Posted on 01/29/2007 6:45:51 AM PST by stfassisi
The Doctrine of Purgatory by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
God created man that he might possess his Creator forever in the beatific vision. Those who die in the state of enmity toward God are deprived of this happiness. Between these extremes are people who are neither estranged from God nor wholly dedicated to Him when they die. What will be their lot after death?
The response of faith is that nothing defiled can enter heaven (Rev 21:27), and therefore anyone less than perfect must first be cleansed before he can be admitted to the vision of God.
If this doctrine of Catholicism is less strenuously opposed than the one on hell, over the centuries it has nevertheless become something of a symbol of Rome. Historically, the Reformation was occasioned by a dispute over indulgences, with stress on indulgences for the souls in purgatory. Since that time, the existence of an intermediate state between earth and heaven has remained a stumbling block to reunion and its final acceptance by the Protestant churches would mean a reversal of four hundred years of divergence.
Too often the eschatology of the Catholic Church is considered her own private domain, when actually the whole of Eastern Orthodoxy subscribes (substantially) to Catholic teaching on the Last Things, including the doctrine on purgatory.
Those in Purgatory When we speak of the souls of the just in purgatory we are referring to those that leave the body in the state of sanctifying grace and are therefore destined by right to enter heaven. Their particular judgment was favorable, although conditional: provided they are first cleansed to appear before God. The condition is always fulfilled.
The poor souls in purgatory still have the stains of sin within them. This means two things. First, it means that the souls have not yet paid the temporal penalty due, either for venial sins, or for mortal sins whose guilt was forgiven before death. It may also mean the venial sins themselves, which were not forgiven either as to guilt or punishment before death. It is not certain whether the guilt of venial sins is strictly speaking remitted after death, and if so, how the remission takes place.
We should also distinguish between the expiatory punishments that the poor souls in purgatory pay and the penalties of satisfaction which souls in a state of grace pay before death. Whereas before death a soul can cleanse itself by freely choosing to suffer for its sins, and can gain merit for this suffering, a soul in purgatory can not so choose and gains no merit for the suffering and no increase in glory. Rather, it is cleansed according to the demands of Divine Justice.
We are not certain whether purgatory is a place or a space in which souls are cleansed. The Church has never given a definite answer to this question. The important thing to understand is that it is a state or condition in which souls undergo purification.
The Catholic practice of offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead is known as offering suffrages. These suffrages are offered both by the individuals and by the Church. They are intended to obtain for the poor soul, either partial or total remission of punishment still to be endured.
Who are the faithful that can pray effectively for the poor souls? They are primarily all baptized Christians but may be anyone in a state of grace. At least the state of grace is probably necessary to gain indulgences for the dead.
The angels and saints in heaven can also help these souls in purgatory and obtain a mitigation of their pains. When they do so, the process is not by way of merit or of satisfaction, but only through petition. A study of the Church’s official prayers reveals that saints and the angelic spirits are invoked for the Church Suffering (i.e., those in purgatory), but always to intercede and never otherwise.
Contrary Views Since patristic times there have been many who have denied the existence of purgatory and have claimed it is useless to pray for the dead. Arius, a fourth-century priest of Alexandria who claimed that Christ is not God, was a prime example. In the Middle Ages, the Albigenses, Waldenses, and Hussites all denied the existence of purgatory. Generally, the denial by these different groups of heretics was tied in with some theoretical position on grace, or merit, or the Church’s authority. But until the Reformation, there was no major reaction to Catholic doctrine on the existence of purgatory.
With the advent of the Reformers, every major Protestant tradition—the Reformed (Calvinist), Evangelical (Lutheran), Anglican (Episcopal), and Free Church (Congregational)—took issue with Roman Catholicism to disclaim a state of purification between death and celestial glory.
John Calvin set the theological groundwork for the disclaimer, which he correctly recognized to be a part of the Protestant idea that salvation comes from grace alone in such a way that it involves no human cooperation:
We should exclaim with all our might, that purgatory is a pernicious fiction of Satan, that it makes void the cross of Christ, that it intolerably insults the Divine Mercy, and weakens and overturns our faith. For what is their purgatory, but a satisfaction for sins paid after death by the souls of the deceased? Thus the notion of satisfaction being overthrown, purgatory itself is immediately subverted from its very foundation. It has been fully proved that the blood of Christ is the only satisfaction, expiation, and purgation for the sins of the faithful. What, then, is the necessary conclusion but that purgation is nothing but a horrible blasphemy against Christ? I pass by the sacrilegious pretences with which it is daily defended, the offences which it produces in religion, and the other innumerable evils which we see to have come from such a source of impiety. Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 5. Calvin’s strictures have been crystallized in the numerous Reformed Confessions of Faith, like the Westminster Confession of the Presbyterian Church. “Prayer is to be made,” says the Confession, “for things lawful, and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for those of whom it may be known that they have sinned the sin unto death” (Chapter XXI, Section 4).
In the Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran churches, it is stated that “the Mass is not a sacrifice to remove the sins of others, whether living or dead, but should be a Communion in which the priest and others receive the sacrament for themselves” (Chapter XXIV, The Mall).
The Thirty-nine Articles of the Anglican Communion, which in the United States is the Protestant Episcopal Church, are equally clear. They place the existence of purgatory in the same category with image worship and invocation of the saints:
The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping and Adoration, as well as images of Relics, and also Invocation of Saints, is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God. (Article XXII). Standard formularies of the Free Church tradition simply omit mention of purgatory from their Confessions of Faith, with a tendency in the United Church of Christ towards universalism. Thus life everlasting is univocally equated with blessedness, the “never-ending life of the soul with God,” which means “the triumph of righteousness (in) the final victory of good over evil, which must come because God wills it” (Christian Faith and Purpose: A Catechism, Boston, p. 21).
A fine testimony to the ancient faith in purgatory occurs in the authoritative Confession of Dositheus, previously referred to. This creed of the Orthodox Church was produced by a synod convened in Jerusalem in 1672 by Patriarch Dositheus. The occasion for the creed was Cyril Lucaris, who had been elected Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602 and of Constantinople in 1621, Lucaris was strongly influenced by Protestantism and especially by Reformed theology. His Protestant predilections aroused the opposition of his own people. He was finally strangled by the Turks, who thought he was guilty of treason.
The Confession of Dositheus defines Orthodoxy over against Protestantism. It is the most important Orthodox confession of modern times:
We believe that the souls of those that have fallen asleep are either at rest or in torment, according to each hath wrought. For when they are separated from their bodies, they depart immediately either to joy or to sorrow and lamentation; though confessedly neither their enjoyment nor condemnation are complete. For, after the common resurrection, when the soul shall be united with the body, with which it had behaved itself well or ill, each shall receive the completion of either enjoyment or of condemnation. Such as though involved in mortal sins have not departed in despair but have, while still living in the body, repented, though without bringing any fruits of repentance---by pouring forth tears, by kneeling while watching in prayers, by afflicting themselves, by relieving the poor, and in find by showing forth by their works their love towards God and their neighbor, and which the Catholic Church hath from the beginning rightly called satisfaction—of these and such like the souls depart into Hades, and there endure the punishment due to their sins which they have committed. But they are aware of their future release from thence, and are delivered by the Supreme Goodness through the prayers of the priests and the good works which the relative of each perform for their departed—especially the unbloody Sacrifice availing the highest degree—which each offers particularly for his relatives that have fallen asleep, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church offers daily for all alike. It is not known, of course, when they will be released. We know and believe that there is deliverance for them from their dire condition, before the common resurrection and judgment, but we do not know when. (Decree XVII). An unexpected development in contemporary Episcopalianism is the verbal admission of Article XXII of the Thirty-nine Articles alongside a belief in prayers for the dead sanctioned by the American Book of Common Prayer. Among others, one oration reads: “O God, whose mercies cannot be numbered, accept our prayers on behalf of the soul of thy servant, and grant him (her) an entrance into the land of light and joy, in the fellowship of thy saints” (p. 34). Masses for the faithful departed are also offered in the High Church Episcopalianism.
Biblical Elements of Purgatory The Definition of the Catholic Church on the existence of purgatory is derived from Sacred Scripture and the Sacred Tradition, which Christ promised would enable the Church to interpret Scripture without error. In particular, the Church relied on the writings of the early Fathers in defining this article of faith.
The classic text in the Old Testament bearing witness to the belief of the Jewish people in the existence of a state of purgation where souls are cleansed before entering heaven is found in the Book of Maccabees. Judas Maccabeus (died 161 BC) was a leader of the Jews in opposition to Syrian dominance, and Hellenizing tendencies among his people. He resisted a Syrian army and renewed religious life by rededicating the temple; the feast of Hanukkah celebrates this event.
In context, Judas had just completed a successful battle against the Edomites and was directing the work of gathering up the bodies of the Jews who had fallen in battle. As the bodies were picked up, it was found that every one of the deceased had, under his shirt, amulets of the idols of Jamnia, which the Law forbade the Jews to wear. Judas and his men concluded that this was a divine judgment against the fallen, who died because they had committed this sin of disobedience. The sacred writer describes what happened next:
So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden and fell to supplication, begging that the sin that had been committed should be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, after having seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. He also took a collection, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, each man contributing, and sent it to Jerusalem, to provide a sin offering, acting very finely and properly in taking account of the resurrection. For if he had not expected that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead; or if it was through reward destined for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, so that they might be set free from their sin (2 Mac 12:42-46). The Maccabean text shows that Judas, and the Jewish priests and people believed that those who died in peace could be helped by prayers and sacrifices offered by the living. Luther denied the canonicity of seven books of the Old Testament (the Deuterocanonical books), including the two books of Maccabees. But even if the text were not inspired, as an authentic witness to Jewish history in pre-Christian times it testifies to the common belief in a state of purgation after death and in the ability to help the faithful departed by prayers of intercession on their behalf. Jewish tradition since the time of Christ supports this view.
There are also certain passages in the New Testament that the Church commonly cites as containing evidence of the existence of purgatory. In the Gospel of Matthew, Christ warns the Pharisees that anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next (Mt. 12:32). Here Christ recognizes that there exists a state beyond this world in which the penalty due for sins, which were pardoned as to guilt in the world, is forgiven. St. Paul also affirms the reality of purgatory. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he says that “the fire will assay the quality of everyone’s work,” and “if his work burns he will lose his reward, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire” (1 Cor 3:13, 15). These words clearly imply some penal suffering. Since he connects it so closely with the divine judgment, it can hardly be limited to suffering in this world, but seems to include the idea of purification through suffering after death, namely in Purgatory.
The Fathers on Purgatory During the first four centuries of the Christian era, the existence of purgatory was commonly taught in the Church, as seen in its universal practice of offering prayers and sacrifices for the dead.
The most ancient liturgies illustrate the custom in such prayers as the following: “Let us pray for our brothers who have fallen asleep in Christ, that the God of the highest charity towards men, who has summoned the soul of the deceased, may forgive him all his sin and, rendered well-disposed and friendly towards him, may call him to the assembly of the living” (Apostolic Constitutions, 8:41).
Equally ancient are the inscriptions found in the catacombs, which provide numerous examples of how the faithful offered prayers for their departed relatives and friends. Thus we read from engravings going back to the second century such invocations as “Would that God might refresh your spirit….Ursula, may you be received by Christ….Victoria, may your spirit be at rest in good….Kalemir, may God grant peace to your spirit and that of your sister, Hildare…Timothy, may the eternal life be yours in Christ.”
Writers before Augustine explicitly teach that souls stained with temporal punishment due to sins are purified after death. St. Cyprian (died 258) taught that penitents who die before the Sacrament of Penance must perform the remainder of any atonement required in the other world, while martyrdom counts as full satisfaction (Epistola 55,20). St. Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) described the sacred rites of the Liturgy with the comment, “Then we pray also for the dead, our holy fathers, believing that this will be a great help for the souls of those for whom the prayer is offered” (Catechesis, 32).
St. Augustine not only presumed the existence of purgatory as a matter of divine faith, but also testified to this belief from the Scriptures. Among other statements, he said, “Some believers will pass through a kind of purgatorial fire. In proportion as they loved the goods that perish with more or less devotion, they shall be more or less quickly delivered from the flames.” He further declared that the deceased are “benefited by the piety of their living friends, who offer the Sacrifice of the Mediator, or give alms to the Church on their behalf. But these services are of help only to those lives had earned such merit that suffrages of this could assist them. For there is a way of life that is neither so good as to dispense with these services after death, nor so bad that after death they are of not benefit” (Enchiridion 69, 110).
Augustine’s most beautiful tribute to purgatory occurs in the book of his Confessions, where he describes the death of his mother Monica and recalls her final request, “Lay this body anywhere at all. The care of it must not trouble you. This only I ask of you, that you remember me at the altar of the Lord wherever you are.” Augustine complied with his mother’s desire and admits that he did not weep “even in those prayers that were poured forth to Thee while the sacrifice of our redemption was offered for her” (Confessions, IX, 11).
After the Patristic period, the Church did not significantly develop the doctrine of purgatory for many centuries. Then in the twelfth century, Pope Innocent IV (1243-54), building upon the writings of the Fathers, expounded in detail upon the doctrine. In context, Innocent was concerned with reuniting the Greek Church which had been in schism since the Photian scandal in the ninth century. He appealed to the Greek’s belief in a state of purgation as a point of departure from which to bring them into communion with Rome. In a doctrinal letter to the apostolic delegate in Greece, he discussed the common belief:
It is said that the Greeks themselves unhesitatingly believe and maintain that the souls of those who do not perform a penance which they have received, or the souls of those who die free from mortal sins but with even the slightest venial sins, are purified after death and can be helped by the prayers of the Church. Since the Greeks say that their Doctors have not given them a definite and proper name for the place of such purification, We, following the tradition and authority of the holy Fathers, call that place purgatory; and it is our will that the Greeks use that name in the future. For sins are truly purified by that temporal fire---not grievous or capital sins which have not first been remitted by penance, but small and slight sins which remain a burden after death, if they have not been pardoned during life (DB, 456). The Second Council of Lyons, convened in 1274, used the teaching of Pope Innocent IV in its formal declaration on purgatory. This declaration stated:
If those who are truly repentant die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments…The suffrages of the faithful on earth can be of great help in relieving these punishments, as, for instance, the Sacrifice of the Mass, prayers, almsgiving, and other religious deeds which, in the manner of the Church, the faithful are accustomed to offer for others of the faithful. The next major pronouncement by the Catholic Church regarding purgatory came shortly before the Council of Trent, from Pope Leo X who condemned a series of propositions of Martin Luther, including the following:
Purgatory cannot be proved from the Sacred Scripture which is the Canon. The souls in purgatory are not sure about their salvation, at least not all of them. Moreover, it has not been proved from reason or from the Scriptures that they are beyond the state of merit or of growing in charity (DB 777-778). The Council of Trent went further, including in the Decree on Justification an anathema of those who deny the debt of temporal punishment, remissible either in this life or in the next:
If anyone says that, after receiving the grace of justification the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in purgatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (DB 840). Fifteen years after the Decree on Justification, and shortly before its closing sessions, the Council of Trent issued a special Decree on Purgatory, as well as corresponding decrees on sacred images, invocation of the saints and indulgences. It was a summary statement that referred to the previous definition and that cautioned against some of the abuses that gave rise to the Protestant opposition:
The Catholic Church, by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with Sacred Scripture and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy councils, and most recently in this ecumenical council, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar. Therefore, this holy council commands the bishops to be diligently on guard that the true doctrine about purgatory, the doctrine handed down from the holy Fathers and the sacred councils, be preached everywhere, and that Christians be instructed in it, believe it, and adhere to it. But let the more difficult and subtle controversies, which neither edify nor generally cause any increase of piety, be omitted from the ordinary sermons to the poorly instructed. Likewise, they should not permit anything that is uncertain or anything that appears to be false to be treated in popular or learned publications. And should forbid as scandalous and injurious to the faithful whatever is characterized by a kind of curiosity and superstition, or is prompted by motives of dishonorable gain (DB 983). Most recently, the Second Vatican Council in its Constitution on the Church renewed the teaching of previous councils on eschatology, including the doctrine of purgatory. “This sacred Council,” it declared, “accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who, having died, are still being purified….At the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God” (Chapter VII, No. 51).
Meaning of the Doctrine Although not defined doctrine, it is certain that the essential pain in purgatory is the pain of loss, because the souls are temporarily deprived of the beatific vision.
Their suffering is intense on two counts: (1) the more something is desired, the more painful its absence, and the faithful departed intensely desire to possess God now that they are freed from temporal cares and no longer held down by the spiritual inertia of the body; (2) they clearly see that their deprivation was personally blameworthy and might have been avoided if only they had prayed and done enough penance during life.
However, there is no comparison between this suffering and the pains of hell. The suffering of purgatory is temporary and therefore includes the hope of one day seeing the face of God; it is borne with patience since the souls realize that purification is necessary and they do not wish to have it otherwise; and it is accepted generously, out of love for God and with perfect submission to His will.
Moreover, purgatory includes the pain of sense. Some theologians say that not every soul is punished with this further pain, on the premise that it may be God’s will to chastise certain people only with the pain of loss.
Theologically, there is less clarity about the nature of this pain of sense. Writers in the Latin tradition are quite unanimous that the fire of purgatory is real and not metaphorical. They argue from the common teaching of the Latin Fathers, of some Greek Fathers, and of certain papal statements like that of Pope Innocent IV, who spoke of “a transitory fire” (DB 456). Nevertheless, at the union council of Florence, the Greeks were not required to abandon the opposite opinion, that the fire of purgatory is not a physical reality.
We do not know for certain how intense are the pains in purgatory. St. Thomas Aquinas held that the least pain in purgatory was greater than the worst in this life. St. Bonaventure said the worst suffering after death was greater than the worst on earth, but the same could not be said regarding the least purgatorial suffering.
Theologians commonly hold, with St. Robert Bellarmine, that in some way the pains of purgatory are greater than those on earth. At least objectively the loss of the beatific vision after death, is worse than its non-possession now. But on the subjective side, it is an open question. Probably the pains in purgatory are gradually diminished, so that in the latter stages we could not compare sufferings on earth with the state of a soul approaching the vision of God.
Parallel with their sufferings, the souls also experience intense spiritual joy. Among the mystics, St. Catherine of Genoa wrote, “It seems to me there is no joy comparable to that of the pure souls in purgatory, except the joy of heavenly beatitude.” There are many reasons for this happiness. They are absolutely sure of their salvation. They have faith, hope and great charity. They know themselves to be in divine friendship, confirmed in grace and no longer able to offend God.
Although the souls in purgation perform supernatural acts, they cannot merit because they are no longer in the state of wayfarers, nor can they increase in supernatural charity. By the same token, they cannot make satisfaction, which is the free acceptance of suffering as compensation for injury, accepted by God on account of the dignity of the one satisfying. The sufferings in purgatory are imposed on the departed, without leaving them the option of “free acceptance” such as they had in mortal life. They can only make “satis-passion” for their sins, by patiently suffering the demand of God’s justice.
The souls in purgatory can pray, and, since impetration is the fruit of prayer, they can also impetrate. The reason is that impetration does not depend on strict justice as in merit, but on divine mercy. Moreover, the impetratory power of their prayers depends on their sanctity.
It is therefore highly probable that the poor souls can impetrate a relaxation of their own (certainly of other souls’) sufferings. But they do not do this directly; only indirectly in obtaining from God the favor that the Church might pray for them and that prayers offered by the faithful might be applied to them.
However, it is not probable but certain that they can pray and impetrate on behalf of those living on earth. They are united with the Church Militant by charity in the Communion of Saints. At least two councils approved the custom of invoking the faithful departed. According to the Council of Vienne, they “assist us by their suffrages.” And in the words of the Council of Utrecht, “We believe that they pray for us to God.” St. Bellarmine wrote at length on the efficacy of invoking the souls in purgatory. The Church has formally approved the practice, as in the decree of Pope Leo XIII granting an indulgence for any prayer in which the intercession of the faithful departed is petitioned (Acta Sanctae Sedis, 1889-90, p. 743).
A Problem A major problem arises regarding the forgiveness of venial sins in a person who is dying in the state of grace. When and how are they remitted? Is the forgiveness before death? If so, by what right? What has the person done to deserve forgiveness, since it is not likely God would remove the guilt of sins that were not repented of. Or is it after death? But then how can this take place, since ex hypotesi the person can no longer merit or truly satisfy, but can only suffer to remove the reatus poenae.
According to one theory (Alexander of Hales), venial sins are always removed in this life through the grace of final perseverance, even without an act of contrition. Remission takes place “in the very dissolution of body and soul,” when concupiscence is also extinguished. Few theologians look on this opinion favorably, both because there is nothing in the sources to suggest that final perseverance remits guilt, and because everything indicates the need for some human counterpart in the remission of sin.
Others claim (e.g., St. Bonaventure) that forgiveness occurs in purgatory itself by a kind of “accidental merit” which allows for the removal of guilt and not only satispassion in virtue of Divine Justice. If anything, this theory is less probable than the foregoing because it presumes there is a possibility of merit after death.
Blessed Dun Scotus and the Franciscan school say the deletion takes place either in purgatory or at the time of death. If in purgatory, it is on the assumption that the expiating venial sins is nothing more than remitting the penalty they deserve; if at the time of death, it could be right at the moment the soul leaves the body or an instant after. In any case, Scotists postulate that remission occurs because of merits previously gained during life on earth. This position is not much favored because it seems to identify habitual sin with its penalty and claim that venial sins are remissible without subjective penance.
The most common explanation is that venial sins are remitted at the moment of death, through the fervor of a person’s love of God and sorrow for his sins. For although a soul on leaving the body can no longer merit or make real satisfaction, it can retract its sinful past. Thus, it leaves its affection for sin and, without increasing in sanctifying grace or removing any penalty (as happens in true merit), it can have deleted the reatus culpai. The latter is incompatible with the exalted love of God possessed by a spirit that leaves the body in divine friendship but stained with venial faults.
***Warning***
The post below is blatant, sarcastic humor at the expense of the RCC. Please do not read it if you are easily offended!
I finally made it to the bobblehead site! Very cool! The best part is that if you order any of the religious bobbleheads, it comes with a mini bible keychain!!!
Maybe we can convince them to produce an entire bobblehead collection to coincide with the catholic calendar of saints. Even better, if they can get the RCC to throw in a free indulgence with each purchase, they'll sell like... well... indulgences!!!
I have sitting here, open on my lap, my very own well-worn copy of the New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition. It was a gift to me by my priest several years ago.
As I open it, I notice a few things.
The first, right at the front, is a letter, signed "Paulus P P. VI", the Pope himself, hailing this Bible.
And when I look to the left of that, I see two things.
I see "IMPRIMATUR", signed by Patrick Cardinal O'Boyle, Archbishop of Washington.
And I see "NIHIL OBSTAT", given by Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M, S.S.L. and Christian P. Ceroke, S.T.D.
Next, is the Vatican II Constitution.
And next is a long instruction manual "How To Read Your Bible" offered up by the Bishop's Committee of the Cofraternity of Christian Doctrine".
And there, on page 27 of my Catholic Bible, under the heading entitled "How Do You Know?" I read this:
"Sometimes, it is secular science which gives Christians the lead to reconsider their Bible understanding. The discoveries of Copernicus and Galileo made Christians aware that Genesis 1 is not a sacred lesson in science but a poem on creation. No well-educated person denies any longer that the human species has developed from prinates. This knowledge helped Christians to understand that Genesis 2 and 3 is not a lesson in anthropology, but an allegory, teaching us the lesson that sin is the root of all evil."
Now, to me, that teaching of the Church there in my Catholic Bible, signed by the Pope, Imprimatured by the Archbishop, with the Nihil Obstat of two ecclesiasts and an essay by the American Bishops, has been a key to my understanding all of these years, which has allowed me to easily fit my rigorously scientific and rational education together with my faith.
For this exercise, which is what I did here, you have called me a heretic. Strong words.
You are not an ordained clergyman.
You are a man determined to assert authority you do not have.
You may continue to do so, of course.
We each represent different strands of Catholic thought, obviously strands which are very far apart.
Your strand has a tone to it which is familiar to students of the history of the Catholic Church. It is the key reason Protestants hate us.
My tone is that of reasoned argumentation.
In response to your accusation of heresy, I merely observe that you are very opinionated.
I have written no heresy here.
Nor will I.
If you think there is heresy, then seek out an ordained official of the church and have him read and impose discipline on one of us.
Everyone ought to be very careful about throwing around the heretic mantle. We're a very exclusive club, and you have not been allowed in... yet!
You've brushed up against the seduction that has separated "science" from theology. Today's science is better dubbed "naturalism" -- If we can't measure it, it must not exist. The fact is that God is greater than His creation. It is impossible for Him to be measured within our finite world , given His infinity. As such, the strictures of modern science are built to exclude God, or any possible explanation that includes the supernatural.
It is the height of arrogance to believe that anything beyond our limited capabilities is impossible. This arrogance has spawned utterly ridiculous "scientific" explanations for events. Events that are more probable when consideration to the Deity is paid.
Forget natsci for a minute and go to text.
Genesis 1: all birds made on 5th day, man made on 6th day.
Genesis 2: all birds made for man, as companions, after man was made.
It doesn't work.
"Everyone ought to be very careful about throwing around the heretic mantle. We're a very exclusive club, and you have not been allowed in... yet!"
Catholics need to be trebly careful, because it means something concrete. It means, if one is stubborn in it after correction, excommunication. Excommunication means that one can no longer participate in the salvific sacraments of the Church: an utter disaster.
To fling a charge of heresy at someone is to demand his exclusion from the Body of Christ. It is a dramatic charge, an odious charge, a charge that one has departed from God and become like Satan, the adversary, in our midst.
To publicly and repeatedly accuse someone of heresy is a grave thing, a public witness of the evil of one's interlocutor.
In my case, it is untrue. I have committed no heresy, writing what I wrote, thinking as I think. Nor do I aspire to.
Not true! Einstein's theory of special relativity includes the idea of "point of reference". When one event is viewed from two different reference points, the "truth" about the event depends upon which reference it is described in. Include with this the spatial distances between the location of the earth and the postulated origination point of the universe, and allow for the supernatural involvement of God... you wind up with a very good theory that fits nicely with literal, Bible-based creation AND with known facts describing both the physical universe and the geology of the earth.
Again, pick up a copy of Gerard Schroeder's book. He offers some fascinatingly insightful theories!
If they're not excommunicating the Dem politicos you're probably not in much jeopardy.
It wasn't an apple.
No disrespect, Scubie, but the website speaks in generalities and does not answer the very specific charge.
Let me cite the problem very specifically.
Genesis 1
1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and EVERY WINGED FOWL after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
1:23 And the evening and the morning were THE FIFTH DAY.
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
...
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were THE SIXTH DAY.
__________________________
To recap: God made all the birds - every winged fowl - on the fifth day. And God made man on the sixth day.
__________________________
Now let's look at Genesis 2
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden...and there he put the man whom he had formed.
2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree ...
2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden...
2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat...
2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and EVERY FOWL OF THE AIR; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
To recap: God made man before the plants sprouted (which doesn't mean before he made the plants - they could have been seeds).
And then God made Eden, and then put man in it.
And then God saw Adam was alone, that this wasn't good, so then he made the animals to be his companions, including EVERY BIRD.
Genesis 1: EVERY BIRD is made BEFORE man.
Genesis 2: EVERY BIRD is made AFTER man, and for the purpose of being man's companion.
This is not a question of greater detail, as the website suggests. That the plants haven't sprouted yet is a greater detail. That the animals, made on the same day as Adam in Genesis 1, are made for Adam is a detail. But Genesis 2 reverses the order of creation of the birds, specifically, and creates an impossible situation, where every bird was created before man, and every bird was created after man (and there was no death to make the every bird created before to die and be replaced by every bird to be created after).
This is simply a Bible contradiction.
How could this happen?
The answer, the Jews will tell you, is that there were at least two ancient traditional sources for Genesis, what they call the Priestly source, and the Yahistic source. The story lines in the two sources were slightly different. The author of Genesis, who actually took to the task of writing down the ancient lore, did not want to choose one sacred tradition over the other, so he wrote them both down and blended them. But some details could not be blended and made to correspond. The creation of the birds is one of them.
This is no big deal: God created the world. He created life. He created man. But Genesis doesn't tell us how He did it. In fact, it gives us a conflicting account of when He made the birds. It's not a little thing IF one is a strict literalist, because it's a conflict which forces on to choose. I have read before the websites that say what the one you posted said: but they don't answer the problem of the birds.
Some translators know the problem of the birds, and have tried to finesse it by adding a verb tense. The NIV does this, inserted a HAD into Genesis 2, so that God puts the birds he HAD made into the garden with Adam. This is tampering with the text. There is no Hebrew pluperfect. There NEEDS to be a pluperfect there in order to make the problem of the birds go away, but there ISN'T one, in any text, in any manuscript. It should make a reader nervous if his translator is so desperate to get rid of a tiny little textual problem that he actually adds words and changes verb tenses in the Bible. The NIV is not faithful to the scripture for Genesis 2:19. (You haven't raised this yet, but you will find it on a website and link it. Don't. The NIV move is not correct for the Hebrew OR the Greek. There is no "had", no pluperfect tense there.)
Now, what this means is that SOME PEOPLE have a problem, because they have insisted on the literalism of every word in all the text. If that were really true, what does one make of the Levitical and Deuteronomic Laws of divorce, which Jesus nullifies and says did not reflect what God wants for marriage.
Probably the most alarming case of a textual conflict is Jesus giving the sign of Noah, and saying that the Son of Man will be in the earth three days and three nights.
Jesus died on Friday afternoon. One day (stretching it). He was put in the tomb before sunset and the onset of the Sabbath. Night passed and Saturday morning came (one night). Saturday's sun rose and set (Day two). The night fell. Night two. Jesus rose before dawn on Sunday.
He was in the grave two days and two nights. Had he risen on Monday, he would have been in the grave three days and three nights. There's no finessing it. The text that says what Jesus said would happen does not descibe precisely what DID happen. It doesn't matter to ME, but it does matter to those who demand that every word be taken absolutely literally.
The mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed. Jesus was wrong about that, if he was speaking literally. If he was not speaking literally there, because he was making a point, why must God have been speaking literally in Genesis, when he was also making a point, and not a moral point.
Jesus said that the Old Testament was: Love your neighbor as yourself and love God above all. What does when the birds were created have to do with that?
There are other examples, and maybe we should cite them, but not yet.
There is a far larger point, and it has to do with authority and faith.
The website you cited was arguing from a certain perspective, and directed at a certain type of argument. I have answered these same arguments myself. The argument about textual conflicts and inaccuracies is generally asserted by non-Christians to ridicule the Bible. Their point is "Look! The Bible is in conflict here! Look, it errs there! Therefore, the whole religion is a pile of crap!"
But I have done nothing of the kind! What I have pointed out, gently but insistently, is that the Bible is not the bedrock on which faith can be built. The Bible is good, and contains the Word of God, but if faith is built on just the Bible, it is liable to be creaky, as creaky as the texts. There really are places where the text conflicts with itself (the birds; three days), never mind external reality (the mustard seed, the fact that plants were being eaten before the Fall, and therefore there was in fact death, of plants anyway, before The Fall). If Faith is built on the Holy Spirit, one sees these things, knows we are dealing with very ancient texts and very ancient ideas - some of them cultural and traditional. One knows what Jesus said about Genesis and the rest of the Old Testament -one knows GOD'S point in inspiring the thing, because Jesus tells us. And one is not alarmed by the inconsistencies and errors. This is a work of men. They were inspired by God, and the thing God inspired is related true, but as with the mustard seed, it is relayed to men, through the hands of men, and the prism of the understanding of men of that day. At one point, the Bible says the Hebrews were in Egypt 400 years. At another, 430+ years. A conflict! Perhaps. But the ancient Jews did not care (and modern Jews don't either). Neither do Catholics - though I hesitate now to be too positivist about Catholic beliefs since lest some Catholic layman with a differing view come out of his armchair and start screaming "Heresy!". 400 years, 438(?) years. Either way it's a long time. Good enough. That wasn't God's POINT. Jesus told us God's point.
The problem with taking the literalist view is that you have to end up avoiding, and eventually denying, the fruits of all other learning. Natural science advances? To the extent it contradicts Genesis, it must be in error, and evolution of any sort must not be taught. The world is a few thousand years old because Genesis says so, and Genesis is the Inspired Word of God, and therefore every word in it, on every subject, must be literally and exactingly true. Therefore the world cannot be very old, and evolution didn't happen. And dinosaur bones? Died in the flood, I guess. And Three Days and Three Nights? The trouble is that one ends up having to perform mental contortions (which are never completely believable to many people who feel they have to do them). The BIGGER trouble is that one must then get very, very aggressive with anybody like me who gently and patiently points out that on Jesus' own words about what God meant, we really don't have to do these contortions, we really don't have to oppose biological science, we really don't have to avert our eyes from dinosaur bones. It's ok. Jesus told us what the Old Testament meant. It doesn't matter that Jesus wasn't in the tomb for three days and three nights, and we don't have to resort to some sort of twisted counting of days and nights that does not respect Jewish or Roman custom or either Hebrew, Greek, Latin or English language. (Nobody in any of those languages or cultures would have ever said that, after midnight tonight, it is now FRIDAY night, a different night, even though the day changes. It is desperate and pathetic, and rings hollow, to count the Saturday night before Easter as two nights. There is actually a whole branch of Christianity devoted to the idea that Jesus was really crucified on THURSDAY, because that would make Sunday the day of the Resurrection and not conflict with the literal Bible words.) Jesus went into the tomb and came out after three days, more or less. That's what matters. Did the cock crow once or thrice? This is not a difference about which to build a theology. Different authors remembered things a little differently. So what? These minor variations do not matter a jot when speaking of the message of salvation...UNLESS one has become obsessed with literalism.
But why would one do that?
On what basis?
Jesus wasn't. He amended the Torah quite a bit. And he summarized the whole OT in two sentences.
It is only if one assigns EXCESSIVE authority to the Scriptures, as the FOUNDATION of faith, that these problems erupt.
Now, I am not going to criticize you for doing it.
I do not do it, and most Catholics do not do it.
This is one of the key reasons why reading of the Scripture alone, without the assistance of clergy, was frowned upon. People reading something sacred are very serious, and may become TOO literalist and legalistic about the words. Remember, the letter of the law kills, but the spirit gives life.
There are many ways to approach this book, this Bible. Reverentially, for the inspired Word of God, yes, we all agree on that. Where we disagree is on the interpretation of those words, and the hermeneutic whereby that can be done.
"It wasn't an apple."
How do you know?
"If they're not excommunicating the Dem politicos you're probably not in much jeopardy."
I'm in no jeopardy whatever, because I have committed no heresy.
But you know what, your point about the Church's failure to discipline notorious, overt pro-aborts is worth noting.
The pro-abort Catholics really ARE a scandal.
There's no mention of eating any apple in the book. The "fruit" eaten was from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Ok. When Eve ate the banana.
You realize, bananas aren't fruits, they're plantains.
Anyway, what Adam & Eve ate wasn't actually a "fruit".
It wasn't?
What was it then?
LOL.
No one can say you're inconsistent in you're Catholic-bashing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.