Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Thank you. If anyone comes out of reading this thread with better understanding of Catholicism and Orthodoxy, my work here has not been in vain.
The relation is that Leo the Great made an ex-cathedra pronouncement before the consensus of the bishops was reached, and over time the consensus followed. This was a de-facto exercise of the only contorversial aspect of papal infallibility: that the pope may promulgate doctrine not waiting for the consensus.
Here it is:
And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
We have a specific reference to the body being burned here, not any disembodied works.
What is going through the fire is the man's works not his sins.
I think the scirpture speaks for itself here: "you are God's building", it says, and with that metaphorical premise St. Paul proceeds to explain how parts of that building, that is parts of the man, that are of low probity, are burned. It is correct that these are not mortal sins, because the man is purified from them and is saved in the end. This process of purification by fire that ends in salvation is the Purgatory doctrine.
ICor 13 is speaking about someone is alive not dead but is willing to be a martyr for Christ (If I give my body)
It is speaking about what produces 'gold, silver and precious stones', fruit borne by the Holy Spirit (Gal.5:22-24), that is what Charity is, giving love through the power of God.
Nothing done in the flesh (for wrong motives and not under the power of the Holy Spirit) will be rewarded at the judgement seat of Christ.
What is going through the fire is the man's works not his sins. I think the scirpture speaks for itself here: "you are God's building", it says, and with that metaphorical premise St. Paul proceeds to explain how parts of that building, that is parts of the man, that are of low probity, are burned. It is correct that these are not mortal sins, because the man is purified from them and is saved in the end. This process of purification by fire that ends in salvation is the Purgatory doctrine.
I think the scripture does speak very clearly here and it doesn't say anything about sins, that is an assumption you are making.
The word used is works and two kinds are given, those that survive God's testing, showing that He produced them, and those that do not, showing that they were produced by the flesh (1Jn.2:16-17)
That is very true, because He would have produced them through you (Phil.2).
However, a Christian is suppose to have rewards to show for the time he spent on earth, that is why God has five crowns for those who accomplish what He wants for them.
There is a soul winning crown (Phil.4:1), a Pastor's crown (1Pe.5:4), a crown for awaiting Christ's return (2Tim.4:8), a martyr's crown (Rev.2:10) and the crown for overcoming the temptations of life (1Cor.9:25).
Every Christian should have at least three crowns to cast at the feet of His Lord.
And St. Cadoc was a DUDE!
You never know... 8~)
You brought up 1 Cor 13 and you brought up "sins".
1 Cor 13 indeed does not relate to the purgatory in any direct way. But it does speak of the burning of the body, and not burning of works, so whatever reason you have to speak of 1 Cor 13, it fails to deliver for you.
In Chapter 3, the context is judgement following death (v 13 and 15) and the purifying burning is of the building itself, because this is the object of the work (St. Paul uses "build" for verb, and "work" for the noun). You cannot burn work, you can only burn the work product. But that building is the man himself (v 9). The impurities are not called sins in the passage, but rather wood, hay and stubble. This is consistent with the Catholic teaching that one burdened with mortal sin cannot enter Purgatory and will not be saved. St. Paul is talking about the purgatorial fire here, that tries the whole of man's life and removes what is of low probity.
"Berean Beacon Ministries proclaims the Good News of Salvation (the Gospel of Jesus Christ). The President and founder is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic Priest. A number of articles are posted to help those in Catholicism to find the true Gospel of Jesus Christ..."
I brought up 1Cor. 13 to show what kind of works get the status of 'gold, silver and precious stones' those done in Charity.
Speaking of the burning of the body is speaking of giving one's body to be burned but if one is not doing it for the right reasons, being controlled by the Spirit, God does not count it as having any value and it will not be rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ.
Hence, if one gives one body to be burned but is not being controlled by the Holy Spirit (Charity), the act is not rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ with the crown of martyrdom, but is considered 'wood, hay and stubble'
In Chapter 3, the context is judgment following death (v 13 and 15) and the purifying burning is of the building itself, because this is the object of the work (St. Paul uses "build" for verb, and "work" for the noun). You cannot burn work, you can only burn the work product. But that building is the man himself (v 9). The impurities are not called sins in the passage, but rather wood, hay and stubble. This is consistent with the Catholic teaching that one burdened with mortal sin cannot enter Purgatory and will not be saved. St. Paul is talking about the purgatorial fire here, that tries the whole of man's life and removes what is of low probity.
Well, your view may be consistent with Catholic teaching, but it is not based on what the scriptures teach.
What that scripture actually says is that works are burned up, not sins.
The foundation of salvation is Christ and what is produced in the body after salvation is either works that will be rewarded or rejected at the Judgment seat of Christ.
1Cor.3:13 says, that the fire will try each man's work to see what sort it is, do you think sins have to be tried?
What is being discussed here are good deeds, that either are being done by God producing fruit (Gal.5:22-24) or through the flesh for wrong motives and under the wrong power.
I Cor 3 cannot be used as a justification for the belief in purgatory.
Thanks for the link!
But before the consensus was reached it was not the teaching of the Church. One could also argue that he made a statement of faith, and the bishops echoed his orthodoxy and only then it became the official dogma.
The pre-Schism system worked perfectly according to the formula that the pope was primus inter pares, first among equals, expected to lead by example, but that he could do nothing without the Councils, and the Emperor.
The "Robber Council" of Ephesus and the controversial Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon serve as proof that the pope was not the final word on things ecclesiastical or theological. He certainly was not what Leo's legates made him out to be, namely the "ruler of the church."
I would agree that there is no virtue in us at birth, but I'm a little surprised to hear you say that. What does our free will use to choose God? Does virtue spontaneously emanate from us, or can a virtue-less person simply decide that TODAY I have virtue?
The death of a soul is also not to be understood that the soul will disappear. Souls are immortal. The "death" of a soul as opposed to eternal "life" of a soul has to do with whether we will spend eternity in darkness and discomfort, or in presence of God.
Yes, I fully agree with you here.
"Stomp your feet all you want,..."
________________________
This is becoming typical, if you had something cogent to say you would attempt to do so in a less insulting manner.
The text of of v.15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this (emphasis given) (p.1286)
Thank you for the link.
I look forward to reading it.
Ah, I see, OK, on 1 Cor 13 we do not disagree then.
What that scripture actually says is that works are burned up, not sins
And that is consistent with the teaching on purgatory: the life's work of a man destined for salvation is tried.
8855: note from the RCC bible (NAB).
I read the Bible, not the notes. NAB is generally a horrible translation, so I would not trust it for the note either.
That would be one interpretation. But it is equally possible to interpret this episode as the Pope leading the consensus.
The "Robber Council" of Ephesus and the controversial Canon XXVIII of the Council of Chalcedon serve as proof that the pope was not the final word on things ecclesiastical or theological.
I am not familiar with it. Maybe Gbcdoj can weigh in on this.
I did. I gave you half a dosen scripture quotes (8825), and you dismissed them as "my thoughts" (8835). Now you feel offended?
While I can't speak to what a Methodist missionary would teach, I can tell you that a Baptist missionary would not lead his witness with "Don't Baptize your babies!" :) A Baptist missionary would lead his witness by focusing on Christ; His identity, His love for us, His message, His uniqueness, our need for Him, how we can be saved, etc. I really doubt that this witness would be worlds apart from the vast majority of other "Bible believing" Protestant missionaries. I really doubt that a seeker in a foreign land, upon hearing the witness of two Bible-believing Protestants of different denominations, would be "lost" as to what to believe concerning Christianity in terms of the basics. (I define "the basics" as that level of knowledge sufficient to come to know Christ in the traditional way, and be a "believer".)
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.