Praying for the dead [Purgatory]

One major difference between Protestants and Catholics is that Catholics pray for the dead. As Cardinal Ratzinger said so well, "My view is that if Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it." Why? "Because few things are as immediate, as human and as widespread - at all times and in all cultures - as prayer for one's own departed dear ones."

Calvin, the Protestant reformer of Geneva, had a woman whipped because she was discovered praying at the grave of her son and hence was guilty, according to Calvin, of "superstition."

"In theory, the Reformation refuses to accept purgatory, and consequently it also rejects prayer for the departed," Cardinal Ratzinger said in "The Ratzinger Report," a book by Vittorio Messori. "In fact, German Lutherans at least have returned to it in practice and have found considerable theological justification for it. Praying for one's departed loved ones is a far too immediate urge to be suppressed; it is a most beautiful manifestation of solidarity, love and assistance, reaching beyond the barrier of death. The happiness or unhappiness of a person dear to me, who has now crossed to the other shore, depends in part on whether I remember or forget him; he does not stop needing my love."

Catholics are not the only ones who pray for the dead. The custom is also a Jewish one, and Catholics traditionally drew upon the Hebrew Bible text of 2 Maccabees 12:38-46, in addition to some New Testament passages, to justify their belief.

Besides the Jews, many ancient peoples also prayed for the deceased. Some societies, such as that of ancient Egypt, were actually "funereal" and built around the practice.

Spanish-speaking Catholics today popularly refer to All Souls Day as El Dia de los Muertos, a relic of the past when the pre-Christian Indians had a Day of the Dead; liturgically, the day is referred to as El Dia de las Animas.

The French Jesuit missionaries in New France in the 17th century easily explained All Souls Day by comparing it to the local Indian Day of the Dead.

Ancestor worship was also well known in China and elsewhere in Asia, and missionaries there in times gone by perhaps had it easier explaining All Souls Day to them, and Christianizing the concept, than they would have to us in the Western world as the 20th century draws to a close.

The urge to pray for the dead is deep in the human spirit, which rebels against the concept of annihilation after death. Although there is some evidence for a Christian liturgical feast akin to our All Souls Day as early as the fourth century, the Church was slow to introduce such an observance because of the persistence, in Europe, of more ancient pagan rituals for the dead. In fact, the Protestant reaction to praying for the dead may be based more on these survivals and a deformed piety from pre-Christian times than on the true Catholic doctrine as expressed by either the Western or the Eastern Church. The doctrine of purgatory, rightly understood as praying for the dead, should never give offense to anyone who professes faith in Christ.

When we discuss All Souls Day, we look at a liturgical commemoration which predated doctrinal formulation itself, since the Church often clarifies only that which is being undermined or threatened. The first clear documentation for this celebration comes from Isidore of Seville (d. 636; the last of the great Western Church Fathers), whose monastic rule includes a liturgy for all the dead on the day after Pentecost.

The date of November 2 for the liturgical commemoration of the faithful departed was set by St. Odilo (962-1049), who was the abbot of Cluny in France. Before that, other dates had been observed around the Christian world, and the Armenians still use Easter Monday for this purpose. He issued a decree that all the monasteries of the congregation of Cluny were annually to keep this feast. On November 1, the bell was to be tolled and afterward the Office of the Dead was to be recited in common, and on the next day all the priests would celebrate Mass for the repose of the souls in purgatory.

The observance of the Benedictines of Cluny was soon adopted by other Benedictines and by the Carthusians. Pope Sylvester in 1003 approved and recommended the practice. Eventually, the parish clergy introduced this liturgical observance, and from the 11th to the 14th century, it spread in France, Germany, England and Spain. Finally, in the 14th century, Rome placed the day of the commemoration of all the faithful departed in the official books of the Western or Latin Church. November 2 was chosen in order that the memory of all the holy spirits, both of the saints in heaven and of the souls in purgatory, should be celebrated in two successive days. In this way the Catholic belief in the Communion of Saints would be expressed.

Since for centuries the Feast of All Saints had already been celebrated on November 1, the memory of the departed souls in purgatory was placed on the following day. All Saints Day goes back to the fourth century, but was finally fixed on November 1 by Pope Gregory in 835. The two feasts bind the saints-to-be with the almost-saints and the already-saints before the resurrection from the dead.

On All Souls Day, can we pray for those in limbo? The notion of limbo is not ancient in the Church, and was a theological extrapolation to provide explanation for cases not included in the heaven-purgatory-hell triad. Limbo does not appear as a thesis to be taught in the new Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church.

In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of the notion of limbo being set aside. In "The Ratzinger Report," he said, "Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally - and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as Prefect of the Congregation - I would abandon it since it was only a theological hypothesis. It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism. To put it in the words of Jesus to Nicodemus: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God' (John 3:5). One should not hesitate to give up the idea of limbo, if need be (and it is worth noting that the very theologians who proposed 'limbo' also said that parents could spare the child limbo by desiring its baptism and through prayer); but the concern behind it must not be surrendered. Baptism has never been a side issue for faith; it is not now, nor will it ever be."

The doctrine of purgatory, upon which the liturgy of All Souls rests. is formulated in canons promulgated by the Councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1545-1563). The truth of the doctrine existed before its clarification, of course, and only historical necessities motivated both councils to pronounce when they did. Acceptance of this doctrine still remains a required belief of Catholic faith.

What about indulgences? Indulgences from the treasury of grace in the Church are applied to the departed on All Souls Day, as well as on other days, according to the norms of ecclesiastical law. The faithful make use of their intercessory role in prayer to ask the Lord's mercy upon those who have died. Essentially, the practice urges the faithful to take responsibility. This is the opinion of Michael Morrissey in the Dictionary of Catholic Spirituality: "Since the Church has taught that death is not the end of life, then neither is it the end of our relationship with loved ones who have died, who along with the saints make up the Body of Christ in the 'Church Triumphant."' This assumes, of course, that they died in a state of grace and are finished with purification via purgatory.

Morrissey adds that "the diminishing theological interest in indulgences, today is due to an increased emphasis on the sacraments, the prayer life of Catholics and an active engagement in the world as constitutive of the spiritual life. More soberly, perhaps, it is due to an individualistic attitude endemic in modern culture that makes it harder to feel responsibility for, let alone solidarity with, dead relatives and friends."

As with everything Christian, then, All Souls Day has to do with the mystery of charity, that divine love overcomes everything, even death. Bonds of love uniting us creatures, living and dead, and the Lord Who is resurrected, are celebrated both on All Saints Day and on All Souls Day each year.

All who have been baptized into Christ and have chosen Him will continue to live in Him. The grave does not impede progress toward a closer union with Him. It is only this degree of closeness to Him which we consider when we celebrate All Saints one day, and All Souls the next.

Purgatory is a great blessing because it shows those who love God how they failed in love, and heals their ensuing shame. Most of us have neither fulfilled the commandments nor failed to fulfill them. Our very mediocrity shames us. Purgatory fills in the void. We learn finally what to fulfill all of them means. Most of us neither hate nor fail completely in love. Purgatory teaches us what radical love means, when God remakes our failure to love in this world into the perfection of love in the next.

As the sacraments on earth provide us with a process of transformation into Christ, so purgatory continues that process until the likeness to Him is completed. It is all grace. Actively praying for the dead is that holy mitzvah or act of charity on our part which hastens that process. The Church encourages it and does it with special consciousness and in unison on All Souls Day, even though it is always and everywhere salutary to pray for the dead.

I was educated 10 years in Catholic schools ...hey ya reap what you sow:>)

Here is what I know. I know Jesus died for my sin. By His stripes I am healed. He bore my sins and my transgressions.every single one of them. He became a curse for me. He fulfilled a Law I could not keep

HE, Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of my faith

I can now come boldly before the throne of God with no intermediary because I have a High Priest that is my advocate with the father.

I know that in me no good thing dwells, that all my righteousness is as filthy rags. And yet Jesus died for me while I was yet a sinner.

I know that to be absent from the body is to be present to God. I know that Jesus paid a penalty I could never pay. I know that I am saved by the grace of God. Not of anything I could do because I deserve to burn in the pit of hell

Now CG.... that is what I know and that is sufficient for my salvation

I do not need nor want the doctrine of men

2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.

Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Deo Gloria

"I think the fact that Jesus had to experience all that man does and to fulfil a law that we could not fulfil gets lost in all this..He became perfect obedience for ME because I can not be perfectly obedient"

TRUE

"Think of the God of the universe that speaks things into existEnce. That has never had to be obedient to another, suddenly needs to be obedient to His creation (kenosis?). He has to learn to be obedient, so that He can fulfil the atonement of HIS creation."

TRUE

"A very humbling thought. The God of creation had to learn obedience to save me. He is my obedience, He is my righteousness, He is my holiness." In Him I live and move and have my being"

I AGREE

"Once agian you take scripture OUT OF Context to attempt to prove purgatory when that is NOT what is being taught by Paul"

NO - forgive me - I have not made myself clear. This passage from Hebrews could never be considered to be a proof text for purgatory - I cited it to establish the principle that God can use a process of SUFFERING and TRAINING IN OBEDIENCE in order to advance our sanctification or growth into maturity as sons of God in this life.

Why does he do this? Why does he want us to learn obedience and grow? Because we are the sons of God - a God who wants His children to grow up to be like their Father - to be like Him.

Why does He want us to be transformed more and more into His likeness - to grow up to be like Him?????????????

Correct me if I am wrong, but, prior to Calvin, who taught such things?

As to what you were taught in that Catholic School I can't comment beause I was not there. I do know that as an adult you have repeatedly posted things on these threads that purport to be Catholic Doctrine and you have repeatedly been corrected. What Catholics believe and what we Teach is EASILY accesssible.

You repeatedly mis-state what we Teach. You cannot,having been repeatedly corrected, evade responsibility for your actions as an adult by blaming your education as a youth.

I really do expect you to post from The Catholic Catechism or the Catholic Encyclopedia if you want to present a true picture of what we believe and what we reject.

That, to me, seems a very minimal request. It seems like common sense fair play.

Hi restornu

"Could you tell me about Purgatory and is it long term or short?"

You don't ask much do you - have you seen the length of this thread? :)

For the sake of brevity I will simply say that it is a place/state/process of purification that we go through between physical death and entry to God's presence. That purification would be from things that we haven't let go of in this life, that we really ought to have done, because we should have already given them up to God. They are things that effectively block our relationship with God like an excessive attachment to worldly goods etc. It is the effect that sin leaves on our souls rather than sins as such - we believe that Christ has already dealt with the sins themselves.

So Purgatory isn't to do with "salvation" because only the saved can be there anyway. Its almost like the outer courts of heaven that you need to get cleaned up in before you go into the throne room.

I honestly don't know if its long term or short term. I expect it depends how dirty you still are, or how much you are reluctant to let go of! Having said that, in terms of God's time, or lack of it, long term may mean a twinkling of an eye, or short term may mean lifetimes??

To my shame I have never read Dante's Divine Comedy, so can't give you a sensible response to that question, but if you have read it I hope it was funny. We don't consider it to be inspired in any way.

Catholicguy will no doubt be able to put you right on anything by which I may have lead you astray, but I'm afraid I have to run.

God bless.

"That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, "

Your teaching...

Jesus died on the cross for the sin..God accepted the payment and forgave man...BUT that is not good enough man has to add something of his own..he has to pay his own bill

How does he do this? He burns a bit

"Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life "will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames," and he adds "'that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life" (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. "Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur", and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; "

Now althought the church has gioven up the idea of purchaing souls out of Purgatory with hard cash..the still allow other men to be the savior of thier friends and family by lettine them "pray " the out

"The Council of Trent (Sess. XXV) defined that indulgences are "most salutary for Christian people" and that their "use is to be retained in the Church". It is the common teaching of Catholic theologians that

* indulgences may be applied to the souls detained in purgatory; and * that indulgences are available for them "by way of suffrage" (per modum suffragii). "That an indulgence may avail for those in purgatory several conditions are required:

* The indulgence must be granted by the pope.
* There must be a sufficient reason for granting, the indulgence, and this reason must be something pertaing to the glory of God and the utility of the Church, not merely the utility accruing to the souls in purgatory.
* The pious work enjoined must be as in the case of indulgences for the living.

If the state of grace be not among the required works, in all probability the person performing the work may gain the indulgence for the dead, even though he himself be not in friendship with God (Bellarmine, loc. cit., p. 139).

Now I have said the the work of Christ is not sufficent..that man must add to the work of Christ by burning a bit..

How have I misstated the doctrine?

"These lies do not discredit the Cathoic Faith they demean you."

You mean lies like these?

FACT 1: Until the present generation, the Roman Catholic Church forbade her people to read the Bible for themselves under pain of 'mortal sin.' That is, the Catholic who owned or read the Bible was de facto condemned to Hell.

Evidence:

The Bible was placed on Rome's Index of Forbidden Books list by the Council of Toulouse/Toledo in the year 1229. It remained there until the index was discontinued at Vatican Council II. Anyone reading or owning a 'forbidden' book was anathematized, or cursed and remanded to hell for doing so.

Cannon 14 from the Council of Toulouse says that the Roman Catholic Church:

"Forbids the laity to have in their possession any copy of the books of the Old and New Testament.... and most strictly forbids these works in the vulgar tongue."

Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating confirms this fact when he writes that, "the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the [Albigensian] heresy was ended." (Page 45, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, by Karl Keating). The peculiar thing is that the Bible remained on the Index of Forbidden Books for another 730 years! In his dance with truth, Mr. Keating takes care to omit this little fact.

Still More Evidence. This teaching was confirmed at the Council of Trent (Session IV, April 8, 1546 Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures). The Council of Trent went further, stating that anyone who dared study Scriptures on their own must "be punished with the penalties by law established." With incredible audacity, the Council of Trent went so far as to forbid even the printing of and sale of the Bible! Anyone daring to violate this decree was anathematized, or cursed and damned to Hell for it. (Dogmatic Cannons and Decrees of the Council of Trent..., pages 11-13; Copyright 1977, 1912, with Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat. Tan Books and Publishers, P.O. Box 424, Rockford, IL 61105)

Still More Evidence: Liguori, the most respected of Cannon Lawyers in the Roman Catholic Church, wrote that, "The Scriptures and books of Controversy may not be permitted in the vulgar tongue, as also they cannot be read without permission."

And Yet Even More Evidence: Pope Clement XI (1713), in his bull Unigenitus, wrote that "We strictly forbid them [the laity] to have the books of the Old and New Testament in the vulgar tongue."

FACT 2: Since Vatican Council II (1965) The Roman Catholic Church now permits her people to read the Bible, and even offers an 'indulgence' of three hundred days off of Purgatory time for doing, if they read in for at least fifteen minutes at one sitting. (The Holy Bible, Douay-Confraternity version Title Page overleaf.)

[ Excuse me, but do you mind if I stop here and laugh for a minute? :D ]

FACT 3: Vatican Council II confirmed all pronouncements of the Council of Trent, which, as we see above, forbade the Bible to the people.

So now --- in light of the above --- let's see how many intellectually honest people there are who will step forward and give us the answers to these questions:

Q: Is it morally correct that some fry in Hell and others do not fry in Hell when both did exactly the same thing-read the Bible? Yes No

Q: Since the Catholic law has changed, will God release from Hell those who read the Bible between the Council of Trent and the 1950's, when the Roman Catholic Church seemingly changed its mind? Yes No

Q: Is it possible that reading the Bible is, despite Rome's historical condemnation of it, is pleasing to God? Yes No

Q: Vatican Council II permitted the Bible to the people in their own language. The same Council also confirmed the Council of Trent, which forbade the Bible to the people in their own language. How do you reconcile this contradiction? Your Answer?

Q: How do you reconcile a God who does not change His laws with a church that does? Your Answer?

Yes, this is a lie. Ask how many Catholics on this thread alone have bibles handed down through generations. I've got a Catholic bible, in English, from my Great Grandmother.

Yes, this is a lie. The Index of Forbidden Books wasn't established until 1543. The coucil at Toulouse was not an ecumenical council, but a council held to address the local problem of Albigensian heresy. The restriction on the bible was short term, until the heresy was resolved, and affected only southern France. You would know this if you had actually read Keatings book.

So now --- in light of the above --- let's see how many intellectually honest people there are who will step forward and give us the answers to these questions:

This is just precious coming from you.

Q: Is it morally correct that some fry in Hell and others do not fry in Hell when both did exactly the same thing-read the Bible? Yes No No.

Q: Is it possible that reading the Bible is, despite Rome's historical condemnation of it, is pleasing to God? Yes No Reading and listening to the Bible being read is pleasing to God and the Church has never condemned it. Go to a Catholic Mass sometime. I bet there's more scripture read there than in any service you attend.

Q: How do you reconcile a God who does not change His laws with a church that does? Your Answer? The Church hasn't changed its "laws" and you haven't shown that it has.

Have you ever read a book? If so, you hide it well.

"Actually, it's kind of ironic that you as a Calvinist would use this argument. Why? Because John Calvin rejected the book of Revelation from the canon as did also Martin Luther."
That is a false statement, and revisionist history.
Neither Calvin nor Luther *rejected* the book of Revelation, they merely ignored it and refused to focus on, or write any commentaries on it, because they didn't understand it. God had them focusing on getting back to the origional teaching of justification (salvation) through God's gift of faith alone.

There are many references to the fact that Luther wanted to remove them but was restrained. In some versions of his New Testament he placed them in an appendix without page numbering. And it wasn't due to lack of understanding.

Here's one quote from (Patrick O'Hare, The Facts About Luther, Cincinnati, 1916, reprinted by TAN Books, pp. 202-204):

The books of the New Testament fared no better. He rejected from the canon Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse. These he placed at the end of his translation, after the others, which he called 'the true and certain capital books of the New Testament.' . . . 'St. John is the only sympathetic, the only true Gospel and should undoubtedly be preferred to the others. In like manner the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul are superior to the first three Gospels.' The Epistle to the Hebrews did not suit him: 'It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw.' The Epistle of St. James, Luther denounced as 'an epistle of straw.' 'I do not hold it to be his writing, and I cannot place it among the capital books.' He did this because it proclaimed the necessity of good works, contrary to his heresy. 'There are many things objectionable in this book,' he says of the Apocalypse, . . . 'I feel an aversion to it, and to me this is a sufficient reason for rejecting it' . . .

I read another source that says in some versions of his NT, Luther actually labeled them apocryphal.

"He rejected from the canon Hebrews, James, Jude and the Apocalypse"

He probably rejected the Apocalypse because the whole book is built around the structure of the Heavenly liturgy which looks surprisingly like something we know in both old and new rites (assuming Roman Canon in the Novus ordo)

Forgive me for cribbing Scott Hahn and spamming in part of one of my essays but the Catholics on the thread may find it useful:

"This sacrifice, this act of worship has always been understood by the Church as reflecting the heavenly worship of God - the heavenly liturgy which we see 'unveiled' in the book of the Apocalypse - as the Fathers of Vatican II made clear in Sacrosanctum Concilium 8:

In the earthly liturgy we take part in a foretaste of that heavenly liturgy which is celebrated in the holy city of Jerusalem toward which we journey as pilgrims, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God, a minister of the holies and of the true tabernacle; we sing a hymn to the Lord's glory with all the warriors of the heavenly army; venerating the memory of the saints, we hope for some part and fellowship with them; we eagerly await the Saviour, Our Lord Jesus Christ, until He, our life, shall appear and we too will appear with Him in glory.

This last book of the bible was understood by the early Fathers of the Church to reveal the basis of the Christian Liturgy and provides the key to understanding the sacrifice of the Mass. In chapters 5 and 6, John, in his vision of the heavenly throne room, is told to look and he will see the Lion of the tribe of Judah who has conquered. He looks expecting to see the lion - a royal figure of the tribe of Judah which is David's tribe - and so he expects to see a king. Instead, it says in chapter 5, verse 6, "He turned and beheld a lamb, looking as though it had been slain in the center of the throne."

As a whole, the Apocalypse follows the structure of the Mass. Chapters 1-11 begin with a call to repentance with the letters to the seven churches of Asia minor and then proceed to describe the opening of the scrolls by the Lamb who has alone been found worthy, and the presence of the two witnesses - the law and the prophets. These events correspond to the penitential rite and the liturgy of the Word in the Mass. Chapters 11,19 -22 then tell of the opening of God's temple and ark of his covenant, recounting the gathering of the harvest of wheat and grapes followed by the pouring of the seven chalices and the wedding banquet of the Lamb. These are striking images of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

For the sake of brevity I will list other references that would make sense to someone attending Mass in either 1962 or today:

The worship is taking place on a Sunday 1:10
There is a high priest 1:13
There are altars 8:3-4, 11:1, 14:18
Martyrs beneath the altar 6:9
There are vestments 1:13, 4:4, 6:11,7:9
Consecrated celibacy 14:4
Lamp stands 1:12, 2:5
Incense 5:8, 8:3-5
The sign of the cross 7:3, 14:1, 22:4
The Gloria 15:3-4
Readings from scripture Ch. 2-3, 5, 8:2-11
Antiphonal chant 4:8-11, 5:9-14, 7:10-12
The Alleluia 19:1 and following
The gathering of the wheat and grapes for the offertory/oblation Ch 14
The Sursum corda 11:12
The Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus 4:8
Prominence of the Virgin Mary Ch 12
Twenty four priests which the Roman Canon calls to mind in the Communicantes 4:4, 11:15, 19:4
The Eucharistic Host 2:17
Chalices 15:7, Ch. 16
Parousia (primary meaning being real, personal, living presence) 1:1-3, 3:11, 22:6-7
Intercession of Angels and Saints 5:8, 6:9-10, 8:3-4
The Amen 19:4, 22:21
The Agnus Dei 5:6 and throughout
Communion - the Wedding Banquet of the Lamb 19:9, 17
Catholicity 7:9

All these elements which are so familiar from the 1962 Missal are still very much a part of our current Missal."

If Luther had any inkling of the link between the Apocalypse and the Mass then I'm not surprised that he'd want to keep it quiet! The whole issue raises important questions though - was the early Roman liturgy based on the Apocalypse - or did John write down his vision of the Heavenly liturgy in terms of what he was familiar with.

Either way it suggests a much more ancient usage of the Roman rite than most scholars would care to admit - at least in the essential components of the rite.

This FACT is confirmed by quotations of Jesus and the NT authors from the OT. They quoted OT Scriptures over 295 times, but NOT EVEN ONCE do they cite any statement from the books of the Apocrypha or ANY OTHER WRITINGS as having divine authority.

The United Bible Society's Greek New Testament lists over 116 New Testament allusions or quotations from the Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha.[21] These include not only the books known as Apocrypha but additional works such as 1 Enoch. According to R. H. Charles, ?The influence of I Enoch on the New Testament has been greater than that of all the other apocryphal and pseudepigraphic books taken together.?[22] According to Charles, ?Nearly all the writers of the New Testament were familiar with it, and were more or less influenced by it in thought and diction.?[23] He then lists over 128 examples from New Testament writers.[24] He notes that these influences were so pervasive that, ?without a knowledge of the Pseudepigrapha it would be impossible to understand? the author of Revelation.[25]

The second-century Christian scholar Origen also noted that some passages of the New Testament had been taken from pseudepigraphic works. He wrote, for example, that the information in 2 Timothy 3:8f was not found in ?public books? (i.e., the canon of scripture), but in the Book of Jannes and Jambres. (The Ambrosiaster of the fourth century A.D. noted the passage was ?an example from the apocrypha.?) Origen further contended that 1 Corinthians 2:9 was a quote from Secretis Eliae, the ?Apocalypse of Elijah? (Commentary on Matthew 27:9)-a fact later denied by St. Jerome (Epistle 101 to Pammachius and Commentary on Isaiah, Volume 17).

Notes:

21. Kurt Aland, et al., eds., The Greek New Testament, second edition (London: United Bible Societies, 1968), 918-20.

22. Robert Henry Charles, The Book of Enoch (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), xcv.

23. Ibid., ix, n. 1.

24. Ibid., xcv-cii. Most Bible scholars do not make the figure as high as the one Charles gave us.

25. Robert Henry Charles, The Revelation of St. John (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1920), 1.lxv.

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.