Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Harley's point, and mine, is whether the historical episode with the sale of indulgences shows unreliability of doctrinal development. It does not, as no previously held dogma was upset by Trent when it declared the sale of indulgencies simony.
You are correct that Jack Chick's views are shared by many Protestants. This follows from the fact that, according to Cardinal Newman, to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant, -- it is the jack chicks that you are left with.
Because I don't feel that "Burning in my bosom" when I read the Book of Mormon!
Trust me, Catholics also consider faith as integral to what we practice.
Regards
Seems there's been another turn-around...
by Rev. H.A. Bergsma (September, 2005) A Roman Catholic practice, which gave rise to Martin Luther's reformation in the 16th century, has surfaced again as a topical issue 500 years later. Pope Benedict XVI has promised the approximately 800,000 participants of the current World Youth Day in Cologne, total indulgence, provided they confess their sins, repent and receive Holy Communion. Non-participants may receive partial indulgence if they pray earnestly for a courageous Christian testimony at the mass event. The idea of indulgence is tied to the Catholic teaching of purgatory. In short, it means that temporal punishments for sins in the hereafter can be avoided or shortened by repentance and good deeds in this life. Luther protested not only against the malpractice but also against this Catholic teaching in principle, as the leading bishop of the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Germany, Hans Christian Knuth, points out. Lutherans cannot accept purgatory and indulgence, even in a reformed modern Catholic understanding, as the bishop emphasized in an interview with the evangelical news agency "idea". The teaching of purgatory and indulgence is, in his words, neither in keeping with the Bible nor the central articles of the Christian faith. The wages of sin cannot be removed by any human action, but only by the grace of God and through faith in Jesus Christ. Neither can His redemption be supplemented with good deeds. (From Crosswalk) Rome has not changed; it may have evolved, and even reformed itself to some degree, but in its reformation to modern Catholic understanding, Rome is still the same. This is proven by how she has reinstated indulgence. Good for the Lutherans that they spoke up. Perhaps not of all their actions, but of this Luther could be proud!"INDULGENCE REINSTATED
See post #8663. Apparently, old heresies die hard.
Oops, I didn't get my "how to refute a Protestant" manual yet in the mail... I hope I can continue to refute you the old fashion way, with secular history that disproves your point of view regarding the Eucharist and the Crusades...
Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order. What happened?
First, I am not familiar with when the Church did "x", then decided to do "y", so I'd have to read more on what you are talking about. However, this is not a case of "Apostolic Tradition being proven wrong", since the Church never declared "paying for indulgences would get one out of Purgatory" as dogma, but only a commonly held teaching at the time. The Church has the power to bind and loosen to teachings that are not determined dogmatic yet.
For example, the Church of the West currently says that priests cannot be married. They base this on Apostolic Tradition - yet, it is NOT a dogmatic statement, it is NOT a matter of the Creed. Thus, in the future, the Catholic Church COULD say that men could be married and become priests. They already allow Protestant and Orthodox converts to be given a Papal dispensation.
Or did the Church fathers misread the scriptures and a mistake was made?
I couldn't say, since I am not familiar with the two points you are talking about. However, as I said, everything the Church does is not found in the Bible, for example, why a man gives a woman a ring when he gets married...
Regards
Mayhem?
Jo stated in 8589 that both views, -- the commonly held view that souls in purgatory are capable of effective prayer, and the view that they are not, -- are allowable under Catholic doctrine. I did not know that and answered Marlowe the best I could, with my opinion, which was one allowed by the doctrine. Generally, Jo is better informed as I, so if your views are in conflict, his is more reliable.
Now that I have your attention, and on the similar note, I indicated yesterday that the lack of ordained priests is what prevents various Protestant communities to offer the Eucharist. This is correct but incomplete: to offer the Eucharist the valid matter (wheat bread and fermented grape wine) and the valid intention are also necessary, and for a precise and comprehensive response better ask a liturgist.
Another side note: You ping more people than are visible. I generally try to put the same list as the post I am responding to, but in this case I only copy the visible part of the list; it is not my intention to slight anyone.
I see you are not convinced. Perhaps I should remind you of the caveat that applies to all of us here - NONE of us are the official representatives of our respective Faiths regarding official teachings. It is quite feasible that I or Annalex, or both, may be mistaken WHENEVER we write something on the Catholic faith. In the same way, you could feasibly be mistaken on a belief of Calvin. I had presumed that you realized this. Just because I and Annalex superficially disagree doesn't mean that the Catholic faith has not decisively answered to the affirmative or the negative on a question. Nor do I expect a Protestant to be aware of every fine point within their own theological system.
With that said, I cannot say what Annalex had in mind when he wrote what he did. I interpreted it the way I have explained, and I still think it is a legitimate explanation. He can speak for himself. I got my information from "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma", as, quite frankly, I didn't know the answer to P-Marlowe's question. It is not THE authoritive official word on the matter, but I have found Ott to be reliable in the past. I certainly could have given the wrong answer...
If there is any errors, it is not with the Church, but with our attempt to answer the question. I apologize for any errors that may have crept into my writings. But realize I am not the Pope or a Bishop, I am not a professional theologian. If I err, it is because of my lack of knowledge on a subject, not because suddenly, the Catholic Church is wrong...
Regards
annalex responded : Mayhem?
Agreed. Our response about a teaching of the faith does not indicate any "mayhem" with the Catholic faith, just our lack of knowledge. I am hopeful that Dr. E understands that.
Regards
The Church never got rid of the practice, so where is the "turn-around"? The Counter-Reformation merely cleared up abuses, it never did away with the teaching. Consider re-reading the Council of Trent's writings on the subject.
Regards
Yes, I do. I believe we already discussed this on this thread. It is of course fine to call Protestant communities "church" in casual talk or in reference to the physical plant, and then it should not be capitalized. Even though Blue Duncan did not capitalize his "church", his meaning was that his community made a dogmatic determination from scripture and guided by the Holy Ghost, contrary to the one held by the Catholic Church and regarding the Purgatory. He therefore meant his "church" as a source of doctrine, and he does not have a Church in that sense.
Why? Because, although the original meaning of ecclesia is merely community, in Christian usage it came to designate a specific apostolic institution whose authority descends from Christ and His apostles in a visible and concrete way. One cannot do a bible study, come up with some conclusions from it and call it Church, -- apostolic succession is needed.
As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.(John 20:21)how shall they preach unless they be sent (Romans 10:15)
let the unction, which you have received from him, abide in you. And you have no need that any man teach you; but as his unction teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie. And as it hath taught you, abide in him. (1 John 2:27)
Therefore, I don not understand your statement that "the doctrine of Purgatory in no way suggests that all are eventually saved." What would be the purpose of purification of a soul in the Purgatory unless that soul was not destined to be with God?
Agrarian was talking about St. Gregory's error in thinking that all, even Satan, are eventually saved, and I responded that the doctrine of Purgatory is exactly as you understand it, as purification of those of the saved that require it, but not of the damned, and not of those who reached purification in the course of their life, such as the saints, or the Good Thief.
Self ping for bookmark
John 14 in no way excludes various intermediate destinations, both in this life and after death. Note that Christ is referring to His second coming (verse 3), so John 14 is not referring to the Church Suffering (i.e. Purgatory) by definition.
Paul says in 2 Cor. 5:8 that when we die (absent from the body) we will be present with the Lord, not waiting in some way station.
This passage, unlike the preceding one from John, indeed refers to Particular Judgement (i.e. immediately after death). What does it say?
6 Therefore having always confidence, knowing that, while we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord. 7 (For we walk by faith, and not by sight.) 8 But we are confident, and have a good will to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 And therefore we labour, whether absent or present, to please him. 10 For we must all be manifested before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the proper things of the body, according as he hath done, whether it be good or evil.No way station is referred to directly, so your conclusion is incorrect. When a train leaves Boston for Philadelphia, one cannot conclude that New York does not exist because it is absent from the display. This is what is mentioned: that we "labor" both before and after death; and that every one receives in the measure of the things he is done good and bad. This indicates that souls undergo some kind of labor after death that corresponds to our works. This is another passage that is difficult to explain outside of the doctrine of Purgatory.
Paul also says Phil. 1:21-23 the options are to live here for Christ or die and be with Him, not in some holding pen.
Again, nothing excludes the "holding pen". St. Paul does not mention Hell either in that passage, -- would you conclude form it that Hell does not exist?
the loose translation and spiritualizing of the scriptures done at: http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
I don't know what you mean by "spiritualizing", but please tell me which translations used at that site are inaccurate in a way that misrepresents the true teaching regarding the progression of souls after death. If you mean that the translations are generally inaccurate but not in the sense that introduces a bias for purgatory, then I agree, of course. When in doubt, check the Greek original and the patristic understanding.
No problem. I ping with abandon.
Better pinged than unpung. 8~)
"I'm unfamiliar with any SCRIPTURE that indicates any supernatural powers extended beyond the Apostles.
Can you explain to me why Christ, who promised that the Church would exist for all time, would NOT bestow supernatural powers upon His Church after the first generation?"
________________________________________
IOW, it is not in SCRIPTURE.
This is a perfect example of why it's so important to rely on SCRIPTURE and not "Tradition". Your church has decided that they have "special powers" even though no evidence of this exists in SCRIPTURE.
The CHURCH is doing well despite pretenders.
I scanned this drivel for scripture references and found these:
John 6:55 is graced with the following commentary: "If these words are not to go for nothing, it follows that in order to have our life in Christ our souls must feed on his body and blood as their proper food." OK.
John 1:32 is mentioned because St. John the Baptist saw a dove and identified it as the Holy Spirit. OK.
The discourse on the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians 11 is mentioned in two ways, that is shows the death of Our Lord and that it should be taken worthily. OK.
Finally, Luke 22:19 is said to indicate that when Christ gave the commandment to "do this in memory of Him" to the Apostles, He did not give it to them as priests. No further scriptural support is offered for this, we are to take Papa Calvin's word that this is what that simple commandment of Christ really meant.
So, except for the last one, Papa Calvin has only trivial and non-controversial observations to offer about the scripture. Indeed, the Eucharist is Christ's body, appears under the accident of bread just like the Holy Spirit appeared as a dove, is to be taken reverently and is to remind us of Christ's death and redemption of sin. Regarding his fantastic reading of St. Luke, we have mere "Calvin said so".
So wat fills this 60 chapters that an AWANA kid would not figure out from the scant verses mentioned? Angry extrascriptural speculation. Here is a sample of Papa Calvin's reasoning skill:
the devil has introduced the fashion of celebrating the Supper without any doctrine, and for doctrine has substituted ceremonies partly inept and of no utility, and partly dangerous, having proved the cause of much mischief. To such an extent has this been done, that the Mass, which in the Popish Church is held to be the Supper, is, when well explained, nothing but pure apishness and buffoonery. I call it apishness, because they there counterfeit the Lord's Supper without reason, just as an ape at random and without discernment imitates what he sees done.
Wipe the froth off his mouth and you'll see -- nothing.
I am saying that anything has an essence and an accidental appearance. For example (as suggested by Calvin) a dove appeared to St. John as he baptized Christ but he identified that in essence it was the Holy Ghost (John 1:32).
Likewise, the eucharistic bread has every appearance (accident is the technical term) of bread. A laboratory will only discover bread. A zoologist at the scene in John 1:32 would only see a dove. The essence, or substance, of the bread is body, soul and divinity of Christ.
I gave you Scriptures and I gave you common sense that implies that Christ gave His Church the ability to exist for all time. Do you think the Church is a man-only organization? Paul calls it the Body of Christ! Is that not supernatural?
Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide are in the Scripture, yet you find it difficult not to constantly mention "it's not in the bible"?
Can't you see the illogical teachings of Protestantism? Practice what you preach. Get rid of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura...
The CHURCH is doing well despite pretenders.
Yes, it is. Thanks for noticing.
Regards
Sorry for the confusion.
Get better source and there will be no Jack Chick argument. Note that the Orthodox' views on history are treated with respect, -- because they treat history with respect.
Incidentally, adults do not normally make fun of people's screen names. Can we cut the "jokus" crap? Pretty please?
Yet we know that there WAS a conflict in which the Church first stated if one pays for indulgences they would get out of purgatory. Later the Church reversed that order.
There was no dogmatic teaching on the sale of indulgences prior to Trent.
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.