Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

[joshua_b]

Well, in an attempt to bring the thread back from this tangent let me say with respect that your concluding comment above provides a good example of why the Protestant non–Catholic Christians here won’t argue with the real Catholic apologists. It’s like trying to nail down jello. Here you are suggesting to me that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory was an ancient belief of the Jews (as evidenced by an apocryphal book) that has been inherited by the Catholic Church. That takes care of any mention of the Council of Ferrara–Florence (as if I’d dare mention it). I think that’s called a preemptive strike. But even if you were pushed back a little and found yourself having to concede that the Council of Ferrara–Florence is rather more central to understanding the background concerning the development of this belief in the West than any part of the Apocrypha you would simply point to your opening statement i.e that regardless of when a Catholic doctrine is developed/promulgated it’s always retroactive, which would automatically allow you to return to your ancient Jewish position.

Head you win, tails I lose.

Admiringly,
Mick

If I may jump in here…I think this statement is very accurate, and may seem that way from outside the Catholic Church. I think (like I have said before) that it is harder when viewing through a Protestant lens, to distinguish “doctrine” from “theology”. It has been my observation that theology is much more tightly woven into Protestant doctrine, probably because they lack an infallible magisterium, so every doctrine must be exhaustively justified in their mindset. The doctine of purgatory itself as defined by the Church really doesn’t say much except that it is real, through it we are made perfect before we are able to be in God’s presence should we die with any attachment to sin or imperfection, and all in purgatory are saved and destined for an eternity with God.I am fairly certain that is the sum extent of infallible teaching on purgatory as defined by the Catholic Church. Every explaination and justification above and beyond that falls under the blanket of theology. Theology in the Catholic mindset is nothing more than commentary; it can be good or bad, and although beneficial for understanding, is not necessary in the sense that doctrine is not dependent on it, and it may not even be correct. In that sense, arguing theology in an attempt to nullify a teaching of the Catholic Church is ultimately of no consequence because the theology does not have to be correct for a doctrine to be true, since theology is just our human understanding of God’s Truth that has been revealed. Sorry, I’ve rambled a bit, but hopefully that made some sense.

 

[SSTeacher]

Yes, as I said before, Dr. Dragani can sometimes be a little skimpy on detail when it comes to the Orthodox. (He’s Eastern Catholic, btw.) So I did a wee bit of looking, and found something that might be more helpful in that regard:

Prayers for the Departed. ‘With the saints give rest, O Christ, to the souls of thy servants, where there is neither sickness, nor sorrow, nor sighing, but life everlasting.’ So the Orthodox Church prays for the faithful departed; and again: ‘O God of spirits and of all flesh, who hast trampled down death and overthrown the Devil, and given life unto Thy world: Do thou, the same Lord, give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants, in a place of light, refreshment, and repose, whence all pain, sorrow, and sighing have fled away. Pardon every transgression which they have committed, whether by word or deed or thought.’

Orthodox are convinced that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed, and they are confident that the dead are helped by such prayers. But precisely in what way do our prayers help the dead? What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers — most notably Peter of Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in Purgatory undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for their sins. It should be remarked, however, that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the Roman teaching on Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were carefully changed by Meletius Syrigos, while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the subject in his Confession). Today most if not all Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory, at any rate in this form. The majority would be inclined to say that the faithful departed do not suffer at all. Another school holds that perhaps they suffer, but, if so, their suffering is of a purificatory but not an expiatory character; for when a man dies in the grace of God, then God freely forgives him all his sins and demands no expiatory penalties: Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, is our only atonement and satisfaction. Yet a third group would prefer to leave the whole question entirely open: let us avoid detailed formulation about the life after death, they say, and preserve instead a reverent and agnostic reticence. When Saint Antony of Egypt was once worrying about divine providence, a voice came to him, saying: ‘Antony, attend to yourself; for these are the judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them’ (Apophthegmata (P.G. 65), Antony, 2).

• from The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware

Hi Peter,

Thanks for doing that bit of looking for me. I went back to Timothy Ware’s book and discovered that you’d transcribed his commentary very nicely – even bracketing the footnote within the paragraph. How kind of you.

I’ll keep on thinking and pondering, I guess.

I hope you have a Happy Christmas.

Contentedly,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Well, although you ignored my point and changed the subject, I’ll take the bait. I’ll contend that official Catholic teaching MUST be agree with the “Sufficiency of Scripture” because it teaches that Protestants who use “scripture only” can be saved. If Catholic teaching affirms that those who use scripture only can be saved, it would seem that there shouldn’t be much debate on the matter.

I see we’re talking past each other here.

When I say “Sufficiency of Scripture”, I mean the idea that the entire Deposit of Faith is contained (at least implicitly) in the Scriptures.

What I tend to forget is that some people say “Sufficiency of Scripture”, meaning that Scripture contains all doctrines which “must be believed to be saved”.

 

[Peter_J]

I agree, but this does not jive with the definition of Purgatory. Furthermore, the Catechism, in numerous places, does not call what goes on in Purgatory consequnces, but temporal punishment. Let’s call a spade a spade.

1479 Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted.

First, let me say that the CCC is a fantastic opus, bring together Catholic teachings on, well, basically all subjects. (On of my pet peeves, by the way, is when people place the CCC on a par with the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.)

However, the CCC shouldn’t be taken as something it was never intended to be: a non-stop succession of dogmatic statements.

That’s not to say that there aren’t dogmas contained in the CCC – on the contrary, I’m pretty sure that every dogma ever defined is contained somewhere in the CCC. The point I’m making is simply that the CCC also contains theological statements which are widely embraced by Catholics, but not required on pain of excommunication. The statement about “temporal punishment” is, I think, a good example.

 

[SSTeacher]

If I may jump in here…I think this statement is very accurate, and may seem that way from outside the Catholic Church. I think (like I have said before) that it is harder when viewing through a Protestant lens, to distinguish “doctrine” from “theology”. It has been my observation that theology is much more tightly woven into Protestant doctrine, probably because they lack an infallible magisterium, so every doctrine must be exhaustively justified in their mindset. The doctine of purgatory itself as defined by the Church really doesn’t say much except that it is real, through it we are made perfect before we are able to be in God’s presence should we die with any attachment to sin or imperfection, and all in purgatory are saved and destined for an eternity with God.I am fairly certain that is the sum extent of infallible teaching on purgatory as defined by the Catholic Church. Every explaination and justification above and beyond that falls under the blanket of theology. Theology in the Catholic mindset is nothing more than commentary; it can be good or bad, and although beneficial for understanding, is not necessary in the sense that doctrine is not dependent on it, and it may not even be correct. In that sense, arguing theology in an attempt to nullify a teaching of the Catholic Church is ultimately of no consequence because the theology does not have to be correct for a doctrine to be true, since theology is just our human understanding of God’s Truth that has been revealed. Sorry, I’ve rambled a bit, but hopefully that made some sense.

Joshua,

Many thanks for your perceptive comment. You have indeed stated it before and when you did so it made me pause and reflect upon how well you understood the difficulty. We Protestants see little difference between theology and doctrine. Actually, we don’t have much doctrine. We’ve got small groups, though. And altar calls. And on Sunday mornings, we have lots of people pretending to be Tony Bennett. And we have our Bibles and our own fallible ideas and our prejudices and this convoluted thing called Sola Scriptura. And most of us couldn’t tell you whether Sola Scriptura is theology or doctrine. But, whichever it is, it’s all we have. So we have to listen and watch and read and pause and consider and discuss and debate and figure and analyze and deduce before we can conclude anything. But the trouble is, even when we reach a conclusion (after exhausting every single angle we can think of) we still know that we could just as easily be as wrong as if we’d decided the matter on the toss of a coin. Frankly, we are to be pitied.

I’m not sure where I’m headed but I’m certain that I can’t in conscience remain in Protestantism. There is no Protestant Church so if there is a Church that possesses the fullness of Truth it has to be either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s either/or. I feel sure that I’ll be joining one of them eventually.

Prophetically,
Mick

 

[Indyann]

Joshua,

Many thanks for your perceptive comment. You have indeed stated it before and when you did so it made me pause and reflect upon how well you understood the difficulty. We Protestants see little difference between theology and doctrine. Actually, we don’t have much doctrine. We’ve got small groups, though. And altar calls. And on Sunday mornings, we have lots of people pretending to be Tony Bennett. And we have our Bibles and our own fallible ideas and our prejudices and this convoluted thing called Sola Scriptura. And most of us couldn’t tell you whether Sola Scriptura is theology or doctrine. But, whichever it is, it’s all we have. So we have to listen and watch and read and pause and consider and discuss and debate and figure and analyze and deduce before we can conclude anything. But the trouble is, even when we reach a conclusion (after exhausting every single angle we can think of) we still know that we could just as easily be as wrong as if we’d decided the matter on the toss of a coin. Frankly, we are to be pitied.

I’m not sure where I’m headed but I’m certain that I can’t in conscience remain in Protestantism. There is no Protestant Church so if there is a Church that possesses the fullness of Truth it has to be either the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It’s either/or. I feel sure that I’ll be joining one of them eventually.

Prophetically,
Mick

Just said a prayer for you.

 

[SSTeacher]

Just said a prayer for you.

Hi Indyann,

Thank you so much.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for doing that bit of looking for me. I went back to Timothy Ware’s book and discovered that you’d transcribed his commentary very nicely – even bracketing the footnote within the paragraph. How kind of you.

I’ll keep on thinking and pondering, I guess.

I hope you have a Happy Christmas.

Contentedly,
Mick

A magician never gives away his secret.

But since I’m not a magician, I guess it’s alright to tell you that the book (or most of it) can be found at:

fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_1.htm
fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/history_timothy_ware_2.htm

So all I actually did was copy-and-paste. (I don’t have the actual book, although I did check it out from the library a couple years ago to read it, along with The Orthodox Way. I take it you have a copy?)

 

[ckempston]

Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.

Well, granted, some books of the bible weren’t written by an apostle. So I guess the question is, would you agree with the statement “The apostles and other Scripture writers (e.g. Luke and Mark) were the only humans ever to be granted infallability by God.”?

No. The Miraculous Gifts of Prophecy and Teaching were active in the early church. While I have a hard time swallowing the “Papal Infallability” pill, I would not limit inspiration or infallability to the Bible only.

Agreed. St. Paul was infallible at certain times in his life, but he was not “personally infallible”. Just like the popes.

I have not claimed impeccability for Peter, Paul, or anyone else, other than Jesus. My point is not necessarily who definitely is or is not infallable. My point is that if you have someone that says, “Do as I say, not as I do,” at some point, you’re going to say to yourself, “Self, we know the right thing to do, so we need to ditch the hypocrite.”

 

[ckempston]

Therin lies the problem. You are judging the teaching of the Church based upon the failure of certain persons to live by it. It is true you will know them by their fruits, and indeed we do! Laying this at the feet of Christ, however, is not right.

No, I am judging whether or not to follow someone who says one thing and does another.

You are right that Scripture is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith. However, now you are changing your arguement. It is true that no doctrine can contradict the scriptures, but the Faith of the church was whole and entire before scripture was written.

No, it wasn’t. The Faith has evolved and changed tremendously, even if we allow that it is consistent, the Marian doctrines were not received by the church, they were developed over time.

I never said scripture was not necessary. And the article you quoted was about scriptural references to purgatory, not an attempt to create a biblical basis for the doctrine. None of the doctrines of the Church are “bible based”. They all pre-ceeded scripture.

Few of the Marian doctrines precede Scripture.

Well, you are an amazement of detachment. WHen someone does something to my stuff, I get very upset. Especially when it is malicious.

You don’t get upset in Purgatory, you get punished, presumably with fire. That’s a lot different than someone messing with your stuff.

OK.

 

[Peter_J]

No. The Miraculous Gifts of Prophecy and Teaching were active in the early church. While I have a hard time swallowing the “Papal Infallability” pill, I would not limit inspiration or infallability to the Bible only.

So if I understand you right, you’re not claiming that there can be no instances of a Pope after Peter exercising infallibility; but you are disagreeing with the specific statement that every ex cathedra statement (if any) a Pope makes, is infallible. Yes?

 

[ckempston]

So if I understand you right, you’re not claiming that there can be no instances of a Pope after Peter exercising infallibility; but you are disagreeing with the specific statement that every ex cathedra statement (if any) a Pope makes, is infallible. Yes?

Uh, I guess. It seems very convenient that the Pope can conduct himself in any way that he wants, and then say, “All Christians have to believe X.” The least Catholics could have done is put in a Caveat of “Minimum Good Behavior.” Even in the military, although admittedly the occurence would be rare, members are free to reject an unlawful order.

 

[joshua_b]

No. The Miraculous Gifts of Prophecy and Teaching were active in the early church. While I have a hard time swallowing the “Papal Infallability” pill, I would not limit inspiration or infallability to the Bible only.

I have not claimed impeccability for Peter, Paul, or anyone else, other than Jesus. My point is not necessarily who definitely is or is not infallable. My point is that if you have someone that says, “Do as I say, not as I do,” at some point, you’re going to say to yourself, “Self, we know the right thing to do, so we need to ditch the hypocrite.”

The obvious Catholic appeal it to the gospel, where Jesus tells the people “do as they say, just not as they do”.

This alone tells me, without any reference to papal infallibility or anything else, that Jesus at very minimum taught us to respect legitimate authority, and that the legitimacy of someone’s authority does not rest on whether or not their actions are appropriate for the position they hold. He Himself affirmed the authority of the Pharisees as legitimate and their pronouncements binding on the Jewish people.

So, if you accept that principle, the real question then becomes “does the bishop of Rome have the legitimate authority that the Catholic Church claims?” That, of course, is another matter entirely.

 

[Peter_J]

Uh, I guess. It seems very convenient that the Pope can conduct himself in any way that he wants, and then say, “All Christians have to believe X.” The least Catholics could have done is put in a Caveat of “Minimum Good Behavior.” Even in the military, although admittedly the occurence would be rare, members are free to reject an unlawful order.

Yes, I admit that’s rather difficult pill to swallow. Consider again what I said about Cardinal Newman and Vatican I. Newman believed that P.I., while true, ought not to have been dogmatically defined. Now here’s the kicker: he nevertheless believed that it had been dogmatically defined. In other words, according to Newman, belief in P.I. shouldn’t be mandatory but is mandatory.

I think Newman wrote something in response to this objection (or a related objection). If I find it, I’ll post it here.

 

[Peter_J]

The obvious Catholic appeal it to the gospel, where Jesus tells the people “do as they say, just not as they do”.

This alone tells me, without any reference to papal infallibility or anything else, that Jesus at very minimum taught us to respect legitimate authority, and that the legitimacy of someone’s authority does not rest on whether or not their actions are appropriate for the position they hold. He Himself affirmed the authority of the Pharisees as legitimate and their pronouncements binding on the Jewish people.

So, if you accept that principle, the real question then becomes “does the bishop of Rome have the legitimate authority that the Catholic Church claims?” That, of course, is another matter entirely.

Well said. I was thinking about that same Gospel passage, but I couldn’t think of the right words to say about it.

 

[guanophore]

I think it’s the idea of being "forcibly made pure” that seems wrongheaded.

I agree that this is “wrongheaded”. God does not purify the rebellious and the refusing. He disciplines every son whom He receives, but those who do not receive Him, He does not give them the power to become sons. Neither does He purify them.

With respect, I’m not yet convinced that the place/state even exists so figuring out its category at this early stage would seem to be a less than productive exercise for me.

It is for me too, since I ascribe rather to the Eastern notion of Theosis.

And I respect that belief.

So you would understand that we believe a person who dies right after baptism needs no further purification. This is one reason people used to engage in the terribly risky practice of waiting to the last minute to be baptized.

 There is some logic in it, I agree, but it’s a strange doctrine, all the same.

I understand. For those of us who have received the Apostolic faith, much of what comes out of the Reformation constitutes “strange doctrine”, and what we consider “a different gospel” than the one we received from the Apostles.

Yes, I think I know where you’re pointing me. It’s to the verse that says something like, “It’s a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead so they can be released from their sins.”

Are we in agreement, then, that this is not a Catholic invention?

I can accept the doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and Sunday worship without a great deal of trouble. Not so the New Testament canon. For example, I find it hard to believe that the Book of Revelation is inspired.

You are not alone, for sure! This was one of the most hotly disputed books.

 Well, in an attempt to bring the thread back from this tangent let me say with respect that your concluding comment above provides a good example of why the Protestant non–Catholic Christians here won’t argue with the real Catholic apologists.  It's like trying to nail down jello.  Here you are suggesting to me that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory was an ancient belief of the Jews (as evidenced by an apocryphal book) that has been inherited by the Catholic Church.

I am saying that it came from Jewish belief, but I think not-so ancient.The Deuterocanon was produced during the intertestamental period.

 That takes care of any mention of the Council of Ferrara–Florence (as if I’d dare mention it).  I think that’s called a preemptive strike.

Well, no. The deuterocanon itself was received by the Church in 382 and declared inspired because it was the version of OT scripture used by Jesus and the Apostles. However, it came under dispute again in the reformaiton, when Luther wanted to remove books that were “too Catholic” from the canon. Luther chose the same course used by the Palestinian Jews, rejecting the Septuagint because it testified of Jesus too clearly, among other reasons that turned out to be spurious. The Church found it necessary to redefine the canon, as it had been done in 382, to combat this heresy.

   But even if you were pushed back a little and found yourself having to concede that the Council of Ferrara–Florence is rather more central to understanding the background concerning the development of this belief in the West than any part of the Apocrypha you would simply point to your opening statement i.e that regardless of when a Catholic doctrine is developed/promulgated it’s always retroactive, which would automatically allow you to return to your ancient Jewish position.

I love that!

Head you win, tails I lose.

Admiringly,
Mick

Well, I was not trying to take the win-lose approach. In fact, I think the charism of infallibility Jesus gave to the Church makes a win-win for all of us, which was, of course, His intention.

 

[sambos671]

You don’t get upset in Purgatory, you get punished, presumably with fire. That’s a lot different than someone messing with your stuff.

Everytime God renews his covenant fire is involved. Moses and the burning bush. The bush was not consumed. With Abraham the covenant seal was

smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. 18

God lead the Isrealites by a pillar of fire. The Apostles were baptized by fire. I think this is how the Catholics view the “fire” of purgatory. Not charcole and burning and pain other than the remorse of being a sinful creature in the presence of a Holy God whereby we are purged and cleansed in that sense. We are laid bare before God who sees those sins we hold onto (even those we don’t even know we are doing) they are brought to light in his firery presence and they are consumed while we emerge new with nothing holding us back. I think thats how its viewed by catholics anyway.

 

[ckempston]

The obvious Catholic appeal it to the gospel, where Jesus tells the people “do as they say, just not as they do”.

This alone tells me, without any reference to papal infallibility or anything else, that Jesus at very minimum taught us to respect legitimate authority, and that the legitimacy of someone’s authority does not rest on whether or not their actions are appropriate for the position they hold. He Himself affirmed the authority of the Pharisees as legitimate and their pronouncements binding on the Jewish people.

Then the Apostles disobeyed Jesus. The Pharisees, who you correctly point out above, Jesus claimed sat in Moses’ seat, ordered the Apostles to stop preaching in Jesus’ name. What was the Apostles response? “We will obey God rather than man.”

So, if you accept that principle, the real question then becomes “does the bishop of Rome have the legitimate authority that the Catholic Church claims?” That, of course, is another matter entirely.

You see what Jesus said as a blanket endorsement of authority, regardless of its level of corruption. It seems impossible to me to interpret the verse in that way. There are obvious caveats here, even if the rule exists. The same goes for Romans 13, which says to submit to the earthly authorities. If the earthly authorities say, “Denounce your belief in Christ,” Christians are obliged to answer, “We will obey God rather than man.”

 

[ckempston]

Everytime God renews his covenant fire is involved. Moses and the burning bush. The bush was not consumed. With Abraham the covenant seal was God lead the Isrealites by a pillar of fire. The Apostles were baptized by fire. I think this is how the Catholics view the “fire” of purgatory. Not charcole and burning and pain other than the remorse of being a sinful creature in the presence of a Holy God whereby we are purged and cleansed in that sense. We are laid bare before God who sees those sins we hold onto (even those we don’t even know we are doing) they are brought to light in his firery presence and they are consumed while we emerge new with nothing holding us back. I think thats how its viewed by catholics anyway.

So you don’t feel any actual pain in purgatory? Only the pain of loss emotionally and in the sense that you’re basically in the same state you were in this lifetime. Is that what you’re saying? Sounds like a nice place.

 

[sambos671]

So you don’t feel any actual pain in purgatory? Only the pain of loss emotionally and in the sense that you’re basically in the same state you were in this lifetime. Is that what you’re saying? Sounds like a nice place.

I am by no means an expert on the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. However, this is how I believe the Catholics view purgatory. And the spirit is real and anguish over ones sinfulness is real. Yet like the Romans soldiers in the presence of a risen Christ they fell like dead men on the ground because they were faced with their sin infront of a holy God. So the flame of the renewed covenant or Gods presence will purge you of your hold on to sin (you know like pride etc that you never fully have gotten over because of your nature doesn’t mean that positionally you’re not justified by Christ sacrifice you just need work. Obviously we fight with sin in this life). Now in that sense yes its a nice place because you are being renewed to be like Christ. As far as being in the same state, you’re not. You are being renewed without the temptation to sin. You were already justified by God in this life but how many of us still hold on to sin in some respect. How many of us are like Christ? Not too many. We still struggle in this life. Paul says “I have not yet attained” To Catholics God offers purgatory to make us like Christ so that we may be presented perfect before God (which includes impeccability)