Posted on 03/13/2019 6:40:19 AM PDT by Antoninus
In part one of this post, I looked at the vision of Perpetua—one of the earliest authentic Christian documents to describe directly a Purgatory-like state and to highlight the efficacy of prayer petitions for the dead.
Others writing during the patristic age also expounded upon this idea in more or less detail, among them St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Caesarius of Arles. One of the most clear references to Purgatory appears in a late 4th century work by Saint Gregory of Nyssa, entitled: “On the Soul and the Resurrection”. St. Gregory writes:
“For [God], the one goal is this: the perfection of the universe through each man individually, the fulfillment of our nature. Some of us are purged of evil in this life, and some are cured of it through fire in the after-life, some have not had the experience of good and evil in life here….The different degrees of virtue or vice in our life will be revealed in our participating more quickly or more slowly in the blessedness we hope for. The extent of the healing with depend on the amount of evil present in each person. The healing of the soul will be purification from evil and this cannot be accomplished without suffering…”Building upon this notion about 200 years later, another Gregory—Pope Saint Gregory the Great—was the first to set forth the notion of Purgatory as Catholics now understand it. As part of his famous Dialogues, he wrote:
“…It is plain that in such state as a man departs out of this life, in the same he is presented in judgment before God. But yet we must believe that before the day of judgment there is a Purgatory fire for certain small sins: because our Savior says, “That he which speaketh blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, that it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come [Matthew 12:32].”Here we see Gregory offering a scriptural proof for Purgatory, out of the mouth of Jesus Himself. He elaborates on this point, citing Saint Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 3:
“Out of which sentence we learn, that some sins are forgiven in this world, and some other may be pardoned in the next: for that which is denied concerning one sin, is consequently understood to be granted touching some other. But yet this, as I said, we have not to believe but only concerning little and very small sins, as, for example, daily idle talk, immoderate laughter, negligence in the care of our family (which kind of offenses scarce can they avoid, that know in what sort sin is to be shunned), ignorant errors in matters of no great weight: all which sins be punished after death, if men procured not pardon and remission for them in their lifetime: for when St. Paul said, that “Christ is the foundation:” and by and by added: “And if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: the work of every one, of what kind it is, the fire shall try. If any man's work abide which he built thereupon, he shall receive reward; if any man’s work burn, he shall suffer detriment, but himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”Gregory then goes on to explain St. Paul’s meaning, drawing a distinction between what we would later call mortal and venial sins:
“For although these words may be understood of the fire of tribulation, which men suffer in this world: yet if any will interpret them of the fire of Purgatory, which shall be in the next life: then must he carefully consider, that the Apostle said not that he may be saved by fire, that buildeth upon this foundation iron, brass, or lead, that is, the greater sort of sins, and therefore more hard, and consequently not remissible in that place: but wood, hay, stubble, that is, little and very light sins, which the fire doth easily consume. Yet we have here further to consider, that none can be there purged, no, not for the least sins that be, unless in his lifetime he deserved by virtuous works to find such favor in that place.” [Dialogues, Book 4:39]
And yet you are outsourcing your mind to a man you never met, who lived long ago, who wasn't authoritative and has no proof of what he claimed.
Have you considered instead obeying Christ and "loving God with all your mind...?"
Yes, to be specific, my understanding of Sacred Scripture in this instance is correct and Greg's is wrong. Therefore, I suggest you call me AMPU the Great from this time on.
Ha! Love it. You believe I'm mistaken, but have no evidence.
As with prayers for the dead by pagans and later some Jews, then there may be some genesis to Purgatory (then the RCs and EOs can fight over which version it supports. However, what you should ask for is anyone in Scripture that actually teaches Purgatory.
The RC recourse is to attempt to extrapolate Purgatory out of texts which simply do not teach it, as dealt with in post 49 , by God's grace, and which relates to the absurdity mentioned, that the Holy Spirit inspires writers who clearly and substantively teach of this life being where faith and hearts are purified, and of the resurrection of the believers, and of the transformative changing our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto the Lord's glorious body at that time, and of the bema seat judgment, and of entering in glory, seeing the Lord, etc. And yet provide nothing but texts which Catholics can only wish actually taught their brand of Purgatory.
But as said, the basis for assurance of RC teaching for the faithful is to be the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, and thus after being frustrated as not being able to show "Bible Christians" that their distinctive Catholic teachings were what the NT church believed, then their recourse usually is the specious "we gave you the Bible" polemical assertion.
I see, so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed they are in their present generation, the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity?
See post 49 and 50 please.
Whom are you referring to? Yourself?
As for after 100AD to the contrary:
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Purgatory.html
Nice research and write up Daniel.
“However, what you should ask for is anyone in Scripture that actually teaches Purgatory.”
The poster has nothing before 100ad.
The same nothing applies to much of catholic teaching.
In principle anyone. Why do you avoid answering questions?
What crass propaganda.
so have, by necessity, created and continue to create a new religion on the basis of the Bible alone and outside its proper interpretive context. A Which is just what Catholics do. What is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels)?
Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Is this where we find distinctive Catholic teachings, NO! Instead, the real argument is that wherever Scripture actually teaches or fails to, yet Rome (or the EOs?) can only be right in any conflict, for , t"here exists a rich, coherent, and unbroken interpretive tradition and understanding of the nature and place of Scripture and of its meaning that predates Protestantism by 1,500 years."
Except for the divisions based on the variant interpretations of what the interpretive tradition and understanding means. Which ebb tide is a manifest part of.
As one poster wryly summed it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
But the attempted appeal to ensured magisterial veracity over Scriptural substantiation in word and in power is nothing new. In the face of laity following some itinerant preachers that were rejected by the historical magisterium:
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
I have no interest in "answering" to individuals who consider themselves to be "esteemed ... in their present generation". They are narcissists, and nothing more.
X
“Roman Catholic theology, for example, allows for prayers both to the dead and on behalf of them. But even Catholic authorities admit that there is no explicit authorization for prayers on behalf of the dead in the sixty-six books of canonical Scripture.”
Your point is meaningless - since those same Catholic authorities believe there are more than 66 canonical books.
“Instead, they appeal to the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 12:45), church tradition, the decree of the Council of Trent, etc., to defend the practice.”
And what explicit scriptural justification do Protestants have for sole fide? None. What explicit scriptural justification do Protestants have for sole scriptura? None.
Says one who presents himself as better than the pope.
The question is not, "so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed daniel 1212 is on FR (though in principle that applies to any of us who have any esteem), the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity"?
But the question you avoid answering is, '
"so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed they are in their present generation, the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity?"
Now either you will answer it as the most famous papal reprover on FR, or admit this is another one to avoid but more recourse to ad hominem.
We have the words of Yeshua himself. That is all we need. Period.
..................
+1
I chose to do neither.
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.