Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.
The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.
It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.
One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.
First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.
The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.
The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.
All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.
Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.
How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.
I guess that that the practice of cherry picking the Bible and not taking the verses surrounding the one selected is not just limited to the Bible.
“It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them. In granting them, however, It desires that, in accordance with the ancient and approved custom in the Church, moderation be observed; lest, by excessive facility, ecclesastical discipline be enervated. And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, It ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof,—whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived,—be wholly abolished. But as regards the other abuses which have proceeded from superstition, ignorance, irreverence, or from what soever other source, since, by reason of the manifold corruptions in the places and provinces where the said abuses are committed, they cannot conveniently be specially prohibited; It commands all bishops, diligently to collect, each in his own church, all abuses of this nature, and to report them in the first provincial Synod; that, after having been reviewed by the opinions of the other bishops also, they may forthwith be referred to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff, by whose authority and prudence that which may be expedient for the universal Church will be ordained; that this the gift of holy Indulgences may be dispensed to all the faithful, piously, holily, and incorruptly.”
Do you see? It grants that indulgences exist and have existed right from the early Church; they were administered corruptly and that this corruption stops now. Period.
And as for baptism? We think so highly of our children that we lead them to the Holy Spirit as soon as is practiceable in order that the Holy Spirit comes into them and leads them to everlasting life. We do not think so poorly of human beings that we chortle with glee to think that WE are of the ELECT and YOU are NOT, and there’s nothing that anyone can do about it. Too bad, so sad. (Yes, I have six little children).
We do our best to lead them to the Lord, the Giver of Life.
The Council of Orange was not logically nor Scripturally incorrect. They are correct and are made up of Spiritual giants upon whose Holy shoulders I am privileged to stand.
Kosta, I’d look at it this way.
God didn’t need a sign. I think that it was for the Jews themselves to discover if they had the courage to display that sign on their doors. I think that it was a test that was set up, as we would set up a test for children in order for them to prove to themselves how brave and steadfast they were.
I think that our own signs that we display are also telling. Our HR director has a Rosary that he drapes over his daytimer planner; it’s inconspicuous, yet there. I wear a beautiful gold Celtic cross that occasionally peeks out over my shirt. I drape a Rosary over my rear view mirror and have finger rosaries on my car key rings.
I am proud and brave enough to display my Christianity to the world. I am not ashamed to pray before meals. These signs that we display are our proofs to ourselves, not necessarily to God.
So what are you judged on?
Or are you of the elect that evades judgement and gets a pass on all your sins, as you sip mint juleps on the club car to Heaven?
Ah, but sir, this denies the Gospel according to Calvin.
Well said.
We leave it up to God. It is His universe, His rules and His way. We are all judged according to His standards.
I am a sinner. I repent of it every day. I cannot be saved without the Grace of God; that is why I am grateful every day for being baptized. My parents cared enough to claim me for Christ. I repaid them with rebellion and opposition and stomping my feet. Yet, I was called back.
Yes, I was called, but quietly, with a nudge here and a nudge there. God let me have a taste of discomfort (!), but for the most part, He guided me gently and steadily. And I have been rewarded far beyond my deserving. That is yet another reason that I believe so strongly. I don’t know how good a Job I’d make, but I pray that I never have to find out.
What exactly do these poor souls do, in purgatory, to purify themselves before joining in union with God?
They undergo purification.
Purgatory isn’t a place; it is a process. Since nothing impure can enter the Kingdom of God, anyone judged worthy of entering it that is in a state of any sin in any way must be purified.
Purgatory is not expressly called out in Scripture, but we must come to the conclusion that it exists simply because of those two conditions.
Intercessory -- redemptive
How exactly does this work? Are they totally passive and something is done to them, or are they actively involved in this purification process.
Purgatory isn’t a place; it is a process.
If purgatory is not a place than that begs the question does it exist?
If purgatory is a process than the question is when does this process occur.
Purgatory is not expressly called out in Scripture,..
I'm aware of that. I've learned there are a great many things RC's and EO believe in that are not in Scripture. I'm sure that's part of the reason behind their disdain for Sola Scriptura. It would be too limiting.
I am not referring to spatial dimensions, and after that, it is closest to the former. But then we get into the attribute thing, what does that mean, etc. I believe God's love and wrath can simultaneously exist without God needing to "change".
You seem to be struggling here to find a way to describe God having (conflicting) emotions. Otherwise, you could just say 'we can describe God somewhat - using more than one attribute. And be done with it. The struggle is to attribute human emotions and change and still maintain immutability and perfection. It can't be done, hence the futile search for more and better phrases.
I don't think I'm struggling, except to explain myself to those who disagree. :) I feel like I'm being told that our God is not a wrathful or just God because He is only capable of man's view of love. I disagree with this assertion.
Your question is leading toward: If Jesus had a human nature and a divine nature, why can't the divine nature be like human nature? How can one answer other than: Because it's not, else they'd be the same.
No, I was going no where near there. :) I was suggesting that Jesus never changed and yet He expressed both love and anger. Jesus was also without sin. Therefore, it is possible to have anger and yet not sin. Therefore, God in Heaven can do this also.
So where comes this human understanding of God's anger, etc.? St. John Damascene helps explain again:
"Many of the things relating to God, therefore, that are dimly understood cannot be put into fitting terms, but on things above us we cannot do else than express ourselves according to our limited capacity; as, for instance, when we speak of God we use the terms sleep, and wrath, and regardlessness, hands, too, and feet, land such like expressions."
With all due respect, I do not feel helped. :) Damascene appears to be saying "I can't explain God's anger, therefore it does not exist." :) It is interesting though, that somehow God's love is excused from this category (or treatment), and somehow we can understand that and agree that it exists.
FK: "Can you love your wife and at the same time have righteous anger toward any unworthy clergyman?"
Can you? Try it. Put yourself in the place where the emotion of love toward your wife arises. Then do the same for anger. Now love, now be angry. Now be love/angry. Now call your mental health professional. Emotions are a state of mind - even persons with multiple personalities have one at a time.
Well, I can certainly say that my love for my wife does not change or diminish when I am angry with others. I can have both at the same time. My love for her does not go up and down based on whether I am thinking of her at a particular time. The base love is constant.
But if you are talking about human experience IN THE MOMENT, we could say that I can only experience one at a time. But do you think God is under such a limitation? I would say "no". This is the multi-tasking that I have been talking about. I think God CAN do it, and I am getting the message that you all do not believe our transcendent, timeless God has the talent. :)
No emotions exist. They occur instinctively as opposed to being controlled by will or reason. They are part of our God-given instincts, and directing them properly towards the divine goes hand in hand with proper use of our instincts.
I'm not sure if you meant a comma after "No", so I am unsure how to approach this. If all of our emotions are nothing more than animal instincts, then I can see why you would think them not applicable to God. However, my life's experiences with emotions do not bear any resemblance at all to your statement.
For example, I have been married for 19 years and my wife and I have had our share of fights. Some have been memorable. However, in each case both of us made a DECISION that our base love for each other was over and above the disagreement we were having at the time. Otherwise, if we only acted on instinct, then we would have divorced long ago.
I'm still a little confused on your position concerning whether emotions are real, and whether you acknowledge that love is a decision, etc., so before I go on, could you clarify? All that you are telling me I have never heard before.
New Advent is so helpful; it is a blessing to those who don’t have to make things up as they go along.
Old Testament
The tradition of the Jews is put forth with precision and clearness in 2 Maccabees. Judas, the commander of the forces of Israel, making a gathering . . . sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead). And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:43-46)
At the time of the Maccabees the leaders of the people of God had no hesitation in asserting the efficacy of prayers offered for the dead, in order that those who had departed this life might find pardon for their sins and the hope of eternal resurrection.
New Testament
There are several passages in the New Testament that point to a process of purification after death. Thus, Jesus Christ declares (Matthew 12:32): “And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” According to St. Isidore of Seville (Deord. creatur., c. xiv, n. 6) these words prove that in the next life “some sins will be forgiven and purged away by a certain purifying fire.” St. Augustine also argues “that some sinners are not forgiven either in this world or in the next would not be truly said unless there were other [sinners] who, though not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the world to come” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, xxiv). The same interpretation is given by Gregory the Great (Dial., IV, xxxix); St. Bede (commentary on this text); St. Bernard (Sermo lxvi in Cantic., n. 11) and other eminent theological writers.
A further argument is supplied by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:
“For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man’s work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”
While this passage presents considerable difficulty, it is regarded by many of the Fathers and theologians as evidence for the existence of an intermediate state in which the dross of lighter transgressions will be burnt away, and the soul thus purified will be saved. This, according to Bellarmine (De Purg., I, 5), is the interpretation commonly given by the Fathers and theologians; and he cites to this effect:
St. Ambrose (commentary on the text, and Sermo xx in Ps. cxvii),
St. Jerome, (Comm. in Amos, c. iv),
St. Augustine (Comm. in Ps. xxxvii),
St. Gregory (Dial., IV, xxxix), and
Origen (Hom. vi in Exod.).
See also St. Thomas, “Contra Gentes,”, IV, 91. For a discussion of the exegetical problem, see Atzberger, “Die christliche Eschatologie”, p. 275.
Tradition
This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition. Tertullian “De corona militis” mentions prayers for the dead as an Apostolic ordinance, and in “De Monogamia” (cap. x, P. L., II, col. 912) he advises a widow “to pray for the soul of her husband, begging repose for him and participation in the first resurrection”; he commands her also “to make oblations for him on the anniversary of his demise,” and charges her with infidelity if she neglect to succour his soul. This settled custom of the Church is clear from St. Cyprian, who (P. L. IV, col. 399) forbade the customary prayers for one who had violated the ecclesiastical law. “Our predecessors prudently advised that no brother, departing this life, should nominate any churchman as his executor; and should he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, nor sacrifice offered for his repose.” Long before Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria had puzzled over the question of the state or condition of the man who, reconciled to God on his death-bed, had no time for the fulfilment of penance due his transgression. His answer is: “the believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (P. G. IX, col. 332).
In Origen the doctrine of purgatory is very clear. If a man departs this life with lighter faults, he is condemned to fire which burns away the lighter materials, and prepares the soul for the kingdom of God, where nothing defiled may enter. “For if on the foundation of Christ you have built not only gold and silver and precious stones (1 Corinthians 3); but also wood and hay and stubble, what do you expect when the soul shall be separated from the body? Would you enter into heaven with your wood and hay and stubble and thus defile the kingdom of God; or on account of these hindrances would you remain without and receive no reward for your gold and silver and precious stones? Neither is this just. It remains then that you be committed to the fire which will burn the light materials; for our God to those who can comprehend heavenly things is called a cleansing fire. But this fire consumes not the creature, but what the creature has himself built, wood and hay and stubble. It is manifest that the fire destroys the wood of our transgressions and then returns to us the reward of our great works.” (P. G., XIII, col. 445, 448).
The Apostolic practice of praying for the dead which passed into the liturgy of the Church, is as clear in the fourth century as it is in the twentieth. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechet. Mystog., V, 9, P.G., XXXIII, col. 1116) describing the liturgy, writes: “Then we pray for the Holy Fathers and Bishops that are dead; and in short for all those who have departed this life in our communion; believing that the souls of those for whom prayers are offered receive very great relief, while this holy and tremendous victim lies upon the altar.” St. Gregory of Nyssa (P. G., XLVI, col. 524, 525) states that man’s weaknesses are purged in this life by prayer and wisdom, or are expiated in the next by a cleansing fire. “When he has quitted his body and the difference between virtue and vice is known he cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested. That same fire in others will cancel the corruption of matter, and the propensity to evil.” About the same time the Apostolic Constitution gives us the formularies used in succouring the dead. “Let us pray for our brethren who sleep in Christ, that God who in his love for men has received the soul of the departed one, may forgive him every fault, and in mercy and clemency receive him into the bosom of Abraham, with those who in this life have pleased God” (P. G. I, col. 1144). Nor can we pass over the use of the diptychs where the names of the dead were inscribed; and this remembrance by name in the Sacred Mysteries—(a practice that was from the Apostles) was considered by Chrysostom as the best way of relieving the dead (In I Ad Cor., Hom. xli, n. 4, G., LXI, col. 361, 362).
The teaching of the Fathers, and the formularies used in the Liturgy of the Church, found expression in the early Christian monuments, particularly those contained in the catacombs. On the tombs of the faithful were inscribed words of hope, words of petition for peace and for rest; and as the anniversaries came round the faithful gathered at the graves of the departed to make intercession for those who had gone before. At the bottom this is nothing else than the faith expressed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXV, “De Purgatorio”), and to this faith the inscriptions in the catacombs are surely witnesses.
In the fourth century in the West, Ambrose insists in his commentary on St. Paul (1 Corinthians 3) on the existence of purgatory, and in his masterly funeral oration (De obitu Theodosii), thus prays for the soul of the departed emperor: “Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him” (P. L., XVI, col. 1397). St. Augustine is clearer even than his master. He describes two conditions of men; “some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness” etc., and in the resurrection he says there will be some who “have gone through these pains, to which the spirits of the dead are liable” (De Civ. Dei, XXI, 24). Thus at the close of the fourth century:
not only were prayers for the dead found in all the Liturgies, but the Fathers asserted that such practice was from the Apostles themselves;
those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation;
from which when purified they “were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord”.
So clear is this patristic Tradition that those who do not believe in purgatory have been unable to bring any serious difficulties from the writings of the Fathers. The passages cited to the contrary either do not touch the question at all, or are so lacking in clearness that they cannot offset the perfectly open expression of the doctrine as found in the very Fathers who are quoted as holding contrary opinions (Bellarmine “De Purg.”, lib. I, cap. xiii).
IV. DURATION AND NATURE
Duration
The very reasons assigned for the existence of purgatory make for its passing character. We pray, we offer sacrifice for souls therein detained that “God in mercy may forgive every fault and receive them into the bosom of Abraham” (Const. Apost., P. G., I col. 1144); and Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. XXI, cap.xiii and xvi) declares that the punishment of purgatory is temporary and will cease, at least with the Last Judgment. “But temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment.”
Nature of Punishment
It is clear from the Liturgies and the Fathers above cited that the souls for whose peace sacrifice was offered were shut out for the time being from the sight of God. They were “not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness”. Still, for them “death is the termination not of nature but of sin” (Ambrose, “De obitu Theodos.”); and this inability to sin makes them secure of final happiness. This is the Catholic position proclaimed by Leo X in the Bull “Exurge Domine” which condemned the errors of Luther.
Are the souls detained in purgatory conscious that their happiness is but deferred for a time, or may they still be in doubt concerning their ultimate salvation? The ancient Liturgies and the inscriptions of the catacombs speak of a “sleep of peace”, which would be impossible if there was any doubt of ultimate salvation. Some of the Doctors of the Middle Ages thought uncertainty of salvation one of the severe punishments of purgatory. (Bellarmine, “De Purgat.” lib. II, cap. iv); but this opinion finds no general credit among the theologians of the medieval period, nor is it possible in the light of the belief in the particular judgment. St. Bonaventure gives as the reason for this elimination of fear and of uncertainty the intimate conviction that they can no longer sin (lib. IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1 q. iv): “Est evacuatio timoris propter confirniationem liberi arbitrii, qua deinceps scit se peccare non posse” (Fear is cast out because of the strengthening of the will by which the soul knows it can no longer sin), and St. Thomas (dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) says: “nisi scirent se esse liberandas suffragia non peterent” (unless they knew that they are to be delivered, they would not ask for prayers).
Let’s put it this way. You accept the Trinitarian doctrine, which is a declaration by the Church. It exists on the same amount of Scriptural evidence. It was declared by the Church. You accept it.
You also accept 66 of the 72 books of the Bible. The Church declared that they were Scripture. You accept them on the Church’s merit. I find it amazing that you accept some things but not others on exactly the same amount of justification.
Of course Purgatory exists, otherwise you have contradictory conditions. Well, it has been well shown that Protestants will tolerate contradictory positions. They simply don’t acknowledge them in posts or in their own theologies.
Fair enough. But Exodus 12 makes it very clear that God wanted to "know" who was on His side. The blood was a "sign" (v. 13) so He would not harm that household. But we believe that God knows what each and every one of us believes in his heart and don't need external signs for God to know who we are.
Those who refuse to do what the L-rd commands; Jew or gentile will perish
Not because God delights is squashing disobedient bugs, but because we will stray, sin, and disconnect from the His life-line and and die.
Being a member of a denomiation will not save; calling on the Name of the L-rd will save
I had a feeling that was coming...LDS call on His name too...are you one of them?
OK. I hit view replies to your last post and didn't see anything so I'm just coming across this now. But I'm still not sure how you distinguish love and emotions. If emotions are just animal instincts, and love is somehow separate from that, then are you saying that we have no instinct to love anything? If so, then how could we possibly come to a free will decision to love God? Is it purely intellectual?
Paul, Paul and more Paul...are you a Paulean or a Christian?
You were the one who said it is a process not a place.
It's amazing how the RCC can claim these things when there really is no Scriptural support for them. It's always the same thing, when trying to explain these beliefs "church fathers" are quoted and what Scripture is quoted is of a very questionable interpretation. Maybe it's not an easy topic to discuss because purgatory does not exist either as a place or a process.
I would suggest that any belief that requires this type of "two stepping" is not rooted in the Truth.
So if it is a process, it doesn’t exist? Really? Did you even read the posting?
So what of the Scriptural justification? Does it exist? Would you admit it? Or is it simply that the Gospel of Saint Paul as interpreted by Saint Calvin doesn’t mention it with any sort of approval?
The Paulines are everywhere.
The Perils of Pauline are everywhere too.
No wonder that they don’t baptize their children. They would prefer them to succumb to the wiles of satan rather than succumb to infant baptism. I suppose that if their children are predestined to come to the Lord, then they will. I’m just so unclear on what the parents ought to do.
Maybe they should just leave them alone and let the children go their own way; after all, if the Lord wants them, He’ll come and get them, right?
Thanks for the ping. But aren't you being a little hard on poor Cyril? :) I mean, this was a man of God who had hands laid upon him. He was a direct successor to one of the Apostles, and carried great authority and great power for that reason. He rose to the rank of Patriarch. At the time, were his followers wrong to follow him? What should his followers have tested his teachings against, if anything? The Bible? Cyril would get an "A" there. How about the Eastern Church? Now here he would have failed of course, as proved out later.
I still cannot reconcile how you believe that God would instill all of these supernatural powers and authority to both the faithful and the heretic alike (God knowing all of this beforehand of course). I do not believe that Judas is the scapegoat answer because he was absolutely unique in the most important series of events. If Judas was meant to foreshadow following successors with supernatural powers, then the message is that we can trust no individual clergyman at all, only the collective will of the hierarchy. THAT would mean, especially in Orthodoxy, that the things we could be reasonably sure about would be relatively few. Is that a revealed faith?
Starting with Marcion...
Maybe they should just leave them alone and let the children go their own way; after all, if the Lord wants them, He’ll come and get them, right?
That's what I would advise. Since they believe everything will turn out just the way God planned it from "before foundation of the world" nothing they do or don't do will change it.
As in "so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil" [Heb 2:14]?
or "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?" [Hos 13:14]?
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.