Posted on 01/29/2007 6:45:51 AM PST by stfassisi
Gehenna, kawaii. Jesus says "Gehenna". Gehenna IS Purgatory, and Hell. Go ask a Jew. Always has been.
And Jesus does too speak of paying off sins.
Remember the harsh lender who squeezes his debtor even after he has been let off the hook? What happens? He is thrown into the deepest dungeon and handed to the torturers to groan and to wail UNTIL EVERY LAST PENNY IS PAID. He isn't put to death. He suffers greatly for what he did, but there is an UNTIL in the parable, and there is a PAYMENT in the parable, meaning that ONCE the last penny is paid he is set free, after long suffering.
Remember that a translation of the Lord's Prayer is "forgive us our DEBTS, as we forgive our debtors".
Do the math.
It is very linear.
Sin is debt.
Debt can be forgiven by the Lord, and is, but if the debtor doesn't forgive the debts of his own debtors - if he does not do unto others as he would have done unto him - then he is bound and thrown to the torturers - not FOREVER - but UNTIL EVERY LAST PENNY IS PAID.
That was, and is, the Jewish notion of Gehinnom (Gehenna) and purging of sins. And Jesus didn't say "Hell". He said Gehenna.
It is right there in black and white.
If you look, it is obvious, and it is not complicated.
If you want to make it complicated, that is your right, but I think it is best not to multiply entities unneccessarily. Jesus used the Jewish concept of Hell/Purgatory. So, the Jews must be right on that one.
Not much more to say, really, from my perspective.
I don't see any reason to work at finding a way to contradict Jesus, given that he was God and all.
It's called "Bible Study" ... all sorts of questions come up.
You're getting back into that 'its possible to repay' thing...
Cheap at half the price.
"And yes blue-duncan, I am doing my work... there is multitasking..."
But are you concentrating; are you focused; are you being intentional--present, in your homework? Remember, being a father, I know what "pretty good" means......c-!
wait for the vatican's spring book sale
Stuff and nonsense.
The Historical Doctrine of Purgatory
The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, All who die in Gods 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. The Church gives the name purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned (CCC 10301).
The doctrine of purgatory, or the final purification, has been part of the true faith since before the time of Christ. The Jews already believed it before the coming of the Messiah, as revealed in the Old Testament (2 Macc. 12:4145) as well as in other pre-Christian Jewish works. The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:1115 and Matthew 5:2526, 12:3132. Orthodox Jews to this day believe in the final purification, and for eleven months after the death of a loved one, they pray a prayer called the Mourners Kaddish for their loved ones purification.
It was not until the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century that anyone denied the doctrine of the final purification. Some imagine that the Catholic Church has an elaborate doctrine of purgatory worked out, but there are only three essential components of the doctrine. (1) A purification after death exists. (2) It involves some kind of pain. (3) The purification can be assisted by the prayers and offerings by the living to God.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla
And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).
The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity
That very night, this was shown to me in a vision: I [Perpetua] saw Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others, and he was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color, and the wound on his face which he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. . . . For him I had made my prayer, and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other . . . I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day on which we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that the place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body well clad, was finding refreshment. . . . [And] he went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children, and I awoke. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment (The Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity 2:34 [A.D. 202]).
Tertullian
That allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:2526] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the judge . . . and lest this judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hell, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?" (The Soul 35 [A.D. 210]).
Cyprian
It is one thing to stand for pardon, another thing to attain to glory; it is one thing, when cast into prison, not to go out thence until one has paid the uttermost farthing; another thing at once to receive the wages of faith and courage. It is one thing, tortured by long suffering for sins, to be cleansed and long purged by fire; another to have purged all sins by suffering. It is one thing, in fine, to be in suspense till the sentence of God at the day of judgment; another to be at once crowned by the Lord (Letters 51[55]:20 [A.D. 253]).
Lactantius
But also, when God will judge the just, it is likewise in fire that he will try them. At that time, they whose sins are uppermost, either because of their gravity or their number, will be drawn together by the fire and will be burned. Those, however, who have been imbued with full justice and maturity of virtue, will not feel that fire; for they have something of God in them which will repel and turn back the strength of the flame (Divine Institutes 7:21:6 [A.D. 307]).
Cyril
Then we make mention also of those who have already fallen asleep: first, the patriarchs, prophets, apostles, and martyrs, that through their prayers and supplications God would receive our petition; next, we make mention also of the holy fathers and bishops who have already fallen asleep, and, to put it simply, of all among us who have already fallen asleep. For we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holyand most solemn sacrifice is laid out" (Catechetical Lectures 23:5:9 [A.D. 350]).
Gregory of Nyssa
If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).
John Chrysostom
Let us help and commemorate them. If Jobs sons were purified by their fathers sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them (Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).
Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf (Homilies on Philippians 3:910 [A.D. 402]).
Augustine
There is an ecclesiastical discipline, as the faithful know, when the names of the martyrs are read aloud in that place at the altar of God, where prayer is not offered for them. Prayer, however, is offered for other dead who are remembered. It is wrong to pray for a martyr, to whose prayers we ought ourselves be commended (Sermons 159:1 [A.D. 411]).
But by the prayers of the holy Church, and by the salvific sacrifice, and by the alms which are given for their spirits, there is no doubt that the dead are aided, that the Lord might deal more mercifully with them than their sins would deserve. The whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prays for those who have died in the communion of the body and blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them, on their behalf. If, then, works of mercy are celebrated for the sake of those who are being remembered, who would hesitate to recommend them, on whose behalf prayers to God are not offered in vain? It is not at all to be doubted that such prayers are of profit to the dead (ibid., 172:2).
Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgment. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow after that judgment (The City of God 21:13 [A.D. 419]).
That there should be some fire even after this life is not incredible, and it can be inquired into and either be discovered or left hidden whether some of the faithful may be saved, some more slowly and some more quickly in the greater or lesser degree in which they loved the good things that perish, through a certain purgatorial fire (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Charity 18:69 [A.D. 421]).
*LOL Yeah, you do. You are wrong.
We don't need a Church Council to explain, JESUS explained it,
*No. He didn't.
If we have piled tradition atop tradition in order to try and explain something which is more simply explained and understood, well, that is our right as creative people.
*Tradition is not the process of our creative intellects.
As for me, the simplest explanation that fits the facts is the best explanation, and we should not multiply entities when we need not. Jewish "Gehenna" expresses perfectly the concept that Jesus seems to have been driving at.
*Not me. So, are you satisfied satisfying yourself?
I am not interested in opposing an Ecumenical Council or the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. I am merely pointed out what Jesus actually SAID, and suggesting that this ought to be the basis for cutting through the fog of misunderstanding on the issue. Purgatory is correct doctrine: it's Gehenna. Hell is correct doctrine: it's Gehenna. Why complicate this?
*Why conflate Purgatory and Hell?
Now, I asked you for a reference from a few sources. Do you have them or not.
A couple of months before I left RC, I went to Mass on my lunch hour and stopped by the office afterwards to arrange for some Masses to be prayed for my brother Patrick and my maternal and paternal grandparents. The deacon informed me that the calendar was booked into June, and it was during November or December that I approached him. I needed to give him $50 for all the Masses, which was no problem, I was never a cheap Catholic. I didn't have the money on me at that time, and so he told me, 'when you bring the money, we'll arrange for the Masses.' He couldn't get the phrase out without stammering and having to look away from me. He wasn't doing anything outside of Church practice, but the vulgarity of the exchange: money for the Sacrifice was not allowed to pass without a display of awkwardness. The Truth wills out, no matter what.
Well, ok.
I myself am not going to defend Luther's move on the Deuterocanonica, because I think that it was in error.
The biggest reason I think it was unsound is because Jesus' stories and parables follow parables and references to Sirach and Wisdom more than any other texts, other that the Torah and certain of the Prophets (esp. Isaiah), whom he quotes directly...and, at least in the case of the Torah, often corrects. It seems to me a poor thing to discard the very texts that make a whole lot more of Jesus' teachings directly related to the Bible. Jesus certainly knew and used his Sirach and his Wisdom, and having those books available pulls a lot more of what Jesus said and did from being new teaching to be refinements on old Scripture.
Since we don't NEED a Bible to be God's children, we only NEED grace and God's love, with the Sacraments being the most important approaches to grace, with the Bible as an aid to faith and learning but not strictly necessary at all, I think having the most complete Bible is better, especially given Jesus' allusions to those specific parts that were pulled out. He was God, so he ought to know.
All that said, everything that NEEDS to be known was said and done by Jesus and the Apostles, and the whole necessary faith is in the Gospels, so the rest is merely clarifying data and interesting. Besides, the Eastern Church has 3 and 4 Maccabbees while the Western Church never did. This wasn't fatal to unity before, and need not be fatal to unity now. The West demanded the filioque of the East, but never demanded they drop 3 and 4 Maccabbees.
This is a subject worth fighting about in the context of what authority IS and who says.
But if one wants to know what God wants of us, the words and deeds of Jesus are sufficient, from a textual standpoint.
Now it's "never"?!?
This just gets sillier. I guess history is nothing more than one big...
There's certainly a lot of confusion on this thread.
Every Parish I have ever had anything to do with asked a small stipend if you wanted a person's name remembered at Mass. It goes into the Parish general fund, to defray the expenses of operating the building. And if you tell 'em you can't afford it, they say fine ... and you go on the calendar anyway. And you're right, the calendar can be booked 'way into the future in some places. It's OK, the names can be farmed out to retired priests, or monasteries, or wherever.
'when you bring the money, we'll arrange for the Masses.'
I've never heard that, nor have I ever heard OF it from actual, practicing Catholics. IF your deacon actually did that, he was wrong.
Having a Mass said does not necessarily cost any money. It is customary to leave a $5.00 stipend, however, to cover the bookkeepping time. No charge for the Mass these days.
By the way, you are always invited back to the Catholic Church. Many things have changed.
Well spoken, sir.
Blah, Blah, Blah...
Still no Scripture.
Amen.
I went with my best friend to a local RC church once to buy a prayer card for her grandmother. My friend was visiting from out of town and had never been to this church before. All she had were Traveler's Checks which the church happily accepted.
I hope you got a receipt for that!
BTW, are indulgences tax deductible?
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.