Posted on 02/22/2010 10:21:17 AM PST by Between the Lines
Well, to the point, there is no Purgatory in the Bible. That would be one example of a doctrine that is a product of tradition, or the decision of councils, or what have you. There certainly is no Biblical reference to it.
Another example would be the immaculate conception of Mary. The Bible never says anyone has been immaculately conceived, except Jesus.
I could go on but you get the gist of it.
I understand your arguments about purgatory, I just don’t agree with them.
For example, the thief on the cross was told “Today you will be with me in Paradise.” No stop in Purgatory mentioned.
I don’t deny that we must be purified, and you cite Scriptures that attest to this. However I don’t believe Purgatory is the means of purification. Purification is achieved for us by the Holy Spirit, and His work in that area is testified of repeatedly in Scripture.
I don’t deny that St. Monica and Jews reciting kaddish and no doubt others did not grasp the fact that we enter heaven when completely dead. I think it is very difficult for us men to really appreciate the totality of our salvation. We also think, probably due to our awareness of our sinfulness, that we have to do this or that more in order to get to heaven. It is natural thinking.
Elijah went to heaven on a chariot of fire. No Purgatory stop.
Stephen while being stoned saw the heavens opened. He did not see Purgatory’s door being readied for him.
Etc.
Well, ultimately, the Holy Scripture, too, is a product of the Church.
However, if you study any doctrinal dispute between Catholics and Protestants in depth you will find that the scripture agrees with the Catholics. There are quotes from the scripture that have plausible Protestant explanation as well as equally plausible Catholic explanation. There are quotes that have no plausible Protestant explanation. There are none that do not have a plausible Catholic explanation. The notion that Protestantism somehow follows in its entirety from the scripture is false.
For example, the simple quote, taken entirely in its intended context (I just quote the punchline):
by works a man is justified; and not by faith only (James 2:24)
-- causes a Protestant to spend kilobytes of circumlocution to "prove" that St. James did not really mean it when he wrote it. At best, that would show a verse or two from a discourse by St. Paul on an unrelated matter that still does not controvert the above quote.
In re: purgatory not being a place, the infamous sale of indulgences by Tetzel and so forth certainly gives us reason to believe that people were taught, for I don’t know how many years, that Purgatory was a real place where souls were tormented until they were purchased out, or earned their way out by suffering enough.
I hope Rome doesn’t continue to teach that today. I don’t know of any redaction of that belief. Perhaps you do, and if so, I would be glad to hear it.
As for re-naming purification “purgatory” I suppose you can do that if you want to, as long as you are clear as to what you are doing. I would just stick with “purification” because I think that is less confusing.
It is true, in one sense, that the Holy Scriptures are the product of the Church. Every inspired man that wrote them is part of the church universal. Of course, since each man was directly inspired by God, the Scriptures are ultimately the product of God. Jesus, the Word of God, is the personification of the Scriptures.
As for the Bible agreeing with Roman Catholic doctrines, there are many I just can’t honestly reconcile. I can’t see Scripture agreeing with such things as a physical place between hell and heaven called Purgatory; I can’t see it agreeing with Mary’s immaculate conception; I can’t see it agreeing with the concept of an overflow of grace by exceptionally holy people being dispensed to those of us whose good works don’t outweigh our bad; I can’t see it agreeing with calling upon the dead (which is actually strongly forbidden in Scripture); I can’t see it agreeing with use of images in worship. . . there’s a lot I can’t see in agreement.
This is not to say that every Roman Catholic doctrine is unbiblical in my view. We have a great deal in common.
My main point, which was my first point, is that I see all differences between Roman C’s and Protestants as being rooted in our view of the authority of Scripture vis a vis the authority of the cardinals/Pope/Holy See.
But to be clear, just because I don’t see the authority of elders or bishops being OVER Scripture, - I still believe they have authority. It’s just that I see the authority as being limited by Scripture.
Similarly, a father has authority over his family. But it’s limited by Scripture, too. It’s not absolute.
The Church does not teach that it is a physical place; it is rather a state of the soul on its way to heaven. See 1 Cor.3:10-15 where the process of purification is described.
I can’t see it agreeing with Mary’s immaculate conception
But how is it disagreeing? It is not taught directly, but the fact that she is the only human in history God created for His own mother, it is logical, plus there is the fact that the Angel in Luke 1 describes her as already filled with grace.
overflow of grace by exceptionally holy people being dispensed to those of us whose good works don’t outweigh our bad
On superabundance of grace, see Rom. 5:19-20.
calling upon the dead
The Old Testament forbade necromancy and making of idols (not necessarily images), but neither prohibition is repeated by Christ (He repeated and strengthened the rest of the Ten Commandments) and many -- such as prohibition of eating pork -- are abolished according to the scripture. Logically, since Christ gave all of us enternal life, the saints are no longer among the dead, and the chasm between those alive in Christ and us no longer exists. Praying to the saints is at least consistent with the Christian scripture, even if not directly described in it.
use of images in worship
How does it contradict the scripture (making of idols was for worshiping idols)? Christ Himself in several places is described as an icon of God. There are two direct prooftexts sancioning the use of images for worship, 2 Cor. 3:18 and Gal. 3:1.
Overall one can argue that there are things in Catholicism that are not derived from the scripture directly. But neither does Catholicism teach that everything in Christianity should be derived from the scripture directly. Protestantism, on the other hand, teaches that, yet its foundational doctrine of "sola fide" directly contradicts the scripture, and the other one, "sola scriptura" is not contained in the scripture.
How do you explain the sale of indulgences, made famous by Tetzel but practiced, endorsed, indeed ordered by the R. C. church? I am not inventing the history.
True, you are not inventing history by any means. There was a sale in indulgences, most famously done by Tetzel. We can answer that issue separatly. However, this question was whether The Church believes or has ever believed as doctrine that purgatory was a place. Whateve Tetzel said or did not say, he did not say that purgatory was a place. We in The Church simply do not know and will not make a firm statement on what we do not know
“and many(laws) — such as prohibition of eating pork — are abolished according to the scripture”
right, but necromancy and laws against idolatry aren’t.
“The Church does not teach that it is a physical place;”
If so the Church shouldn’t have made a policy of selling people out of it. Again, if that doctrine has been abolished, I’d like to know. I am not aware that it has.
“But how is it disagreeing? It is not taught directly, but the fact that she is the only human in history God created for His own mother, it is logical, plus there is the fact that the Angel in Luke 1 describes her as already filled with grace.”
One can be filled with grace without being immaculately conceived.
Noah was filled with grace. Zechariah says God will pour on the house of David and one the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace. Paul was filled with grace. Etc.
“But how is it disagreeing?”
Scripture repeatedly tells us Jesus is the ONLY begotten Son of God. There is no other.
“On superabundance of grace, see Rom. 5:19-20. ‘
Ok, it reads For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded much more.
Amen. I see nothing there that indicates that we can pick up extra grace from other sinners and have it mercifully applied to our own account. I see only that Jesus’ obedience made His people righteous.
“Logically, since Christ gave all of us eternal life, the saints are no longer among the dead, and the chasm between those alive in Christ and us no longer exists. Praying to the saints is at least consistent with the Christian scripture, even if not directly described in it.”
Praying to or attempting to contact the dead is strictly forbidden. Those who died in the OT in faith went to heaven too, and so were not spiritually dead. Abraham for example went to heaven, as did Moses and so on. Yet we were under no circumstances to pray to them, try to get special grace from them, etc.
“There are two direct prooftexts sanctioning the use of images for worship, 2 Cor. 3:18 and Gal. 3:1. “
2 Cor 3:18 says we all with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.
How you get a sanction for use of images in worship from this is not apparent to me.
Gal 3:1 says Oh foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christs was clearly portrayed among you as crucified?
Are you positing that the apostles portrayed Christ as crucified by displaying some sort of statue? All we see in Scripture is that Christ is preached. That is the method of his portrayal. Never is is said the apostles showed them the drawing, or displayed the icon, or lifted up the statue. It just says they preached and taught.
Well, from what I have read, Tetzel and company were, under orders of the RC authorities, selling deliverance from a PLACE called purgatory. As far as I know it was not portrayed as a condition, but a hellish but impermanent place of torment.
I’m pro Pope as a rule.
Often, the sale of indulgences is represented as some horrible and radical error that proves the apostacy of Rome.
Now, it was practiced and it remains condemned, so I am not saying it did not happen, nor am I sayng that it was OK. But it is nothing compared to such glaring violations of the very letter and spirit of the Gospel as the Protestant notions of salvation being the product of faith alone. The sale of indulgences was a way to raise money for the church. That is all. No one was buying his way to heaven. The early Christians gave their ENTIRE livelihood to the Church. That is scriptural. That repentance of sin is something purely intellectual, not involving any work at all, -- THAT is unscriptural. St. John the Baptist, who preached penance, himself did a lot of it: hairshirt, fasting, monastic solitude. So it is proper to do something substantial in repentance of a sin already committed, confessed, and absolved. An indulgence was seen as a way to deliver a greater penitential value. A skilled worker, for example, would offer money, rather than his time, as penance. His reasoning would be that his business would not be ruined if he were to do his penance himself,-- for example, undertake a pilgrimage. Who are you, who pays money for the church ,the whole pocket change of it, and does not do any penance whatever, to judge someone who took his sin seriously?
When I see a modern heretic of Protestant persuasion, such as that Olsteen, preaching without shame market economics being God's will for us, I am wondering when will the Protestant community condemn and eradicate that insect with the same vigor it spends condemning Catholic practice of 500 years ago, done in a culture they don't understand and have, frankly, no better substitute to offer themselves.
pick up extra grace from other sinners
Whjere is that Catholic doctrine? The verse I showed you says that once a saint has been justified, there is enough grace to go aroud for sinners. That is the doctrine of the treasure of merits, which you thought was unscriptural.
Abraham for example went to heaven
He went to the Limbo of the fathers, but not to Heaven. Heaven was opened by Christ with His sacrifice of the Cross. That, too, enabled prayers to the saints.
2 Cor 3:18 says that we are to behold the Holy Images so that we may be transformed by them. Gal 3:1 indicates that the Galatians were looking at the crucifix, since Christ in person was not crucified in front of they very eyes in Galatia.
I have no problem with people giving all the money they want to the church.
In the case of the sale of indulgences, bereaved people were told that their loved ones would suffer long sentences in purgatory unless let out by a indulgence, purchased by the loved ones to get their dear departed out early.
Or they bought themselves out in advance, either because they were terrified, or they wanted a paid license to sin.
Thus they were extorted most cruelly by an unbiblical doctrine. They were fleeced.
“Tetzel traveled with great pomp and circumstance through Germany, and recommended with unscrupulous effrontery and declamatory eloquence the indulgences of the Pope to the large crowds who gathered from every quarter around him. He was received like a messenger from heaven. Priests, monks, and magistrates, men and women, old and young, marched in solemn procession with songs, flags, and candles, under the ringing of bells, to meet him and his fellow-monks, and followed them to the church; the papal Bull on a velvet cushion was placed on the high altar, a red cross with a silken banner bearing the papal arms was erected before it, and a large iron chest was put beneath the cross for the indulgence money. Such chests are still preserved in many places. The preachers, by daily sermons, hymns, and processions, urged the people, with extravagant laudations of the Pope’s Bull, to purchase letters of indulgence for their own benefit, and at the same time played upon their sympathies for departed relatives and friends whom they might release from their sufferings in purgatory “as soon as the penny tinkles in the box.”
” Sobald der Pfennig im Kasten klingt,
Die Seel’ aus dem Fegfeuer springt.”
Mathesius and Johann Hess, two contemporary witnesses, ascribe this sentence (with slight verbal modifications) to Tetzel himself. Luther mentions it in Theses 27 and 28, and in his book Wider Hans Wurst (Erl. ed. xxvi. 51).
“The idea of selling and buying by money the remission of punishment and release from purgatory was acceptable to ignorant and superstitious people, but revolting to sound moral feeling. It roused, long before Luther, the indignant protest of earnest minds, such as Wiclif in England, Hus in Bohemia, John von Wesel in Germany, John Wessel in Holland, Thomas Wyttenbach in Switzerland, but without much effect.”
(History of the Christian Church, Philip Schaeff)
I don’t think the whole indulgences/purgatory thing is defensible, really.
It is not wholly defensible, but taken in balance, I’d trade it for the cheerful self-absolution that Protestantism offers today. It was a healthier culture overall.
“pick up extra grace from other sinners”
It is my understanding that the reason Roman Catholics pray to various saints is that those saints have, by their many good works, stored up extra grace that they can dispense to those in need of it who ask them.
“He went to the Limbo of the fathers,”
I don’t know where the doctrine of Limbo comes from, either, I don’t see it in the Bible.
As for Abraham not being in heaven, in the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, we are told that Lazarus goes to Abraham’s bosom. The rich man goes to Hades. The contrast there is between heaven and hell. Lazarus is carried by angels to Abraham’s bosom, and it says Lazarus is comforted and the rich man is tormented. It says Lazarus is receiving good things.
The rich man can’t be purgatory, because Abraham in the parable says no one passes from one place to the other. So the rich man, from what is called his torment, can’t pass that great gulf and get to Abraham’s bosom.
All to say Abraham is in heaven at that point, not in “limbo” and Jesus had not yet raised from the dead at this point in time.
“2 Cor 3:18 says that we are to behold the Holy Images so that we may be transformed by them. Gal 3:1 indicates that the Galatians were looking at the crucifix, since Christ in person was not crucified in front of they very eyes in Galatia.”
2 Cor 3:18 certainly does not instruct us to behold Holy Images.
Christ was indeed not crucified in Galatia; Paul “preached Christ and Him crucified.” There is no record of him using icons, statues, pictures, or images of any kind in his preaching. That wouldn’t have lasted one minute in a synagogue anyway! That’s where they did most of their preaching, and you didn’t dare bring an image of any kind into a synagogue.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t advocate for cheerful self-absorption, either.
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.