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.
He charged them with certain tasks: to teach all nations, baptize, offer the Eucharist, hear confessions (of which later, since you specifically asked). The scripture also mentions on a number of occasions that Christ taught the disciples but it does not say what He taught. But there is no secret teaching: whatever the disciples learned, whether committed to scripture or not, they are to teach the rest of us.
There were about 120 disciples including women. All were filled with the Holy Spirit.
True. Also see "Do penance (μετανοησατε), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).
where Jesus gave Peter, or anyone else, the ability to forgive a man’s sin or sins against God for God [...?]
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:23)
That is to the "disciples ... gathered together".
There are other passages that point to the exclusive character of priestly function: in Luke 22:19 those at the Last Supper are charged with giving the Eucharist that they just received, to others; in James 5:14 we see that a priest is to minister to sick people; in Acts 8:14-17 we see that Sts Peter and John confirmed a newly baptized Christian; In Timothy and Titus we see ordinations (imposition of hands of the priesthood) mentioned throughout.
the penalty or penance for sin is spiritual death. The penance for sin for Catholics is 10 Hail Mary and 5 Our Fathers
Penance is not penalty. The penalty for sin is indeed spiritual death; that penalty is lifted by Jesus Christ at the absolution given by the priest. Once the priest has given the absolution he assigns a penance, not to punish the sin but to build up the penitent's character against future sin. It is sometimes asked: -- What if I don't do the penance? and the answer is, the sin you confessed is still forgiven but if you did not do the penance willingly while able, you have incurred another sin, that of disobeying the instruction of the priest. Penances are light in the modern Church precisely not to create a confusion in the mind of people that you just expressed. However, if a crime is confessed, the priest would typically ask that restitution be made or the criminal turn himself to the police, -- so penances do not have to be light.
He charged them with certain tasks: to teach all nations, baptize, offer the Eucharist, hear confessions (of which later, since you specifically asked). The scripture also mentions on a number of occasions that Christ taught the disciples but it does not say what He taught. But there is no secret teaching: whatever the disciples learned, whether committed to scripture or not, they are to teach the rest of us.
All but the false teaching of the confessional are things all believers are to do.
There were about 120 disciples including women. All were filled with the Holy Spirit.
True. Also see "Do penance (µeta???sate), and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).
In this instance all of their sins against God are forgiven by God in the name of Jesus for what He accomplished on the cross. Peter forgave no sins.
where Jesus gave Peter, or anyone else, the ability to forgive a man’s sin or sins against God for God [...?]
Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. (John 20:23)That is to the "disciples ... gathered together".
As you stated, it is to the disciples gathered together. No mention of how many where there and we know from later scripture Thomas wasn't. I am a disciple of Christ. It pertains to me as well.
If you sin against me and ask forgiveness, I have to forgive you. If I don't, my sins against God are bound and cannot be forgiven. If I forgive you, my sins are loosed and can be forgiven.
There are other passages that point to the exclusive character of priestly function: in Luke 22:19 those at the Last Supper are charged with giving the Eucharist that they just received, to others; in James 5:14 we see that a priest is to minister to sick people; in Acts 8:14-17 we see that Sts Peter and John confirmed a newly baptized Christian; In Timothy and Titus we see ordinations (imposition of hands of the priesthood) mentioned throughout.
All through Acts we see multiple disciples doing much of the same things after being filled with God's Spirit.
the penalty or penance for sin is spiritual death. The penance for sin for Catholics is 10 Hail Mary and 5 Our Fathers
Penance is not penalty. The penalty for sin is indeed spiritual death; that penalty is lifted by Jesus Christ at the absolution given by the priest. Once the priest has given the absolution he assigns a penance, not to punish the sin but to build up the penitent's character against future sin. It is sometimes asked: -- What if I don't do the penance? and the answer is, the sin you confessed is still forgiven but if you did not do the penance willingly while able, you have incurred another sin, that of disobeying the instruction of the priest. Penances are light in the modern Church precisely not to create a confusion in the mind of people that you just expressed. However, if a crime is confessed, the priest would typically ask that restitution be made or the criminal turn himself to the police, -- so penances do not have to be light.
You are right about penance. I was thinking about a penitentiary and forgot they weren't for punishment but for one to reflect on their life.
You still haven't showed me where Jesus gave Peter or any man the right to forgive another man's sin or sins against God for God.
May God our Father lead us all to His truth, BVB
No: nowhere are all believers told that they can forgive sins on behalf of God, -- -they are told instead to forgive personally so that they can be forgiven for sins. I listed other sacramental functions that the Holy Scripture associates specifically with priests.
In this instance all of their sins against God are forgiven by God in the name of Jesus for what He accomplished on the cross. Peter forgave no sins.
Correct: baptism of an adult includes repentance but it does not require a priest or formal confession.
I am a disciple of Christ. It pertains to me as well.
You believe that you can give absolution for sins confessed to you because this power was given to a group of disciples in the Upper Room? On what scriptural basis?
If I forgive you, my sins are loosed and can be forgiven.
True, but that is not the same as forgiving sins of others, given specifically in John 20:23. You are being asked to have a forgiving heart, a Christian virtue. You are not empowered to lift the stain of sin from the others, whether they ask you for it or not.
All through Acts we see multiple disciples doing much of the same things after being filled with God's Spirit.
That is because multiple disciples were then priests. However, the charge to give the transubstantiated bread and wine of the Eucharist (22:19) is only given to the group present at the Last Supper; the last rite mentioning specifically mentions "presbyteros", priest (James 5:14); the situation described in Acts 8:14-17 only makes sense if Peter and John had faculties others, who baptized the new Christians had not. Read the Bible carefully and your illusions will crumble: Christian lay people do have a priestly role, as well as roles of prophets and kings, but it is limited to their households; it is not to be confused with sacramental priesthood, which is seriously limited. In Acts 8:18 Simon wants to buy himself priesthood given by imposition of hands; in 1 Timothy 4:14 the "imposition of the hands of the priesthood" is said to have special grace (also 2 Timothy 1:6); in 1 Timothy 5:22 St. Timothy is instructed not to ordain priests "lightly".
You still haven't showed me where Jesus gave Peter or any man the right to forgive another man's sin or sins against God for God.
I did. It's John 20:23 where precisely that charge (not just right) was given to the disciples in the Upper Room. You mentioned that that group did not include St. Thomas and included possibly a larger group than just the 10 remaining apostles, but that does not contradict the fact that to a certain group on hand at the time the power to forgive and retain sins, which takes effect in heaven, is given. how that group expands to other priests we see from the two Timothys and Titus: by "the imposition of hands of the priesthood", mentioned there numerous times, sometimes also called "ordination" in the same letters.
I am also curious which power do you think "pertains to [you] as well" in the statement you made in the same post as your reaction to John 20:23 quote? You seem to alternatively think that no one is empowered to forgive sins against God on behalf of God and that you are so empowered.
bumpus ad sdummum
I forgot to ask this..
Do you think St. Paul and those he taught administer the Eucharist?
May God the Father lead us to His truth, BVB
The Our Father prayer nor the Unnmerciful Debtor parable say that ONLY debts/offenses against them are to be forgiven. Besides, these are forgiven for the benefit of the forgiver: the Father then forgives him who is himself merciful. Further, while you can speculate that a forgiving heart will also forgive sins against others (you add "or us"), that part is not really in the prayer or in the parable. They are really about forgiving "debtors" or "my brother sin against me", that is in both cases sins against personally the one who is to forgive.
The commandment in John 20:23, however, speaks clearly of forgiving sins and the select disciples are sent in the person of Jesus (v.21) to forgive sins. They are also breathed in the Holy Ghost (22). But they already had the instruction to forgive sin against themselves from the teaching of Christ prior to resurrection. No special task would seem necessary if the purpose of this episode was to reiterate the importance of forgiving attitude. This, therefore, was a task, -- not a general moral commandment, -- given by Resurrected Christ as a part of the mission of the Church that He outlined in the last chapters of the gospels.
What will be the effects of the forgiving of sins commanded in John 20? The sins of those thus forgiven will be forgiven. This is consistent with the overall prerogative of the Church to to things on earth with the effect promised in heaven (Matthew 18:18; it does not say there that every believer but specifically the Church that can do so). This however is different from the forgiving heart commandment where the forgiver shall be therefore forgiven his, the forgiver's, sin. Next, the sins can be either forgiven or retained. But the forgiving heart commandment said nothing about retaining debts/sins against the disciple; in fact, the power to also retain sins, likewise taking effect in heaven, has nothing to do with the merciful attitude. The confessor priests sent in John 20 therefore are to become judges of sin. Finally, who is it whose sins are to be forgiven or retained? The scripture says "whoever", -- in contrast to the forgiving hear tepisodes whare it says "our debtors" and "sin against me".
The episode in John 20:21-23 explains that a select people: once receiving the Holy Ghost in that particular manner, are to not merely be of merciful attitude but also are to become judges of sin of others, regardless of who is the sin against, if anyone, to forgive the sins against God. This is the only power that belongs exclusively to God that these men are given as they are sent in the person of Christ. This is the power given them as priests.
You, for some reason ask specifically where that power is given St. Peter. The answer would be that in Matthew 16:19 a sweeping power to bind and loose is given exclusively to Peter with the keys; it is that power, given initially St. Peter as pope that is later expanded to the entire Church (Matthew 18:18)
From your next post: Do you think St. Paul and those he taught administer the Eucharist?
The correct term is "offered" or "celebrated". Not only I think so, I know so from the Holy Scripture. In 1 Cor. 11 St. Paul corrects a certain attitude spread among the Corinthians regarding the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which we now call the Eucharist. St. Paul reminds them of the words of consecration spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, the same words the priest repeats today as he elevates the consecrated bread. Then St. Paul concludes:
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [...] [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.(1 Cor. 11)
The point he makes is twofold: that the consecrated bread and the chalice "show the death" of Christ and are to be "discerned" as "the body of the Lord" and (2) if abused, it is Christ's real body and blood that suffer the abuse.
This episode shows that St. Paul understood and taught the correct Catholic doctrine of real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that is he understood the distinction that the Protestant don't understand: between a memorial meal to remember the sacrifice of Christ and the actual Sacrifice becoming visible at the Holy Mass.
The Our Father prayer nor the Unnmerciful Debtor parable say that ONLY debts/offenses against them are to be forgiven.
The Our Father prayer and the Unmerciful Debtor parable refer ONLY to debts/offenses against a Christian disciple that are to be forgiven.
The scripture makes it plain Peter and us can and must forgive only a brother who has sinned against him or us.
The Our Father prayer nor the Unnmerciful Debtor parable say that ONLY debts/offenses against them are to be forgiven. Besides, these are forgiven for the benefit of the forgiver: the Father then forgives him who is himself merciful. Further, while you can speculate that a forgiving heart will also forgive sins against others (you add "or us"), that part is not really in the prayer or in the parable. They are really about forgiving "debtors" or "my brother sin against me", that is in both cases sins against personally the one who is to forgive.
I added "or us" because I believe everything Jesus taught was for all His disciples. Again you fail to address the point that Jesus specially tells Peter he can and must forgive a man who sins against him, Peter. Jesus taught you and I the same thing.
The commandment in John 20:23, however, speaks clearly of forgiving sins and the select disciples are sent in the person of Jesus (v.21) to forgive sins. They are also breathed in the Holy Ghost (22). But they already had the instruction to forgive sin against themselves from the teaching of Christ prior to resurrection. No special task would seem necessary if the purpose of this episode was to reiterate the importance of forgiving attitude. This, therefore, was a task, -- not a general moral commandment, -- given by Resurrected Christ as a part of the mission of the Church that He outlined in the last chapters of the gospels.
What will be the effects of the forgiving of sins commanded in John 20? The sins of those thus forgiven will be forgiven. This is consistent with the overall prerogative of the Church to to things on earth with the effect promised in heaven (Matthew 18:18; it does not say there that every believer but specifically the Church that can do so). This however is different from the forgiving heart commandment where the forgiver shall be therefore forgiven his, the forgiver's, sin. Next, the sins can be either forgiven or retained. But the forgiving heart commandment said nothing about retaining debts/sins against the disciple; in fact, the power to also retain sins, likewise taking effect in heaven, has nothing to do with the merciful attitude. The confessor priests sent in John 20 therefore are to become judges of sin. Finally, who is it whose sins are to be forgiven or retained? The scripture says "whoever", -- in contrast to the forgiving hear tepisodes whare it says "our debtors" and "sin against me".
The episode in John 20:21-23 explains that a select people: once receiving the Holy Ghost in that particular manner, are to not merely be of merciful attitude but also are to become judges of sin of others, regardless of who is the sin against, if anyone, to forgive the sins against God. This is the only power that belongs exclusively to God that these men are given as they are sent in the person of Christ. This is the power given them as priests.
I find it interesting you keep going to these scriptures to say it was only given to specific disciples to form the priesthood. We have no number or sex mentioned for those disciples. The upper room had 120 with some women. If that room held that many, who is to say there wasn't that many or more in that room? You state that Jesus made it special because he breathed the Holy Spirit on them. I believe Peter was probably there but we can't tell by the context. His name is not mentioned. We know Thomas was not and Jesus did not breath the special gift on him when He saw him later. The real deal came at Pentecost. The baptism of the Spirit.
If I don't forgive a sin on earth when asked, I bind my sins against God in heaven. When I forgive that sin on earth, I loose my sins against God in heaven. I have the power to bind and loose by forgiving or not forgiving.
You, for some reason ask specifically where that power is given St. Peter. The answer would be that in Matthew 16:19 a sweeping power to bind and loose is given exclusively to Peter with the keys; it is that power, given initially St. Peter as pope that is later expanded to the entire Church (Matthew 18:18)
I showed you scriptue where Jesus told Peter he had to forgive a brother who sinned against him. One man forgiving another man. I have asked you to show me a scripture as plain as that where Jesus tells Peter he can forgive another man's sin against God for God.
From your next post: Do you think
St. Paul and those he taught administer the Eucharist?
The correct term is "offered" or "celebrated". Not only I think so, I know so from the Holy Scripture. In 1
Cor. 11 St. Paul corrects a certain attitude spread among the Corinthians regarding the celebration of the Lord's Supper, which we now call the Eucharist. St. Paul reminds them of the words of consecration spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, the same words the priest repeats today as he elevates the consecrated bread. Then
St. Paul concludes:
[26] For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [...] [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.(1 Cor. 11)
The point he makes is twofold: that the consecrated bread and the chalice "show the death" of Christ and are to be "discerned" as "the body of the Lord" and (2) if abused, it is Christ's real body and blood that suffer the abuse.
This episode shows that St. Paul understood and taught the correct Catholic doctrine of real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that is he understood the distinction that the Protestant don't understand: between a memorial meal to remember the sacrifice of Christ and the actual Sacrifice becoming visible at the Holy Mass.
It shows no such thing. It shows he did it exactly like Christ.
23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat;[a] this is My body which is broken[b] for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”
26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.
He did it the Christian way. The Catholic way came long after Paul's death.
May God the Father lead us all to His truth. BVB
Form the example I gave you it is clear that some people were priests and some were not in the Early Chruch. For example, the example in James 5:14 the scripture said to send away for a priest; in Acts 8:14-17 the baptism was not enough for the Holy Spirit to enter the person baptized and Sts. John and Peter had to be present. But I agree that the forgiving heart instruction applies to all of us, and to st. Peter. However, that is not the instruction given in John 20:23, and I explained the differnce in the post 147 to which you have now responded.
We have no number or sex mentioned for those disciples. The upper room had 120 with some women. If that room held that many, who is to say there wasn't that many or more in that room? You state that Jesus made it special because he breathed the Holy Spirit on them. I believe Peter was probably there but we can't tell by the context. His name is not mentioned.
We don't need to have the names and sexes listed in the scripture to tell that Christ is giving a specific commandment to those gathered. St. Peter received his power to open or shut the gates of heaven first and his name is mentioned in Matthew 16, but in this episode that same power (to forgive or retain sin is to open or close the gate of heaven) is given to some more disciples.
Naturally, this power was propagated down to other priests as we see from numerous examples of ordinations done by St. Paul, St. Timothy and St. Titus. If a priest to be was not there, well, he always could get his ordination later from someone empowered to do so.
I have the power to bind and loose by forgiving or not forgiving.
No because you do not do so sent by Christ to forgive sins against God. You should indeed forgive sins against you, but as the gospels explained, that would only matter for your own salvation, not the one whom you forgive. Besides, while you have the power also to not forgive, that will render your salvation impossible (see the power of the Unmerciful debtor); however, the disciples in John 20:23 are told to also retain sin, -- clearly this is then a different power.
John 20:23 does to but it does not mention St. Peter or anyone. It does not mean John 20:23 does not apply to St. Peter. Matthew 16:19 specifically mention St. Peter and his is given the power to operate the key to heaven. I don't know what else you want, but what I gave you is clear scripture in support of the point I am making and in answer to what you ask.
it shows no such thing
It says "you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come" (1 Cor 11:26). That death is the sacrifice and it is shown at the Mass. Read your scriptures.
The Catholic way came long after Paul's death
The doctrine of the Eucharist showing sacrifice of Christ and Christ's body is really present is the "Catholic way", explained in that passage.
annalex, thank you for this debate. Once again I apologize for taking so long to answer . We left for a few hours and got back well after dinner last night.
It is obvious we can never agree because we do not use the same source on which we base our belief system. As a Christian, I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition. That is the reason Catholics have to argue against scripture alone.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions. Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers. When they lay hands on another, they are infusing them with the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. It is not some special gift given only to the apostles and their successors.
God the Father used a good part of the first 5 books of scripture to establish an earthly priesthood. He describes who could be a priest and their successors. What could be sacrificed and how. Each article of their clothes while performing these duties, etc.
Do a word search for “priest” in the New Testament books. I believe you will only find 2 kinds listed. One is listed more than the other, the Old Testament earthly priests. Mostly being antagonistic to Christ and Christians. The other Priest is listed most in God’s letter to the Hebrews. A heavenly Priest, Christ Jesus.
Read Hebrews. God explains why an earthly priesthood couldn’t work and why Christ being our High Priest in heaven does.
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion. More importantly, there is no need.
My God the Father lead us all to His truth, BVB
I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition
More precisely, the inspired truth taught by the Church are more than the canonical Scripture alone. Nowhere in the argument with you on this thread have I used anything but the Holy Canonical Scripture, for that reason: that you, being Protestant (that what you seem to be however you describe your beliefs), would not be convinced by anything else and my job as a Catholic is to evangelize you.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions.
Correct; I state these scriptures sufficient to conclude that a special group of believers had what can be described as priestly functions in the Early Church and could propagate as a group down in history to this day. The Scripture would not be sufficient to know every detail, -- we know virtually nothing of the ritualistic component of these functions, for example, but I did not attempt to argue those. I showed where the scripture gives specifically Catholic understandings of the Sacrament of Confession as absolution or retention of sins against God, and of the holy Eucharist as a real presence of Christ and His redemptive Sacrifice among the celebrants. Earlier I also showed where the scripture describes a process of purification that precedes entry into Heaven of a believer who ends up saved.
Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers.
The New Testament uses the term "πρεσβυτερος" to refer to that newly emerges cast of believers (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:14), and it also continues with the old term, "ιερευς" to apply to both Old Testament priesthood, Christian priesthood and Christ Himself, the pattern of all Catholic priests, as the Letter to the Hebrews explains. In the English language there are no separate words for Christian Priest and other priests, so Douay, a Catholic translation, uses "priest" for both, whereas Protestant translations prefer "elder" for the Christian priests. My argument is not, however, about words but about the priestly functions seen in the New Testament, however we translate the Greek terminology of the time into English.
Bishop is "overseer", -- that is what the word "επισκοπος" means. Again, Protestant translations avoid Catholic terms and insert something else to suit their bias. A bishop is the kind of priest who also has administrative function and can ordain priests. We see such usage in Acts 20:28; they "rule the Church of God".
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion
I showed you the basis. If you don't agree, feel free to offer your arguments some more, but please do not tell me that the reason you don't feel like arguing is because I used something other than the Holy Scripture and the historical reality that we can glean from it.
I forgot to comment on your very valid remark, that the Old Testament spells out the priestly duties in great detail, whereas the New Testament devotes scant passages to the priestly function and does not give any such detail.
I would say, that is because in general the Old Testament is written like an instruction book to the Hebrew nation, complete with the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant and 613 commandments for every occasion. The New Testament reflects the Christian theology of grace rather than the Old Hebrew theology of law. To describe the rules of the Church with any precision would be to stifle the creative spirit that indwells in the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Times change and the Church changes with them. Here is one important development: confessions in the Early Church were public and gradually the concept of privacy of the confessional was introduced, in order to encourage confessing sins that might expose unconfessed sins of others. Priestly celibacy could not be introduced in the Early Church for practical reasons, that was another innovation of early Middle Age.
And thank you; I enjoy explaining the basics of Catholic theology to non-Catholic Christians.
I can only use the inspired writings of God. As a Catholic, you stated some of your truths are inspired, some are uninspired and some are based on tradition
More precisely, the inspired truth taught by the Church are more than the canonical Scripture alone. Nowhere in the argument with you on this thread have I used anything but the Holy Canonical Scripture, for that reason: that you, being Protestant (that what you seem to be however you describe your beliefs), would not be convinced by anything else and my job as a Catholic is to evangelize you.
One of the greatest victories the god of this world has accomplished is by dividing the disciples of Christ into two groups, for the most part, Catholic/Orthodox and Protestants. Even worse, we allow ourselves to be diescribed as such. I am a Christian, a disciple of Christ.
You use inspired verse with a Catholic commentary that may or may not be inspired as I will show later.
In your posts you keep returning to John 20:19-23 and declare those 5 lines of scripture are so special that a priesthood was developed. You also state instances where these Priest’s carry out special functions.
Correct; I state these scriptures sufficient to conclude that a special group of believers had what can be described as priestly functions in the Early Church and could propagate as a group down in history to this day. The Scripture would not be sufficient to know every detail, -- we know virtually nothing of the ritualistic component of these functions, for example, but I did not attempt to argue those. I showed where the scripture gives specifically Catholic understandings of the Sacrament of Confession as absolution or retention of sins against God, and of the holy Eucharist as a real presence of Christ and His redemptive Sacrifice among the celebrants. Earlier I also showed where the scripture describes a process of purification that precedes entry into Heaven of a believer who ends up saved.
Scripture calls those individuals, bishops, pastors or overseers.
The New Testament uses the term "p?esß?te???" to refer to that newly emerges cast of believers (e.g. 1 Timothy 4:14), and it also continues with the old term, "?e?e??" to apply to both Old Testament priesthood, Christian priesthood and Christ Himself, the pattern of all Catholic priests, as the Letter to the Hebrews explains. In the English language there are no separate words for Christian Priest and other priests, so Douay, a Catholic translation, uses "priest" for both, whereas Protestant translations prefer "elder" for the Christian priests. My argument is not, however, about words but about the priestly functions seen in the New Testament, however we translate the Greek terminology of the time into English.
I went to Douy John 20: 23 and look what I found;
[23] Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
The commentary
Bishop is "overseer", -- that is what the word "ep?s??p??" means. Again, Protestant translations avoid Catholic terms and insert something else to suit their bias. A bishop is the kind of priest who also has administrative function and can ordain priests. We see such usage in Acts 20:28; they "rule the Church of God".
Go back to verse 17. You will see the commentary directed to the elders of the church. If you read the whole verse 28 you see it is the Holy Spirit who gave them charge over their flock.
There is no inspired scriptural bases for a Christian earthly church as practiced by your religion
I should proof read better. That should have read; "earthly priesthood"
I showed you the basis. If you don't agree, feel free to offer your arguments some more, but please do not tell me that the reason you don't feel like arguing is because I used something other than the Holy Scripture and the historical reality that we can glean from it.
I forgot to comment on your very valid remark, that the Old Testament spells out the priestly duties in great detail, whereas the New Testament devotes scant passages to the priestly function and does not give any such detail.
It doesn't go into detail because no earthly priesthood exists. The only NT Priest is in heaven, Christ Jesus. As I said before, read Hebrews. It is the main theme of the epistle.
I would say, that is because in general the Old Testament is written like an instruction book to the Hebrew nation, complete with the measurements of the Ark of the Covenant and 613 commandments for every occasion. The New Testament reflects the Christian theology of grace rather than the Old Hebrew theology of law. To describe the rules of the Church with any precision would be to stifle the creative spirit that indwells in the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. Times change and the Church changes with them. Here is one important development: confessions in the Early Church were public and gradually the concept of privacy of the confessional was introduced, in order to encourage confessing sins that might expose unconfessed sins of others. Priestly celibacy could not be introduced in the Early Church for practical reasons, that was another innovation of early Middle Age.
I could be sarcastic and ask if you believe in a living breathing Constitution as well. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. He has to be. It is the only way we can trust what He says.
God told us to confess our sins to one anther openly for our benifit and the benifit of others. Doing it in private benifits no one. A preist didn't forgive sins at first either. That came with the privete confessional.
Let's see what God said He wants for Bishops.
3 This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop,[a] he desires a good work. 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; 3 not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money,[b] but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. 7 Moreover he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
This looks to me like someone I would want to represent me. I wonder how practical God thinks your Church's inovation is.
I know Paul was single. That proves God can use a single person but He has shown what is His ideal. Your religon has chosen to use the eception as your rule. All single.
May God the Father lead us all to His truths, BVB
I am Catholic and I explain the Holy Scripture. If my explanation is wrong show me. So far you haven't.
and look what I found
You found Bishop Challoner's commentary. So what? I did not argue from other people's comments, but from the Holy Scripture in front of you. He explains what I explain, -- is that the point here? Both Bishop Challoner and I are Catholics.
Go back to verse 17. You will see the commentary directed to the elders of the church. If you read the whole verse 28 you see it is the Holy Spirit who gave them charge over their flock.
Verse 17" ...μετεκαλεσατο τους πρεσβυτερους της εκκλησιας (...he called the ancients of the church). Observe, the operative word is again presbyter which is priest. It can of course be also translated as ancient or elder. Why did Douay chose "ancients" we'll see in a moment. It is to them that St. Paul's farewell speech is addressed, and he says. among other things, "το πνευμα το αγιον εθετο επισκοπους ποιμαινειν την εκκλησιαν του κυριου και θεου", literally, "The Holy Ghost placed you bishops to rule the church of God the Lord". So "presbyters" are later called "bishops". That should not surprise us. The dioceses were small in ancient times: most priests were also bishops of the diocese, which all consistent of a single church; we see the mixing of these two terms all the time in the New Testament. It is also possible that St. Paul was addressing a mixed by status group, and he directed the reminder of the leadership role special to bishops in that verse. Possibly for that later reason the translator of Douay chose more neutral "ancients" to describe the group. The issue is not the translation but the original, and the original presents no quandary whatsoever: there is a group of priests and some of these priests are bishops and it is specifically to the bishops that the "ruling" part of the speech is specifically addressed.
It is, of course, God who makes our bishops rulers of the Holy Church. I hope I never appeared to argue otherwise.
no earthly priesthood exists. The only NT Priest is in heaven, Christ Jesus. As I said before, read Hebrews. It is the main theme of the epistle.
In Hebrews the distinction is drawn between the ministry of Levitical priests of the Old Testament and the priesthood in Christianity. St. Paul explains that the priesthood of Christ is not levitical but rather in the order of Melchisedek. It is true that theologically speaking there are no separate Catholic or Orthodox priests, they are all, in their sacred duty, One Christ, "high priest of our confession, Jesus" as they serve in His person. However, it is the same man, St. Paul, who also wrote three epistles about selection of bishops and priests and in fact commanded Titus: "ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee" (Titus 1:5 -- καταστησης κατα πολιν πρεσβυτερους ως εγω σοι διεταξαμην), so clearly in St. Pauls mind there were earthly priests of the kind that Bishop Titus should ordain, as well as Christ the High Priest, giving them His pattern.
I could be sarcastic and ask if you believe in a living breathing Constitution as well.
I believe in what the Constitution prescribed: a certain branches of government that must make laws of the United States and allows for changing a law, and I believe in what the Holy Scripture prescribes: a certain method of government of the community of Christian faith, the Holy Church, ruled by the Pope and our Bishops, which allows for internal reform as necessary.
told us to confess our sins to one anther openly for our benifit and the benifit of others. Doing it in private benifits no one. A preist didn't forgive sins at first either. That came with the privete confessional.
Where did the Scripture say "openly"? I am familiar with James 5:16, where you could conclude that confession of sins to those we had grieved is encouraged, but that does not say openly. Confessing a sin to a priest privately has the obvious benefit of salvation as the priest can forgive the sin before God (John 20:23 again). There is no difference, by the way, for the absolution whether it is done privately or publicly, and in fact a priest may give public and general absolution on certain occasions; the reason the confession must, per rule of the Church be private is so that the material of the confession incurs no earthly consequence, but solely a spiritual consequence. A vivid example would be a confession of adultery: by definition another person is involved in that sin, and so confessing it would disclose the other sinner before he or she is also disposed to confess.
This looks to me like someone I would want to represent me.
And that is who the Church strives to consecrate as bishops, except today, celibate men can be found with ease.
That proves God can use a single person but He has shown what is His ideal.
1 Timothy 3:2 does not say the married status is the ideal, but that it is preferred to men who had several wives. St. Paul, however, does explain that celibacy is the ideal in 1 Cor. 7:7, 32-34).
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.