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 ...
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.
I would have to agree with your assessments here (with the exception of your convictions regarding the protestant revolution, of course). The Catholic Church seems to have engaged in a process of, to quote Pope Paul VI (which does not happen often, thank heavens) "auto demolition".
That said, it is time I got some shuteye.
I would hate to have to spend extra time in purgatory for spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer (sorry, I just had to say it).
God Bless.
With all due respect sandy, I don't think a protestant who would be going to check out a traditional mass is too worried about whether the celebrant is in a regular canonical situation with Rome.
It may be a distinction which divides traditional catholics, but I think protestants are somewhat indifferent.
"Citing a verse with your own comments is so..... Protestant!"
That's just plain baiting Doc. Fifth makes a statement supporting the truth taught by the Church and you claim he is an heretic. Bad doc, bad.
I didn't call Vth a Protestant, I referenced Vth's methodology as Protestant.
Besides... I thought we Protestants became "errant brethren" at V2!
- the good doc
"I referenced Vth's methodology as Protestant."
Still baiting. Had his methodology led to error and had he been obstinant in his error, he'd be protestant. To interpret scripture in a way that supports and agrees with the Magisterium is in no way protestant. :)
Actually, it MAY or MAY NOT be incorrect. There is a long history to the line of thought that souls may languish long after they have paid there debt.
The Book of Enoch might be the first to suggest it. It is apocryphal, but ancient, and Jesus had read it and is mentioned in the Bible.
Also, the ninth of the fifteen promises to those who pray the Rosary is "I will deliver very promptly from Purgatory the souls devoted to my Rosary."
That promise would need not be made if the souls were automatically released.
According to Catholic doctrine, many souls will stay in Purgatory until the final judgement, which leads me to believe that they stay there because nobody prays for them. After all, we can't believe that the fires of Purgatory are not capable of doing the job.
Most of the actual workings of God and Purgatory are subjective, and the Church itself does not agree on what actually happens, only that there is a Purgatory.
Your explanation sounds good but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't think it would stand up to Aquinas.
"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?"
My definition of a true believer is someone that not only intellectually believes that Jesus is Lord, but also ACCEPTS JESUS AS LORD OF HIS LIFE, which inevitably produces a profound change in the believer's life. I don't think the demons did that.
I'm confused. Please help me underestand. Other posters have stated that while forgiveness for sins was obtained by Jesus on the cross, there remains the issue of suffering for those sins- the suffering that the believer has not yet "paid" on earth. The suffering produces cleansing. Correct?
How then are your prayers "paying the debt" of someone else? Are your prayers causing them to suffer more? And if you're praying to God to "pour out His Grace" on the suffering individual, what exactly are you asking God to do? Make him suffer more or less? And how does Grace fit into this? Grace is an unmerited gift. It seems that purgatory, however, is the paying of a debt- a debt that you say has to be paid in full BY THE INDIVIDUAL. This gets to the heart of the difference between RC's and Protestants. We agree the debt has to be paid in full- but we believe the God paid the debt in full- there's nothing left for the individual to do, which is a good thing, since there is nothing the individual CAN do!
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.