Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Churchmouse]

Everyone here knows that Michael always posts with the utmost charity and respect. What are you talking about?

“Charity and respect”??? Have you read this letter with the “anti-Catholic” and all the other rhetoric?

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

There’s no shouting. I use a slightly different size font for ease of reading and the coloration is my own personal preference.

SHOUTING LOOKS LIKE THIS…

Here is what the forum Moderator has posted on that subject. Perhaps when you drop the condescension and issue dodging maybe you’ll actually attempt to respond with something other than rhetoric and polemics.

Who’s talking about fonts. I would rather deal with those who don’t use the usual buzzwords (rhetoric, polemics, anti-Catholic, etc.). This is where the “shouting” lies. And it’s odd that you say that I’m condescending when you shout “That’s all you got.”…“Please feel free to try it and let us know how it works for you” And all this in your first response to me

CM
“that is dead wrong”…

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

How about the Jewish beliefs and how they still have the same idea?

Then why is Kaddish recited for only 11 months, when the mourning period is 12 months? According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come. The maximum time required for purification is 12 months, for the most evil person. To recite Kaddish for 12 months would imply that the parent was the type who needed 12 months of purification! To avoid this implication, the Sages decreed that a son should recite Kaddish for only eleven months.

It is their Faith from which Jesus came… yes?

Well, the Kaddish is an ancient prayer, but it has nothing which is a "prayer for the dead. Rather, it is similar to the Our Father and acknowledges God’s sovereignty. Nothing even remotely resembles a prayer for the dead. The words are…

Glorified and sanctified be God’s great name throughout the world which He has created according to His will. May He establish His kingdom in your lifetime and during your days, and within the life of the entire House of Israel, speedily and soon; and say, Amen.

May His great name be blessed forever and to all eternity.

Blessed and praised, glorified and exalted, extolled and honored, adored and lauded be the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, beyond all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations that are ever spoken in the world; and say, Amen.

May there be abundant peace from heaven, and life, for us
and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

He who creates peace in His celestial heights, may He create peace for us and for all Israel; and say, Amen.

As for the 11 months and the purification in Gehenna (hell), well, that is a later concept. Before the advent of Christ, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel mused the possibility, as always disagreeing on its nature, but by this time Judaism wasn’t what it should have been and their “traditions” were opposed by Christ.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I guess I must have missed this…

Our readers are still waiting for your evidence that Scripture alone was used to both define the doctrine of the Trinity and refute the Arians.

Well, we both agree that Scripture was used, the difference being that I see nothing more than Scripture alone. Therefore, the readers are still waiting for you to detail the “tradition” that was used.

I

agree - though I can’t understand why recalling your own words re: Scripture alone, you deem rhetoric. It’s simply the distinctive between us.

You said that it was “unfounded” without showing why. Furthermore, you said that my reply in #485 shows that I wish to see what I want to see, again not stating why. I believe that qualifies as rhetoric.

No one is arguing that Scripture was used. You are arguing that Scripture alone was used. You still have not provided any evidence to this point.

And you’ll keep repeating this to avoid detailing the traditions used. All you have to do is provide evidence that extra-biblical authorities were used to substantiate the Trinity and my assertions about Scripture alone would be refuted. Yet, you labor at putting the onus on me so you don’t have to take on such a task.

Your condescending tone aside,

Condescending??? Because I tell you to check the footnotes from the very passage you submitted?

I understand the references to Scripture, and it’s not a problem - again, we both agree that Scripture was used.

Which is why you should provide the tradition I asked you for.

Perhaps I’m reading your statement incorrectly, but when you say, "“Because they saw a clearer elucidation of it using the words ‘of God.’” I can’t help but think your biases are getting the best of you. The passage presented clearly presents two sides, both using Scripture to support their position. If Scripture contained “a clearer elucidation of it [the Trinity, the nature of Jesus, etc…] using the words ‘of God” the Council does not need to formulate anything; it simply needs to present the Scriptures to the Arians and say “clearly Scripture…”

Doesn’t this amount to what they did? They appealed to what the Scriptures stated and saw it “clearly.” Yet, the Arians were judged as not taking their opinions from Scripture. Furthermore, you seem to confuse the concept of “formulas” as if developing one is somewhat extra-biblical. Rather, the formula was derived FROM what Scripture gives.

Instead, the Council, using Scripture, using their knowledge of what they were taught by their predecessors, created what we know as the definition of the Trinity.

WHAT was this “knowledge” that was taught by their predecessors? The second passage you submitted qualified these “instructions” with “as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures.” Now, unless you can give us something distinct from Scripture used to define the Trinity, it seems that Scripture is the sole basis.

And you assume that there is no reason for the passage to mention another source for the definition of the Trinity. If Scripture alone was the source for the decision, why does the Council even need to mention something else, especially if, as you say, that something else is really just Scripture? It seems you “inflict your own distinctives into the text”.

I’m not assuming anything than what the text gives. Yet, you can tell us WHAT is that something else. You see it, but you don’t say what it is. I, on the other hand, don’t see anything else. PROVE that I’m inflicting my assertions into the text by telling us what that “something else” is. Again, once you’ve detailed it, I am refuted. It’s as easy as that.

Your argument here makes my point. Refer to the passage again. The Arians are upset because they’ve ben refuted, not by Scripture alone, but by a combination of Scripture and [insert your word of choice here]. The Council’s response isn’t, “No, no, we’re just using Scripture here…” but rather, “Dude, get over it, 'cuz you too went extra-Biblical when you came up with this screwy idea.”
Call it what you want, but it’s not Scripture alone.

WHERE does it even imply that? Where do you see anything other than Scripture being used. There is nothing that even comes close to your “going extra-biblical” argument. Again, the readers can see this for themselves and how you continue to avoid giving us anything which shows the council, and/or their predecessors, using anything “extra-biblical” to come up with their formula. Yet, we both agree that Scripture is being used. How much longer are you going to avoid giving us anything to support your assertion.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I bring it up because St. Paul is clearly speaking of Onesiphorus not in the present.

Byzman, you and I both know that “not in the present” can mean that he’s not necessarily dead but away. Onesiphorus evidently has a “tradition” that places his death after Paul, thus defeating the “dead Onesiphorus” assertion.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Than find ONE!

Sure, The historian Jacques Le Goff writes:

“Some writers have credited Cyprian with making an important doctrinal contribution to Purgatory as early as the mid-third century. In his Letter to Antonian [Letter 51:20] Cyprian distinguishes between two kinds of Christians: ‘It is one thing to await forgiveness and another thing to arrive in glory; it is one thing to be sent to prison [in carcere] to be let out only when the last farthing has been paid and another thing to receive immediately the reward of faith and virtue; it is one thing to be relieved and purified of one’s sins through a long suffering in fire and another thing to have all of one’s faults wiped out by martyrdom; and it is one thing to be hanged by the Lord on Judgment Day and another to be crowned by him at once.’…Jay’s refutation of the notion that Cyprian put forth a doctrine akin to that of Purgatory seems to me well founded. According to Jay, what is being discussed in the letter to Antonian is the difference between Christians who did not stand up to persecution (the lapsi and apostates) and the martyrs. It is not a question of ‘purgatory’ in the hereafter but of penitence here below. The reference to imprisonment has to do not with Purgatory, which in any case did not yet exist, but rather with the penitential discipline of the Church.” (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 57-58)

Cyprian repeatedly refers to believers going to Heaven when this life ends. For example:

“But, beloved brethren, this is so, because faith is lacking, because no one believes that the things which God promises are true, although He is true, whose word to believers is eternal and unchangeable. If a grave and praiseworthy man should promise you anything, you would assuredly have faith in the promiser, and would not think that you should be cheated and deceived by him whom you knew to be stedfast in his words and his deeds. Now God is speaking with you; and do you faithlessly waver in your unbelieving mind? God promises to you, on your departure from this world, immortality and eternity; and do you doubt? This is not to know God at all; this is to offend Christ, the Teacher of believers, with the sin of incredulity; this is for one established in the Church not to have faith in the house of faith. How great is the advantage of going out of the world, Christ Himself, the Teacher of our salvation and of our good works, shows to us, who, when His disciples were saddened that He said that He was soon to depart, spoke to them, and said, ‘If ye loved me, ye would surely rejoice because I go to the Father;’ teaching thereby, and manifesting that when the dear ones whom we love depart from the world, we should rather rejoice than grieve. Remembering which truth, the blessed Apostle Paul in his epistle lays it down, saying, ‘To me to live is Christ, and to die is gain;’ counting it the greatest gain no longer to be held by the snares of this world, no longer to be liable to the sins and vices of the flesh, but taken away from smarting troubles, and freed from the envenomed fangs of the devil, to go at the call of Christ to the joy of eternal salvation…We should consider, dearly beloved brethren - we should ever and anon reflect that we have renounced the world, and are in the meantime living here as guests and strangers. Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world, and restores us to paradise and the kingdom. Who that has been placed in foreign lands would not hasten to return to his own country? Who that is hastening to return to his friends would not eagerly desire a prosperous gale, that he might the sooner embrace those dear to him? We regard paradise as our country - we already begin to consider the patriarchs as our parents: why do we not hasten and run, that we may behold our country, that we may greet our parents? There a great number of our dear ones is awaiting us, and a dense crowd of parents, brothers, children, is longing for us, already assured of their own safety, and still solicitous for our salvation. To attain to their presence and their embrace, what a gladness both for them and for us in common! What a pleasure is there in the heavenly kingdom, without fear of death; and how lofty and perpetual a happiness with eternity of living! There the glorious company of the apostles - there the host of the rejoicing prophets - there the innumerable multitude of martyrs, crowned for the victory of their struggle and passion - there the triumphant virgins, who subdued the lust of the flesh and of the body by the strength of their continency - there are merciful men rewarded, who by feeding and helping the poor have done the works of righteousness - who, keeping the Lord’s precepts, have transferred their earthly patrimonies to the heavenly treasuries. To these, beloved brethren, let us hasten with an eager desire; let us crave quickly to be with them, and quickly to come to Christ. May God behold this our eager desire; may the Lord Christ look upon this purpose of our mind and faith, He who will give the larger rewards of His glory to those whose desires in respect of Himself were greater!” (Treatises, 7, On the Mortality, 6-7, 26)

 

[Churchmouse]

You did not answer my question…is that which is contained in the Canon part of Sacred Tradition? Rather, let me reform the question for a Reformer(no pun intended), are the books that are contained in the Canon of Scripture liable to be taken out? Or does tradition say no?

Maybe you reformed it too much because it’s practically confusing. There is no tradition that says either/or. Again, the books were there and criterions were followed. If you are going to call apostolicity, orthodoxy, Christocentricity, etc. “traditions”, well I sure wouldn’t agree.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Bedtime. :yawn:

 

[brb3]

Bedtime. :yawn:

C-mouse … are you a serious bible scholar or apologist ? Here’s your wakeup call ! Just came across a good piece of apologetic cheeze for you.

Spend 55 minutes digesting this info from a Protestant PhD, whose area of expertise is the Protestant Reformation Then, you will be prepared to start facing reality and beginning a ‘serious’ JOURNEY toward becoming a Churchman.

Link: www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=jh_02082010.mp3&source=seriessearchprog.asp&seriesID=-6892289&TI=journey.

 

[Murphs10]

C-mouse … are you a serious bible scholar or apologist ? Here’s your wakeup call ! Just came across a good piece of apologetic cheeze for you.

Spend 55 minutes digesting this info from a Protestant PhD, whose area of expertise is the Protestant Reformation Then, you will be prepared to start facing reality and beginning a ‘serious’ JOURNEY toward becoming a Churchman.

Link: www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/dload1.asp?audiofile=jh_02082010.mp3&source=seriessearchprog.asp&seriesID=-6892289&TI=journey.

I don’t think that link takes us where you intended.

Edit: It was my mistake!! It does work,

 

[SemperReformada]

“Charity and respect”??? Have you read this letter with the “anti-Catholic” and all the other rhetoric?

CM

You may not have been here long enough to realize that the Catholic posters are always charitable…at least in their eyes.

 

[brb3]

You may not have been here long enough to realize that the Catholic posters are always charitable…at least in their eyes.

Many of us began our journey in faith as Protestants If we forget to always be charitable to our Brethren … now you know why

 

[SemperReformada]

Many of us began our journey in faith as Protestants If we forget to always be charitable to our Brethren … now you know why

Because you left your manners on the other side of the Tiber???

 

[brb3]

Because you left your manners on the other side of the Tiber???

No … My sins. But, sometime we fall back into our former ways.

The Church teaches us to see Christ within all Trinitarian Baptized Brethren. If I disrespect you … I abuse Christ also. We are all Brothers/Sisters, if we abide in Christ.

Nevertheless, what we are arguing here is very important. Catholics desire the estranged brethren to discover the Church of our Lord. There is ONE Flock and ONE Shepherd. Until we accomplish that unity … we have failed to realize the command of Christ.

Read that Link above, I sent to Churchmouse … and get back to me on its import to those who claim Christ.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Because you left your manners on the other side of the Tiber???

To borrow from the words of John Piper, “ work of gracemassive” to instill in us Catholics the humility we need before we can even begin discussion about any possible conversion of Dr. White and other gifted souls to the Catholic faith.

 

[Pete_Holter]

You may not have been here long enough to realize that the Catholic posters are always charitable…at least in their eyes.

To borrow from the words of John Piper, “ work of gracemassive” to instill in us Catholics the humility we need before we can even begin discussion about any possible conversion of Dr. White and other gifted souls to the Catholic faith.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Here is Dr. White again:

Paul tells us that despite suffering loss these are saved yet so as through fire. Note that the text does not say that they are saved having been purified by fire. They do so as one who has escaped from a fire in his house having lost all but saved his life, as one commentary has expressed it: “The fire tests the work, destroying what is of poor quality and perishable. A wage will be paid only for good, durable work. The man whose work will not endure the searching test of judgment will suffer loss. Like one escaping from a burning house he will be saved but his work and his reward will be lost. This metaphor clearly teaches the responsibility of ministers to the gospel, who will be rewarded or punished for the manner in which they have fulfilled their ministry.” I note that the commentary I just read is the Roman Catholic Jerome Bible Commentary, which goes on to directly state that this text does not teach the doctrine of purgatory, however the doctrine can find “support” in the text. A far cry from the claim that this text clearly teaches purgatory.

The Jerome Commentary says that it will be “[l]ike one escaping from a burning house.” Dr. White agrees with this interpretation and comes back to it later:

And so to, I really believe, twist the text to say, “Ah, but it says that they go through the fire. See, they go through the fire themselves.” Even the Jerome Bible Commentary recognizes that this is a way of speaking, that it’s simply saying “they have suffered loss.” And to say that they are saved “yet so as through fire” is not some secondary statement that has nothing to do with the preceding statement. It is a statement that expands upon that and explains what it means: the nature of their loss. The nature of their loss is they have lost everything that they thought they were building because they did not build it properly, and they are saved as a person who has escaped from a burning house. That’s what it’s talking about. To turn that into the concept that, “Well, they themselves are being purified by this fire,” is again to engage in absolutely wishful eisegesis. Where else does Paul teach this? Where else?

Here Dr. White seems to include the loss of work as part of the suffered loss, so I might have misunderstood him earlier and I’m sorry for that. What interests me here is that he once again says that this person “has escaped from a burning house.” But I wonder, Where did the house come from?

The Day discloses the work. The Day referred to in this passage is precisely when the “Lord comes, Who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart” (1 Corinthians 4:5). He will reveal by fire the “purposes of the heart” that are “now hidden in darkness.” And the fire will “reveal” the nature of these purposes by proving the quality of the godly purposes, and by burning up the sinful purposes. It is the action of the fire and its effect upon the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, and straw that make the fire revelatory. The bad work will be “revealed” to be bad precisely through the destructive activity of the fire upon it. It seems unavoidable to me to see this as anything other than an internal operation conducted upon the hearts of men. This is the “day when according to [Paul’s] gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” (Romans 2:16). There is no house external to the man in the 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 passage. Paul makes it clear, by the time we get to Chapter 4, that there is only the man and the secret purposes of this man’s heart in view when talking about the man and his “work” in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

“If anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Corinthians 3:15). I agree with Dr. White that the words, “so as through fire,” tell us how the man will be saved and that it refers us back to the process that the man just went through. But I disagree with him on what that process entails. How will he be saved? “As through fire.” That is to say, “in the manner that I have just described to you.” I hold that the text is saying that “he will be saved, but only as one who has had the ungodly purposes of his heart burned up.”

What is the foundation that we are building upon? It is a person, it is Jesus. Paul said that as “stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Corinthians 4:1), “we impart a secret (Gk. = μυστηρίῳ) and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory” (1 Corinthians 2:7), and this mystery is “Christ in you” (Colossians 1:27). If we are to build on the foundation of a person, then the building itself is clearly also a person. In Paul’s imagery, it is we ourselves who are being built up by what we do. Insofar as Christ has not been formed in us (cf. Galatians 4:19), this far are we purged of ourselves. Insofar as we have not decreased that Christ might increase (cf. John 3:30), this far must we be cleansed. And to bring it back to the context of Paul’s discourse here, insofar as we have not become a fool in order to become wise (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:18), have not become weak in order to become strong (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:27), have failed to have the mind of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 2:16; Philippians 2:5), this far are we purified of ourselves. Insofar as I cannot say and have it be true of me that “it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me” (Galatians 2:20), and have not attained to “the full measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13), this far will I be purged of myself until Christ, “Who fills all in all,” has become the “all in all” in me (Ephesians 1:23).

Your grace is enough for me!
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Thanks for some of the additional transcriptions, Pete!

It’s been nice to meet you on this thread, MarcoPolo. I see that we are both “friends” with mikeledes.

I’m giving up the Forums for Lent, so I won’t be around much longer for a while… waaaah! :crying:

Is there a way to listen to the broadcast that mentioned you?

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

 

[Monte1945]

Well, the Kaddish is an ancient prayer, but it has nothing which is a "prayer for the dead. Rather, it is similar to the Our Father and acknowledges God’s sovereignty. Nothing even remotely resembles a prayer for the dead. The words areCM

No, I copied that version of the Kaddish Prayer off of a “current” Jewish web site.
It is the prayer which has always and still is said, from their belief that one should
pray it now… Not a prayer of “yesterday”…

And it IS the prayer for the purification of one’s soul after they die

You are not going to take the position that the Jews didn’t have salvation with God throgh the system which God set up with them through the “traditions and Scriptures” of the pre-Jesus time?

You know it was the same God as the one we have now… The God which existed and exists “outside” of the limititations of the Bible.

The scriptures do teach of a waiting place… for the people under God’s salvation prior to
the offering of Jesus to the Father… and they were waiting there… a real place.

You will admit this was a waiting “place”… yes?

Jesus came died, and he went to that place… and lead the captives out of there and took them to another place This is the current place for our departed saints and are there now.
But then we have St. Paul writing of a third heaven.
2 Corinthians 12:2
2 I know a man in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or out of the body, I know not; God knoweth), such a one caught up to the “third heaven”

So it seems from scriptures: that there is going to be another heaven… a third one.
So that must mean the heaven we have NOW is another RESTING place…

So if the Jews taught the Kaddish prayer (a prayer for "purification of the soul) for the first resting place… maybe it is again a place for the purification of the soul.

Wait… and there is going to be a second death and Hell… yes?
Rev. 20
13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.
14 And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death.
15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.

No one knows exactly what is going on in these “still existing temporary resting places.”

I personally take offense at your attitude that you seem to put on me, that my posts
are somewhat “not with the flow” of you and those others here who tend to try and set up the boundries of who can post what from their own standards of thought…

I might mention to you… that this is a catholic forum… and with that in mind… please
know that as Catholics we do NOT limit our theology and understandings of doctrines from within scriptures alone. We have tradtions with a small “t”… which means we have
had thousands of sincere Christians seeking to understand what God has revealed to us through the whole means of his revelations… We call them the Fathers of our Church…
they are men just like you seem to be… “seeking and searching” for the truths.

There are many confusing verses of the Bible… and no one can understand all of what is revealed through Jesus’s life and from the writings of the New Testement…

We have had some of them attempt to understand and teach what some of these confusing bible verses might mean… and the church as a whole has listened to them
and from them some of our doctrines come…

You come into here, and you want to put out the rules of how we are to relate to you… and your rule is “bible only”… I do not accept that. And the totality of my faith is not based off of bible alone…

I think you are taking the wrong impression with your understanding of the right approach to what Martin Luther actuall said in regards to the scripture alone idea.
He meant that in this way… “The complete way to the “Salvation of God” can be found
in the bible… but he did not mean that the complete knowledge of God’s revelation to mankind was to be found only in the bible.”

If you want to come here with an open mind to other thoughts of how one might understand some of the CC’s docrtines and thoughts that is one thing… But if you are going to come in here to try and just show errors and not have the fair play of listning to some of us from other sources which might lead one to God’s truth then you are saying that you are not open to any view other than your own… but yet at the same time you want us to be open to what you think and say… Hmmm not fair… brother…

The bible has it’s merits when it comes to the revelation of God… but God is not
contained “totally” in it.

You are not informing some of us, of new thoughts and doctrines.
I am an ex-seminary trained and ordained Southern Baptist Minister with a ten year tenure of that same office… and I am well familar with that blind domatic attitude regarding the Catholic church’s doctrines from within some non-catholic denominations.

I will post what I feel is another angle to attempt to draw you from your limited source to help you to think beyond those set ideals you seem to have formed. And even if you don’t agree with it, or find any merit in it… I have the right to post mine without being treated like there can’t be a validity in what I post because it goes beyond what you feel should be on this board…

 

[PRmerger]

Wow, PR! You’re going to have to read it again because Eric uses numbers demanded by the Barrett’s research. Some Catholics were honest enough to admit that the numbers are overblown and, if the same criterions are used, it divides Catholicism as well. Again, read it again.

CM

I appeal to you in Christian charity to tell me what he says is the authentic number of Christian denominations.

I could not find it in the articles.

(And I’m confused why he would use the numbers demanded by Barrett’s research. If it’s a flawed methodology, why use it? That seems odd to me. )

Again, what is the authentic number, in your opinion or in Svensen’s opinion, of Christian denoninations?