Trying to understand....

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

Don't keep me in suspense. What, pray tell, did Trent say?

Your "seers" have no authority.
I've already corrected this grave misconception once in this thread, but you continue to act as if these "seers" are infallible.

 

[Light of the East]

Your "seers" have no authority.
I've already corrected this grave misconception once in this thread, but you continue to act as if these "seers" are infallible.

First of all, they are not "MY" seers. They are the seers of the Roman Catholic Traditionalists. And it is they, not I, who is acting as if everything they say has the imprimatur of God's voice upon them. I find their visions troubling and somewhat difficult to place faith in, yet if I express this, Roman Traddies act as if I am spitting in God's face. It ain't pretty.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

First of all, they are not "MY" seers. They are the seers of the Roman Catholic Traditionalists. And it is they, not I, who is acting as if everything they say has the imprimatur of God's voice upon them. I find their visions troubling and somewhat difficult to place faith in, yet if I express this, Roman Traddies act as if I am spitting in God's face. It ain't pretty.

Have you considered the possibility that they may be heterodox in their Catholicism?
You know there is a possibility of being so traditional in ones faith that ones falling into heresy.

To go against a council and especially Trent who is perhaps the most firm and thoughtful council in the history of the church is very uncatholic to put it nicely.

Maybe you have to look at these people with a different set of glasses.

 

[Rhamiel]

you look at over simplified explanations and do not read the deeper things so you do not have a full picture

again not trying to be rude
but maybe you should read some more Aqunas or atleast Dante?

 

[Light of the East]

Have you considered the possibility that they may be heterodox in their Catholicism?
You know there is a possibility of being so traditional in ones faith that ones falling into heresy.

To go against a council and especially Trent who is perhaps the most firm and thoughtful council in the history of the church is very uncatholic to put it nicely.

Maybe you have to look at these people with a different set of glasses.

That is probably very good advice.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

That is probably very good advice.

I'm sad to say this isn't a isolated incident either, whenever I say I don't believe in medugorje I'm looked at as a unbeliever by some so I do know what you mean.

Medugorje isnt even recognised by the Holy See so these things can get quite preposterous at times.
I always refer to Trent, but it only helps for a limited period of time.

Tedious.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Honestly, I'm not looking to pick a fight here. Just read this and my comments about it.

THE POLISH PRINCE (True Purgatory Story)
A Polish prince who, for some political reason, had been exiled from his native country bought a beautiful castle and property in France.

Unfortunately, he had lost the Faith of his childhood and was at the time of our story engaged in writing a book against God and the existence of a future life.

Strolling one evening in his garden, he came upon a poor woman weeping bitterly. He questioned her as to the cause of her grief.

"Ah! Prince," she replied, "I am the wife of Jean [John] Marie, your former steward, who died two days ago. He was a good husband to me and a faithful servant to Your Highness. His sickness was long and I spent all our savings on the doctors, and now I have nothing left to get Masses said for his soul."

The Prince, touched by her grief, said a few kind words and, though professing no longer to believe in a future life, gave her some gold coins to have Masses said for her husband's soul.

Some time after, it was again evening, and the Prince was in his study working feverishly at his hook.

He heard a loud rap at the door and without looking up called out to the visitor to come in. The door slowly opened and a man entered and stood facing the Prince's writing table.

On glancing up, what was not the Prince's amazement to see Jean Marie, his dead steward, looking at him with a sweet smile.

"Prince, " he said, "I come to thank you for the Masses you enabled my wife to have said for my soul. Thanks to the saving Blood of Christ, which was offered for me, I am now going to Heaven, but God has allowed me to come and thank you for your generous alms. "

He then added impressively: "Prince, there is a God, a future life, a Heaven and a Hell. "

Having said these words he disappeared.

The Prince fell upon his knees and poured forth a fervent Credo ( I believe in God.. ").

Why We Should Pray for the Souls in Purgatory

"The Holy Souls are eager for the prayers of the faithful which can gain indulgences for them. Their intercession is powerful. Pray unceasingly. We must empty Purgatory!" -- Saint Padre Pio

Here's my question for you: I get the feeling that these descriptions of Purgatory make it sound like the grace of God is being treated like merchandise. You know, do so much of this and throw in a little dash of that and - VOILA - you are free. You have bought your pardon. This was the corruption that drove Luther to his rebellion against the Church. What am I missing here?

I also wonder if the release of a person from Purgatory, based on a sense of remaining legal guilt, having to do with prayers or Masses being offered, then why does not Christ Himself forgive them (legal pardon) and pray for their release? Surely his prayers are much more efficacious than mine will ever be. Surely His Blood has paid any and all legal indebtedness, if such a thing exists.

Purgatory as described in the Roman Church makes no sense to me. What does make sense is that we encounter the fiery love of God and that fire burns away (purges) our remaining state of sinfulness so that we become Christ-like and enter into the trinitarian union, not as "co-God" or anything like that, but as recipients of His passionate love.

Perhaps someone here can help me understand.

Well, your last paragraph indicates that you understand perfectly. Purgatory is simply a place to cast out the remaining imperfections of our humanity.

 

[Light of the East]

Well, your last paragraph indicates that you understand perfectly. Purgatory is simply a place to cast out the remaining imperfections of our humanity.

No, that was not my point at all and, my good brother, you misunderstood my post.

The point I was trying to bring up was about the "purchasing" (if I might use that term) of forgiveness by the use of indulgences and other forms of payment to God for my sin.

The Eastern view is of an ontological change which takes place between the soul and God in a mysterious fashion not known to us. The soul encounters God and in some way, the fire of God changes the soul. In Western soteriology, the soul in Purgatory is being punished for its sins, a legal idea of guilt and payment, but if someone "pays" enough indulgences or Masses or prayer cards or Rosaries or whatever, then the legal guilt is expiated and the soul can be released.

Which, of course, brings up the question, what if someone was to apply an indulgence to the deceased soul, expecting that the indulgence would release the soul (pay the legal debt) but the soul had not come to full change/repentance yet?

Do you see the difference?

 

[Light of the East]

The only similarity is that in both instances, there is fire and a in some way God dealing with our sins, which is painful to us.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, that was not my point at all and, my good brother, you misunderstood my post.

The point I was trying to bring up was about the "purchasing" (if I might use that term) of forgiveness by the use of indulgences and other forms of payment to God for my sin.

The Eastern view is of an ontological change which takes place between the soul and God in a mysterious fashion not known to us. The soul encounters God and in some way, the fire of God changes the soul. In Western soteriology, the soul in Purgatory is being punished for its sins, a legal idea of guilt and payment, but if someone "pays" enough indulgences or Masses or prayer cards or Rosaries or whatever, then the legal guilt is expiated and the soul can be released.

Which, of course, brings up the question, what if someone was to apply an indulgence to the deceased soul, expecting that the indulgence would release the soul (pay the legal debt) but the soul had not come to full change/repentance yet?

Do you see the difference?

I see what you're saying. But what you have to realize is that all our good works come from God and our desire to please Him. Some people may think that's transactional, but they'd be wrong. There's no 'get out of jail free' card. Our good works proceed from our faith in God, and can mitigate some of our punishment for our naturally sinful selves. God decides how much. I know, there used to be some sort of list that said if you do X you get Y number of days cut off of your purgatory 'time'. But people don't understand what indulgences entail. You must go to confession, go to Mass and receive Eucharist, and whatever else the indulgence requires. There should be some serious thought placed on it. You can't just give $10 to the collection plate and gain any indulgence. You must give alms, you must confess your sins, you must pray, along with other pious acts. It's not transactional. I do those things because I'm blessed by God with my financial situation and my conversion to the faith. If I merit a shorter time in purgatory, that's great. But God decides.

 

[Goatee]

Purgatory is not about 'buying your way out'. Souls there need our prayers! We need to pray for those that need our prayers. Like the living the dead also need our prayers.

Remember, God is merciful

 

[Rhamiel]

The only similarity is that in both instances, there is fire and a in some way God dealing with our sins, which is painful to us.

Sin is a metaphysical reality
The East uses sickness as a metaphor
The West uses legal analogies more often

These are not contradictory

 

[Light of the East]

Sin is a metaphysical reality
The East uses sickness as a metaphor
The West uses legal analogies more often

These are not contradictory

They very much are contradictory. Once you set them as a foundation for theology, they take your theological, anthropological, and soteriological arguments and dogma in two entirely different directions. And they both cannot be true.

Example: Man is either a massa damnata of sin, so corrupt that he can do no good, unrighteous, and legally guilty before God, or man is simply sick, has a disease which causes him to do wrong, and is in need of healing, not judgment.

The first is Augustine's idea, which the rebels of the Protestant Rebellion have latched onto and made into Western theology with all its distinct errors and problems, including the idea of "accepting Jaaaaayuz" as your "personal Lord and Savior" and then you are legally declared "not guilty" by the heavenly judge and you have punched your ticket to heaven - non-stop first class fare. This whole heresy comes from Augustine's legal definition. And the world is filled with Christians who are much less than Christ-like because they think they have a free ticket in, so they don't worry about their actual ontological state before God, which is the Eastern view of man.

God deals with us as we are, not in some Lutheran fantasy of "imputed righteousness." An awful lot of people are going to waltz up to the Judgment Seat of Christ expecting that they have been legally forgiven and for the first time, the mirror that is Christ's righteousness will show them exactly what they are - and they will be horrified. And spanked by God - good.

I have a sense that there are an awful lot of people undergoing purgation right now in the next life who are cursing Luther and his damnable doctrines, and are not real happy with Augustine either for getting that ball rolling

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Catholics are bound by the Council of Trent only to believe this about Purgatory:

1. Purgatory exists.
2. That the prayers and suffrages of the faithful aid those in/under going it.
3. That Masses assist those in/under-going purgatory.

All we know of Purgatory is what is stated above and that it is a place of spiritual cleansing. Its duration, environment, and conditions are not dogmatically defined or de fide. So no, there is nothing from keeping one to believing it is the 'fire of God's love'. One is perfectly licit in believing such according to Catholic theology.

 

[Hamlet7768]

They very much are contradictory. Once you set them as a foundation for theology, they take your theological, anthropological, and soteriological arguments and dogma in two entirely different directions. And they both cannot be true.

Example: Man is either a massa damnata of sin, so corrupt that he can do no good, unrighteous, and legally guilty before God, or man is simply sick, has a disease which causes him to do wrong, and is in need of healing, not judgment.

I disagree with your characterization of Augustine's theology. He taught that Original Sin greatly hurts our will to do good, but does not destroy it completely. As the Church continues to teach, we are capable of doing naturally good things, like not killing people and (on occasion) being generous.

However, we cannot hope to merit Salvation by our will, and therefore we need Christ. This was the key point that Augustine pushed as a refutation of the Pelagian heresy. It should be noted that throughout On Nature and Grace, his great anti-Pelagian tract, Augustine does not refer to Christ as judge, but as Physician.