Atonement from the Ship in Purgatory by Joseph Anton Koch, c. 1825
Posted on 10/26/2012 2:28:43 PM PDT by NYer
In Catholic theology, Purgatory is a state (or a process, not necessarily a place) to which one’s soul travels if one has died in a state of grace, but nevertheless retains unremitted venial sins and certain ingrained bad habits and dispositions.
That is, Purgatory is a state for the redeemed who are not yet perfected. It is not a halfway house between Heaven and Hell. In Purgatory, you willingly undergo the quality and quantity of pain and suffering that is uniquely prepared for you so that you may enter Heaven unblemished.
But the dead in Purgatory do not go through this alone. Those of us who are living may provide assistance to them by offering prayers, alms, Masses, indulgences, etc. without, apparently, undermining the point of Purgatory.
Some Protestants, even those who are Purgatory-friendly, have raised an objection to this account. They argue that, if undergoing the pains of Purgatory is necessary for a soul’s purification, then wouldn’t the assistance of the living impair that purification?
That is, if I fast and pray for the poor souls in Purgatory so that they may receive some relief from their suffering, how is that helping their purification if the process requires a particular amount of agony?
The mistake the critic is making is that he is thinking of Purgatory in terms of distributive justice, that the assistance of the living is a rival to the performance of the deceased as if the entire enterprise were a zero-sum game.
He is, of course, not entirely to blame, since the Church and its theologians sometimes use the juridical language of satisfaction and debt to describe Purgatory, its punishments, and the role that the living play in diminishing those punishments.
Nevertheless, as a technical matter, the Church’s understanding of the justice exacted in Purgatory has always been teleological. “Justice,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, “is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior.”
Atonement from the Ship in Purgatory by Joseph Anton Koch, c. 1825
This is why two Church councils – Orange and Trent – employ the metaphor of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-17) in order to express the relationship between the members of Christ’s body, both living and dead, as they assist each other on the journey to Paradise. The Council of Trent affirms:
For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace….
Perhaps a concrete example will help. Peter is a child growing up in the midst of a broken home. As a consequence, he develops vices that lead him to a life of crime and debauchery.
Suppose as a young adult he undergoes a conversion experience, though he finds it difficult to change his old habits. He often finds himself tempted to return to his former life, though he knows that it will destroy him.
Fed up with this internal struggle, he pursues a cloistered life of spiritual discipline that includes rigorous fasting, prayer, studying, meditation, devotion to the poor, and self-flagellation.
After many years, he has acquired a level of self-mastery that truly astounds him as well as the numerous friends he has made in the monastery. But then he has an epiphany that causes him to well up with tears of deep gratitude.
For he looks around and sees, really sees for the first time, what he had taken granted for the past decade: the wonderful architecture, the mountains of books, the opulent sanctuary, the scores of friends he now calls family, all expressions of the love and selfless giving that made his journey possible.
Although the donors, volunteers, and fellow monks that contributed to these magnificent surroundings are often described by others as having helped relieve the burdens of its residents, it would not be accurate to think of this assistance in merely distributive terms, and in fact Peter cannot bring himself to see it that way, or at least not anymore.
Yes, there was pain and suffering, all deserved, of course, and Peter knows that if not for this overabundance of charity his agony would have been worse. But he does not, indeed he cannot, view this charity as a mere amelioration of what could have been.
Rather, he sees his experience as an organic whole, ordered toward both his good and the good of those with whom he lives in fellowship. The charity and the suffering worked in concert for a proper end.
If you understand this story, you understand the Catholic account of Purgatory.
Those sort of things confuse the issue.
I gave you examples from our Jewish history to show you that the beliefs that undergird the RCC concept of purgatory aren't inventions of the RCC. Something isn't necessarily fabricated just because it doesn't make sense or one chooses to reject the foundations on which the doctrine is based. I'm not concerned about changing your viewpoint. I'm concerned about your assertion that Purgatory is something arrived at by "secret knowledge."
For the Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem rejected those works
And yet they were part of the KJV until 1885. If you're talking about Jamnia, the same council rejected all the documents that were eventually included in the New Testament. And, I believe, the Septuagint. If you consider Jamnia authoritative, why do you reject only some of the books that council rejected?
some doctrines as being hearsay without proof
What's "hearsay" for some is Biblically based for others. Some nonCatholics reject any and all scriptural evidence for certain doctrines as wrong interpretations of scripture. Or they reject early texts not included in scripture as lack of evidence for certain early beliefs. I'm not saying you do this, I'm just saying that "proof" is a subjective thing. For me, Christianity is a matter of faith not proof. I imagine it's the same with you. I have sufficient Biblical and other proofs for all my beliefs. I suspect you do too :)
My own rejection of blanket claims that what began to be taught after some centuries,
Just curious, do you feel the same way about the protestant reformers and protestant theology? Do you reject the notion that protestant theology and doctrine can evolve or do you insist that it stay absolutely as it was in the days of Luther, Zwingli, etc? If so, shouldn't the apocryphal books still be part of the KJV?
much is today assumed if not claimed to originate from Christ or the Apostles, but there is no clear chain of custody [so to speak] for most of the now persistently controversial doctrines.
What kind of proof of something passed on orally do you consider valid proof? Do you consider artwork, engravings on early Christian tombs proof of early beliefs?
"Oh, it was handed down from the very beginning by "oral tradition" ".
I understand that you don't accept oral tradition. I'm not out to change you. I take issue with calling it "secret knowledge." Information shared orally is hardly secret. It's just not written. Big difference! The way I see it, Jesus asked for my faith. And he accepted oral tradition, so I don't have a problem putting my faith in something that was good enough for him.
BlueDragon, I apologize if I gave the impression you weren't smart enough or something like that :( Should have chosen my words better. What I should have said was that the information you state about the RCC is often not accurate. I likewise thank you for the civil discussion. I apologize if I came across as suggesting you weren't too bright.
Peace be with you
Catholics view those in heaven as very much alive!
...can appear so many times and miracles alledgely occurred?
Miracles aren't my forte. That's God's territory :)
...be venerated (worshipped!!?)!
Catholics do not worship saints. And veneration isn't worship. Do you worship the flag when you salute it? When you prevent it from touching the ground? When you raise it then lower it to half staff on days of national sorrow? I'm guessing you don't. If you can understand the concept of reverence and not worship for flags, then you can grasp the same thing about Catholic beliefs regarding saints (and their statues) if you wish to.
Oh, but you say, I don't pray to a flag. And I likewise don't pray to a saint. I ask a saint, a living person in heaven, to pray for me just as I would ask you to pray for me.
Peace be with you.
Thank you for your thorough answer. It proves much of what I have believed for a long time, the Catholic religious system does not limit it’s truth to teachings considered to be divinely inspired as you clearly admit.
How do you determine which of it’s doctrines are from man and which are from God?
Why would you want to?
It is much simpler being a Christian like me, one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus the Christ.
Notice I didn’t call myself a Protestant, I have nothing to protest. I am more than happy knowing my sins, past, present and future have already been forgiven by my Father in heaven after I acknowledged I was a sinner, asked forgiveness and accepted His Son’s finished work on the cross for me.
May God the Father lead us all to his truth. BVB
PS You won’t have to worry about that purgatory thingy your old religion claims might await you.
See post 123 and decide for yourself, BVB
One need not rely upon Jamnia. One can go to Melito and Origin. Josepus also. Yet I see Jamnia raised time and again on these pages as the imagined "reason why" one chooses to stick with what came to be known as the "Hebrew Bible", although that term is itself somewhat of a misnomer.
As long as they were considered "possibly edifying" but not to be used for basis of even part of foundation for doctrine not found elsewhere. Much as was long warned of them, and was earliest warned of them (in the West, anyway) including it being mentioned by one highly respected Cardinal (respected for his biblical/historical knowledge perhaps the foremost) at Trent, where he was basically ignored concerning his repetition of --- was it Jerome's(?) warning?
They can be indications. Strong clues. Yet images depicted or practices by individuals can as much be seen as some form of fruit, common understanding of more official doctrinal positions, while simultaneously differing significantly too, indicating sort-of where the rubber really meets the road, including folk belief not part of more narrowly examined Christian belief. One must take care. We've seen what developed into folk belief, lead the RCC upon occasion. Of course we see popular culture affect churches of all stripe, too, presently. it depend upon where one looks.
It's a big church. There is a variety of expression and primary focus. It can depend upon whom one talks to. What may have been much true in times past, or is presently in some quarters, I'll readily concede is not much held or expressed, exercised by all.
Attitudes towards many doctrines have changed since the Reformation also, becoming less superstitious, for example.
Thank you for the kindness. Now if I can only steadfastly remember to make certain to always extend to you the same, then I'd be making progress.
Nice technique. It looked like a nice, juicy, hanging pitch. I knew that one would be swung on. It appears you fielded it though.
Blessed simplicity. Aah, a breathe of fresh air.
many happy returns
By checking their consistency with the deposit of faith originally given the Apostles and its subset actually recorded in the Holy Scripture.
Why would you want to?
Because we believe in Jesus Christ God and our Savior.
my sins, past, present and future have already been forgiven by my Father in heaven after I acknowledged I was a sinner, asked forgiveness and accepted His Son’s finished work on the cross for me.
This is a half-true, and the infection of faith that you got from Protestantism. Christ did redeem all sin and with baptism you received the gift of redemption. You however, continue to be on the road to salvation and future sin may lead you away from it. Consider 1 Timothy 1:19 and especially
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1:10; check also the context)
Make sure your calling and election.
Let's examine that statement. "By checking their consistency with the deposit of faith..." FULL STOP
Deposit of Faith. THAT phrase is used interchangeably to fully include what you referred to Magisterium of the Church in your own post #112, which is also much lumped in with or referred to as Tradition, served up as as being in actuality not only equal to specifically that
but frequently passed off as that very article itself. It's a subtle thing much of the time...but one of which many have long taken notice of.
Further reply to our FRiend in response to his statement [in part] "my sins, past, present and future have already been forgiven by my Father in heaven..."
you state;
Did not we just previously delve into 1 Cor 3, where we review once again
The Word does indeed judge us. It also sets us free.
Yes, a good word, that is. Yet it very well may not fully apply in Spirit, with the way you have used it HERE.
This [the above paragraph] indicates to me likelihood of having been written, before even reading much what was written to you. For I did "answer the challenge", but you reveal also over the balance of your reply, in your closing remark, that it's all some sort of game, while you play to the peanut gallery.
Here I must protest. I didn't spin up the soap opera aspect. That was circulating in Catholicism long before I was ever born. I surely see no soap opera concerning the winnowing, purifying "flames" in the biblical text.
That "opera" is due to Catholic inventions, past teachings & practice.
Said while obfuscating, himself. I stepped up to the challenge, yet you claimed right off the bat I did not, while playing for some imagined audience.
Whatever. Just do not expect myself and perhaps others, to take what you say more seriously than you extend courtesy to do likewise for those who take the trouble to write, responding in detail, to points which you raise.
Even JND Kelly admits that the RCC has historically accepted the deuterocanonicals as part of their scripture. They were part of the early Church. Your nonacceptance of them doesn't make Catholicism unbiblical. It just means you don't accept the texts Catholics do, just as I don't accept texts some other faiths hold to be sacred justifications of their religions.
Your points as I understand them:
1-RCC isn't biblical based on a nonCatholic Bible
2-Catholic Bibles contain noninspired books whose inclusion in canon is erroneous
3-RCC has no infallible authority to establish canon
4-NonCatholic churches/?individuals may authoritatively establish an infallible canon
5-(What I was really getting at in the first place!) Deuterocanonicals aren't evidence of Jewish beliefs and practices at the time they were written even though uninspired. (To which I say, other books of antiquity may not be inspired but are generally taken as evidence of beliefs in play at the time).
So where am I in my understanding? That you have given your position thought. That you aren't simply hurling antiCatholic stones. I can respect your view without agreeing with it, and I thank you for sharing it with courtesy.
Attitudes towards many doctrines have changed since the Reformation also, becoming less superstitious, for example.
Just curious, what's less superstitious now? Do you find there are any clear biblical teachings that nonCatholics have watered down (e.g.- remarriage after divorce)? Or do you consider the ease of remarrying in many nonCatholic churches a change of attitude not doctrine? And then my original question, does Protestant theology evolve, as Catholic theology has?
Peace be with you. Thank you again for the courteous discussion.
... is faith originally given the Apostles and its subset actually recorded in the Holy Scripture. "[C]ontend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3). It is not the entirety of the magisterial teaching. Thank you for pointing that out.
Did not we just previously delve into 1 Cor 3, where we review once again... "but he himself shall be saved"
Yes. The souls in purgatory end up saved. The once-saved-always-saved is a sin of presumption which alone would put your future salvation in serious doubt, despite the altar calls and what have you.
a good word, that is
No, that is not. Read the passage, Second Peter 1:1-10, then opine on what this expression is referring to.
Kindly point where.
By checking their consistency with the deposit of faith originally given the Apostles and its subset actually recorded in the Holy Scripture.
Please show me where the Apostles were given a deposit of faith and it's subset actually recorded in Holy Scripture that you can judge these non inspired individuals to be consistent with.
This got answered much as I would have expected while I was away. Catholics claim their belief system is based on what Jesus taught the Apostles. If that were true they would only use the gospels and the writings of the Apostles. Everything needed for our salvation is there. If they wanted to know how the first church operated all you have to do is read the of Acts of the Apostles. They would see that Jesus did as He promised and did not leave them alone. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide them along with angles and Himself in the case of Paul.
The Catholics freely admit they believe a better way to determine how a church should operate is to look at the church a 100 years or more after the fact. They use the uninspired writings of people of those times. It is no wonder they get upset when Christians want scripture alone.
Why would you want to?
Because we believe in Jesus Christ God and our Savior.
my sins, past, present and future have already been forgiven by my Father in heaven after I acknowledged I was a sinner, asked forgiveness and accepted His Son’s finished work on the cross for me.
This is a half-true, and the infection of faith that you got from Protestantism. Christ did redeem all sin and with baptism you received the gift of redemption. You however, continue to be on the road to salvation and future sin may lead you away from it. Consider 1 Timothy 1:19 and especially
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. (2 Peter 1:10; check also the context)
Make sure your calling and election.
The blood of Jesus on the mercy seat washed away all my sins and allowed me to be redeemed. The baptism Jesus provides for all believers is of the Holy Spirit. It allows us to be born again from our water birth with Satan as our legal father caused by Adam's disobedience into our adoptive Father's spirit family with all the rights and privileges of His only true Son, Jesus.
We all need to allow the Spirit to renew our minds to lesson our desire to sin and remind us that Satan is still alive and well seeking to deceive us all.. We have free will. I used that free will to believe the Gospel and accept Jesus as my lord.. At anytime before I die, Satan can try to make me an offer I can't refuse. Fame, fortune, power, sex, or whatever he thinks he can lure me with. I still have free will. I can turn my back on God and go with Satan for the goodies. That is why we are to stay vigilant until the end.
While I was away I see this is called a sin of presumption. God cannot lie. He says I have salvation unless I blaspheme His Spirit. How can it be a presumptuous to believe Him.
May God the Father lead us to His truth, BVB
From the top the contradictions can only be seen from context of our ongoing conversation.
After the pom-poms of magisterial mention make appearance, the rest of the contradictions are neatly self-contained.
Truly a classic post!
The part you skipped, saying you didn't ask for it?
Athanasius & Augustine.
Gladly. Given the deposit of faith:
contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. (Jude 1:3)
A subset recorded:
Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book. [31] But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31)there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. (John 21:25)
you can judge these non inspired individuals
[The Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. (Acts 17:11)
The work of Chrisitans may be inspired at all times
I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever (John 14:16) ... he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.(Ibid 14:26)
Only the version of Scripture you provided states you will not sin at any time. Most say stumble.
True. The original says "μη πταισητε", "make a false step" (link). Which is a stronger statement than "you shall not sin": you shall not even stumble. Did you read the entire passage? It clearly says that you must work on your character and faith as a disciple to make sure your election. Use any translation you like, we can iron out translation problems later.
He says I have salvation unless I blaspheme His Spirit.
No, He says that you can be forgiven. That is Catholic teaching: any sin can be washed away in confession. You, too, can confess your sin of presumption learn the proper doctrine and resume your path toward your salvation in the Cathilic Church that Christ purchased for us with His blood us for that purpose.
Do you have a substantive post? If you see a contradiction, point it out and we shall see if it is together.
Actually, we argue Hebrews 10:10: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
Purgatory is not necessary unless you believe Christ's sacrifice on the Cross was not enough to save us from all sin. Either Christ is sufficient or He is not. I believe He is. Therefore, Purgatory is thankfully not necessary.
Bless your day.
Right. That you did: I did not ask for it. The challenge is to give me a quote from the Holy Scripture where it says that the Church may not teach things not covered by it. I later clarified that "not covered" implies "not contradicted". Your example spoke of teachings contradicting the gospels, so it is not what I asked.
I am a busy man. I think I give you detailed and argumented posts; it is possible that I omit something or make my post not sufficiently clear. When it happens, it would save us both time if a post number is provided. I respect you; try to respect my time. Please.
The Catholic religion is based on the fallacy that Jesus gave the 12 something that was not given to all believers, including us. They accomplish that by inferring, changing or taking scripture out of context to have Jesus teaching only the 12 when He is speaking to His disciples.
The obvious counter to that would be Pentecost. There were about 120 disciples including women. All were filled with the Holy Spirit.
Jesus mentions forgiving sin on several occasions. The only time he is specific is when Peter asked Him how many times, he Peter, has to forgive a brother who sins against him, Peter. Jesus tells Peter 70 X 7.
He goes on to explain that His Father cannot forgive Peter, or us, our sins against Him, The Father, if we don’t forgive a brother when they ask. We have to loose our sins so they are not bond in heaven.
I have asked, on several occasions, for any Catholic to provide me with specific scripture where Jesus gave Peter, or anyone else, the ability to forgive a man’s sin or sins against God for God. So far none has provided them. Would you be so kind?
Scripture states the penalty or penance for sin is spiritual death. The penance for sin for Catholics is 10 Hail Mary and 5 Our Fathers. Sounds like a good deal to me.
May God our Father lead us to His truth. BVB
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.