Purgatory And Prayers For The Dead.

[Valletta]

That is not what 1 Corinthians 3 describes.
Here it is again;

According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw— each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.​

Nothing remotely resembling the doctrine of purgatory. Doesn't the doctrine teach that passing through purgatory is gain?

Of course purgatory is great gain. You asked me about loss, and the only loss I know of associated with purgatory (not to minimize that loss in any way) is the separation from God in Heaven.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Regarding Psalm 37:2 (Greek numbering): "2 *Rebuke me not, O Lord, in thy indignation; nor chastise me in thy wrath." Haydock writes,

Ver. 2. Wrath. God is incapable of passion: but man deserves to be treated with the utmost rigour; and this David deprecates, begging that God would act rather like a physician in his regard. (Theodoret) (Calmet) —​

​

The same petition occurs in psalm vi.; and this ought to caution people not to make imprecations, since God’s judgments are so terrible. (Berthier) —​

​

St. Augustine and St. Gregory explain this text of the fire of hell, and of purgatory, 1 Corinthians iii. 15. (Haydock) —​

• Though some be saved by the latter, “yet is that fire more grievous than whatever man can suffer in this life.” (St. Augustine) —
• “I esteem that transitory fire more intolerable than all present tribulation.” (St. Gregory) (Worthington) —
• We may therefore pray, “Here burn,” &c., with the same St. Augustine who assures us, (Gen. con. Man. ii. 20.) that “he who cultivates not the field of his soul, will, after this life, experience either the fire of purgatory or eternal punishment.” (Haydock)

 

[prodromos]

Of course purgatory is great gain. You asked me about loss, and the only loss I know of associated with purgatory (not to minimize that loss in any way) is the separation from God in Heaven.

The loss described by Paul isn't temporary.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The loss described by Paul isn't temporary.

The "saved as through fire" implies a short-term fire.

 

[prodromos]

The "saved as through fire" implies a short-term fire.

That doesn't really jive with the quotes you posted in #602.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That doesn't really jive with the quotes you posted in #602.

1. St. Augustine who assures us, (Gen. con. Man. ii. 20.) that “he who cultivates not the field of his soul, will, after this life, experience either the fire of purgatory or eternal punishment.” [this certainly implies that purgatory is not eternal punishment even if it is conceived as punishment it is not eternal and therefore can only be non-eternal.]
2. “I esteem that transitory fire more intolerable than all present tribulation.” (St. Gregory) [this states that purgatory's fire is transitory.]

both 1 & 2 were quoted in #602.

 

[bbbbbbb]

1. St. Augustine who assures us, (Gen. con. Man. ii. 20.) that “he who cultivates not the field of his soul, will, after this life, experience either the fire of purgatory or eternal punishment.” [this certainly implies that purgatory is not eternal punishment even if it is conceived as punishment it is not eternal and therefore can only be non-eternal.]
2. “I esteem that transitory fire more intolerable than all present tribulation.” (St. Gregory) [this states that purgatory's fire is transitory.]

both 1 & 2 were quoted in #602.

I always find it curious that the Catholic Church picks and chooses which of the ECF's writings, as well as other saints, to believe. In the case of Augustine the Catholic Church has thoroughly rejected his monergism, but clings to other, far less significant aspects of his writings.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I always find it curious that the Catholic Church picks and chooses which of the ECF's writings, as well as other saints, to believe. In the case of Augustine the Catholic Church has thoroughly rejected his monergism, but clings to other, far less significant aspects of his writings.

Everyone likes Augie; some calvinists look to his retractions to support their theology.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I always find it curious that the Catholic Church picks and chooses which of the ECF's writings, as well as other saints, to believe. In the case of Augustine the Catholic Church has thoroughly rejected his monergism, but clings to other, far less significant aspects of his writings.

Everyone likes Augie; some calvinists look to his retractions to support their theology.

Saint Augustine is not infallible, he changed his own mind at times, he wrote a book called retractions to document some of his changes.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Everyone likes Augie; some calvinists look to his retractions to support their theology.

Quite true. Luther, himself, was an Augustinian monk, as you know.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Saint Augustine is not infallible, he changed his own mind at times, he wrote a book called retractions to document some of his changes.

That is true of virtually everyone who committed their ideas into written form over the course of their lifetime. Thus, these folks have left minefields for their followers and detractors. It is a joyous pursuit to extract nuggets from their writings and use these nuggets to support one's own agenda. One of the more extreme examples would be Mohammed. After his death he descendants and followers sorted through his written record (he himself was illiterate) on palm leaves and burnt what they considered to be his Satanic verses (hence the name for the famous book by Salmon Rushdie) and then cobbled together the remaining writings into the Q'ran, which is brimming with contradictions.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That is true of virtually everyone who committed their ideas into written form over the course of their lifetime. Thus, these folks have left minefields for their followers and detractors. It is a joyous pursuit to extract nuggets from their writings and use these nuggets to support one's own agenda. One of the more extreme examples would be Mohammed. After his death he descendants and followers sorted through his written record (he himself was illiterate) on palm leaves and burnt what they considered to be his Satanic verses (hence the name for the famous book by Salmon Rushdie) and then cobbled together the remaining writings into the Q'ran, which is brimming with contradictions.

The blessing of receiving what the Church teaches, rather than "extracting nuggets" for oneself, is that the Church speaks what Christ teaches while individuals teach what they speak.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The blessing of receiving what the Church teaches, rather than "extracting nuggets" for oneself, is that the Church speaks what Christ teaches while individuals teach what they speak.

In actuality all churches are composed of individual sinners. Your Church asserted in 1871 that one of its sinners, called the Pope, had the ability to speak infallibly for God in certain circumstances. To date, there are only four infallibly-stated dogmas in your Church. The rest of doctrine seems to be composed of nuggets extracted by individuals, either working alone or in council as at Trent, from various sources, not the least of which is the Bible. However, the Bible is hardly the only source for Catholic doctrine, as you know.

The upshot is that there is no particular reason to believe the nuggets extracted by the individuals of your Church or the nuggets extracted by Martin Luther or any another Christian or body of Christians. Simply because someone claims to speak for God hardly makes it true.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

In actuality all churches are composed of individual sinners.

It is true that the churches of which you write are composed of individual sinners. That view is accurate, as far as it goes. It reflects worldly thinking that is individualistic and limited.

However, Catholicism teaches that the Church is a community of members and that the members vary in degree of holiness with some having very little and some having a deal, but the Church is not an individual and what the Church speaks is the voice of the body of Christ on Earth. This is what is missing in the comment, from your post, quoted above. The Church is NOT a collection of individuals, like a collection of bananas; a collection of bananas is just a collection of bananas, but the Church is a community that acts as one because she is one, she is the bride of Christ as well as the body of Christ and she is the new Jerusalem descended from heaven giving light to the world. The Church is the Holy Spirit working in the world, speaking to the world, and redeeming sinners by the virtue of Christ who gave himself in sacrifice for the Church.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It is true that the churches of which you write are composed of individual sinners. That view is accurate, as far as it goes. It reflects worldly thinking that is individualistic and limited.

However, Catholicism teaches that the Church is a community of members and that the members vary in degree of holiness with some having very little and some having a deal, but the Church is not an individual and what the Church speaks is the voice of the body of Christ on Earth. This is what is missing in the comment, from your post, quoted above. The Church is NOT a collection of individuals, like a collection of bananas; a collection of bananas is just a collection of bananas, but the Church is a community that acts as one because she is one, she is the bride of Christ as well as the body of Christ and she is the new Jerusalem descended from heaven giving light to the world. The Church is the Holy Spirit working in the world, speaking to the world, and redeeming sinners by the virtue of Christ who gave himself in sacrifice for the Church.

Please define "the Church" better so I can understand what you mean. Is "the Church" visible or invisible? If visible, where, specifically, is it located? If it speaks orally, where is its mouth?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Please define "the Church" better so I can understand what you mean. Is "the Church" visible or invisible? If visible, where, specifically, is it located? If it speaks orally, where is its mouth?

The Church on Earth is visible, and it is most fully expressed in the Catholic Church, it is expressed in varying degrees elsewhere. The Church in heaven is not visible to earthly eyes except when it is revealed in visions sent from God. "The Church" is ambiguous, context ought to indicate what is meant. If context is insufficient, then quote the specific words with which you are having difficulty.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Church on Earth is visible, and it is most fully expressed in the Catholic Church, it is expressed in varying degrees elsewhere. The Church in heaven is not visible to earthly eyes except when it is revealed in visions sent from God. "The Church" is ambiguous, context ought to indicate what is meant. If context is insufficient, then quote the specific words with which you are having difficulty.

Thank you. As I understand you, you mean the Roman Catholic denomination as being "the Church". No other branch of Christianity, nor any other council other than that of the Roman Catholic denomination is "the Church". Please correct me if I am mistaken.

How "the Church" speaks is quite fuzzy. One might see it speaking in any one of the following ways:

1. The Pope proclaiming dogma "ex cathedra". As such there are only four dogmas of the RCC. All else is ill-defined with a wide range of significance.
2. The Magisterium (a mystical body of visible men) cannot speak "ex cathedra" but have been associated with "the Church" speaking.
3. Church Councils, which seem to be primarily advisory in nature to the Pope. These include councils such as Vatican II and Trent. Their pronouncements can, and have been, implemented and ignored.
4. Papal Bulls. Prior to 1871 "the Church" spoke through Papal Bulls. These have found their way into the dustbin of the Vatican for the most part.
5. The ECF's. Subject to approval of various authorities of the RCC, the writings of the ECFs might be considered to be the voice of "the Church". The really nice thing about their writings is that they are so voluminous that one can usually find bits and pieces of them to fit the theology du jour.
6. The Bible. Again, this is a document similar to the writings of the ECF's with authority subject to the interpretations of the RCC.

I hope I have covered the primary means by which the RCC speaks. Please feel free to add any I may have missed. Also, please note that I have specifically left out any participation by the laity, especially women, of the RCC.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Thank you. As I understand you, you mean the Roman Catholic denomination as being "the Church". No other branch of Christianity, nor any other council other than that of the Roman Catholic denomination is "the Church". Please correct me if I am mistaken.

You're not right, but not entirely wrong either. The Church in my thinking is best expressed by the Catholic Church. Other groups, denominations, and churches have to give their own account of themselves. I accept the councils of the early church and the councils of the Catholic Church after 1054 up to our day, 21 councils in all.

 

[bbbbbbb]

You're not right, but not entirely wrong either. The Church in my thinking is best expressed by the Catholic Church. Other groups, denominations, and churches have to give their own account of themselves. I accept the councils of the early church and the councils of the Catholic Church after 1054 up to our day, 21 councils in all.

Some Catholic apologists maintain that "the Church" never was anything other than the RCC and that various heresies and schisms, including the Great Schism, simply were deviations from the "the Church". Thus, they maintain that the RCC was the instigator of all true Christian history, beginning with the day of Pentecost and that all of the councils of "the Church" which it recognizes were RCC councils.

That, obviously, is not your view. Other than the RCC, what actually consitutes "the Church"? Does this wider view of "the Church" permit any other authentic voice for the "the Church" other than that of the RCC?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Some Catholic apologists maintain that "the Church" never was anything other than the RCC and that various heresies and schisms, including the Great Schism, simply were deviations from the "the Church". Thus, they maintain that the RCC was the instigator of all true Christian history, beginning with the day of Pentecost and that all of the councils of "the Church" which it recognizes were RCC councils.

That, obviously, is not your view. Other than the RCC, what actually consitutes "the Church"? Does this wider view of "the Church" permit any other authentic voice for the "the Church" other than that of the RCC?

I know that the Catholic Church is the Church, others must speak for themselves.