the good thief

[Psalm45_9]

Joysong:

Dear Bendan,

Can you be sure about this? Baptism of desire is not official water baptism, but the Church has stated that it will bring salvation. Does it really matter whether the “desire” in all of its purity was experienced prior to an official commission? We do have Jesus’s words to him assuring him, do we not?

There is a very good presentation on this here:
geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3543/bapdesire.htm

Carole

St. Augustine uses the repentent theif to demonstrate the baptism of desire. Either way, the repentent theif does not in anyway diminish the necessity of baptism.

“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person. . . . For Cornelius, even before his baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit [Acts 10:44–48], while Simon [Magus], even after his baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit [Acts 8:13–19]” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28 [A.D. 400]).

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ [Luke 23:43]. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart * if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism” (ibid., 4:22:29).

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

But this is off topic, so I will say no more.*

 

[francisca]

JimG:

As others have noted, Dismas, the good thief, DID do good works: confession, sorrow for sins, asking for mercy, his suffering on the cross, his admonition of sinners, his expression of faith–these are all good works, done for the love of Christ.

The purification of his soul through suffering, which is purgatory, was begun and perhaps completed right there on the cross.

Regarding suffering on the cross, the other thief suffered this too.

What is your opinion on this?

I do believe that “good deed” has to come from one’s own free will out of good will-- at least-- if not out of love. If he suffers because of sin, that is not counted as anything but punishment he deserve.

The repentant thief receive pardon, thus his eternal punishments was completely removed. But the other thief was not pardoned, although he suffered on the cross, he was still in his eternal punishment.

We are as catholics sometimes think that “suffering is good”, but we must not think this way if those suffering is caused by sin (own/ others sins). We are to repent, and ask God to heal/ free us from all of this kind of punishments.

When we are free, then we can choose what we want to do for The Lord. It’s like torah teaching, if one is a slave, he cannot become other’s slave for one only have one master to serve. So if we want to be God’s slave, we are to be free from “the other master” first. Only then that we can suffer for God’s Kingdom. Otherwise, our suffering is in vain (caused by sin, our suffering is nothing but punishment we deserve).

 

[JimG]

francisca:

Regarding suffering on the cross, the other thief suffered this too.

What is your opinion on this?

I do believe that “good deed” has to come from one’s own free will out of good will-- at least-- if not out of love. If he suffers because of sin, that is not counted as anything but punishment he deserve.

In a sense, all suffering is a punishment for sin, since in a perfected world, there would be no suffering in the world. Original sin and actual sin started and perpetuated a fallen world, hence suffering.

Suffering endured for the sake of Christ can be a good work and also a punishment for sin–not necessarily our own. Suffering endured with bitterness and hatred and rejection of God is a waste.

Acceptance of Christ along with his own sufferings for the sake of Christ was the thing lacking in the other thief; that simple act of the will could have turned his sufferings into his purification–i.e. his purgatory.

 

[b_justb]

DEESYPAL:

I came upon this Evangelical apologetics website with this quote

‘When the thief died on the cross, he had but just believed, and had never done a single good work. But where did he go? He ought to have gone to purgatory by rights if ever anybody did. But instead of that the Saviour said to him, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Why? Because the ground of the man’s admission into Paradise was perfect.’

C.H. SPURGEON — MTP Vol 12 pg. 562

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/romancatholic.html

I know this must be a recurring issue against the balances of faith and works, but could someone please ease my distress about this lolz

If Jesus was in the grave for 3 days is His words of “today” a literal within a 24 hour period?

 

[Brendan]

Joysong:

Dear Bendan,

Can you be sure about this? Baptism of desire is not official water baptism, but the Church has stated that it will bring salvation. Does it really matter whether the “desire” in all of its purity was experienced prior to an official commission? We do have Jesus’s words to him assuring him, do we not?

Carole

Well, St. Dismus died before the Sacrament of Baptism was Instituted, and that includes Baptism by Desire.

We certainly do have Christ’s word that Dismus will acheive Salvation.

God had not yet bound Himself to Baptism, so Dismus was not saved by it. God binds Himself to them, God is not bound by them.

Under the Old Covenant, Salvic Grace was bestowed outside the Sacraments, as the Sacraments did not exist.

Moses and Elijah all achieved Salvation via this route.

And as we cannot point to Moses and Elijah as requiring Baptism, even of desire, to be saved; neither can we say the same for St. Dismus.

They all died before the Sacrament was established.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Brendan:

Well, St. Dismus died before the Sacrament of Baptism was Instituted, and that includes Baptism by Desire.

We certainly do have Christ’s word that Dismus will acheive Salvation.

God had not yet bound Himself to Baptism, so Dismus was not saved by it. God binds Himself to them, God is not bound by them.

Under the Old Covenant, Salvic Grace was bestowed outside the Sacraments, as the Sacraments did not exist.

Moses and Elijah all achieved Salvation via this route.

And as we cannot point to Moses and Elijah as requiring Baptism, even of desire, to be saved; neither can we say the same for St. Dismus.

They all died before the Sacrament was established.

So what about passages like Jn3:5, Jesus said this before the cross?

 

[Joysong]

Brendan,

Thanks for responding, but your argumentation seems much like your personal opinion.

Well, St. Dismus died before the Sacrament of Baptism was Instituted, and that includes Baptism by Desire…

Actually, baptism by desire is not a sacrament, even in our day. So, naturally, it would not have been instituted by Christ at the time of St. Dismus’s death. It does not invalidate the possibility that it occurred.

Under the Old Covenant, Salvic Grace was bestowed outside the Sacraments, as the did not exist.

Since since baptism of desire is not a sacrament, it can occur in either dispensation, the Old and the New Covenant.

Let’s not debate it further until we both obtain accurate theology.

I felt that the two linked articles about this were a good foundation to understanding, but I have to admit that I cannot rest with your explanation as being the final say. I will ask my pastor and possibly email the Web of Faith on EWTN.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Hi Pal, simply ask the person you are speaking with if he believes in 2 Peter 1:9?

But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins.

Then go to Eph 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Would God not know that this man could not be baptised in water being nailed to the cross? Therefore God did not prepare beforehand for this man to walk into water baptism.

As for paradise, Jewish belief of the day believed that the grave, sheol was divided into two compartments, paradise and the compartment of the wicked ( luke 16 ). Jesus was literally saying that the man will be with Jesus in the paradise side of the grave. At his ressurrection Jesus led the righteous of paradise to the new paradise. In short, paradise changed locations at the ressurrection because Paul was caught up to paradise ( II cor 12 ).

Eph 4:8

So then, the holy writings say, `When Christ went up to heaven he took those he had won with him. And he gave gifts to men.’

For documentation on sheol see

SHADES OF SHEOL
Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament
By Philip S. Johnston

 

[pangit]

hi, im just simple catholic just share my ideas:

Sacrifices like suferrings with the grace of God it purifies man. State of purification is PURGATORY, thats why the thief on the cross by having the contrition / act of faith wich is works and believing in christ which is faith recieves that grace, that purifies him. thats why he is in Purgatory at that moment— State of purification of the soul inorder to enter heaven.

In case of emergency, I mean a person is already dying or terminal stage, this is applied.

BUT, If a PERSON is healthy with no other obstacles or problems in life, the person is required to BELIEVE ( faith) AND FOLLOW JESUS COMMANDMENTS.( works).

 

[puzzleannie]

DEESYPAL:

I came upon this Evangelical apologetics website with this quote

'When the thief died on the cross, he had but just believed, and had never done a single good work. But where did he go? He ought to have gone to purgatory by rights if ever anybody did. But instead of that the Saviour said to him, “Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Why?

the good thief expressed perfect contrition for his sins and received from Our Lord absolution and since he died in a state of grace was admitted to heaven, having also received the first plenary indulgence.

 

[dancus]

quasimodo:

if anybody needs a patron saint it would be theives & murderers

Quite true Sir. I’m sure several Popes during the Middle Ages availed themselves of his patronage.

Incidently the other thiefs name is reputed as Gestas.

Also, St Dismas feast day is March 25.
Dan

 

[francisca]

JimG:

In a sense, all suffering is a punishment for sin, since in a perfected world, there would be no suffering in the world. Original sin and actual sin started and perpetuated a fallen world, hence suffering.

Suffering endured for the sake of Christ can be a good work and also a punishment for sin–not necessarily our own. Suffering endured with bitterness and hatred and rejection of God is a waste.

Acceptance of Christ along with his own sufferings for the sake of Christ was the thing lacking in the other thief; that simple act of the will could have turned his sufferings into his purification–i.e. his purgatory.

Yes all suffering is because of sin. I agree.

My problem is to understand : If suffering is good for us, then why when Jesus came he healed the sick and free people from their sufferings ?

Based on my life experience and seeing others who suffers, it is quite difficult to praise the Lord when we suffer. Instead, the people will praise the Lord when they got healed. And I am quite sure that Jesus want this to happen in the church : that people who come to church find healing and peace and answered prayers.

You have my view shifted a little bit. To unite my suffering with Jesus may be worthy of something if it is caused by “other people sins”, thus we are to suffer together with Him. But I still can’t imagine that my suffering caused by too much alcohol I took last night worth of anything, for example… Instead being free from sin, one can be free from his suffering.

Bottom line : I think that maybe the “good news” is preached too little that most people think that God want them to suffer so much. But is it really so? Seeing Jesus healing the sick and died on the cross to free us… my impression about it is that God does not want us to suffer. Moreover He can heal us from all kinds of suffering, if we-- turn away from “trusting self” (thus distrust self, knowing our weaknesses : being bitter in suffering), then-- trust His goodness, therefore dare to ask for healing, praising the Lord and give glory to His Name when we got healed.

Just a thought.

God bless.

 

[JimG]

francisca–yes, I agree that Jesus did heal the sick and often continues to do so. He did not intend to condemn us to a life of suffering simply to atone for our sins. Suffering and evil, rather, came into the world as an inevitable result of sin. It will affect us all at one point or another in our lives. And sometimes, as when a hangover follows a night of drinking, suffering can be attributed directly to our own actions.

And you are right that suffering may make it harder, not easier, to pray, to praise the Lord, and to offer our sufferings to Him. That’s why it’s important to establish the habit of offering small daily sacrifices to God, so that the habit, once established, may not desert us in times of trouble.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I see the postive values of suffering in II Peter chapter one,

5For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7and to godliness, brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness, love. 8For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Basically, suffering helps one fulfill this above passage.

 

[JOHNYJ]

Poor abused Saint Dismas.Since Vatican II he has been one abused saint. For Centuries he was the good theif.Than after Vat II the liberals started messing with him. Its almost a game of Roulette what will he be called this Palm Sunday. A freedom fighter, dissident, You never know,One day I expect to hear him described as a Bolshevik whistling the Internationale from the cross.

 

[francisca]

Daniel Marsh:

francisca–yes, I agree that Jesus did heal the sick and often continues to do so. He did not intend to condemn us to a life of suffering simply to atone for our sins. Suffering and evil, rather, came into the world as an inevitable result of sin. It will affect us all at one point or another in our lives. And sometimes, as when a hangover follows a night of drinking, suffering can be attributed directly to our own actions.

And you are right that suffering may make it harder, not easier, to pray, to praise the Lord, and to offer our sufferings to Him. That’s why it’s important to establish the habit of offering small daily sacrifices to God, so that the habit, once established, may not desert us in times of trouble.

I intend not to refute anything of your above reply.
We are in total agreement here.

What burden my mind is “what should we give stress on” when we are talking about God who is good and merciful.

It is writen in psalms “cursed be the man who trusts in man’s strength”. This verse becomes the bases of discernment when man is tempted and/or in suffering : we are not to trust oursleves regarding suffering and/or temptation. In the most extreme it suggests : distrust yourself (your own strength), and trust God (and His strength). Although this is not in direct conflict with the teaching of suffering, I always see it this way : our daily life is automatically full of suffering. Thus, to offer daily sacrificial of suffering can happen anytime in the day as long as we are in this fallen world.

In contrary to most religiousity, our father Jacob in the book of Genesis made a vow :

Genesis 28
20 Jacob then made this vow: "If God remains with me, to protect me on this journey I am making and to give me enough bread to eat and clothing to wear,
21 and I come back safe to my father’s house, the LORD shall be my God.

We are all like Jacob, whose love for God-- whether we admit it or not-- is conditional : “If God give me ‘enough’ bread and clothing and really protect me, then He shall be my God”.

I see Jacob’s vow as “a mechanism” in which “human way of thinking” cannot deny. And even in Jesus time, all kinds of sinners praise the Lord “after” they receive something (ie healing) they want.

We are to suffer only if God wills us to, that is for the kingdom of God-- which in the end is for all mens’ happiness anyway (read The Beatitudes). Thus God oppose suffering in it’s most essence.

Jesus was asked whether a blind man was born that way because of his own sin or his parents’ sin. Jesus answered that he was born blind for the Kingdom of God to be glorified. This is the moment Jesus gave vision to the blind man. The blind then glorified God after. According to Old Testament teaching, the blind man was punished by all-just God. But at the moment Jesus pardoned, He said that that was for the kingdom of God to be glorified. The blind man then confessed that The Lord is God because-- just like Jacob’s vow-- Jesus had given him what he needed.

There are teachings of detaching ourselves from our “sinful” body through suffering. Because our body makes us think individually as “an entity apart from God”, the truth is we only exist in God. Too much awareness of our body, we are affraid and selfishly worry about worldly matters, thus sinful. This is where the teaching of suffering sets into religions. There are some religions-- those teach bodily suffering in order to be united with God. Thus they go to secluded places to separate themselves from the world and from bodily comfort so that they might find God. Some of them even mortify their own body, believing to deprive body from its comfort would lessen the awareness of “separation from God”. This is contrary to Christ teaching in this way : that Christ has suffered and died on the cross for us, so that we are free from punishments (suffering). God does not will us to suffer, instead He want to set us free so that His Name be glorified and none others. If we intend to suffer so much sometimes we end up glorfy self and forget to praise and glorify God. Those who are “too much into suffering” will certainly fall into boasting of his own strength.

 

[trogiah]

There seems to be a deep underlying assumption that the good thief led a life filled with corruption up until the point where he was hanging from the cross. He did admit to doing at least one thing that deserved the punishment but perhaps he actually did a great deal of good during his life. Getting crucified didn’t require being a lifelong hardened criminal. Look at Jesus for example.

Any guesses about what the “good thief” did with his life is speculation but I believe hid did a lot to help others with basic needs when he had the chance during his life. A selfish, bitter and hateful person would not have recogized Jesus for who he was.

-Jim