (Witham) — But if we understand it of the Jews, who could not possibly be ignorant of this word, we must suppose it was merely a stratagem of theirs, who wishing still to shew the weakness of our Redeemer, said that he called Elias to his aid. (St. Jerome) — The soldiers thinking that he called for Elias, wished to hinder any one from offering vinegar, lest it should hasten his death, and prevent Elias from coming to assist him; which, from the darkness and other signs, they might think probable. (St. Augustine)
The second suggestion, that the Jews were essentially mocking Christ, is consistent with the visions of Blessed Sr. Emmerich, who said that it was a Pharisee who said, “Behold, he calleth Elias”. (And she said that Jesus said, “Eloi, Eloi”, btw.) This seems to make the most sense, given that:
"In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” (Matthew 27:41-43)
Look! He’s calling for Elijah’s help! You get the point. And remember, they added, “Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.” So if they didn’t really misunderstand our Lord but were just mocking Him, then once again it makes sense that a scribe didn’t get it, and thought that it should read, “Eli, Eli”, but he was in error.
That’s the same argument I made to you, except in reverse. And they’re both good arguments. Why go from Greek to Hebrew to Aramaic and back to Greek? Isn’t the obvious solution that Matthew did not write “Eli”, and that it was a scribal error? Could that be the reason the NIV translators went with the mss that have “Eloi”?
No, I know they’re “sister” languages…
But it’s not my suggestion, everything I’ve seen says that it is Aramaic, with no mention of any disagreement on that point.
I think that’s just a difference in Aramaic dialects - not Hebrew. Look, I know we agree that whatever possible solution we go with, it must uphold the truthfulness of Scripture. And so to go back to your original point, when the NT says that something is in “Hebrew”, it could be that it’s because it is for a Gentile audience, telling them not that it’s the Hebrew language, but that it’s the language that the Hebrews speak, Aramaic. If you do a search of the Bible, you’ll see that Jews were speaking Aramaic long before the time of Christ - by the time of Isaiah (c.700BC). But you’ll notice that they distinguish between Aramaic and Hebrew, but this is for a Hebrew audience.
Anyhow, this really is not an important issue, but if you can find any scholars who say that the Jews spoke Hebrew at the time of Christ, other than when reading Scripture and priestly rituals, etc., I would be very interested because I don’t think I’ve ever heard that before. Until then, I’ll go with these simple and truthful solutions. God bless.
- Status