Skip to comments.The Forgotten Souls in Purgatory
Posted on 06/10/2004 12:25:02 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
Because of the heresy of Martin Luther, the idea of Purgatory has long been considered a myth of the Catholic Church - a medieval myth. You'll note anyone seeking to advance the modernist, Masonic, One World New Order agenda will most always label traditional practices as "medieval." No, the whole 'medieval' smear is exactly what modernists are so adept at: inaccuracies and lies
Why is it that something so fundamental to Church dogma has been abandoned? Just as there are Three Persons in One God, the Triune Divinity, so also there are three components in One Communion of Saints. Those are, of course, the Church Triumphant - the saints in Heaven; the Church Militant - all those baptized faithful believers on earth, and the Church Suffering - all those who are waiting to be purified before entering the Heavenly realm.
Yes, Virginia, Purgatory does exist. And the sooner all realize that and begin to fulfill the duty that we as members of the Church Militant have - praying for the poor souls - the sooner they'll be freed and can then intercede for us. Heavens knows all of us here on earth need help!
So while we wile away our time trying to find ways to save time, why don't we make the resolution to rededicate our efforts to helping those who, in the long run, will help us the most, those who have just entered Heaven. They're so grateful that they will go to great lengths to show their gratitude by interceding before the Beatific Vision. Fresh prayers from new holy recruits. A refreshing idea.
I have news for all, and yes, I'm even speaking to "the choir" here - none of us does as much as we should for the Poor Souls.
While we focus so much attention on the events of the day both in the world with war and terrorism, natural and man-made disasters, greed, graft, sodomy run amok, adultery and pornography seeping into every fabric of life, the rampant materialism, what we really need to do is find time to meditate on the question - What is really important? Yes, our family's welfare is important, but as I have gone to the mat several times with my sons when they have asked for things that are not good for them, the most important role I have in life other than the welfare of my own soul and my wife's soul is their spiritual welfare. What it basically comes down to is this: Nothing else matters!
Jesus said that so very clearly in Matthew 16: 26,
"For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father, with His angels: and then will He render to every man according to His works."
As an aside, that last doctrine by Our Lord totally anathematizes the protestant belief of sola Scriptura or sola Fidei [only the Scriptures or only the Faith saves]. Your works count in your salvation, and those works include helping the suffering souls in Purgatory.
(Excerpt) Read more at traditioninaction.org ...
Not only prayer, but one can also give up some of the unpleasantness in one's life (i.e., a toothache, back pain) for them. Or skip a meal once in a while for them.
Offering prayers and suffering for the souls in purgatory is a daily part of my life.
Thanks for highlighting the many ways to help suffering souls. For people with a particular interest in this subject, here's yet another suggestion:
Well, this should be a relatively easy matter. Given that saying the Prayer of St. Gertrude the Great releases 1000 souls from purgatory each time it is said (http://www.catholicspot.com/purgatory.htm), and assuming a cumulative world population of 106,456,367,669 (http://www.prb.org/Content/ContentGroups/PTarticle/0ct-Dec02/How_Many_People_Have_Ever_Lived_on_Earth_.htm), and with a current world population of Catholics of 1 billion, only 1 out of ten Catholics would have to say the prayer once to empty out the place (even assuming everyone that ever lived is in purgatory- obviously not the case).
Alternatively, we could take Jesus at his Word when he said "It is finished".
Good Luck getting us to do that!
Why did Christ die?
41 Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden.
42 And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain.
43 And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection.
44 (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,)
45 And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them.
46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
I would be happy to pray the prayers, but your links don't work.:)
Apparently so you could set yourself up as the final authority in religion.
A short story by me.
2 1/2 years ago I found my long lost cousin and his family after 40 years. He died within the year and was burried in St Gertrude's Cemetery in New Jersey.
I believe it was the will of God for me to see him in his last year and pray for his soul until my death.
I say 10 prayers on the Web site everyday plus the Rosary for the souls in Purgatory. I kow the ones I pray for will be praying for me in heaven when they arrive.
Sorry. Cut-'n-paste the links without the parentheses.
I won't claim this as my argument, these are excerpts from:
"Purgatory Not in Scripture"
"The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture." This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation arent in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it.
Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of ones sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each mans work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous mans work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, cant refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven cant be meant, since there is no suffering ("fire") there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory explains this passage.
Why Go To Purgatory?
Why would anyone go to purgatory? To be cleansed, for "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Rev. 21:27). Anyone who has not been completely freed of sin and its effects is, to some extent, "unclean." Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to be worthy of heaven, which is to say, he has been forgiven and his soul is spiritually alive. But thats not sufficient for gaining entrance into heaven. He needs to be cleansed completely.
An article in Jimmy Swaggarts magazine, The Evangelist, put it, that "Scripture clearly reveals that all the demands of divine justice on the sinner have been completely fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It also reveals that Christ has totally redeemed, or purchased back, that which was lost. The advocates of a purgatory (and the necessity of prayer for the dead) say, in effect, that the redemption of Christ was incomplete. . . . It has all been done for us by Jesus Christ, there is nothing to be added or done by man."
It is entirely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:35), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christs applying to us the purifying redemption that he accomplished for us by his death on the cross.
The resistance to the biblical doctrine of purgatory presumes there is a contradiction between Christs redeeming us on the cross and the process by which we are sanctified. There isnt. And we cannot say that suffering in the final stage of sanctification conflicts with the sufficiency of Christs atonement without saying that suffering in the early stages of sanctification also presents a similar conflict. Our suffering in sanctification does not take away from the cross. Rather, the cross produces our sanctification, which results in our suffering, because "[f]or the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness" (Heb. 12:11).
Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.
Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isnt fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."
"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins."
Ah, yes, the Apocrypha. You accept it. I don't. Simple enough.
Back to purgatory- can any Catholic explain why the formula I described in my previous post wouldn't work? Why is there a single soul still in purgatory??
Thanks will read completely and also look up your references.
I am a "born again" Christian, so for me its ya or nay. But I am interested.
Sin was judged on the Cross. Forgiveness comes at the moment of salvation. Post-salvation sin is forgiven upon confession and repentence, returning to God. God, being gracious, returns into fellowship with the believer. The soul and spirit, while in fellowship with God continue to be sanctified.
Christ was judged for sin on the cross, but evil was not judged. Evil will be determined and judged over time.
Much of the concept of purgatory is not Scriptural. Rather as a construct of religion, attempting to influence believers after post salvation sin, by reasoning and threats of suffering after the first death, the religious construct itself fails to manifest an understanding of God's policy of grace, holiness, judgment and righteousness.
For the believer, nothing will separate him from the love of God. Once we suffer the first death, we are face to face with the Lord. Even a believer who has suffered the sin unto death, still has salvation, merely much of his inheritance which had been predestined for him, will go unclaimed due to the disobedient believer's willful rejection of God's plan for him. Those unclaimed blessings will leave an eternal memorial as to the consequence of good an evil performed outside the will of God.
The does exist an outer place similar in concept to Purgatory, although it is reserved for unbelievers after the first death, prior to the Great White Throne Judgment. It is referenced in Scripture as the Torments, a compartment of Hades.
Well, I hope all Christians consider themselves born again, I seem to recall Someone telling us we had to be born again. I think we're all in this thing together.
You are all missing my point- Catholics could get rid of purgatory as an issue if they just did a worldwide "Prayer of St. Gertrude the Great" campaign. The Pope could proclaim a particular Sunday as "purgatory emptying day", direct all Catholics to say the prayer 10 times, and the place should be empty. Then, every Sunday, every Catholic could say the prayer once at Mass as sort of a "purgatory maintainence" program. Why hasn't this been done?? Don't you all care about the suffering souls??
Your missing the point, purgatory is not something to be gotten rid of any more than heaven is. It serves a purpose of His design: with out the gift of a place of purification, very few of us could gain admittance in to His kingdom. As far as prayer for the souls in purgatory I pray for them daily, so do many other Catholics. The unfortunate fact of the matter is that prayer is not a central aspect of everyones life, either for the souls of those in purgatory or for those still here on earth. And for many people, prayer is a theological vending machine focused on selfish petitions; "Lord give me..., Lord help me..."
If purgatory is necessary and serves a purpose, then WHY ARE YOU PRAYING TO RELEASE SOULS FROM IT?? From the original article: "Yes, Virginia, Purgatory does exist. And the sooner all realize that and begin to fulfill the duty that we as members of the Church Militant have - praying for the poor souls - the sooner they'll be freed and can then intercede for us. Heavens knows all of us here on earth need help!"
Why would you want to free souls sooner than they would otherwise be freed? Aren't you then denying them necessary cleansing? Why would anyone want to pay indulgences (yes, indulgences are still officially accepted by the RCC) to decrease their time or someone else's time in purgatory? Again, aren't you losing the "benifit" of purgatory?
Why would anyone want to pay indulgences (yes, indulgences are still officially accepted by the RCC) to decrease their time or someone else's time in purgatory? Define "pay".
"Why would you not want to help someone enter heaven sooner rather than later? The benefit of purgatory is to purify the soul an if I can help that along then why wouldn't I?"
Which brings me back to my original question- why hasn't the Pope proclaimed a "clean out purgatory" campaign? With a tool as powerful as the Prayer of St. Gertrude the Great in your arsenal, I've shown it would be easy!
Look, you can't have it both ways. Either it is good to pray to get souls out of purgatory, or it isn't. If it is good, then launch the St. Gertrude missiles and get it over with!
The statement that that prayer will release "1000" souls from Purgatory is simply not true. There is no basis for such a claim, which was probably corrupted from an indulgence of 1000 days given for the prayer (1000 days off canonical penance).
Not to worry! I, and many Catholics offer Mass intentions for the souls in Purgatory everyday. And the Church does the same in the Mass itself.
"Remember our brthers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hopeof rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of Your presence. Have mercy on us all"
In my intentions (my personal prayer to God) I ask God to remember also those forgotten souls, partcularly protestants, who have no one to pray for them.
Excellent observation! And I believe you are right. Not one soul will leave Purgatory, nor would they even dream of wanting to, until they are "pure" enough to stand unashamed before God. There is a parable to that effect "until the last farthing is paid."
However, there is a notion that souls, even though they are purifed, will languish in Purgatory until they are brought to God's attention through prayer.
"However, there is a notion that souls, even though they are purifed, will languish in Purgatory until they are brought to God's attention through prayer."
First, isn't God omniscient? Does He need anyone to "bring something to his attention"?
Second, say someone is in purgatory, and they have been fully "purified" through suffering. If no one is praying for them, will they continue to languish there? Will God allow them to continue to suffer, although completely purified? Doesn't sound like the righteous God I know. Then again, the God I know did all the suffering necessary, and now and forever considers me and all other true believers justified, purified, clean, and righteous.
.That was an honest thought to consider.
If Christ was the propitiation for your sin, If he paid the price for your sin, why must you then pay it. It makes mercy unnecessary
All you did is chose not to answer and cover your tracks with an insult.
Isn't that convienient, all you have to do is believe. What about the demons? They also believe in Jesus. Rmember what He did to them? The pigs, the cliff? How could he be so cruel to those who believe in him?
The Apostle Paul also appears to be praying for a dead person, Onesiphorous, in 2 Timothy 1:16-18
"For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Crist, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body." 2cor 5:10
I hope you haven't forgotten these passages, as I know they are uncomfortable to preach on in a protestant congregation.
I don't know if arguss was being intentionally misleading, or he doesn't completely understand, or if I'm misunderstanding him, but that line about prayer calling God's attention to the soul in purgatory that has already been purged of his sin was incorrect.
You are not praying that they are somehow taken out of purgatory early like cookies being removed from the oven too soon, either. The soul will enter heaven when it is purged of the temporal punishment due to sin, and not before.
Our prayers for the souls in purgatory are "paying their debt", so to speak, and we join St. Paul- "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting in the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the Church." (Colossians 1:24).
Basically, we pray that God pours out the grace upon that soul which He earned on Calvary, but which was lacking in that individual due to his own sin, so that he may be brought to the state of perfection required to enter heaven.
After reading your further comments I assume you weren't being intentionally misleading, so pardon that comment that I made above. I thought you might have been a protestant giving a false "teaching" of the Catholic Church.
I would imagine it's not an insult given that you believe the Holy Ghost inspires you to discover the Doctrine of Christ through Scripture, even as the fissiparousness of prostestantism would make that theory seem foolish. If the Holy Ghost does not make you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then you are "setting yourself up as the final authority in religion."
Christ redeemed us; by His Blood we are saved. But the justice of God does not allow the temporal punishment of our trespasses to go unremitted nor does it allow anything defiled to enter into Heaven. The distinction between temporal punishment and eternal punishment is important - we know that through Christ we can find remission of eternal punishment, but the temporal punishment for our sins remains, as seen in the effects of sickness and death. We can be forgiven for our trespasses and avoid eternal punishment, but still have a debt to pay with temporal punishment - as seen with Psalm 99: "O Lord, our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God, though you punished their offenses" (8). Purgatory is a means of remitting this debt to God, but the same effect can be achieved by doing penance and corporal or spiritual works of mercy here on earth.
***We can be forgiven for our trespasses and avoid eternal punishment, but still have a debt to pay with temporal punishment - as seen with Psalm 99: "O Lord, our God, you answered them; you were a forgiving God, though you punished their offenses"***
There you go again Fifth, a Catholic offering his own interpretation of Scripture. You should ONLY quote verbatim the Magisterium. Citing a verse with your own comments is so..... Protestant!
Me, protestant? O, the horror! I didn't say that commentating on an obvious passage of Scripture is an exercise in poor judgment, but when you approach the stumbling block verses and start interpreting the words of Christ ("Oh, well, He meant He was the rock," "Oh, well, he meant 'Eat my flesh' figuratively," etc), then we have a problem.
Was the "punishment " in that scripture temporal or after death?? Sin always has earthly consequences. We reap what we sow.As David , a man after Gods own heat , lost a son, and had a very dysfunctional family that caused pain in his life
The "forgiveness" of Christ you describe is not "forgiveness" , the "forgiveness" you describe is not mercy
He forgives you but then demands that you pay for your own sin too...that is unless someone prays to some saint to free you
The Blood of Christ does not free you from eternal punishment , but the intervention of some saint does.
This is not biblical , it was not taught by Jesus or buy the apostles.
This is a doctrine of men that what to save themselves , men that refuse mercy in exchange for a salvation by works. Suffer a little and then you have earned heaven .
I do not much care if you want to believe it. But the man that hung on the cross to be the propitiation for the sins of men must be sorry He died in vain .
***I didn't say that commentating on an obvious passage of Scripture is an exercise in poor judgment***
"Obvious passage" you say? ... Are you the Magisterium? It is not your place, as a loyal Catholic, to interpret Scripture or to conclude that a passage is obvious is it?...
UNLESS you are modifying the Catholic axiom that the Church interprets Scripture to the position that the Church interprets difficult passages of Scripture and it is OK for a non-ordained catholic to judge a passage to be obvious.
My interpretation is not the issue here. Hey, I'm a Protestant. We believe that a believer priest has the authority and responsibility to interpret Scripture.
I am flabbergasted that a loyal Roman Catholic would dare say what a passage of Scripture means unless he/she is verbatim quoting the Magisterium. Even paraphrasing their interpretation is dangerous.
When RCs challenge Proddys with the acronym "YOPIOS" (Your Own Pious Interpretation of Scripture) and then tell us what a passage means in their own words... the saying about Rubber and Glue comes to mind.
You seem to be mistaken about the Catholic position on interpreting the Bible.
A Catholic is free to interpret scripture so long as his interpretation does not contradict Church teaching. There is a simple reason for that: If an interpretation of scripture does contradict Church teaching, it is a misinterpretation. The Bible is a Catholic book, written by Catholics under divine inspiration, and being codified by the Catholic Church it draws its mark of authenticity only because of that divinely instituted Catholic Church. As such, nothing in the Bible is at odds with the Catholic Faith. Those passages which seem to be, are being misinterpreted.
I know as a protestant you do not accept this, but don't accuse a Catholic of joining in your revolution against God's Church (i.e. being a protestant) when he presents a reference from the Bible with an authentic interpretation.
My, my - I'd forgotten how pleasant your argumentative theatrics are. We can both agree that Psalm 99 refers to a God who "forgives" and yet "punishes," which I use as evidence to bolster the notion of temporal punishment remaining after sin is forgiven. The same concept can be seen with King David, as God forgives him for his sin but yet punishes him with the death of his first child.
What you don't seem to understand is that the Catholic Church actually has a history prior to the 16th-century revolt spearheaded by the novelty of "Sola Scriptura" and that I am free to interpret Scripture as long as I don't trespass the sense always held by the Church or deny any doctrines. I don't rationalize my way through difficult passages with the "inspiration of the Holy Ghost" and claim infallibility. I hold obedience to the Church, as she claims to be the true interpreter of Scripture.
***when he presents a reference from the Bible with an authentic interpretation.***
Ah, how do we know it was authentic? I saw no citation of the Magisterium.
So private interpretation of Scripture is okie dokie for a Catholic layperson when there is no official pronouncement of the Magisterium and the interpretation fits Catholic dogma?
Is there a Catholic Bible with the obvious passages in red and the passages where there is an official Magisterium interpretation in blue?
Would the liturgy for the Tridentine Mass be printed in blue?
***My, my - I'd forgotten how pleasant your argumentative theatrics are.***
Can I include you as a reference?
You are a cool Catholic. Blessings your way.
I made no reference to obvious passages vs. difficult ones. None of them contradict Church teachings, because they are Church teachings.
As for the so-called Tridentine Mass, you will not find it in the Bible, in blue or red ink. You will find the Bible in it, though, and quite a bit of it at that. You will also find that it doesn't contradict scripture in neither jot nor tittle.
Would the good doctor like an address so he can check it out himself?
Correct, and if we sow enmity with God through our disobedience, then we reap His just punishments. If we are forgiven our sins and the eternal punishment due to them, we still have a debt of temporal punishment that we must expiate, either in this life or the next.
...the "forgiveness" you describe is not mercy
I would think it's fairly merciful of God to not cast us into Hell, but you are free to disagree.
He forgives you but then demands that you pay for your own sin too...that is unless someone prays to some saint to free you
The Blood of Christ does not free you from eternal punishment , but the intervention of some saint does.
Ah ah, there you go, changing the subject. We are talking about temporal punishment remitted in the next life, not eternal punishment. And do you not think it just to be purified of your past offences before entering the Holiest of Holies?
...men that refuse mercy in exchange for a salvation by works.
God became Incarnate and Redeemed us not because of our works, but through His mercy. But this does not mean he will not "render to each man according to his works." Salvation is through faith working in grace.
Suffer a little and then you have earned heaven.
As opposed to "being saved" and living a life as you please and earning heaven? And who said that "suffering a little" is all that is necessary to merit Heaven? You must take up your cross and follow Him to become partakers of eternal life.
But the man that hung on the cross to be the propitiation for the sins of men must be sorry He died in vain.
Because I believe what Christ's Church teaches, His death was in vain? Here's an exercise for you: Find a quote from the first 500 years of Christianity that denies the existence of Purgatory or the idea that souls must be "cleansed" before admittance to Heaven. Here are a few from St. Augustine:
"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. But of those who suffer temporary punishments after death, all are not doomed to those everlasting pains which are to follow that judgment."
"In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the dead has also its place."
A few quotes that support the existence of Purgatory, that is. My editor gave up on this thread a few posts ago.
***Would the good doctor like an address so he can check it out himself?***
Were I to become a Catholic... I'd definitely be a trad (a-la Gerry Matatics).
BTW, St. Agnes Parish (749 East Boulevard) celebrates the Latin Tridentine mass here in Baton Rouge. Haven't checked it out yet, but may.
I dare say that you have more sense than many Catholics I know, at least liturgically.
So, you are familiar with Gerry Matatics. I have seen him speak several times, and the man is highly impressive. What do you think when you see him, as a protestant? Do you not think he makes a very capable defense of the Catholic faith from the Bible alone, or at least debunks the sola scriptura/sola fide foundations of the protestant revolt? I just wonder because at the last conference I went to of his I was sitting next to a very charitable Lutheran man, and I couldn't see how someone could sit through a day of listening to Matatics and not at least have some notion that maybe Luther and his band of merry men were wrong.
As for the traditional mass in Baton Rouge, I don't know how it would be for someone who denies the real presence, but from a Catholic standpoint it is, to quote Fr. Frederick Faber "The most beautiful thing this side of Heaven."
***So, you are familiar with Gerry Matatics. I have seen him speak several times, and the man is highly impressive. What do you think when you see him, as a protestant? ***
Gerry went through the Westminster Seminary doctoral program in Reformation Studies (he left ABD) a few years after I completed the program. I certainly respect his knowledge and ability to defend his beliefs.
Despite the same academic training, he and I come to opposing convictions regarding the events and issues of the Reformation era. I respect him highly. Nevertheless, my convictions remain.
I also understand a bit of his frustration with some of the post Vatican II "innovations" (my term). Ultima ratio has done, IMO, a good job of voicing the theological implications of the new liturgy. I believe the Tridentine best fits the historic Catholic position.
This is why I said that if I became a Catholic (and I am not even close) I'd identify with the trads. The ecumenism of Vatican II reminds me too much of the ecumenicism that infected the Protestant denominations at the turn of the previous century. J. Gresham Machen (founder of Westminster Seminary) wrote Christianity and Liberalism in the 1920's and his concerns have relevance for the trad/V2 discussions raging today.
At least that is how THIS Proddy sees it.
BTW, I am far more impressed with Gerry Matatics than Scott Hahn. Gerry does a better job, IMO, of explaining Catholic convictions to Protestants.