Catholics Don't Believe You Can Earn Your Way to Heaven

A man commits a serious crime, then he gets released. He has "paid his debt to society". But wait a minute, he's only ready for the half-way house. He's unlikely to get a prestigious job in his new prison suit coat, or any job at all; he has civil impediments, he can't vote or hold certain offices. His crime was serious enough that he won't be presumed to have been completely rehabilitated until he performs a notable service to society, or at least spends many years on the straight and narrow, so that his crime can be truly overlooked or forgotten.

In Catholic faith, your "debt to society" is paid by Jesus Christ on Calvary. It's called "eternal punishment", without Christ it keeps you from going to heaven. Supposing that you do take advantage of His sacrifice, you're truly sorry, have a firm purpose of amendment, if you relapse, you go again for forgiveness (to the Sacrament of Confession).

But your sin leaves a strong trace at another layer of impurity called "temporal punishment due to sin", like the civil impediments facing the half-way house prisoner. Because "nothing impure can enter heaven", there is a place or a state, a condition of purification to render you fit for heaven after Christ has finally saved you from hell. The Catholic Church calls it purgatory.

(Where is it in the bible? Where is the word Trinity in the bible? Where does it say that you only need a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Many valid principles aren't stated explicitly in the bible, but it does say to "hold fast to the traditions you have learned, whether by word or by letter", because much of the Gospel wasn't written down, as Jesus only wrote in the sand, the majority of the Gospel was taught from word to ear to people who couldn't afford expensive books, the exceptions were what tended to get written down. But the implication that there is a purgatory, is contained in the bible--see the comments.)

The ex-con can receive a pardon or commutation of his probation from a Governor, if he performs some heroic deed, saving numerous lives, or, like Chuck Colson, performs a long-lasting, valuable community service helping numerous people who can't help themselves.

In the Catholic Church there are 2 ways for the residual, temporal effects due to sin to be expiated: suffering in this life, or after life, undergoing purifying suffering along with other people who will finally be saved, but have to suffer for long without the vision of God--that is what causes them their pain.

Their suffering isn't meritorious enough to grant their release, the saints in heaven and those on earth suffering and practicing virtue can pray for the suffering souls in purgatory. In no way is their release by slow transfer of suffering or practice of virtue, "buying heaven". It's a long, excruciating process.

How the misunderstanding arose that Catholics think they can buy their way into heaven, is involved with history more than 500 years old. For a millennium of Christendom between roughly 410 and 1410, there was a Medieval civilization with harmony between faith and government.

Many small farmers would cluster around the manor house of a military lord who would protect them, in exchange for a certain fixed obligation of labor and agricultural produce. In most cases, those "serfs" had much more leisure than factory workers of the industrial revolution; there were a large number of holy days without work, and except for planting and harvesting, there were long stretches of idle time.

Another large sector of the economy surrounded monasteries, where the monks developed most of the farming practices that stabilized the serfs and their manorial lords. The monks who worked those monastic lands were sworn to poverty, so that monasteries built up large accumulations of economic value over decades and centuries of labor.

At the beginning, when lands were being cleared and put into production there weren't prominent town fairs ruled by merchants and bankers. Money wasn't used for sustenance, not even much barter occurred, life was mostly agrarian.

Charity was woven into the economy of monasteries. It was estimated that you only need travel 12 miles in medieval England between monasteries, where you could get a meal and minimal lodging for free, based on need. And the charity was also spiritual, including the ancient Catholic principle of prayer for the dead, which is biblical. (See "prayer for the dead" in the original King James Bible in the comment.)

There were foundations and benefices for praying for the dead, that allowed a person of means to support monasteries' charitable works, and in proportional response the monks would pray for the souls of the donors.

It happened at the close of the middle ages, that militarily strong nobles cast their eyes on the labor value accumulated by the poverty-sworn monks of the monasteries, which those nobles perceived as monetary wealth, especially where gold and jewels had been donated by the devout to adorn churches.

(Protestant writer William Cobbett wrote in his 1824 "A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland", an anecdote, that an incredibly valuable, hand illustrated bible was stripped of it's bejeweled, gold cover, the much more valuable hand-illumined manuscript, thrown in the mud and trampled by horses hooves by raiders suppressing the monasteries in Henry VIII's England.)

A new religion growing up around this seizure of monastic lands and valuables, that sought to discredit the Catholic Church, spread the black legend that the "sale of indulgences" was abusive. But this was very exceptional. Today the stipend of a Mass said for the dead is $10.

—> The only way that Jesus knows that you do, and that you are, and that it is, is by OBEDIENCE to Him.

No. That is a horrific, cultic mutilation of the revealed attributes of God. Very sad Phil.

Paul says differently...

Hebrews 10:
26For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

—> The only way that Jesus knows that you do, and that you are, and that it is, is by OBEDIENCE to Him.

No. That is a horrific, cultic mutilation of the revealed attributes of God. Very sad Phil.

You are saying that God died for NOTHING. You might as well be telling Jesus to shove His law up His nose. I would not want to be in your shoes when the end comes.

—> is very clearly laid out in the bible how one who claims grace, and then reverts back to willful, unrepentant sin, will not be in heaven.

No. It is only clear that you do not understand Scripture, nor grace, nor Christ’s Indescribable Gift.

Coming from you that’s a badge of honor.

OSAS is a lie and is not at all supported by THE BIBLE, AND THE BIBLE ONLY.

—> But, you go right ahead and eat whatever you want.

[…this brings to mind an experience the Apostle Peter had…

…

“ The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air.

“And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.”

“This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven. (Acts 10:9-16)”

…

You’re too late to give permission. It’s been given.

😋

You should have kept reading...👀

Acts 10-

17Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

28And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any MAN common or unclean.

You do not know how to rightly divide the word of God

In Deuteronomy it is aptly
explained: “You are the children of the Lord your God. . . you are a people
holy to the Lord your God. . . the Lord has chosen you to be his treasured
possession” (14:1S2; ESV) and only then God commands: “Do not eat any
detestable thing. These are the animals you may eat. . .” (Deut 14:3). This
is the correct and the only proper sequence of things: first comes God’s
grace and then He provides His instruction on how to live in holiness.
People thus respond to this revelation in thankful recognition of His loving
and unique leadership.

https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1113&context=jats

The Validity of the Levitical Food Laws of
Clean and Unclean Animals:
A Case Study of Biblical Hermeneutics

From the same article...

Thus, on the basis of linguistic, stylistic, conceptual, and theological
analysis of Leviticus 11 in relation to the Creation accounts of Genesis 1–2,
I conclude that Creation is the overall umbrella for discovering a rationale
behind the biblical dietary laws, and that the theme of Creation unites
different factors of this rationale which may be discovered fromthe biblical
text. Thus, behind the legislation of clean and unclean animals/food lies a
deep theological reason, which is the respect for the Creator, the Holy
One.

You do not even have the first clue as to what God wants from his chosen. You should study more.

Call to Holiness
The call to holiness, the dominant theme in the book of Leviticus,
contains a strong emphasis and admonition for Christians in the New
Testament writings. The imitatio Dei is an ongoing demand. It issignificant
that Peter’s reason for being holy (1 Pet 1:15–16) is substantiated by the
text derived from the passage dealing with the Mosaic dietary laws (Lev
11:44–45)

1 Peter 1:13Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the GRACE that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;
14As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance:
15But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation;
16Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.

1 Peter 1:16 is a direct reference to Leviticus 11:44...

Leviticus 11:44For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Sorry it appears that way in false world... but for those seekers not trapped in false world...

The point is that the Lord’s command frees Peter from any scruples about going to a Gentile home and eating whatever might be set before him. It would be a short step from recognizing that Gentile food was clean to realizing that Gentiles themselves were ‘clean’ also.

The Savior had already spoken declaring all foods clean.

" ... there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.... "And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)"

And The Apostle Paul also confirmed this.

"For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes... "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

And again from the Apostle Paul stating all foods are good and can be eaten.

"But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer."

Eat Hearty Believers!

” ... there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.... “And He said to them, “Are you so lacking in understanding also? Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)”

3. Jesus statement in Mark 7:19b katharizon panta ta bromata
(“cleansing all the food”) can be understood as an IRONY. Christ is
contrasting the tradition of the elders with the biblical law and
demonstrates the difference between spiritual and physical defilement.
Many scholars recognize today that Jesus and the apostles were not
against the dietary laws, but against their misuse. Since their original intent
was distorted He had to restore their true meaning. Jesus’ teaching does not
diminish the validity of the dietary regulations. Danger to the purity of the
mind and the heart is more important than what goes into the stomach.
Modern translators often fail to reflect that Jesus is referring in Mark
7 to food that is koinos—desecrated/polluted by association—and not to
food that is akathartos (“unclean”), because the word “unclean” does not
appear in this pericope. The same can be said about Matt 15:11, 17–20.

It has nothing to do with Levitical laws. And very importantly, (thus he declared all foods clean) was added by the translators. It is NOT in the KJV bible. (Oh, you don’t use the KJV bible?)

Mark 7 has absolutely nothing to do with Levitical food laws. It has everything to do with TRADITIONS OF MEN. The Irony is that you can’t see it.

1Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem.
2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.
3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders.
4And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.
5Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

AGAIN, you do not know how to rightly divide the word of God.

4. When I ask my audience what kind of animals were in the sheet Peter saw in his vision according to Acts 10, the typical answer is a “variety of different kinds of unclean animals.” However, this answer is wrong, because the biblical text shows that in the sheet were unclean as well as clean animals. This observation leads to a crucial question: What was then the problemfor Peter? He could pick up the clean animal and “kill and eat,” but he refused. Bruce is right when he asserts that Peter “was scandalized by the unholy mixture of clean animals with unclean; this is particularly important when we recall the practical way in which he had immediately to apply the lesson of the vision.” Thus, the real problem for Peter was association of clean animals with the unclean animals otherwise he could pick up a cow, sheep, or goat from the shown creatures and prepare it for food. Peter felt he could not eat anything, because even the clean animals became unclean by association with the unclean animals, a concept which is not supported by the Hebrew Scriptures (a living unclean animal is not a source for uncleanness!), but only by rabbinic tradition.

God asked Peter to stop calling the clean animals koinos, i.e., defiled by association with the unclean animals. This meant that he (a Jew) had to stop considering himself unclean by associating with Gentiles. This goes along with a different concept which was also developed during the intertestamental period—the symbolic interpretation of animals into two categories: clean animals represented the Jews and unclean animals symbolized the Gentiles/pagans. This had tremendous implications for their social life, because they needed to be constantly watching not to become defiled by association with unclean pagans. If a Jew was in close contact with a pagan he thus became polluted. In the time of Jesus and the apostles, there were huge social barriers between Jews and Gentiles. They could not eat together or visit each other in their homes for a variety of reasons (food could have been offered to idols; connected with unclean animals; prejudices). Through the vision, Peter was taught that the social barriers between Jews and Gentiles had fallen down (he was now free to socialize with them and visit the house of a pagan Cornelius), and not that a biblical distinction between clean and unclean animals was no longer valid (see Acts 10:28; 11:12).

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.