Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[LS]

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

[Cronos]

So can you point to any readings that support the notion of Purgatory? How do you explain away all of the citations that I provided that deny the doctrine of Purgatory?
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come." According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life "some sins wil be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire." St. Augustine also argues "that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come" (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.

[Cronos]

A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in I Cor., iii, 11-1,5: "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this eftect:

St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).
See also St. Thomas, "Contra Gentes,", IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, "Die christliche Eschatologie",

[redgolum]

Not all Lutherans, or Anglicans, believe that.

[SoothingDave]

Either your own eventual perfection has nothing to do with Christ, or else at some point Christ's perfection will be applied to you. Or else you are going to heaven in your dirty clothes.

We agree fully here.

I'm afraid not. If you agreed, you would stop your arguing against the idea that we can "put on" righteousness in a lter time fram than in first century Judea.

The problem is that your argument does nothing to prove that there is a place or state of being called Purgatory. I didn't say I was. I was merely pointing out that all of us believe that we will be made perfect sometime after death. And that the verses you cite don't contradict the idea of Purgatory.

SD

[Cronos]

With regards to the Apocrypha. We agree with the learned who have studied this before us, it would be better to learn about their arguments both for and against different aspects. Most of your objections have already been answered by the early Church fathers.

Why reinvent the wheel?

At a very early period orthodox writers and, presumably, ecclesiastical authorities found it necessary to distinguish between the genuine inspired books and a multitude of spurious rivals -- a fact which is a very important element in the formation of the Christian canon. Thus as early as about A.D. 170, the author of the descriptive Latin catalogue known as the "Muratorian Fragment" mentioned certain works as fictitious or contested. At the same time St. Irenæus called attention to the great mass of heretical pseudographic writings (inenarrabilis multitudo apocryphorum et perperam scripturarum, Adv., Hær., I, xx). Undoubtedly it was the large use heretical circles, especially the Gnostic sects, made of this insinuating literature which first called forth the animadversions of the official guardians of doctrinal purity. Even in the East, already the home of pseudographic literature, Origen (d. 254) exhibits caution regarding the books outside the canon (Comment. in Matth., serm. 28). St. Athanasius in 387 found it necessary to warn his flock by a pastoral epistle against Jewish and heretical apocrypha (P. G., XXVI, 1438). Another Greek Father, Epiphanius (312-403) in "Hæreses", 26, could complain that copies of Gnostic apocrypha were current in thousands. Yet it must be confessed that the early Fathers, and the Church, during the first three centuries, were more indulgent towards Jewish pseudographs circulating under venerable Old Testament names. The Book of Henoch and the Assumption of Moses had been cited by the canonical Epistle of Jude. Many Fathers admitted the inspiration of Fourth Esdras. Not to mention the Shepherd of Hermas, the Acts of St. Paul (at least in the Thecla portion) and the Apocalypse of St. Peter were highly revered at this and later periods. Yet, withal, no apocryphal work found official recognition in the Western Church. In 447 Pope Leo the Great wrote pointedly against the pseudo-apostolic writings, "which contained the germ of so many errors . . . they should not only be forbidden but completely suppressed and burned" (Epist. xv, 15). The so-called Decretum de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris" is attributed to Pope Gelasius (495), but in reality is a compilation dating from the beginning of the sixth century, and containing collections made earlier than Gelasius. It is an official document, the first of the kind we possess, and contained a list of 39 works besides those ascribed to Leucius, "disciple of the devil", all of which it condemns as apocryphal. From this catalogue it is evident that in the Latin Church by this time, apocrypha in general, including those of Catholic origin, had fallen under the ecclesiastical ban, always, however, with a preoccupation against the danger of heterodoxy. The Synod of Braga, in Spain, held in the year 563, anathematizes any one "who reads, approves, or defends the injurious fictions set in circulation by heretics". Although in the Middle Ages these condemnations were forgotten and many of the pseudographic writings enjoyed a high degree of favour among both clerics and the laity, still we find superior minds, such as Alcuin, St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, pointing out their want of authority. An echo of the ancient condemnations occurs in the work De Festis B.M.V. of Benedict XIV, declaring certain popular apocrypha to be impure sources of tradition.

[Cronos]

You're right, they don't. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was blaming individuals, it's just that any believer must use the knowledge, view the arguments raised for and against different articles of faith over the centuries. Luther did not, Calvin did not. Their arguments may have been valid, but were answered more than a millenium earlier in the debates of the early church fathers.

[Havoc]

Quite incorrect, the WESTERN Roman Empire disintegrated more than a century AFTER Christianity was put in place as the state religion. The Pharisees would never have supported what they regarded as a heretical cult of Judaism. The "Roman" Church is a misnomer -- it is the Worldwide "Catholic" church, with it's leader who happens to live in Rome.

The Roman Empire ended in general in 1453. The Roman church was at it's reigns in the end after stealing authority over it through fraud. The mindset of it's clergy has been the mindset occupied of the pharisees and the saducees. But the religion of Catholicism tried to take Christians force them together with the other pagan religions through forced conversions and adopted and renamed rites for "unity of empire" under Constantine and theodosius. This is how the issue of an appearance of pharisitic rule comes up. It's an appearance because the thinking and the response is identical.

That's highly generalized; but, there it is.

[DallasMike]

how do you define a blink? God's concept of time, reduces our perceptions to nothingness.

Agreed, but Paul says that believers caught up on Judgment Day are "changed in an instant." The concept of time is used elsewhere, like when Jesus told the thief on the cross "This day you shall be with me in paradise." Paul said that to be absent from his body is to be present with the Lord. There is no talk of an intermediate state.

I don't deny that we have to be changed in order to enter heaven. I do deny that we have to pay for our sins after death or that we have to undergo a painful and lengthy purifaction process.

[SoothingDave]

lengthy purifaction process.

Time, time, time, time, time, time, time.

Keep beating that strawman, Mike.

SD

[Havoc]

No, the Roman church was a cowing force, abusing or murdering anyone that didn't follow their direction.
Christianity survives despite their influence, not because of it.

[Havoc]

There is a double standard there Courtney that you should have seen before; but, is on display now if you haven't. The evidence for Fox's is probably better than the evidence Roman Catholicism uses for "canonizing" a saint. Their evidence is always good and anyone having evidence against them is always wrong, bad, questionable, a quack, etc. What does that sound like? Democrat conspiracy nuts playing to incredulity. Everything's a vast antiCatholic conspiracy. Best advice, get a tinfoil hat from some of the others around here and stick to your guns.

I can't say I've a great memory for Fox's; but, will have to get a copy for my collection. I know essentially what it is and have read portions of it before. The stories aren't much different than the history of the inquisitions.
Many people were martyred under the auspices of forced conversion, the inquisitions, etc and at the hands of the Roman Church and it's minions. As I've stated before, Rome wants to blame others for that and handwring to minimize the impact; but, that's always been the game.

[conservonator]

Small differences! If you say that the differences between the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, and the Roman Catholics Bibles are small, then you would have to say that their differences from the Protestant Bible -- which corresponds exactly to those books recognized as valid by the Jews -- are small, too.

Not quite. The fact of the matter remains that all traditional Christian Churches accept the Dutero books, in some fashion or another. And the fact remains that many Jews did too until Jamina, which occurred in the late first century. Luther and the reformers removed the books, over 1400 years later, to suite their own theology. The difference of A book or a verse or one Psalm is hardly on par with wholesale omission of the entire genera.

[Havoc]

So then you are the perfect Havoc? You will enter heaven just as you are? Or will you be made perfect?

You're kinda mixing issues aren't you. Perfection isn't something required of us. It's a goal to reach for; but, it is a work Christ does in us throughout our lives. The ideal is to serve Christ without straying and following other masters, such as Satan, money, philosophy, etc. That is being faithful to Christ. As the scripture says, faith = righteousness. Not because of us but because of Christ.

Paul said our bodies would not inherit heaven without being changed. Flesh and blood will not inherit the kingdom. That doesn't mean that our souls stay trapped elsewhere. Nor does it say that we're full of sin after Christ washes it away. That is in effect a repudiation of Christ rather than a show of faith. But that is philosophy at work. We've been through all the doubletalk on this issue before. It isn't a matter of time; but, it's a matter of time. It isn't a purification; it's a purification. It isn't a removing of sin, it's a perfection. It isn't a perfection, it's a removing of sin. It isn't a removing of sin, it's a removing of the consequence of sin. You guys have defined it so many ways even your own philosophers and clergy are clueless as to what they mean. And it still all manages to do the same thing - impugne Christ. The minute you say that what Christ said isn't true, any way you cut it, you've called him a liar. And that's what purgatory does. That is called blasphemy.

Asking whether I'm perfect, that's just meant to beg reason. 'Did you hear him, he said he could destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days.' I understand the mindset. Why is it so hard to take Christ at his word.

[CourtneyLeigh]

""Did you start this thread to ask Catholics questions and hear their responses and consider them? Or did you start it to spread the vilest lies?

If you honestly think Catholics are like that, why in the world would you come here to talk with us?

SD""

You've got a lot of nerve calling me a liar. I've not called anyone a liar. Everyone on this thread is sharing facts, hearsay, and opinions. You may have some beef with Havoc, but don't you start with me.

I've been earnestly open to what people are saying, I'm getting a little weary in restating points, but I'll not accept the accusation of lieing.

If what I've read, heard, and come to believe is a lie, it's not up to you to say so,
Give me absolute Scriptures, and documents disproving what I know, and I'll admit I'm wrong.

And I've never said that you the Catholic think this way,
Hell Dave, no one these days thinks the way folks did back during those centuries.

I'd never accuse, or start a lie about the average religious man today, rather Catholic, Roman Catholic, muslim, or jehovahs witness, whatever the case may be.

Please allow some margin of error, I don't know everything, and it's perfectly clear you don't either.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Just remember that millions of Christians, including most of Christians during the first centuries never read the New Testament.If they heard any part of it, it was in Church.

Gnostic Churches? Ebionite Churches? Adoptionist Churches? I'm glad you no longer consider them heretical.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Sorry. Meant to ping you to #375.

[CourtneyLeigh]

"""That's the understatement of the year! Some call it the "ever-shrinking doctrine of Purgatory." The council of Trent declared infallibly,

"If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged, either in this world or in Purgatory, before the gates of Heaven can be opened, let him be anathema."

Trent states plainly and infallibly that Purgatory is a place where we "pay our debt of temporal punishment." Yet you wonder in post 306 where I might get the idea that Purgatory is "a place of firery judgment where you have to pay for you sins before Jesus will let you into heaven?" I got it from the "infallible" Council of Trent.

Modern Catholics say that Purgatory might not even be a place or that time is not quantified. Good for them, but they're certainly going against the "infallible" Council of Trent.

The Bible says that Jesus paid for our sins once and for all on the cross and in Romans 8:1 says, "Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." I'll go with the Bible over Trent any day.

As I've noted in post 118 and 168, Purgatory is contrary to the Bible's many descriptions of life after death.



324 posted on 01/29/2004 11:15:24 AM EST by DallasMike (Democrats are toast) """"""""""


God is never changing, neither is the Word of GOd,
yet the Roman Catholic Church and their clergy(note not their congregation) is ever changing. When will they make up their minds as to what they think is interpretation, and finally make a dogma that is absolute.

I stress that the Holy KJV has gone for hundreds of years, unchanged by any one man, nor does any other decree follow along side, as does the Council of Trent for Romam Catholicism.

Didn't someone say refer to the message of scripture just not the text?

Well, if we were to go through the messages delivered from the Council of Trent on what's right and wrong,(which I admit to never reading) wouldn't we become a little confused.

From what I've heard, ( again, I am admitting hearsay),
The Doctrines, Creeds, and laws of Roman Catholicism have changed almost as often as Our Countries Amendments.

Look what a disaster change can have on a country, let alone the hearts and mentallity of a church of people.

[SoothingDave]

I've been earnestly open to what people are saying, I'm getting a little weary in restating points, but I'll not accept the accusation of lieing.

Don't repeat the vilest of lies about Jesuits and other Cahtolics murdering people, from the flimsiest of polemic nonsense books and pretend that you are all innocent and such.

It isn't flying. If you honestly wanted to engage Catholics in conversation and truly wanted to know what we believed, you wouldn't post nonsense about how we kill everyone who disagrees with us.

That's old time Protestant lies and whoever told you that did you a disservice. Did you think posting that would help?

If anything is "perfectly clear" it's that you have been fed the vilest anti-Catholic propaganda and that you are too naive to even recognize it for what it is.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Well, if we were to go through the messages delivered from the Council of Trent on what's right and wrong,(which I admit to never reading) wouldn't we become a little confused. From what I've heard, ( again, I am admitting hearsay), The Doctrines, Creeds, and laws of Roman Catholicism have changed almost as often as Our Countries Amendments.

You confess your ignorance, and yet don't let it stop you from spouting your ill-formed opinions. Do you think that is wise, or even Christian?

SD

[SoothingDave]

Asking whether I'm perfect, that's just meant to beg reason.

Yes, how silly of me to try to reason with you.

I'll just note that just because you have neither the desire nor (apparently) the capacity to understand something, that doesn't automatically make it wrong or part of some conspiracy. I and millions of other Catholics have no trouble understanding these apparently complex things that you simply will not think about.

Something to ponder. Even Paul, when he was done being a child, put away his childish notions.

Perfection isn't something required of us.

Go ahead and enter heaven while imperfect, and let's see what happens.

SD