Posted on 10/22/2011 1:21:35 PM PDT by NYer
Catholics get a bad rap for thinking we somehow “merit” or “earn” our own sanctification (and salvation) through “works” that we do. But that’s a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. Our sanctification (our being made holy) happens only by the Grace of God. But it does require a response on our part. We must cooperate with it. This submission to and cooperation with God’s Grace, Catholics call a “work” and it takes various forms.
Some identify this response to God’s grace as a kind of “saving” or “justifying” faith (a faith that produces or is accompanied by works of conversion, hope and charity) as opposed to a “work” – something we do. Such a position is reconcilable with Catholic teaching once we understand each side’s terminology. On the other hand, I think it’s confusing to refer to this cooperation with and submission to God’s Grace as simply “faith alone” – which is one reason Catholics don’t refer to it that way (and probably one reason the Bible says we are “not” saved by “faith alone” – James 2:24).
Anyway, here Fr. Barron speaks a little bit about some of these sanctifying practices of the Church and what we mean by “Purgatory” (an extension of that sanctification) in the super-natural sense.
What the Church means by purgatory? - Watch You Tube Video
This exclusive preview clip was from CATHOLICISM, Episode X: “WORLD WITHOUT END: THE LAST THINGS”.
Explore the Church’s conviction that life here and now is preparation for an extraordinary world that is yet to come – a supernatural destiny. Father Barron presents the Catholic vision of death, judgment, heaven, hell and purgatory as he journeys to Florence, Ireland and Rome.
The vision of the Church sees beyond this world and invites us to consider a world without end. Father Barron shows how this vision is supported by the mystery and truth of the Resurrection of Jesus.
View exclusive preview clips from all episodes of the CATHOLICISM series coming out in Fall 2011.
The righteous man passes the test instantaneously because his works contain no imperfections. He needs the test, but not the purgation process. The less-than righteous believer fails the test of readiness for heaven ind needs to take time in purgatory to burn off the "stubble". That process is associated with the passage of time in our minds.
if any man build upon this foundation
.. still applies to "every man" and therefore not to the clergy alone.
who has the comprehension problem
I do, with your posts. Just re-read your last paragraph, starting with "I was arguing" and try inserting a few punctuation marks in it before you ask me or anyone to decipher it.
You have worked, but I don't see you succeed.
You can even go get another Roman Catholic and i will debate this with him
It is an open thread. If you'd rather debate with someone else, you find him.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
The test is not yet purgatory. All go through the test, not all go through the burning off of the stubble, which is purgatory.
Scripture tell us most clearly that the postmortem condition of the believers is with the Lord
This is why purgatory is a logical necessity since "There shall not enter into it any thing defiled" (Apoc. 21:27).
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
In other places in scripture Jesus is referred to as the “corner stone”, but the rock that the church is build on is the Father.
If you want reference to God as the Rock here are some verses.
Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."
Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."
1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."
So when did he Rock change from God the Father to Peter? Do you honestly think that the Father gave up that position?
If a Catholic goes through all the Catholic obligations but has no faith in Jesus Christ he is condemned as a liar and will not see salvation. He is also a fool sitting through years' worth of Sunday Masses where little else but the faith of Christ is talked about, heard in the scripture, explained in the homilies, examplified in fellow Catholics' lives. And why would your deviant Catholic go to confessions as he is obligated, if he has not faith in redemtion of sin by Christ?
I'd go with 2
So do I, this is why I am Catholic who knows and loves the Catholic faith given us by God.
Patron saint for desperate, lost causes, eh?
okaaayyyyy.....
Let me guess.....
No definition yet. Right?
Although I could give them a HUGE site of anti-protestant bigotry and hate spewed from the TOP DOWN: The more than 100 anathemas issued by the Council of Trent damning Protestants. As of today, not one of these curses has been removed. Evangelicals who try to point out the errors in Catholicism are accused of "Catholic bashing". The true "bashing" is the "Protestant bashing" contained in the 100 anathemas damning Protestants.
You said:
Why do people do this? Please tell me EXACTLY, with URL and/or footnotes, where you find that that is our teaching. I deny it. I say we do not teach it. I say you speak falsehood. PROVE me wrong or cut it out.
My entire post said this after those two "choices":
I'd go with 2, mainly because I know what it's like living number 1. Personal faith in Christ was NOT a factor and many people I knew thought they could go to confession on Saturday, Mass on Sunday and then live like hell the rest of the week. There was no life-changing faith and no indwelling Spirit of God that worked within to compel good works. Once I DID accept Christ and receive him as my Savior, my life truly DID change and what used to feel forced became deeds out of gratitude and love for the grace and mercy of God. Go ahead and stick with your Religion that rejects what Scripture REALLY says in favor of what the leaders SAY it says. Place your faith in them. I'll trust God.
I was speaking from personal experience and I will not "cut it out". I have as much right to speak my thoughts as you or anyone else. At no time did I specify this was "exact" church teaching but from my own history as well as others I speak with. I'm glad that you understand the importance in a personal, faith relationship with our Savior, Jesus Christ, but that was not what I was taught was fundamental nor even necessary for salvation. It is obvious, to me, that this attitude exist even today and is proven consistently, for example, during elections. That Roman Catholics vote predominately for Liberal Democrats who promote abortion and homosexual "rights" is indisputable. You can insist that "they" aren't "real" Catholics, but they only prove my point that people are taught that going through motions and doing certain things are more important that what is within their hearts. But Catholics are hardly alone in this.
My involvement with the Ten Commandments posts was strickly about the complaint and implication that smvoice was using a "banned" site for the information posted on the subject. I was not arguing for or against the actual topic. I went online and looked at the Wikipedia table comparing the Jewish/Augustian/Orthodox/Lutheran/Protestant references to them. That was not my argument.
Jeeze...smvoice DID use another source and even quoted the source as a BOOK in her possession. That wasn't good enough and condemnation was dogpiled on IT SPITE of her insistence she had never heard of the "questionable" source. HENCE - my question. 'kay?
I CAN insist that Catholics who vote for Democrats are stupid Catholics.
It is not a defect in Catholic teaching that some people think they can get into heaven on a pro forma basis. If they rattle off an act of contrition without being or wanting to be contrite, they are deceiving themselves and playing with fire.
My ‘beef’ is that you opposed good non-Catholic thought not to good Catholic thought but to the corruption of our thought by ‘tares.’
You do have the right to make stupid unjust comparisons. You do not have a reasonable expectation of respect for your arguments if you do so.
>now you have a purgatory which contains souls which do not undergo the purification [run-on seemingly endless sentence follows]<
The “run on” you omit was a condensation from the CCC, as referenced, which more fully states that “All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.” (CCC 1030)
It was and is fitting to include it because this is the source you originally referenced as your authority, and i do not see a purgatory there with souls who have nothing to be purified by fire from.
The test is not yet purgatory. All go through the test, not all go through the burning off of the stubble, which is purgatory.
Thus “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,” (v. 13. DRB) means that every believer himself is burnt in the cleansing fire, but some go through unscathed, and thus this is not purgatory for them, but it is only those who need to take time in purgatory to burn off the "stubble" that experience purgatory. But which purgation process may not take place at the Second Coming (below), but merely reveals it?
>Scripture tell us most clearly that the postmortem condition of the believers is with the Lord<
This is why purgatory is a logical necessity since "There shall not enter into it any thing defiled" (Apoc. 21:27).
Now you are expanding this to a whole new level, i am only focusing on 1Cor. 3 here. But without turning this into an even longer thread, i will suffice to say that it is a a logical necessity for cleansing, which is what you do with things defiled, but what Scripture states is that every believer is washed, sanctified and justified by faith, (1Cor. 6:11) having been forgiven of all trespasses, (Col. 2:13) and thus are accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) and positionally made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ. (Eph. 2:6)
While such justifying faith must be of a kind that will effect the “obedience of faith,” having things which accompany salvation,” (Heb. 6:9) and while such are to grow toward perfection in character, yet moral perfection and things which accompany salvation is not what justified the unGodly, or made him accepted in Christ, and a temple of God, and gave him access with boldness into the holy of holies, (Heb. 10:19) but this was all on Christ's account and merit, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness, to the glory of God.
Moreover, the place which Scripture points to as the place in which one grows in grace and overcomes is in this world, with its tests of affections and trials. A test is when you have an alternative, and it was on earth that man was tested, and where Christ himself was made perfect through sufferings, in being tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin.
Salvation by grace through faith, not works, is not by a faith that will not effect works, by neither is it one that means that by the grace of God i practically become good enough for Heaven. In one sense this is true, in that believers who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be delivered from this body of death, and be “clothed upon with our house which is from heaven,” (2Cor. 5:2) and then we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is, (1Jn. 3:2) being conformed to the image of his Son. (Rm. 8:29)
Trying to keep this together. From 958 to DB:
First, if the passage referred to the Second Coming of Christ as the time of the purgation, we would still have the concept of Purgatory intact, nmerely its application delayed.
Then 1Cor. 3 would not be not really be referring to purgatory, but the end result.
Secondly, I can see how "the day of the Lord" refers to the Second Coming, because indeed it is at the second coming that our deeds and the Glory of Heaven will be made manifest to all. From that it does not follow that the purgation process (as opposed to its manifestation to others) takes place at the Second Coming.
So 1Cor. 3, that being the day of Christ, the judgment seat of Christ, at the Second Coming of Christ, is purgatory in “application,” declaring the result of the actual purgation of dross of sins which commences at death?
I see this as being contrary to the description, which states that way the day shall declare it is by fire, which is when those who have inferior works will suffer loss, rather than that merely being the declarative result of testing.
At best, if there is a type of purgatory, then it can only be speculative, and 1Cor 3 in particular cannot be dogmatically defined as referring to it.
>You just affirmed that all in purgatory have stubble, and that is why they are there, but deny that it is clear that all in purgatory would need to have the dross of venial sins burned off, which is contrary to your statement i was responding to, that one class survives the fire unscathed, thus having nothing that needed to be burned off. <
The righteous man passes the test instantaneously because his works contain no imperfections. He needs the test, but not the purgation process.
That example of equivocation came from Staples, or where is it officially taught that one class of souls in purgatory do not need purification by purgation of “accumulated defects?”
.. still applies to "every man" and therefore not to the clergy alone.
You have confused me with CB. That was not my argument
>who has the comprehension problem<
I do, with your posts. Just re-read your last paragraph, starting with "I was arguing" and try inserting a few punctuation marks in it before you ask me or anyone to decipher it.
There is need for some interpretation of yourself as well, but I do not know why you cannot follow this:
Annalex: the reward is a reward of greater glory fon the account of their greater virtues on earth. Both kinds enter heaven, but have have different metaphorical crowns.
Daniel1212: I was arguing against the premise that the fire was in order to purify those in purgatory from the stubble you say they have, and thus the joy would be that of entering Heaven due to their perfection, but as the first class have nothing that need to be torched and lost, it is not purgatory, while again, the contrast between these and the class that did suffer loss shows that being saved is despite the loss of fruit which should have remained. And which suffering, which i believe can indeed be grievous, awaits the day of Christ and resurrection.
Your rendering is indeed contrary to other Scriptures, and 1Cor. 3 is contrary to Roman Catholic purgatory, which i have worked to get you to see.
You have worked, but I don't see you succeed.
Others also have eyes but see not.
You can even go get another Roman Catholic and i will debate this with him
It is an open thread. If you'd rather debate with someone else, you find him.
Then it continues to manifests the manner of wresting of texts needed for a Roman Catholic defense of 1Cor. 3 as referring to purgatory, a place where the soul already saved by Christ undergoes purification, commencing at death, in order to make expiation for sins and be holy enough to enter Heaven.
Of course I do. So do you and so does anyone else who wishes to comment on open forum threads. I believe the "stupid" and "unjust" comparisons probably only seem that way to those who may hold the opposite view. When I make comments I DO put thought into them and, whether you want to believe it or not, I sincerely care about not only what I say but who may read it.
“But Catholics are hardly alone in this.”
There is the one truth-—and the very important one truth.
If evaluation (judgment)of the lives of others becomes the personalized, experiential judgment of a whole people, something has gone wrong.
Using that criteria, I can say:
*come to my Holy Hour with me and see how many people, many of them young, come to the chapel at all hours of the night to pray...many of them still in their “scrubs”, on their way home from the night shift.
*come with me to noon Mass in the business hours of my city, and see how many people take their lunch hour to come to Mass and pray. (”Could you not spend one hour with me?”)
*come with me to the Young Mother’s Group which meets every Wednesday morning—little kids in tow—for Scripture study and prayer. (”...where two or more are gathered in My Name”)
*come with me to my parish at 11 AM every morning and help distribute free food to people in need.(”I was hungry and you gave me to eat”)
*stop by my house and head off with me to visit some of the very sick and home-bound of my parish. (”I was sick and you visited me”)
*come with me and my fellow parishioners as we gather to help prepare food and flowers to help a grieving family in our parish.
*come with me to the amazing Tuesday night Scripture study led by the young father of 7 who is a refugee from Lebanon.
If the experiential, anecdotal view of who is and who isn’t living by your #1 or #2, then I ask you to take into consideration all that is unseen by many but is ever present to the Living God.
I will never understand why “accepting Christ and receiving Him as my Savior” should, in a rather knee-jerk reaction, mean belittling what one left behind....as if to infer that those we “left behind” have not “accepted and believed”. I can see no reason for me to do that to my own Protestant siblings and family members nor for them to do that with me. And we don’t do that.
OK. So the fire tests the general believer, not the clergy. Who then, do you think is saved in the end after suffering a loss, the pastor, or the milk believer, or the meat believer?
Yes, of course. both faith and good works are necessary. This passage says that they go together: if you believe you will do good works, and if you do good works you believe. You are not saved by faith alone, nor by works alone.
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.