Pope: Whatever religion works for you, cool

[rambone]

That the errant thief did not go to Purgatory is not a contradiction of the doctrine. Just because the errant thief went straight to Heaven, not all people do. There are many people who may not go straight to Heaven and yet do not go to Hell. God in his mercy provides a place of final purification. The perceived contradictions you claim, if anything like the example of the errant thief, are only perceived as contradictions when the viewed in light of other erroneous doctrines.

There are many scriptural bases for the doctrine of Purgatory. If you wish, I can continue this later and cite those scriptural bases. Right now I have to catch a train!

Very well, Mark, we will search the scriptures together.

The real meat of the objection is the idea that any "purification" remains to be performed. Numerous texts would indicate the opposite, including the one I just quoted: ALL of our sin is cleansed (1John 1:7) by one act of Christ (Rom 5:18). We have nothing to add to that, not even by our torture.

The Purgatory doctrine insults the complete and perfect work of Jesus: it would have us believe that our forgiveness was not complete and Christ's sacrifice was too weak. I will be happy to prove that out a dozen times over.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

First, thank you for the very kind compliment.

I have seen the first video before. Dr. Craig is my favorite Christian apologist. He really knows his stuff, and has a tremendous presence in a room. I could listen to him all day and never have my blood pressure rise. You have to give respect to someone with skill and knowledge, and Dr. Craig has both to spare.

I only watched the second video for the first time a moment ago. This may surprise you, but I agree wholeheartedly. If there are no gods, and I had the ability to convince everyone on the planet to leave their religious beliefs behind I wouldn't do it either...I can't explain it, really. People should be free to go tilting at windmills, and at the end of the day, who am I to try to stop them?

When the weather breaks I need to get down to your part of the state. A face-to-face meeting is long overdue.

We need to prod him into an open house, with pizza or brats, and beverages.

 

[foszoe]

Okay, serious question here guys:

I understand a "personal connection" to God. A person has an experience which they believe was contact with the almighty. I can understand the power behind that experience.*

Actually this understanding is very good. There is NO RATIONAL PROOF that God exists. Rational proofs can offer reasons to believe but they can’t prove. ONLY experience proves the existence of God. I have copies of Hitchen’s “God is not Great”, Dawkin’s “The God Delusion”. Reading them has not disproven God’s existence to ME. Attending Alvin Plantinga’s Lecture refuting Dawkin’s argument and buying his book, “Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism” or David Bentley Hart’s work,** “Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies” did not prove to me that God exists. Why do I believe? Personal experience.* Can I ever prove to anyone that my personal experience of God proves God’s existence? No. I subscribe to only one rational proof. I have never seen something come into existence out of nothing in an empirical environment. If one has an experience of God proofs become unnecessary.

What I don't understand is religious fervor.

I would change your statement slightly. What I don’t understand is misplaced religious fervor. Why might I want to do that? Because since you are giving me the assumption that God exists, then we, as human beings, should be very fervent in our approach to Him. Since we all post in a gun forum, I will draw a few analogies. If I posted that on July 1, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed or on January 4th, or it was in 1830, I think it is safe to assume someone would be quick to correct me. If I went into the 2nd amendment forum and posted militia means the National Guard, I could expect some fairly stern corrections I am sure. Some would be spastic knee jerk reactions, others might take a more educational approach and tell me about how word definitions change, militia then didn’t mean what we mean by militia today and that I must take into account the historical context of the term and what it meant when the 2nd amendment was written. Yet if I say that a biblical text meant … to the early Church and it is how it was understood by all to the point that they held a Great Council (Christian version of a Continental Congress) and formally declared its meaning, but that understanding is in disagreement with another’s Christian doctrine, it is now, in modern Christianity rejected.

*For the Protestant groups it is a simple as this. The Bible came to be viewed as subject to personal interpretation. Many Christians I encounter are members of faith groups but the extent of testing one’s own interpretation for correctness is reading books written in the last century by people who agree with them to a large degree. I often hear there is no time to read anything with an alternative interpretation. If one decides one interpretation is wrong, then it is time to find another group that agrees with oneself, or in the worst case, form another church. The average person does not know how the text was historically understood and for many, it doesn’t matter. CS Lewis is considered to be a “classic”. So when I hear someone tell of their high regard for Lewis, I ask when is the last time they read a book written in the earliest days of Christianity for even Lewis said for every modern book we read we should read an ancient one.

When one encounter’s a new doctrine, the question should not be is it scriptural, but does it contradict the Church Tradition for this incorporates safeguards. Now this approach should not be interpreted too rigidly, usually the Church has not defined a one and only one way to understand a scriptural passage. The usual approach has been to say the Christian must affirm that this interpretation is true in support of doctrinal affirmation, and by implication the interpretation used to support a false doctrine is NOT true. There may be several other interpretations that are true also. Scripture is a subset of the Tradition and Tradition will not contradict itself. By this I mean true contradictions. I would not be Orthodox if I believed any Tradition contradicted the subset of Tradition known as scripture. Many Protestants look at practices of Orthodox and Catholic and see them as empty rituals invented by Christians of a later era. It was that way for centuries. Then in the late 1800s, the text of the Didache was discovered which validates several of these practices, most notably baptism and was written when the NT was also being written. The Catechetical lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s validate several Christian practices long before any major rifts occurred among the Churches. The pilgrimage of Etheria recounts the practices of fasting and Holy Week services in remarkable detail from the late 300s which are still in practice today. These works could be read in an afternoon by anyone interested and found online. When one wants to be a plumber, one does not go out and buy a bunch of random tools and fittings and teach oneself, one seeks out others that are more experienced in the field and learns from them. When one is interested in a historical event in the year 200, one does not read all the books from the last 25 years and consider oneself informed, one also reads the source texts created at the time. That is the function of Christian tradition. Learn from others more experienced, do not reinvent the wheel, and do not fall into error.

Looking at this conversation it seems clear that there is no consensus,

The problem of consensus you put forward was addressed by the Church in the 4th century (300s).The Nicene Creed is probably the most cataphatic statement in the early Church and it lays down the basic beliefs one must hold to be Christian. I think everyone posting in this thread would agree with the Creedal expression and to be completely candid we would probably agree on what every portion of the creed means with the exception of what it means when it states “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” Some will claim the Church is invisible, others will believe it is visible but all would agree the Church is the body of Christ.

“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light: true God of true God; begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from the heavens, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man; And was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; And arose again on the third day according to the Scriptures; And ascended into the heavens, and sits at the right hand of the Father; And shall come again, with glory, to judge both the living and the dead; Whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life; Who proceeds from the Father; Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; Who spoke by the prophets. In One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I confess one baptism for the remission of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come. Amen.”

For the first 1000 years there was one Church professing the Creed above. While there were divisions in the Church during this time, such as the Non Chalcedon schism in the 5th century, Christendom was mostly united. This schism occurred over* terminology and ongoing talks for reunification are positive.

The consensus problem arises over time from two different approaches to Theology. The approach of the earliest Christians was apophatic. In the west, starting with Augustine, the approach became more and more cataphatic. Any affirmative approach to God is bound to be divisive because it is an attempt to define God by human terminology. This is exactly what happens in the West and gives rise to the Magisterial Reformation, the Counter Reformation, the Radical Reformation, Revivalism, the Great Awakening, the Pentecostal and various other movements in Western Christianity. If one goes to the Wikipedia article on apophatic theology the list of people used as examples are almost all Orthodox Saints, to be fair, most are celebrated on the Roman Catholic Calendar also but the 4th century was a time when the Church was still united. After the Orthodox and Roman Church split, usually only the Catholic mystics use apophatic theology, the theological pillars of Catholicism and the Reformation are built on cataphatic expressions of theology. Any correct cataphatic expression of Theology should be based firmly in the Orthodox Tradition of which the scriptures are a significant part. A common complaint against the Orthodox is an unwillingness to change. I just don’t see that charge as a negative. We do not accept the development of doctrine as understood in the West thanks especially to John Henry Newman’s 19th c essay, “The development of Doctrine.

Now for the Roman Catholic – Orthodox schism. Several factors were involved, but I will focus on one, the filioque. It’s one word in Latin, 3 when translated into English. Many today will argue, that a proper understanding of the term would allow its acceptance Theologically, I happen to hold that position. I also believe it should never have been put into the Creed and how it was defined historically was wrong. I am not writing a thesis so I won’t attempt to prove points, simply state them. The filioque led the Roman Catholic Church into error. The effects of this error rippled throughout history into the Protestant reformation. If one listen’s to Protestant prayers, a very common formula is “Father……In Jesus name. “ The prayers usually make no reference to the Holy Spirit. This subjugation of the Spirit to the Father and the Son eventually gives rise to the Pentecostal movement as an attempt to reprise the role of the Holy Spirit into the Christian experience. This one term was in violation of the Church Tradition, it represents an addition to Scripture and the Nicene Creed and its fruit was division.

even among "Christians", as to what God really wants from you, or what it takes to become "saved", or even what being "saved" really means.

So the question to answer is why can’t Christians agree on something as simple as salvation?

The Bible text is a condescension of God to man. It is God speaking in baby language to mankind as a method of revelation. Going back to my first point, the proof of God is in the experience of God. A commonality of those who have an experience of God is a difficulty of putting that experience into words. Joy unspeakable and full of Glory. God cannot be circumscribed by words. God is also not circumscribed by time. A danger lies in taking the Bible literally, especially when it speaks of God. By that I mean there is a real danger in anthropomorphizing God. So how are we to know what God wants? Personal experience checked against the safeguard of the Church Tradition to keep us from false attribution of the demonic to the divine. Hopefully no one reads Psalm 90(91) and believes God has wings and feathers even though it says He will cover us with them. Too often the choice of a literal reading is dependent upon what belief system one is trying to support and passages are read in isolation both from Tradition and persons.

I will readily agree that different groups use terms differently, but that doesn’t mean we can’t work towards a common language or understanding. A lot of the discussion on INGO is I believe, an attempt to do just that.

The definition of the underlying Greek word for salvation is translated whole as in “thy faith has made you whole”, as healed, and this is how it should be understood. A healing of the human person through a life of repentance and transformation into perfect unity with every other human being and God himself that continues into all eternity.

The definition of salvation is not: forgiveness of sins, going to heaven, avoiding hell, a great family life, financial success. The promise made to the Christian is a life of suffering.

Salvation is not obtained by believing alone, it is not obtained by doing alone, it is not by faith alone, it is not by grace alone.

Salvation is not satisfaction of an offense to God, it’s not penal substitution.

The scriptural and traditional definition of salvation.*

John 17: 22-24 “The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. “Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

Since most here are more familiar with the scriptures, I will make my points based upon scriptural texts.

What can we affirm from scriptures?

God does not change Malachi 3:6

So when we hear terms like foreknowledge or predestination, IF we understand them from a human perspective we are bound to end up with a false theology. God does not change means, for one thing,* God is not subject to time. God doesn’t know something today that he didn’t know yesterday, nor does God set down and formulate a plan of salvation that a moment prior never existed. God exists in Kairos the “eternal” now.* That is why when we read Today is the day of salvation it means today, this very moment, every moment from the time we draw our first breath until we exhale our last. We exist in chronos, that’s why we wear chronographs. This one concept is, in my experience, the most difficult for Western Christians to grasp. They will affirm it but then they stray from it when they talk about getting saved on a certain date. God acts in the now, the eternal now.

God is Love. 1 John 4:8

This is an affirmative, cataphatic statement. I am unaware of any that say God is anger. I would put forward that all anthropomorphisms of the experience of God lead to false theology. God again does not change, it is how we experience Him that changes. When my mother took the belt to me and said she was doing it out of love, I believed her even though my experience of the belt certainly didn’t feel like love. When we disappoint someone who loves us, we feel remorseful, we may even experience being in their presence as painful. We may even avoid the one who loves us to escape this pain. The cheating husband upon discovery of his affair by his wife, the immense shame and sorrow felt when forgiven but knowing how much we have hurt one we love. These are the proper ways to begin to understand God’s wrath. He is not offended by our actions, He is not out punish, it is how we feel in the presence of His perfect love for us that causes us to withdraw and it is possible to make our withdrawal from Him permanent.* But even then He loves us and he is, after all, everywhere present and filling all things. There is no Hell where God is not. It is the experience of God’s love rejected that will define Hell.

The most common question is why did God slaughter all those people in the OT? This is once again a question asked from an anthropomorphic point of view that has a simple answer. Not a single person who died in the OT was, at the time of their physical death, “eternally damned”.* We are told by scripture that Christ preached to the souls in Hades. All of them had a chance to accept Christ.

On top of that, there are many other religions that also claim divinity, and claim access to secret revealed information about God and his desires for humankind. Even if you have had a personal religious experience, why are you*so sure*that the creature you had contact with is the one being described by your religion, and why would you believe that any one of them has insight that the others lack? I mean, looking at the totality of the religious landscape as an "outsider", there is no objective way to choose...everyone says their religion is correct, and a person will receive great punishment for following any other.*So, for the sake of argument, let's assume God exists, and one can have personal contact with Him......that doesn't speak to whether your religion is actually correct or not. Why not be open minded?
Serious question.

This is why I hold out the POSSIBILITY of salvation for all. No one has the right to judge the state of any other soul. No man knows what happens in the mind of a man exhaling his last breath. We answer for what we know of God at the judgment. God is the judge. The quickest way to escape His judgment is to not judge, that’s biblical. So I would strive not to judge anyone in any belief system. In this sense salvation is personal. I have enough sins to keep me busy without worrying about judging others. To me that is being open minded.* If I encountered a creature though, I would know it is not God

 

[T.Lex]

... I am not writing a thesis ...

I beg to differ....

 

[traderdan]

Being Baptist, I have an irrational fear of creeds so I had to go look this up.


Does anyone else think of the instructions for the holy hand grenade when reading it? "Three being the number thine did count to..."


Traderdan, are you confusing "catholic" with "Catholic"? We all are of the catholic faith (so true), but the Roman Catholic Church is Catholic. Big difference just from a big C.


And I really don't see what the problem with this creed is; unless you think Christ was made of two separate parts: one human and one divine.

I am not confused...I do understand the difference between the Big C and the little c...I believe that most protestants are unaware that their doctrine of baptism in the titles...(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) do not fulfill the commandment of Matthew 28:19...The covenant name of eternal God is JESUS! The problem with the creed is that it teaches the eternal equality of the office of the Sonship. Jesus came and provided a place for us..(his Body) We too will be united with God someday that God may be "all in all".

 

[T.Lex]

We must love everyone, even our enemies. The world would make that out to mean something all inclusive; not opposing false beliefs, and even working to blend them into one system. The biblical model never supports that kind of thing. We must not compromise on the truth.

Your truth, as interpreted by you.

Consider this: our friend PaulF listed some things that he perceives to be bible contradictions, which became stumbling blocks to his faith. You can see a practical reason as to why doctrinal errors, even small ones, are dangerous to the church and to souls. Whatever your position, you can see that errors are harmful, right?

Yes. That's also why ignoring parts of scripture, to only emphasize the "easy" divisive parts is also a problem. Your errors are harmful. Yet, there is no accountability for your errors. You are a pope unto your own congregation.

On this issue, the gospel of salvation, I am actually obligated to speak.

Perhaps. I'm sure the Pharisees felt obligated to speak, too.

I might be disobedient to let errant gospels be preached without correction. It is no small matter that we think we are saved by two very different means, going to two very different places, for two very different reasons. I could write up a huge essay on the number of contradictions that Purgatory introduces with the rest of the bible. It is my conviction that it is an errant doctrine, and errors become the pitfalls that keep people from Jesus Christ. I know you disagree with me, but that's what's on my heart.

Which leads to the avoided question: why? Why must your human conviction trump tradition and scriptural teachings? Is it possible that it serves some other purpose? A purpose more of this world than the next?

Jesus said, to a rotten thief who believed at the last minute, "Today you will be with me in Paradise!!!!" Believe in Him and you will be completely forgiven of EVERYTHING. "The blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." No torture required.

Indeed. Three observations:
1) You added words not in scripture.
2) That was (literally) God speaking to a specific individual. Surely, that is an exceptional situation.
3) Jesus wasn't necessarily going into detail on how things work on the other side.

Again, Purgatory basically depends on your understanding of Original Sin. There are only scriptural "contradictions" if your view is more modern and different than the understanding in antiquity. (To the extent I even understand your understanding of Original Sin - which, I admit, could be very different than what you actually believe.)

 

[hoosierdoc]

The Purgatory doctrine insults the complete and perfect work of Jesus: it would have us believe that our forgiveness was not complete and Christ's sacrifice was too weak. I will be happy to prove that out a dozen times over.

i agree with this. When did purgatory enter in catholic teaching? How did it coincide with indulgences?

I would think if there was an additional barrier to heaven it would have been mentioned. At least once.

 

[rambone]

i agree with this. When did purgatory enter in catholic teaching? How did it coincide with indulgences?

I would think if there was an additional barrier to heaven it would have been mentioned. At least once.

Praying for (and communicating with) dead people has roots in ancient paganism. The myth turned into tradition, and the tradition turned into Roman Catholic dogma during the Dark Ages. Below are some early Roman Catholic decrees on "Purgatory"; the term coined in 1254. It was decreed in 1547 that if people didn't accept the Purgatory doctrine they were considered "anathema" to the Roman Catholic Church, and that canon law has never been officially abolished. It is considered quite contemptible to believe that Jesus forgives the Children of God all of their sins without fiery torment.

“Finally, in the Gospel the Truth declares that whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come (see Matt. 12:32). By this it is to be understood that certain faults are pardoned in this life, and certain others in the life to come, and the Apostle says that the fire will assay the quality of everyone’s work, and if his work burns he will lose his regard, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (I Cor. 3:13, 15). And it is said that he Greeks themselves unhesitatingly believe and maintain that the souls of those who do not perform a penance which they have received, or the souls of those who die free from mortal sins but with even the slightest venial sins, are purified after death and can be helped by the prayers of the Church. Since the Greeks say that their Doctors have not given them a definite and proper name for the place of such purification, We, following the tradition and authority of the holy Fathers, call that place purgatory; and it is Our will that the Greeks use that name in the future. For sins are truly purified by that temporal fire not grievous or capital sins which have not first been remitted by penance, but small and slight sins which remain a burden after death, if they have not been pardoned during life.” -- Pope Innocent IV, Letter to the Bishop of Tusculum, March 6, 1254.

“If those who are truly penitent die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments.” – Second Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274

“And if they are truly penitent and die in God's love before having satisfied by worthy fruits of penance for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial penalties. In order that they be relieved from such penalties, the acts of intercession of the living benefit them, namely the sacrifices of the Mass, prayers, alms, and other works of piety which the faithful are wont to do for the other faithful, according to the Church's practice.” – Council of Florence, A.D. 1439

“If any one shall say, that, after the grace of justification received, unto every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted, and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains not any penalty of temporal punishment, to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be laid open; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session the Sixth, Chapter XVI, Canon XXX. A.D. 1547
​

 

[foszoe]

Again, Purgatory basically depends on your understanding of Original Sin. There are only scriptural "contradictions" if your view is more modern and different than the understanding in antiquity. (To the extent I even understand your understanding of Original Sin - which, I admit, could be very different than what you actually believe.)

It takes an Augustinian understanding of the doctrine of salvation to begin forumulating a doctrine of Purgatory. The western view of Original Sin also originates with Augustine. The early fathers did not hold to a doctrine of purgatory. It originates with the Latins. The essay by Cardinal ?? John Henry Newman on the development of doctrine uses purgatoy as an example of how the "development of doctrine" works, as the quote below demonstrates:

"On the subject of Purgatory there were, to speak generally, two schools of opinion; the Greek, which contemplated a trial of fire at the last day through which all were to pass; and the African, resembling more nearly the present doctrine of the Roman Church. And so there were two principal views of Original Sin, the Greek and {22} the African or Latin. Of the Greek, the judgment of Hooker is well known, though it must not be taken in the letter: "The heresy of freewill was a millstone about those Pelagians' neck; shall we therefore give sentence of death inevitable against all those Fathers in the Greek Church which, being mispersuaded, died in the error of freewill?" [Note 17] Bishop Taylor, arguing for an opposite doctrine, bears a like testimony: "Original Sin," he says, "as it is at this day commonly explicated, was not the doctrine of the primitive Church; but when Pelagius had puddled the stream, St. Austin was so angry that he stamped and disturbed it more. And truly … I do not think that the gentlemen that urged against me St. Austin's opinion do well consider that I profess myself to follow those Fathers who were before him; and whom St. Austin did forsake, as I do him, in the question." [Note 18] The same is asserted or allowed by Jansenius, Petavius, and Walch [Note 19], men of such different schools that we may surely take their agreement as a proof of the fact. A late writer, after going through the testimonies of the Fathers one by one, comes to the conclusion, first, that "the Greek Church in no point favoured Augustine, except in teaching that from Adam's sin came death, and, (after the time of Methodius,) an extraordinary and unnatural sensuality also;" next, that "the Latin Church affirmed, in addition, that a corrupt and contaminated soul, and that, by generation, was carried on to his posterity;" [Note 20] and, lastly, that neither {23} Greeks nor Latins held the doctrine of imputation. It may be observed, in addition, that, in spite of the forcible teaching of St. Paul on the subject, the doctrine of Original Sin appears neither in the Apostles' nor the Nicene Creed."


The irony of it is the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and Protestant doctrines of salvation are in reality answers to a dominant soteriorlogy in the west by those in the Augustinian tradition, a satisfaction view of atonement. The Protestants take care of the satisfaction of God's wrath by Christ's death on the Cross and the protestant believer is then freed from any debt owed to God which is later developed by Anselm and then Calvin into the penal substitution where Christ is punished for our Crimes against God. Thus at the moment one becomes "saved', God is satisfied by Christ's sacrifice and Christ's taking upon Himself the punishment due the repentant sinner. This comes from medieval fuedalism. If a peasant stole another peasants chicken, the thief could make restitution for the theft by replacing the chicken, but if a peasant stole the chicken of someone greater in social stature, a king for example, then the punishment must be greater, it could even be death. Now since God is infinitely of a higher social class, the debt owed Him for our sins can never be repaid so Christ has to die to pay the penalty.

Protestants just make it simpler by getting it over with by a genuine conversion experience while Catholics get a "second chance" in case one's soul hasn't paid the temporal penalty. This is why older Catholic bibles will have indulgence lists with actions that will erase some days of purgatory.

 

[foszoe]

Praying for (and communicating with) dead people has roots in ancient paganism. The myth turned into tradition, and the tradition turned into Roman Catholic dogma during the Dark Ages. Below are some early Roman Catholic decrees on "Purgatory"; the term coined in 1254. It was decreed in 1547 that if people didn't accept the Purgatory doctrine they were considered "anathema" to the Roman Catholic Church, and that canon law has never been officially abolished. It is considered quite contemptible to believe that Jesus forgives the Children of God all of their sins without fiery torment.

Praying for the dead is also a biblical practice.

“Finally, in the Gospel the Truth declares that whoever speaks blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come (see Matt. 12:32). By this it is to be understood that certain faults are pardoned in this life, and certain others in the life to come, and the Apostle says that the fire will assay the quality of everyone’s work, and if his work burns he will lose his regard, but himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (I Cor. 3:13, 15). And it is said that he Greeks themselves unhesitatingly believe and maintain that the souls of those who do not perform a penance which they have received, or the souls of those who die free from mortal sins but with even the slightest venial sins, are purified after death and can be helped by the prayers of the Church. Since the Greeks say that their Doctors have not given them a definite and proper name for the place of such purification, We, following the tradition and authority of the holy Fathers, call that place purgatory; and it is Our will that the Greeks use that name in the future. For sins are truly purified by that temporal fire not grievous or capital sins which have not first been remitted by penance, but small and slight sins which remain a burden after death, if they have not been pardoned during life.” -- Pope Innocent IV, Letter to the Bishop of Tusculum, March 6, 1254.

“If those who are truly penitent die in charity before they have done sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments.” – Second Council of Lyons, A.D. 1274

“And if they are truly penitent and die in God's love before having satisfied by worthy fruits of penance for their sins of commission and omission, their souls are cleansed after death by purgatorial penalties. In order that they be relieved from such penalties, the acts of intercession of the living benefit them, namely the sacrifices of the Mass, prayers, alms, and other works of piety which the faithful are wont to do for the other faithful, according to the Church's practice.” – Council of Florence, A.D. 1439

“If any one shall say, that, after the grace of justification received, unto every penitent sinner the guilt is so remitted, and the penalty of eternal punishment so blotted out, that there remains not any penalty of temporal punishment, to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be laid open; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session the Sixth, Chapter XVI, Canon XXX. A.D. 1547

As support for my previous post I offer two observations. The above citations are post East - West Schism.

Also, Bishop Mark of Ephesus, later canonized a saint in the Orthodox Church, was the lone Bishop not to become a signatory to the Council of Florence in 1439. A final attempt at unifying the East and the West. The Eastern bishops were seeking military aid at this point to defend against muslim invaders. When the other Eastern Bishops tried to persuade the Eastern Orthodox to capitulate to the demands of the west the famous expression, "Better the turban of the Turk than the tiara of the pope". They got thier wish. In 1453 Constantinople fell and most of Eastern Christians began life under muslim rule for centuries. This is where the Russians got the idea of being the third Rome.

 

[T.Lex]

It takes an Augustinian understanding of the doctrine of salvation to begin forumulating a doctrine of Purgatory.

Yes, my paradigm for "antiquity" is different than yours. Thanks for rubbing it in.

Protestants just make it simpler by getting it over with by a genuine conversion experience while Catholics get a "second chance" in case one's soul hasn't paid the temporal penalty.

This was going to be one of my points. Protestantism (as I understand it) generally has the same concept. I think Orthodox does too?

I believe the following points are common ground for Christians:
A soul with sin does not enter Heaven.
The sins we commit on earth are stains/impurities on our soul.
After the moment of death, there is judgment.
The result of that judgment becomes the soul's eternal destiny.

Certainly, I am open to correction/clarification of these basic points.

With regard to Purgatory, the question then becomes, for those souls that go to Heaven, how is the sin purged?

 

[historian]

With regard to Purgatory, the question then becomes, for those souls that go to Heaven, how is the sin purged?

Ahhhh...there is the rub. Souls do not need purging. The stain of sin was removed by the blood of Christ. God does not, thankfully, see us as the sinners we are, but rather sees us as covered by the sacrifice of His Son. Our sin is gone, removed, as far as the east is from the west! Christ's work on the cross was payment, in full, for our sin debt. The sin is gone, replaced with the sacrifice. Our souls are scrubbed at salvation and coated with an anti-sin teflon coat. Our sins are no longer imputed to us, but rather Christ's perfection. Which is really amazing every time I think about it.

 

[T.Lex]

Ahhhh...there is the rub. Souls do not need purging. ... Our sins are no longer imputed to us, but rather Christ's perfection. Which is really amazing every time I think about it.

So, right now, your soul is pure? (Nothing personal to you, I hope you understand.)

The stain of sin was removed by the blood of Christ.

I think it is more correct to say that the stain of original sin was removed by Christ.

 

[historian]

So, right now, your soul is pure? (Nothing personal to you, I hope you understand.)

According to God it is. I still sin, but my sin is not counted to my soul. God looks at me and sees Christ's sacrifice. I am covered by the blood of Christ.

I think it is more correct to say that the stain of original sin was removed by Christ.

All sin. The curse of original sin is still around, but once saved, all is removed.

 

[indiucky]

First, thank you for the very kind compliment. I only watched the second video for the first time a moment ago. This may surprise you, but I agree wholeheartedly.

You are welcome and It doesn't surprise me at all.....

I thought about something you had posted one time about your journey and doubts while I was watching David Berlinski give a talk..I am paraphrasing him but he said something along the lines of "I think every honest person at some time doubts the existence of a Deity and every honest person at some times believes in the Deity...We are human...We struggle and we stare at the sky in wonder and with wonder.....And after thousands of years of debating the question we are pretty much where we were at the beginning: On one hand maybe but then again maybe not...."


I look forward to meeting you in person.....I enjoy your posts and use of dead language..."SEMPER VIGILIUS BRACCAE LIBITUM".....

 

[foszoe]

According to God it is. I still sin, but my sin is not counted to my soul. God looks at me and sees Christ's sacrifice. I am covered by the blood of Christ.

Why doesn't God the Father see you? Why wouldn't God the Father want to see you? What does Christ see when He looks at you? What does the Holy Spirit see?

 

[historian]

Why doesn't God the Father see you? Why wouldn't God the Father want to see you? What does Christ see when He looks at you? What does the Holy Spirit see?

I was referring specifically to how God looks at my sin. When he looks at me, he sees me as his Son, but only because of His Son.

 

[foszoe]

This is where i have to be careful for you are asking me to use cataphatic Theology. Then someone will read what I said later and be able to pin me down. I say that half in jest and half seriously. At first glance, while drinking coffee and getting my Bible, Patristic Commentary, and Lives of the Saints books out for morning devotions, I was going to just agree with you. When I re read them, I was going to agree with you. When I read them again, I was like well 3/4 ain't bad. Then by the time I had asked a few questions of Historian, I was down to hmm, is it really 2/4? Then when I pushed the reply with quote I was down to am I really going to disagree with 3/4?

So quiz time. If you have read all of my "War and Peace" quotes, rank them in the order you think I will answer, which one do you think I will agree with? Of the three remaining, rank them in order of difficulty for me, least to most!

See how clear I have been in earlier posts

Now to work on answering you.

Yes, my paradigm for "antiquity" is different than yours. Thanks for rubbing it in.


This was going to be one of my points. Protestantism (as I understand it) generally has the same concept. I think Orthodox does too?

I believe the following points are common ground for Christians:
A soul with sin does not enter Heaven.
The sins we commit on earth are stains/impurities on our soul.
After the moment of death, there is judgment.
The result of that judgment becomes the soul's eternal destiny.

Certainly, I am open to correction/clarification of these basic points.

With regard to Purgatory, the question then becomes, for those souls that go to Heaven, how is the sin purged?

 

[T.Lex]

According to God it is. I still sin, but my sin is not counted to my soul. God looks at me and sees Christ's sacrifice. I am covered by the blood of Christ.

All sin. The curse of original sin is still around, but once saved, all is removed.

I think this discussion is a reflection of 1 John 1:6-10:

If we say that we have fellowship with him while we are walking in darkness, we lie and do not do what is true; but if we walk in the light as he himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he who is faithful and just will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This talks about "walking with Him" and having fellowship with one another, and the blood of Christ cleansing us from all sin. To me, that is prospective - in the future. As we go through life - in fellowship with Him and each other - and live Christ-like lives, our sin will be cleansed.

Part of this is confessing our sins - our current, living sins. Doing so will cleanse them from us. Christ's death completed his end of the bargain, but it is still up to us to do our part.

I truly apologize if I'm misunderstanding your position. Is it your belief that there is no consequence to our earthly sins?

 

[T.Lex]

So quiz time. If you have read all of my "War and Peace" quotes, rank them in the order you think I will answer, which one do you think I will agree with? Of the three remaining, rank them in order of difficulty for me, least to most!

See how clear I have been in earlier posts

I read War and Peace in high school. I read Crime and Punishment in Russian in college.

I skim your long posts.