Posted on 02/17/2006 9:35:32 AM PST by NYer
39 posted on 02/17/2006 2:02:10 PM MST by magisterium Have the keys been given as the text is future tense.
b'shem Y'shua
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven;
So it's the church then that has control of purgatory...The church 'binds' people to purgatory but can 'loose' the person if the correct indulgence is met...
Why doesn't the church just skip the binding and loosing and ship everyone to heaven???
NY>At that time in history, Hebrew was spoken only in the Temple. Jesus, Mary, Joseph and the Apostles spoke Aramaic. That was the common language.
40 posted on 02/17/2006 2:08:24 PM MST by NYer We also know that when He read from the Isaiah scroll in the local synagogue, He read from the Septuagint(Koine Greek) We also know that the "Lingua Franca" of the then known world was Koine Greek. We know from scripture that Y'shua spoke Hebrew at age twelve in the temple in Jerusalem.
b'shem Y'shua
Indulgences have never ended as far as I know. I think maybe they grew unpopular, but they have always been there.
Well, it seems obvious enough to me that these words were spoken *before* the Ascension and Pentecost, so Jesus was perfectly able and inclined to hang onto the keys Himself for the moment, thank you! There was no need yet to hand 'em over. He did soon enough though, the first real manifestation of which comes with St. Peter's first big "solo" on the very day of Pentecost, when he started asserting his leadership over the Church and authority over the Jews, 3000 of whom were converted that very day by his words. (Acts 2)
We don't pay for indulgences. They are given freely. That is one of the biggest misunderstandings about the Catholic Church.
Can you be specific about what indulgences were not outlawed. I think you are mistaken.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66). This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit.
Catholics are often attacked because they don't take the Bible literally. Yet here is one very clear example of the fact that we do.
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
Excellent link.
54 Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
And here's one you forgot...
Joh 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Catholics don't get hungry or thirsty??? No more eating and drinking??? Why don't Catholics take that one literally as well??? It's in the same context...
44 posted on 02/17/2006 2:19:31 PM MST by Jaded
I have been commanded to:
Matthew 28:20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. I have not been commanded to convert anyone.
b'shem Y'shua
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them
in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
PURGATORY
Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:15; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 ... God’s painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:18-20 ... might be purgatory (limbo?).
1 Pet 4:6 ... preached to the dead.
Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:13-14 ... “extra” suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for “that Day.”
1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
Heaven is not locked...There is no key and paddle lock...
Jesus was not referring to a skeleton key...The key Jesus was talking about is knowledge...Christ curcified is the 'key' to the Kingdom of Heaven...
We Catholics don't have to debate what the meaning of "is" is.
When God said, "This is my Son, in whom I am well pleased" it is the same "is" as "This is My body"
What part of "is" don't you understand?
I think not. Jesus is talking about the keys given to the Prime Minister as seen, for example in Isaiah 22:22 ff. He has made Peter (whose name He changed) the custodian with the power to bind and loose as seen in the Old Testament.
In this regard, the current Holy Father has declared a Plenary Indulgence on three occasions already during his brief Pontificate. This shows that indulgences have never ended and are part of the Church. For a collection of Indulgences, buy a copy of the "Raccolta" which lists the indulgenced prayers prior to 1950.
Please read this carefully, and try to understand:
It is *God* who judges our souls at death, as He alone can read our hearts and inmost thoughts and make proper judgment. The Church cannot do that. However, people, while in this present life, may gain partial or plenary indulgences which can remit the punishment for sins *previously* committed. Notice that indulgences in NO WAY are a license or permission to *commit* future sin. They only have effect on previously comitted sins which have ALSO been previously confessed.
Jesus, in giving the Apostles and their successors the power to "bind and to loose" (Matt. 16:19 and 18:18) and also in giving them the authority to forgive sins (John 20:22-23), has literally ceded over to these men His authority to do these things *in His Name*. His "whatsoever's" in Matt 16 and 18 are serious, and He meant them. He will honor their decisions in the matter of forgiveness of sins.
However, as already stated, only God is really capable of judging our hearts. If the authority to forgive sins is taken advantage of by insincere or untruthful penitents, nothing happens at all, for God knows the situation perfectly, and He will not be mocked. If a person goes through the motions of receiving an indulgence while NOT in a state of grace, *nothing* happens. God will not honor it, because the power of the keys in such instance was abused. Simon Magus had similar problems!
Most indulgences are "partial." Some are only partial by definition, many of the "plenary" (or "full") indulgences are effectively also partial because one of the requirements on the person gaining them is "freedom from the attachment to sin, even venial sin." That's pretty difficult for most of us. Alright, knowing all of the foregoing, God's role in all of this should start crystalizing for you a bit.
First, no matter how many indulgences one gained while in life, if one dies in a state of mortal sin, they have no use to him, and he *will* be damned. Remember, indulgences are no license for *any* kind of sin. God has got the ball here!
Second, if the person in question winds-up in Purgatory, those sins for which a subsequent indulgence made satisfaction do *not* figure-in to that purgation, otherwise, what would be the point to indulgences. Purgatory, for this person would be for any venial sins not confessed before death, OR mortal sins confessed but for which proper satisfaction had not been undertaken in life (including indulgences, of course), OR sins for which "partial" satisfaction was made by indulgenced works or other acts of atonement subsequent to their confession. In all of these cases, God is not dispensed with, however, as irrelevant to the "process,' as if the Church can "ship people to heaven" as you suggest. He alone can assess the "attachment to sin" criterion, for starters. God still makes the assessment as to how "partial" or "plenary" the indulgences really are in the specific circumstances of each person who has gained them.
Third, if the person winds-up immediately in Heaven, it may very well be possible that the difference here was due to some of his sins' temporal punishment already having been removed by indulgenced works. In any case, for a person to "take the express" to Heaven, he would still have to be not only in a state of grace at death (that's a given), but also in a state of perfect detachment from sin and commensurate, selfless love of God. That state of affairs as an end-result of a soul's earthly travail is likely a fairly rare thing, with or without indulgences.
Understand, too, that indulgences are not something *required* of Catholics to seek and gain. Many never avail themselves of this even once. That's a pity. Their road to salvation is restricted to their repentance and confession of sins. God has condescended to share His power to forgive sins to mere men, who act as His representatives. Some certainly, and with good effect (obviously!), take advantage of this, yet neglect a second aspect: He also has entrusted the custodianship of the ability to remit sins to the Church, which holds indulgences out to men that they may take them, while leaving the "details" of their application to God, who *alone* can read true inner dispositions.
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.