• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.

Icons and indulgences

Discussion in 'One Bread, One Body - Catholic' started by Wolseley, Oct 30, 2001.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    In another thread, Louis and Angel asked some questions about these two subjects; I'll try to answer them as well as I can.

    Icons have always been more of the norm in the Byzantine and Orthodox churches than in the Roman churches (where the norm usually runs to statues), but you will find them in Catholic churches as well. The concept is that you may pay reverence to an image (icon, painting, crucifix, statue), but that the reverence is payed to the person represented, and NOT to the image itself. The image is merely there to remind you of the person represented.

    It's sort of like being away from home and your loved ones, and all you have are wallet photos of your spouse or family. You may take out the photos and look at them; you may even talk to them or even kiss them. Is all that directed at the photo, this piece of paper from Kodak? Of course not. It's directed towards the person who is represented on the photo. Same sort of thing. The photo in your wallet is a picture of your mother, wife, child, etc.; the statue or icon in church is a picture of Jesus, Mary, Saint Bernard, etc.

    During the 8th century, there were a number of groups and Roman emperors who tried to wipe out icons, due to a legalistic and fundamentalist interpretation of the Scriptures; they failed in the attempt, and their ideas were declared heretical by the Church at the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 787.

    Indulgences are a very misunderstood concept by non-Catholics. They are involved with Purgatory, but you can't "buy someone's salvation" with indulgences, by any means. Some background is necessary here; keep in mind that I am explaining the Catholic concepts of this doctrine---you don't have to believe it, or even agree with it. You are free to even consider it so much hogwash, if you like. But you should at least understand what it is that you're disagreeing with, instead of the misconception or the myth.

    First of all, Purgatory. Catholics believe that Christ redeemed all mankind from all sins. However, you will still commit sins until you die. You are saved, but you still bear your sinful nature, and while you are saved from your sins, you still have to be cleansed of the lingering effect of them. This is what Purgatory is all about. You are "purged" of the lingering effects of sins and your sinful nature, and you then go on to Heaven. It's sort of like smashing a window with a baseball. You might tell Dad you're sorry, and he might forgive you, but you still have to forfeit your allowance for the next two months to pay for the window. For a more lengthy examination of Purgatory, there are several threads in the back pages of this forum which go into it in greater detail---I would encourage anyone who's interested to go and read them.

    Okay. So now we come to indulgences. What is an indulgence, and what does it do?
    An indulgence is a partial or a complete remission of temporal punishment (i.e., time in Purgatory) which you have incurred because of your sin. The idea is that good works can be accumulated in the spiritual sense (see Matt. 6:19-21). these "stored-up good works" can be applied to either yourself or to someone in Purgatory. They cannot be applied to anyone who is alive---someone who is still living can perform his own good works. :) The good work can merit an indulgence----i.e., if you perform some good work, you may merit some lessening of your temporary punishment in Purgatory. If you want to lessen your own possible time in Purgatory, you have to perform the good work with the intention of applying the spiritual effect of that good work to that specific purpose. If you specify that the effect goes towards someone else who is in Purgatory, the effect of the good work goes to what is called the "treasury of merit", a fancy term which means the storehouse of good works. These are then distributed by God to those in Purgatory who need them.

    It is thought that a good portion of the good works stored up in the treasury of merit are those which were performed by Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the holy saints, as well as the ones performed by you and me. So the treasury contains a lot of good stuff, from Christ alone if not by anybody else.

    The people who are in Purgatory are saved people---they are merely undergoing the final cleansing of their sinful nature; so doing something to help someone in Purgatory is not "buying the salvation of a dead person"---they're already saved, and you can't save anybody anyway, only God can do that. All you're doing is helping cut down on their temporary punishment, or the cleansing that they are undergoing.

    Any good action is seen as gaining a certain amount of merit; and what this all basically boils down to is, the Church is trying to get people to do good things, rather than bad ones, just as Christ asked us to do. (And don't forget that Scripture repeats over and over again that we will be judged by our works, be they good or bad---cf. Rom. 2:2-8, 2 Cor. 5:10, 2 Cor. 11:15, Eph. 2:8-10, Col. 3:24-25 Jam. 2:14-24, 1 Pet. 1:17, and Rev. 20:12-13, among others.) Helping in the financial upkeep of the Church is considered a good and noble action, so that gains you some measure of merit. Which brings us to the "sale of indulgences" that sent Martin Luther over the edge, and quite rightly so.

    At the period in question, the Pope was trying to get enough capital ahead to refurbish St. Peter's Basilica, and so he was offering indulgences for everyone who would contribute money to the cause. This was an abuse, and the Pope was wrong for putting this idea forward. Some of the actions around this practice were nothing short of a circus act---"Step right up, folks, free yer neighbors from Puragtory, hur-ry, hur-ry, hur-ry.....sixteen dollars will free sixteen souls....that's right, lady, put it right in there, step right up, son, put the money in the box, hur-ry, hur-ry, hur-ry....."----and so on. All of this was completely contrary to what the Church had always taught about indulgences, and Luther was miffed, as he should have been. (Some people even think that Luther was God's instrument to clean up the Catholic Church, since Luther's tanturms gave rise to the Council of Trent, which put a stop to all of these abuses.)

    Anyway, that's a thumbnail sketch of indulgences, and the sale thereof, what they are and what they aren't. Again, nobody says you have to agree with all this; I have no doubt that now we'll have to go into the whole tired "faith vs. works" routine, and deal (again!) with the whole question of "Catholics try to buy their way into heaven" jazz, but I suppose that's the breaks when you go into these things.....I should be used to this by now and prepared for it. One misconception at a time. :)

    So......questions?

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.


     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. AngelAmidala

    AngelAmidala Legend

    +617
    Methodist
    Single


    So, if I were to buy an indulgence, it could only be for me or someone in Purgatory. I couldn't buy one say for a relative who sleeps with married individuals, does drugs, steals, kills, etc.

    How would I know if someone was in Purgatory or not? Was there some sort of length of time that one could get an indulgence for a dead person?



    I know very little about the Council of Trent...so pardon this question which may sound dumb. :) At that point, were indulgences done away with altogether? Or were there restrictions put on them? I guess I"m just mostly wondering if indulgences (and Purgatory) are part of Catholic's lives today.

    Thanks for the informative post Wols!! :)
     
  3. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    You can't buy indulgences.....you have to earn them by your meritorious works. In fact, you couldn't buy indulgences even back in the 1500's when they were selling them. Sales of indulgences was an abuse, and any indulgence which was bought was useless. :)

    If the relative was alive, no---you cannot earn indulgences for a living person; he would have to be dead. As for the state of the person's soul when he died---if he was not such a good person, say, the best thing to do would be to pray for the person and ask God's mercy on him.

    You don't. However, since very few of us are sinless, it is assumed that the vast majority of us will undergo at least a little bit of purgation.

    If you look at old Catholic prayer books before the 1960's, sometimes you'll see prayers with a footnote that reads something like, "An indulgence of 500 days"; which meant if you devoutly and sincerely recited the prayer, your indulgence was 500 days remission of time spent in Purgatory. This "time" business was actually based on the ancient penitential practices in the early Church, rather than any actual time frame; Purgatory is in eternity, which means time doesn't exist there. The modern viewpoint is that Purgatory may be a passage, or a process that you undergo, rather than an actual physical place. So the answer to your question is no---indulgences do not have time frames attatched to them.

    There are no dumb questions, especially when it comes to a religion as complex as Catholicism. :) Trent was a "damage control" council, lasting 18 years from 1545 to 1563. It was called by the Pope and the bishops in the wake of the Protestant Reformation, to explicitly define what the Catholic Church taught and why; it was meant to counter the idea the Protestants had that you could just toss overboard whatever you liked; it was meant to say to the Catholic faithful, "If you want to be a Catholic, this is what you have to believe, and thou shalt not deviate from it." In addition to lots of other things, it cleaned up the various abuses which were common in the Church at that time, including indulgence sales.

    Indulgences and Purgatory are very much part of Catholic life today; although I'd venture to say that most modern American Catholics don't pay a lot of attention to indulgences anymore....most Catholics just try to live as good a life as they can, and leave the scorekeeping to God. But Purgatory is a much more active doctrine---most people say prayers, at least, for the souls in Purgatory, that God will grant them mercy, relief, and release from Purgatory as quickly as He sees fit to do so.

    You're welcome! I hope it helped.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  4. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    Wols,

    I've read "History of the Catholic Church," and if I recall correctly, Luther was INVITED to help reform some of the problems he found offensive. It's my understanding that his followers were the ones who convinced him that he should make his own path away from the Holy Mother Church, and that his ego had been inflated enough by his entourage that he made his break official.

    Luther supposedly was the one who did the "editing" of the Old Testament by removing the Apocryphal books. I've also heard that he wanted to do some revision of the New Testament as well, by removing 1 and 2 Peter, and Revelation. He also felt that he alone understood the Paulian letters better than anyone else, and was almost to the point where he wanted to elevate them above the Gospels in importance.

    Am I suffering from selective memory about Marty, or are my recollections correct?


    Peace be with you all,
    ~VOW
     
  5. AngelAmidala

    AngelAmidala Legend

    +617
    Methodist
    Single
    I haven't heard anything you mentioned VOW...but would be interested to hear more!

    As far as "editing" the Bible goes...he might have been part of it, but it wasn't just 1 person who decided what stayed in the Bible and what didn't...I think there was actually a group of people who decided this...I took a class and we discussed this stuff one day, but I don't have the textbook or my notes here at work with me. I'll have to look to see if I can find them at home.

    But if anyone has any further information...please post! :)
     
  6. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian


    Ummm..and popes ;)

    "Sales of indulgences was an abuse, and any indulgence which was bought was useless. "

    Exactly, one of the reasons for the luthern split.

    "it was meant to say to the Catholic faithful, "If you want to be a Catholic, this is what you have to believe, and thou shalt not deviate from it." In addition to lots of other things, it cleaned up the various abuses which were common in the Church at that time, including indulgence sales."

    Know as the counter-reformation...correct?
     
  7. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    I can't find any corroboration of the incident you relate; perhaps what you're referring to is the Diet of Worms in 1521, when Luther was invited to explain his views to the Church authorities.

    Luther had made his own break with the Church in 1520, when he burned Leo X's bull threatening excommunication if he didn't recant. He was officially excommunicated the next year, in 1521, and was also castigated by the Holy Roman Emperor shortly thereafter. If he hadn't been protected (for purely political reasons) by the Elector of Saxony, he probably would have ended up on a rack. There is no doubt, though, that some of Luther's friends did reign him in from time to time; Philip Melanchthon restrained Luther from chucking the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and Revelation the same way he did with the seven Old Testament books he had already tossed. Melanchthon convinced Luther that if he didn't stop throwing away Bible books he didn't agree with, he was going to end up with a pretty thin Bible before it was over, and Luther reluctantly agreed, but he did his best to nullify the books in question, saying about James, for example, that it was "an epistle of straw" that "has nothing of the Gospel about it". (Here again, you can see that Luther himself didn't really believe in sola scriptura----he actually believed in sola Luther. :) And yes, he did place the Pauline epistles above the Gospels, and considered the Gospel of John to be far superior to the Synoptics.

    Fairly correct, in general if not in specifics. :)

    Yes, but don't forget that it wasn't the Popes who were the iconoclasts. :) Popes Gregory II, Gregory III, Zacharias I, Paul I, Stepehen III, Hadrian I, Paschal I, and Eugene II, for example, were staunch defenders of the proper use of sacred images, as opposed to the Byzantine emperors Leo III, Contantine V, and Leo V, all of whom were staunch iconoclasts.

    Again, keep in mind that the sale of indulgences was an abuse---but that does not negate the proper use of indulgences, nor the legitimacy thereof. "Pope Luther" set himself up as the final authority on throwing them out entirely, in opposition to the previous 1,500 years of Christian practice. :)

    Correct.
     
  8. VOW52

    VOW52 Guest

    +0
    I was relieved to read your response, Wols, that I had a pretty good recollection about Luther and his New Testament editing. When I first discovered the extent of Luther's ego, it really made me stop and wonder if the "Sola Scriptura" folks truly know about the origins of Protestantism. (Just me, but I look at Christianity, named after Christ, and then I see "Lutherans," named after a mortal....hmmm...)

    I don't want to start a flame war, and I'll apologize in advance for flopping my toe over the line of being fair and reasonable. BUT-- wonder how the "Rapturists" who thump the Bible and stand on the "Sola Scriptura" would rationalize Luther's disdain for Revelation?

    Oh, well.


    Peace be with all of you,
    ~VOW
     
  9. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "If he hadn't been protected (for purely political reasons) by the Elector of Saxony, he probably would have ended up on a rack"

    Wos..you're using loaded languge here..Luther wasn't protected for ONLY political purposes.

    "Here again, you can see that Luther himself didn't really believe in sola scriptura----he actually believed in sola Luther"

    :lol: mm..putting in the shots now? I think you're interjecting your option in history here ;)
    (in light of your preference).


    "Yes, but don't forget that it wasn't the Popes who were the iconoclasts. "

    You sure about that one? ;)


    ""Pope Luther" set himself up as the final authority on throwing them out entirely, in opposition to the previous 1,500 years of Christian practice. "

    Actaully it wasn't him alone that wanted to oust paying for someone's salvation ;) He was the one that it is credited to though. A few others thought the same on this subject, including some of the aformentioned popes if I remember correctly, althought I might not be remembering correctly :lol:

     
  10. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Depends on who you're talking about. Luther was abducted by agents of the Elector of Saxony and carried away to the Wartburg Castle, lest he end up in the hands of the Roman Inquisition. For Luther, it was a case of being protected to save his life. For Luther's followers, it was a case of being protected to further his cause. For Duke Frederick, the Elector of Saxony, it was for political purposes---he saw a way of making hay off Luther's movement, which, if he could establish as the state religion of his province, would not only free him from repressive ties to Rome, but also strengthen his position within the Holy Roman Empire. So in a way, we're both right. :)

    Yes, I am putting in a few shots. But not, I think, without some basis. If Luther really believed the Word of God to be paramount, then he would have never tampered with it. As it was, he removed seven entire OT books and parts of two others; he inserted words into the Book of Romans to fit his theological views; he attempted to remove at least four more books from the NT; and he issued commentaries which more or less told his followers that they could safely ignore the books in question. If Billy Graham, or even the Pope, tried to do that today, would you consider them to be a person who truly respected the inerrant Word of God? I think not. So Luther, again, wasn't really sola scriptura--- he was only sola Luther; he worked from the "Bible alone", all right, but only after he got finished "revising" it.

    If you can come up with an iconoclastic Pope and furnish reputable sources by competant historians which can be corroborated, I will be happy to concede to you. :)

    As I think I already explained (more than once), you cannot "pay" for someone's salvation. The sale of indulgences was an abuse, even in 1517; and in any case, acquring indulgences to apply to someone in Purgatory is not "paying" for their salvation, since the individual in Purgatory is saved already. But I'll be happy to explain it again for you, if it will help to dispel the misconception you apparently still seem to have. :)

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  11. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "So in a way, we're both right. "

    Exactly, just as the current pope though this of a way to strenghten his own poltical power, I agree with ya.

    "Yes, I am putting in a few shots. But not, I think, without some basis. If Luther really believed the Word of God to be paramount, then he would have never tampered with it"

    I agree, but then again, trying hard not to take shots to further a peaceable talk, popes have done the same thing. No human is perfect.

    "If you can come up with an iconoclastic Pope and furnish reputable sources by competant historians which can be corroborated, I will be happy to concede to you. "

    I'll check on that tonight when I get home..not saying I will but I will check ;) I'm in the 1500s so I'll have to backtrack a bit :lol:

    "But I'll be happy to explain it again for you, if it will help to dispel the misconception you apparently still seem to have"

    Sure...I'll just ask a question *serious question sacrasum free* what about the people that in the early 500s or so that believed you cannot sin after baptism or salvation will be revoked and waited until they were almost dead to be baptised..and some died suddenly and didn't get it...1. will they go to purg? 2. How do you quantize their payment..is that a traditon thing because I dont' see it in the scripture...and 3. How do we catorize how long we stay in perg? ie what sin "costs" how much?

    I have to appoligze because it was brought to my attention that some of my remarks were "barbed". I was just hinting *maybe in a bad way..actually probably* at your loaded comments that seemed to have undertones just as mine did.
     
  12. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    What political power does the Pope hold, outside of Vatican City and Castel Gandalfo? And what would he back it up with? All he has are 100 Swiss Guards. :)

    Which Popes have tampered with the Bible, or issued translations which are contrary to the original deposit?

    They were in error. The Church never taught such a doctrine, even though there were some theologians who held such a view contrary to the Magesterium.

    I don't know. Ultimate judgement of anyone's soul is up to God, and I can't second-guess Him. :)

    I think what you mean is "quantify" ("to indicate the extent of"), not "quantize" ("to express in multiples of a basic numerical unit"). :) If that's what you're looking for, see below. :)

    Again, you're thinking in terms of earthly values---money and time. Purgatory is in eternity, and both time and money mean absolutely nothing there. It's not like you sign in at the door, and the guy behind the counter looks at the menu on the wall and says, "Joe Blow: Used bad language 7,000 times...that's 200 years. Cheated on his wife, that's 927 years.....lied to his boss, that's 400 years...." There's nothing like that. Purgatory is more of a process or a passage than a jail where you serve your time.

    The purpose of Purgatory is to cleanse you of the last vestigates of venial sin before you eneter Heaven. So a better way of looking at Purgatory would be that die, and you walk into a hallway, take off your clothes at the door, undergo a hot shower as you walk down the hallway, get blow-dried with purified air towards the end of the hallway, and pick up your clean robe just outside the door at the other end of the hallway, which you open to enter heaven. In some ways this is a poor analogy, because Purgatory is a place of spiritual cleansing and purification, but it emphasizes the transitional nature of Purgatory, rather than the idea that you add up your total number of sins and have to "pay" a physical number of years (you want fries with that?) before you get out. :)

    That's okay. Prayerfully recite three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys, say a novena to St. Jerome for a gentle spirit, and go in peace. ;)

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  13. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "What political power does the Pope hold, outside of Vatican City and Castel Gandalfo? "

    At that time it was a polical struggle between the pope and the emperior to determine if the church should run the church and the country or should the church just run the church and in some cases should the emperior run both. It was a political struggle, you have to admit it ;)

    "Which Popes have tampered with the Bible, or issued translations which are contrary to the original deposit?"

    WEll, according I think it was Rasmus, or whoever has the current translation the one before that was a terrible translation and the docerine based on it was wrong. Not having to do with the bible, but what about the edict or issue (can't remember the proper name) of constineine found to be false but offered as true by the popes of that time?

    "They were in error. The Church never taught such a doctrine, even though there were some theologians who held such a view contrary to the Magesterium."

    Hmm...but these views where held by some that the current faith said where in trandition ;)

    Finish the rest later, I gotta go.
     
  14. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    There is no doubt that in centuries past, Roman Pontiffs were involved far too heavily in politics. However, you said current Pope, which I took to mean John Paul II. If what you meant was current at that time, I misunderstood you.

    Maybe who you mean is Desiderius Erasmus, the Renaissance humanist?

    What you mean is the "Donation of Constantine", which was a document that supposedly was given to Pope Sylvester I by Emperor Constantine in the 4th century, containing evidence that the Emperor turned an enormous amount of temporal power over to the Pope. It was a fake, written no earlier than probably the 800's, but it was used by various pontiffs throughout the Middle Ages to strengthen their political position. The document was disproved in the late 1400's.

    The comparison here is apples and oranges. In the first place, the document in question had nothing to do with faith or morals, so it certainly wasn't anyhting of an infallible nature, and even if the popes in question sincerely believed it was true, it still didn't have anything to do with the Catholic faith. Secondly, this still doesn't give any evidence that any pontiff has ever tampered with the Bible. So they employed a forged document for temporal political means. Fine. But which Pope has ever issued an edition of the Holy Scriptures which is at variance with the original deposit?

    By whom, when, and where? References for this material, please. :)

    Blessings,
    ----Wols.
     
  15. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "If what you meant was current at that time, I misunderstood you."

    hmm..okay. The discussion was on people of the past and you said luther's safety was only political in nature, I said no and then offered a question about past popes being political minded. That's what I was stating :)

    "Maybe who you mean is Desiderius Erasmus, the Renaissance humanist?"

    Darn it, nope, I thought it was him, but its not..I hate it when I can't remember a name...

    "The comparison here is apples and oranges"

    What? It have him authority over the western churches, I think its very applicable.

    "Secondly, this still doesn't give any evidence that any pontiff has ever tampered with the Bible. "

    Claiming docterinaly authority based on a false document is pretty tampering to me :) Okay, should we pass this subject, I really don't want to step on any toes here.

    "They were in error. The Church never taught such a doctrine, even though there were some theologians who held such a view contrary to the Magesterium."

    Just check your early history. Tertullian himself taught only 1 repentance after baptism and not for the "major" sins.


    "I don't know. Ultimate judgement of anyone's soul is up to God, and I can't second-guess Him. "

    So in other words, don't know until death? Well then if we want to avoid perg how do we have to be..do we all need to be monks? We arn't talking about judgement here but punishment..or purification..what about the good and faithful servant thing..?


    "Purgatory is more of a process or a passage than a jail where you serve your time."

    So in other words you are in pergatory in heaven?


    "Purgatory is a place of spiritual cleansing and purification, but it emphasizes the transitional nature of Purgatory, rather than the idea that you add up your total number of sins and have to "pay" a physical number of years (you want fries with that?) before you get out. "

    Well isn't it logical to say that one person will be there longer then another. If you go out and come in then it has to have a period of "time" to it.


    "That's okay. Prayerfully recite three Our Fathers and three Hail Marys, say a novena to St. Jerome for a gentle spirit, and go in peace. "

    Umm..I just asked for forgiveness, that's all I have to do ;)
     
  16. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Yes, Tertullian did. But I'm talking about what the Church taught, not Tertullian. Some of Tertullian's ideas were not orthodox, insofar as the Magesterium goes---and for that matter, neither were some of Origen's ideas, or many other theologians. What Tertullian and others wrote that was considered legitimate, the Church kept; what they wrote which was not considered legitimate, the Church jettisoned. The Church uses the same process to sort this kind of stuff out that she did with sorting out the books of the Bible. Remember: it is the Church which is the final authority in Catholicism; not the Bible, and not the theologians. :)

    No, you don't have to be a monk; but you certainly should do your utmost to be as holy and as pure as you can be. Jesus Himself told us to be perfect, as the Father in heaven is perfect. Every Christian should strive towards this. And in any event, avoiding Purgatory shouldn't be your goal, but pleasing the Father. Besides, look at it this way: if you land in Purgatory, you know that when you are finished there, you are going on to heaven. This is why, as one writer said, "Your worst day in Purgatory is better than your best day on earth." :)

    No. Purgatory is Purgatory, and Heaven is Heaven.

    Once again, you're making the mistake of applying earthly concepts to eternity. There is no such thing as time in eternity. Past, present, and future are all the same thing in eternity. "A thousand years are as a day in Your sight, O Lord." So even if one person is in Purgatory "longer" than another, it's all the same thing, when you get right down to it. :)

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.

     
  17. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "Some of Tertullian's ideas were not orthodox, insofar as the Magesterium goes"

    Okay, what about Irenus? all the "church" of that day taught there was no repentance after baptism..changed in the next 200 years because..I guess people couldn't cut it?

    "The Church uses the same process to sort this kind of stuff out that she did with sorting out the books of the Bible. "

    Ahh..so how do you determine if it is right or not..

    "Remember: it is the Church which is the final authority in Catholicism; not the Bible, and not the theologians"

    Not going to get into that..because that means it can change over time because humans change. Example is roman pope's authority.

    "This is why, as one writer said, "Your worst day in Purgatory is better than your best day on earth." "

    Umm...but its still perg. :lol: ;)

    "No. Purgatory is Purgatory, and Heaven is Heaven."

    If that is so it can't be an eternity, for you enter it and leave it then you have a certain period of time there thus there must be some grounds for it, because God isn't illogical about punishment...that's Islam.


    "So even if one person is in Purgatory "longer" than another, it's all the same thing, when you get right down to it. "

    umm...that means someone is in there longer and its not the same thing. If you just wanna say you can't really understand it I'll accept that because it seems to be that way. *note this was sacasum free making pure obersevation thoughts do not read into them* :)

    Oh, I looked at my notes, I mistook a name on the iconoclast contravery, my applogies. :)
     
  18. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Do try to provide me with specific examples from Irenaeus' writings, my dear fellow----vague references to "Irenaeus said..." are difficult to discuss unless I can locate and cross-reference what Irenaeus actually said to check for context and background. Also, the use of quotation marks around the word church, when we both know we're talking about the Catholic Church, is uncalled for. I have never once alluded to the idea that your fellowship is not a legitimate church; please afford me the same courtesy. :(

    It is determined whether it is right or not by whether it stacks up with the original teaching of the Apostles.

    No, actually it doesn't. When I say the Church is the final authority, I mean the teaching Magesterium, which uses as its basis for consideration the original deposit of the Faith, which has not, and does not, change. You compare everything to the Protestant Bible, do you not, which does not change. Likewise, we compare everything to to the Catholic Bible and Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Tradition, as I have mentioned many times, consists of the original oral teaching of the Apostles, which does not change any more than Scripture does. "New" Sacred Tradition does not exist. Tradition does not develop and it is not invented. It was formulated in the first 150 years of Christian history and it has not changed since.

    Here we're descending into picky arguments over semantics, which I'm not going to get into. Save that sort of thing for our friends over in the Round Table :)

    Okay, I don't understand it, which I'll freely admit. Aquinas went into this business of eternity having no time, and how theoretically it could be possible to pray for your parent's salvation before they are born, since future, present, and past are all the same thing in eternity. If you understand that, you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din. At the bottom line, eternity is like the Trinity: it's a mystery which is a tad too large for our puny little human peanut brains to handle.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
  19. LouisBooth

    LouisBooth Well-Known Member

    +62
    Christian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    "I have never once alluded to the idea that your fellowship is not a legitimate church; please afford me the same courtesy. "

    My appoligies, I wanted to show that I wasn't sure who the catholic though was in the church because you said before they were wrong in their teaching (tertullian). Not ment that way, sorry for the miscommunication.

    "It is determined whether it is right or not by whether it stacks up with the original teaching of the Apostles."

    You mean the bible right ;)

    "No, actually it doesn't. "(in regrard to changing over time)

    yeah it does, the conception of mary was declared infaultalbe by a pope about 9 or so years before the council said he could declare thinks infaultable..sorry can't remember the term....ex..something or other..cathridral..no..that's not it....

    "Sacred Tradition, as I have mentioned many times, consists of the original oral teaching of the Apostles"

    Which has changed over time. First it was 3 sacriments..then to 7 later...You can't sit there and say it hasn't changed..The sacriment of baptism has gone from immersion in living water, to immersion, to sprinkling back to immersion.

    ""New" Sacred Tradition does not exist. Tradition does not develop and it is not invented. "

    Agreed, no new ones were added, but that doesn't mean they haven't changed.

    "Here we're descending into picky arguments over semantics, which I'm not going to get into. Save that sort of thing for our friends over in the Round Table "

    Okay...sorry, if I get nit picky, just like sabbath law for the jews, I don't wanna screw up..its God after all :)

    "Okay, I don't understand it, which I'll freely admit. Aquinas went into this business of eternity having no time, and how theoretically it could be possible to pray for your parent's salvation before they are born, since future, present, and past are all the same thing in eternity. "

    Okay, thanks for the honesty. It is possible because you look to a future event. You do not say, let them be saved now, you say let them be saved when X. I see where he is going with that but not going to go that line because I am more pragmatic.


    " At the bottom line, eternity is like the Trinity: it's a mystery which is a tad too large for our puny little human peanut brains to handle."

    Okay, I don't see perg that way, but we can skip it :) more then happy to drop it. *offers a hand* thanks for your thoughts on the subject though, they are much appricated.
     
  20. Wolseley

    Wolseley Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

    +2,974
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others

    Only halfway. The Apostles originally taught by word of mouth, since there was no Christian Bible for half a century after Christ was born---the first couple books of the New Testament were Galatians and James, both of which were written around the year 49 A.D.; by that time, the Apostles had been spreading the Gospel by word of mouth for sixteen years. Over time, some of the things they said were written dowen and became Scripture. Some of the things they said were not, and became Sacred Tradition. Both of them date from the same period, both of them are the inspired Word of God, both of them carry the same amount of authority, and both of them complement and interpret one another. The Reformers decided to cut one of their own legs off and threw Tradition away, but that does not negate the veracity of it.

    The term is ex cathedra. Bene, Louis, c.um Latine nescias, nolo manus meas in te maculare! More schoolin' is required fer you, son! ;)

    You also have your dates squeejawed. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854, and Papal infallibility was defined by Vatican Council I in 1870, which is sixteen years, not nine. However, infallible statements by popes or councils are merely formal defenitions of an existing doctrine, not the creation of the doctrine. Papal infallibility is mentioned as far back as Cyprian of Carthage in 252 A.D., or, if you prefer Scripture, by Peter's first dogmatic pronouncement at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15:19. The Immaculate Conception is mentioned overtly as far back as 350 A.D. by Ephraim of Nisibis, or, again, if you prefer Scripture, in Luke 1:28, "highly favored" charitoo, "graced", "made acceptable". You may not agree with the defenitions of Scripture in these instances, but again, we're talking about the Catholic interpretation thereof. So both the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility pre-date the 19th century, when both dogmas were defined, by around 1,800 years, give or take.

    Oh, yes I can. Were there seven sacraments originally? You tell me:
    1. Baptism: Matthew 28:19, Acts 16:31.
    2. Confirmation: Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6.
    3. Penance: Matthew 18:18, John 20:23, James 5:13-16.
    4. Extreme Unction: Mark 6:12-13, James 5:14-15.
    5. Holy Orders: Acts 14:22, 1 Timothy 4:14, Titus 1:5.
    6. Matrimony: Matthew 19:5-6, Mark 10:7-12, Hebrews 13:4.
    7. Holy Eucharist: Matthew 26:26ff, Mark 14:22ff, Luke 22:17ff, John 6:33ff, 1 Corinthians 11:23ff.
    As for immersion, aspersion, or infusion, that's simply a matter of procedure, not in the sacrament itself. Read the Didache for reasons why the procedure might differ. (It had to do with the availability of water.)

    Procedures might differ as indicated above, but Tradition itself does not change.

    Blessings,
    ---Wols.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...