Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I did it repeatedly today. There had been no doctrinal teaching on the sale of indulgences before Trent. So they were sold by some. Trent determined that they should not be sold. They are no longer sold. There is no back-and-forth on this, but rather refinement of the doctrine.
If that does not answer your question, please follow up so that I or Jo can address it further (I'll be offline till tomorrow).
Question 1) Didn't the Church infallibly decreed that if you purchased indulgences with cash, you would spring a soul from purgatory?
Question 2) Didn't the Church rescinded this decree and say it wasn't so?
I wasn't aware that St. Gregory thaught that. That is a grave error indeed.
Did Jesus spiritually die on the cross??? Jesus sure used an interesting selection of words, like "gnawing", in John 6. I would think that the Jews present during the Eucharistic Discourse of John 6 knew PRECISELY that Jesus was refering to actual flesh and blood, not a "spiritual" body. The Jews ALREADY WERE practicing such "spiritual communion" with the Passover! Why would Jesus "spiritual body" offend them? Come on now!
This goes to show you all that Protestants can't get enough of twisting the Most Holy Scriptures to continue in their errors of pride. The arrogance to think that you all know what Jesus was saying, 2000 years removed using a translation of a translation of a translation - while the Jews standing RIGHT THERE were too stupid to figure out that Jesus was really talking about another spiritual communion similar to the Passover...
Sarcasm on
Thank God for Jean Calvin... too bad he was 1500 years too late to prevent the UNANIMOUS writings of the Fathers that proclaimed Jesus BODILY presence in the Eucharist.
Well, keep following Calvin... It is quite obvious that he was smarter than the entire 2000 year history of the Church as well as the Jews on the ground within earshot of Christ's words.
Sarcasm off.
To those who speak such things, God help your souls.
I have. And I have not heard any sort of proof that the Church taught infallibly or dogmatically about indulgences, than retracted it later. As usual, your history is all fluff.
I see your tactics...Make wacko, groundless accusations, then when called to put out, you shut up.
For example you made the brazen claim that "St Augustine never mentioned anything about Purgatory".
Proven wrong quite forcefully. And not a peep from you. As if the subject was never brought up. The silence was DEAFENING. But I'll bet that you'll mention this slander again in a month or two...
Another example from you, "The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an invention of the Fourth Lateran Council as a result of desiring to raise more money for the Crusades".
Another idiotic and groundless statement, proven wrong when I post writers of 100 AD (over 1000 freakin years, Harley) writing about the real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. And you have the GALL to repeat this stupid statement again, as if I wouldn't catch it? Are you hoping there is a lurker out there who will read this and nod his head in agreement?
Your idea of the "two strands of Christianity" is another perversion of history. You claim that the early Church was either "Eastern Orthodox" or "Reformed". Another crock of manure. I posted numerous accounts from the Father that showed that the WEST believed in the free will of man and they were QUITE synergistic. All I got from you is silence and a month later, repeating the same crap.
And finally, you have very little understanding between the difference of a teaching and an INFALLIBLE teaching. EVERYTHING the Church says is NOT infallible. The Church narrowly defines such matters and solemnly declares its infallible teachings. So until you show me an infallible teaching overturned later, you got nothing.
Are you joking Dr. Eckleburg? If this is your understanding of heaven, I think I see part of your inability to accept the Catholic teachings on such matters. God is EVERYWHERE. He doesn't occupy a chair on a planet somewhere...We locate a spiritual beings presence based on its effects. An angel, a spiritual being, does not occupy space, but we know it has a locale because its effects are limited in time and space. God, on the other hand, effects EVERYTHING. He maintains everything's existence, thus, we say He is everywhere - although He actually doesn't occupy space or time.
When the Bible says Jesus ascended to the right hand of the Father, it doesn't mean Jesus "went somewhere", but that He assumed the glory of the position of authority. The enfleshed Son of God has been glorified!
Christ gave us by example of the miracle of the loaves that He is more than able to feed us in time and space. He tasked His disciples to pass out this "bread". And priests continue to do so for the sake of giving men and women of today the ability of abiding in God's sacramental presence, one that we can get from nowhere else.
Regards
And so when Roman soldiers pounded nails into Christ's hands, because He didn't complain, he didn't mind?
Trying to rise above such things doesn't do much good here, apparently.
For the sake of ending this, please call me "Joe" or Jo Kus". Or if the Religion Moderator doesn't mind, maybe I can change my name...
Thank you
That's a pretty vitriolic post, jo kus.
Regardless, the Jews understood the spiritual significance of the Lord's Supper exactly the same way the Gentiles understood the spiritual significance of a circumcision of the heart.
No scalpels involved.
What specifically? The Catechism has a few paragraphs. Do you want a cut and paste?
Regards
"This passage is a beautifully stated Catholic concept of redemptive suffering, contains no speculation about forgiveness of every sinner, and describes the conclusion of the parable with precision."
But you only quoted the first portion of what I gave from St. Gregory (which I did in the interest of fairness, since it was the only quotation from an Eastern Father that I could find that could possibly be used to support your reading of that passage in St. Matthew.) He does not give an exegesis of the passage, but just makes a passing reference to that one line, BTW.
The concluding section of that same passage, that I also quoted, was this:
"But He that becomes "all" things will be "in all" things too; and herein it appears to me that Scripture teaches the complete annihilation of evil.
If, that is, God will be "in all" existing things, evil, plainly, will not then be amongst them;
for if any one was to assume that it did exist then, how will the belief that God will be "in all" be kept intact?
The excepting of that one thing, evil, mars the comprehensiveness of the term "all."
But He that will be "in all" will never be in that which does not exist." "
In other words, St. Gregory is using the "until all the debt should be paid" quotation in the context of his argument that someday evil will be, must be, completely annihilated, and by extension (putting this together with more explicit passages) that all will be saved because everyone will eventually pay their debt in hell -- and because God cannot be "in all" as long as any evil exists. He is not talking about the purification of the saved, but the ultimate redemption of the damned.
I am not saying that a lack of charity is treated lightly in Catholicism. I'm not sure that I could at all describe the man's actions as being a mere "lack of charity." A failure to love one's neighbor is a serious failing -- but refusing to forgive someone who begs for forgiveness goes beyond that to something far more basic -- for we can choose actively to forgive even those towards whom we have no love. It is more akin to direct hatred, and the debtor's actions are, as the several Eastern Fathers describe it, "savage" -- he seizes the man begging for forgiveness by the throat, as though he were an animal. This is a depiction of a "venial sin?" Maybe I don't understand the subtleties of what makes something a venial sin.
"This is, of course, the secondary meaning of the parable: that the economic view of sin as debt, under which the debtor invincibly operates, is really supplanted by the law of charity and mercy."
Of course it is so supplanted. But yet you find in this story support for the essentially economic view of purgatory (a combination of unforgiven venial sins and uncompleted penances are quantified by God and must be paid for and cleansed by a certain amount of time in the fires of purgatory -- a man with a single unforgiven venial sin and no uncompleted penances will spend much less time in purgatory than will a man with a host of unforgiven venial sins and a lot of uncompleted penances.)
In the end, since you do not claim that this passage is one cited by Catholic authorities as support for purgatory, but is rather your own personal reading, I don't want to be guilty of beating this horse endlessly, and will try to leave my comments at this. In my own defense, my original response was (unusually, for me) a mere one-liner!
No. This makes the need to answer #2 a moot point.
Regards
For the record, just so we can understand what this confusion is about, what exactly is offensive about "jokus" as opposed to "jo kus?"
FWIW, I thought the "jo kus" stood for something like "Joe cusses" but you didn't want to be that obvious. (I'm being serious here; lest I be accused of sarcasm or bad form.)
I get it now. You want the thread pulled. Please return to the discussion when you've calmed down.
That's a pretty vitriolic post, jo kus.
Yes, call it frustration from being told over and over again how Catholics do not abide by Scriptures, and then being told by infallible Protestants that 2000 years of Church interpretation was wrong and every Jew standing within earshot had no clue that Christ was talking about SPIRITUAL communion, although Jesus over and over mentions CHEWING and GNAWING. How silly of me to find this Protestant argument ignorant. I suppose from now on, I should just take the Protestant's infallible interpretations of Scriptures given by Jean Calvin (which you quote as if it was Scriptures) as from God Himself from now on, since they MUST be right, being pitted against the Pillar and Foundation of the Truth. Thanks, but I'll stay with the Spirit of Truth, the One who has not let us down yet.
On the serious side, perhaps I need a break from this bumping heads with such accusations over and over again refuted. I see, in retrospect, that this bickering is not making me more like Christ... Perhaps I am in need of more prayer and less FR chatting with several Protestants who will never look to the arguments I present anyways. I see this is just turning into a vicious circle that probably no one is benefiting from, anyways.
Even Jesus eventually gave up on the Pharisees.
Regards and God bless
And FWIW, you have given an able defense of the Roman Catholic faith.
.
"My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."
I just can't see how it could be interepreted any other way.
May 18 = Matthew 18
The argument from authority is the oldest and weakest argument in the world, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a long, long half-life.
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.