Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Catholic belief
This might have been mentioned before but i want an answer to a specific question. Does the Catholic relegion believe that because they are confirmed or baptised in the relgion mean they can not go to hell?
Comments
This might have been mentioned before but i want an answer to a specific question. Does the Catholic relegion believe that because they are confirmed or baptised in the relgion mean they can not go to hell?
No it doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
nope .. was iut the catholics that believe in punishemnt in hell and then they go heaven after suffered(cant memba the name) was that the catholics or protestant?????
Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory I think [Forgive me if I'm wrong].
It is Purgatory, yet Purgatory is not hell (according to their doctrine). Rather, like WMA stated, it is a place of torture where all Christians go after death because of the sins they commit.
Praying for those in Purgatory speeds up the process.
And (in the old days, not any more) it was held that if a person paid money to the Church, the Church would give them the excess "points" earned by the Saints, which would pass through purgatory quicker.
no, the catholis get baptized when they are 7 years old. They believe {from long ago} that the more they gave to the church then the more likely they would go to heaven.
Catholics tend to get baptised as infants, not at the age of 7. You're probably thinking of First Communion which happens around that age.
i thikn its wrong that they dont have communion till then
Section 1244 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "The Latin Church....reserves admission to Holy Communion to those who have attained the age of reason" and not to infants.
You're right, its not a good practice since it denies children Communion with Christ.
To be fair, the same section of the Catechism does commend our practice, stating that The Eastern Churches maintain a lively awareness of the unity of Christian initiation by giving Holy Communion to all the newly baptized and confirmed, even little children, recalling the Lord's words: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them. And so even though they don't follow this practice themselves (except for the Uniates that is), they do recognise it as valid atleast.
As a Catholic, I think I should write here a few words... this is my point of view, but I hope it's still catholic. ;)
1. We all are saved by the grace of our Lord. Sacraments and faith (good works are natural for those, who really believe) are the ways, that we participate in Lord's grace. For salvations there must be faith, that expresses in good works and in recieving sacraments.
2. Purgatory. Like it was said, it's a state of soul (rather than place, because soul after death is not limited by space) - God's Love cleans it from all non-mortal sins and all imperfections.
3. Indulgences. Hm... It's still for me quite... unclear... I'll read more about it and I will write here later. ;)
4. We are baptized as infants, we recieve first Communion in age of 7-9 and chrismation usually in age of 15-17. And we don't believe that if we give more to the Church then the more likely we would go to heaven, christiangirlforevr. ;) (And this is a practice in latin rite - in other rites baptism, chrismation and Communion recieve infants.)
I can't begin to describe how horrible that practice is... However the Catholic Reformation later stopped the practice of all the above.
The theory of purgatory undermines Christ's blood. If we need to be tortured in purgatory in order to be cleansed, then what purpose does the blood on the cross serve? It may also lead people to think that they may do as they wish during their lives on earth in turn for some torture in purgatory - they're still getting to heaven right?
A Catholic point of view:
Purgatory:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
Indulgences:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp
Wish I could help. ;)
"while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven." This does not seem to make sense, as when God forgives, he forgets. There can be no "temporal" punishment for sins (except those which the government implies, i.e. jail for a theft, etc.) for the wages of sin is death. No matter how small the sin may be, its wage is still death, and the only way to atone for it is through Christ's blood - no substitutes or additions.
"I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59)" Let us not take this verse out of context, but rather look at the surrounding verses. At this time Christ was condemning the Isrealites for being ignorant. For him to say you will not get out till you have paid the very last copper means that everyone will recieve according to his deeds.
"But that hardly accounts for the request of Monica, mother of Augustine, who asked her son, in the fourth century, to remember her soul in his Masses. This would make no sense if she thought her soul would not benefit from prayers, as would be the case if she were in hell or in the full glory of heaven. "
We still mention the dead in our masses because we believe that prayers can help all people, and that the dead are only dead in body and not spirit, for our God is a God of the living and not the dead. But lets say for example, there was a criminal in prison, and every morning his wife went to plead with the judge. For the sake of his wife, the judge might have mercy on the prisoner and bring him out of jail.
Once man has repented of his sins through the grace of God and has confessed and received the absolution from a priest, his sin is taken away from him and placed on the sacrifice offered on the altar, which is Christ our God.
I am sorry that I am not able to explain other points in the article and have not explained these fully, for I am still growing in knowledge. These points I will leave for someone else more qualified than me to provide a rebuttal.
As for indulgences, I have to sign off now... :)
1. Which is why we take communion. For the purification of our souls, our bodies, and our spirits.
And what happens with people, who died before Sacrament of Reconcillation and Holy Communion? God's love purifies them, if they haven't commited a mortal sin - and this purification is what we call purgatory.
2. There can be no "temporal" punishment for sins (and later about punishment)
From the second link to the article about indulgences: When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:
"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)
Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.
Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).
3. Luke 12:59 - see also Matth. 5:21-26
I'm sorry I can't explain it better - I don't speek english very good, so it's hard for me to write here... but I'll try. ;)
"All", indicating everybody or anybody outside the orthodox faith, is called the heresy of Universalism, in a form or another. Like any heresy, it keeps on taking various forms. This evolution of the heresy of Purgatory exposes its very nature, which is heresy, as this is not how the Purgatory started and why it was introduced to the list of heresies the latins, worshippers of Rome, believe in. It used to be a physical place in which people are tormented until they pay off their dues.. Now, it has been transformed to a state of mind, we do not know what will it be in a few years.
In any case, the nature of Purgatory is not the question nor should it be the focus of the discussion, the real question is:
+ How can a doctrine be introduced to the faith so many centuries after the Apsotles, and who gave the bishops of Rome this authority ?
+ The core of the purgatory is the denial of the sacrifice on the Cross. If sins can be forgiven through torment, cruelity or just passing some time in an unpleasant state ( our dear fellow catholics have to make up their mind regarding this one), why is the Cross necessary ?
+ God's love cannot contradict his justice. His justice is manifested in the forgiveness through the blood that is offered in the Eucharist, and this is how it is reconciled with his love. God's love does not act alone in contradiction to his justice, forgiving people after their death when they rtefused to repent themselves and refused God's forgiveness.
It simply comes down to that. The big words about God's grace and God's love and all the big talk that is intened to deceive the simple minded does not stand the simple test of logic.
When John Paul, bishop of Rome, denied the power of the Cross and the christian belief and allowed muslims, hindus and all kind of unbelievers to partake in the sacraments, he was taking this heresy to another level and only God knows when the catholic church will reverse its heretical way.
1. By 'all' I mean here Catholics. You don't have to believe in our salvation - but I do, and I have reasons to do so. And you, of course, propose the vision of salvation contained in 'Orthodoxia e Thanatos'?
2. Purgatory a heresy? It's just a Western 'version' of the 'tollgates' theologumenon. And this you rather wouldn't call a heresy, am I right?
3. How can a doctrine be introduced to the faith so many centuries after the Apsotles, and who gave the bishops of Rome this authority ?
Bishops of Rome have the authority to guide the Church form Lord, like Fathers said:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
There are no new doctrines in Roman Catholicism - they is only better recognition and deeper knowledge of the Holy Tradition.
4. The core of the purgatory is the denial of the sacrifice on the Cross. If sins can be forgiven through torment, cruelity or just passing some time in an unpleasant state ( our dear fellow catholics have to make up their mind regarding this one), why is the Cross necessary ?
Just go to the websites I have wrote here. I don't like to write something that can be easily read elsewhere.
5. When John Paul, bishop of Rome, denied the power of the Cross and the christian belief and allowed muslims, hindus and all kind of unbelievers to partake in the sacraments, he was taking this heresy to another level and only God knows when the catholic church will reverse its heretical way.
Proove, that:
1) JP(II, right?) denied the power of the Cross
2) he allowed pagans to partake in the sacraments
3) you know something about catholic theology.
There still may be an animosity between the schism, and confusion of both churches. We did not believe the Romans and some of their practices and we had every right to split. As Orthodox we don't believe in the Catholic pope and some teachings nor should we. At the same time we must respect them, no matter how much contrast.
Love thy neighbor as thyself. :)
M Webster dictionary:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Purgatory
purgatory
One entry found for purgatory.
Main Entry: pur·ga·to·ry
Pronunciation: 'p&r-g&-"tor-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French or Medieval Latin; Anglo-French purgatorie, from Medieval Latin purgatorium, from Late Latin, neuter of purgatorius purging, from Latin purgare
1 : an intermediate state after death for expiatory purification; specifically : a place or state of punishment wherein according to Roman Catholic doctrine the souls of those who die in God's grace may make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven
2 : a place or state of temporary suffering or misery
two very obvious opposites: "God's grace" versus "make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven" - no comment for now
two very obvious opposites: "God's grace" versus "make satisfaction for past sins and so become fit for heaven" - no comment for now
Maybe just a small comment - two very obvious opposites: 'God's grace' vs. 'Repentance: change your mind and your life, confess after a sin, try to fix, what you have done (e.g. give back stolen things) etc.'?
God's Grace saves us - but we have to decide, whether we accept this gift or not. And if we accept, we have to act according to some rules. We always have to be Lord's synergoi, we have to cooperate with His grace according to rules, that Universe is based on - and I think that this is what happens in the Purgatory.
lol
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.
So who is without sin? God knows we are weak, and no one can pay for the smallest sin more or better than what Our Lord Jesus Christ has done for us. I suggest you seriously think about that.
Besides, why would the Lord accept to suffer and to be crucified, or give us the Sacraments of Repentance and of the Eucharist... if every sinner can just "repay the debts for his own sins towards God" in the purgatory, someway somewhere sooner or later in time. I am afraid that RC could well end up to be the only candidates for such purgatory.
It is clear from the above verses that the rules are:
1 God does not lie when He says His Blood purifies us (in the Sacrament of Eucharist: Jesus truely gives us both, first His Body then His Blood)
2 God does not lie when He says the Sacrament of Repentance (the Confession) purifies us.
Can the purgatory suffering yield a better purification than the above two Sacraments?
3 God is Love. He wisely and honestly decided that one will die for all (instead of) the others. His death for us is by far the most preciously effective way than all humans suffering in the purgatory. He died so that we can live.
PS: If someone commits a physical sin, why would the soul suffer alone while the body escapes (or is it denied the purification treatment)?
This topic has been dormant for a while, but may be worth reviving because there are a few things that can be added.
On the Cross Our Lord tells the thief that he will be with Him in 'paradise' 'today' - so no purgatory there then. St. John tells us that "I will come again, and receive you to Myself,: that where I am, there you may be also. " (John 14:3).
But one of the previous posts raises the subject of 'Toll houses', which is a fair point. This is a hottish issue in Eastern Orthodoxy, but I have yet to come across anything from our Church on the topic - which probably shows how little I know!
I could not see how we would be happy with the concept of the toll houses, and yet have been told that St. Cyril accepted the idea; but it just seems so close to the idea of Purgatory, which we do not accept.
Does anyone have any information or views on this topic?
In Christ,
Anglian
But one of the previous posts raises the subject of 'Toll houses', which is a fair point. This is a hottish issue in Eastern Orthodoxy, but I have yet to come across anything from our Church on the topic - which probably shows how little I know!
I could not see how we would be happy with the concept of the toll houses, and yet have been told that St. Cyril accepted the idea; but it just seems so close to the idea of Purgatory, which we do not accept.
I think the biggest opposition to the concept of toll-houses comes from the name itself. People too often get led astray by this term, taking literally the notion of a demonic debt-collecting, rather than understanding it as a symbolic representation of the tempting of the departed soul by demons.
Personally I cannot see the comparison between the notion of demons tempting the recently departed soul (as they did throughout its confinement to the body), to that of a place of purging for the souls of the saved, wherein they work off their 'debt' before attaining paradise. So if you could elaborate further on this issue, it would be very helpful.
Well, as I am far from conversant with most of the literature on this, it might be difficult. But my limited understanding was that there were a number of these toll houses in which demons confronted us with our sins and tried to lure us to damnation, but in which, presumably, some form of judging went on; the only real comparison with purgatory is that both ways of thinking seem not wholly compatible with the idea that He is the propitiation for our sins, and that in Him we are redeemed. I suspect I am also uncomfortable with an idea that seems to lack either scriptural or early patristic warrant. In that sense, both toll houses and purgatory seem 'add ons' - but, as I say, I have not followed this very closely, and wondered if there was any Coptic teaching on the matter.
Some EO call it a theological opinion, others get very hot about it; the Copts, as so often, seem to have let this stream of EO complexity pass them by; if so, given the fuss it has cause in the EO, that may be the wisest course.
But, again, I am far from having an informed opinion on this one!
In Christ,
Anglian
Well, as I am far from conversant with most of the literature on this, it might be difficult. But my limited understanding was that there were a number of these toll houses in which demons confronted us with our sins and tried to lure us to damnation, but in which, presumably, some form of judging went on; the only real comparison with purgatory is that both ways of thinking seem not wholly compatible with the idea that He is the propitiation for our sins, and that in Him we are redeemed.
I can understand why you see Purgatory - where man has to work off the debt of sin - as incompatible with the idea of Christ as the propitiatiton for our sins. However, I don't see how the same thing can be applied to the "toll-houses", which do not involve any such thing.
That there is a "particular judgment" prior to the Last Judgment (however one interprets the nature of such a judgment) is indisputable, since we aknowledge that the righteous already enjoy a foretaste of bliss in paradise, and the unrighteous a foretaste of torment in hades, while we simultaneously affirming that the Final Judgment has yet to occur.
The way I am inclined to see things (I might be totally wrong) is that our relationship with God in the next life is determined by our relationship with Him in this life. Those who reject Him and flee from Him in this life will likewise be separated from Him in the next life.
When the angels carry the souls of the departed from this life to the next (as they did to Lazarus according to Luke 16:22), they encounter the "powers of the air" who tempt them. Those souls who accepted the demonic temptations in this life will likewise accept them here.
I don't see this as detracting in any way from Christ's role as our redeemer, and the atonement of our sins, nor do I see any similarity with the RC notion of Purgatory.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=3760.msg73626#msg73626 date=1183236861]
I suspect I am also uncomfortable with an idea that seems to lack either scriptural or early patristic warrant. In that sense, both toll houses and purgatory seem 'add ons' - but, as I say, I have not followed this very closely, and wondered if there was any Coptic teaching on the matter.
The idea of the souls being carried away by the angels, and in the process being subjected to demonic temptations seems to be found in many fathers, both ancient and modern.
Fr M. Pomazansky, in his Dogmatic Theology, notes the following: [quote author=Anglian link=topic=3760.msg73626#msg73626 date=1183236861]
Some EO call it a theological opinion, others get very hot about it; the Copts, as so often, seem to have let this stream of EO complexity pass them by; if so, given the fuss it has cause in the EO, that may be the wisest course.
I think this is essentially a matter of interpretation. I think even the strongest proponents of this idea (including controversial figures like Fr. Seraphim Rose) would join with St. Macarius of Alexandria in saying that we should "accept earthly things here as the weakest kind of depiction of heavenly things."
The idea of toll-houses is certainly not an EO dogma. However, the underlying idea of demonic temptation following death is one found in Fathers throughout the centuries. Any controversy stems mainly from how literally one is to interpret these things, and their universality (i.e. do they happen to all of us, or are they particular cases).
I am most grateful to you, not least for bearing with my own lack of information!
I suspect the comparison with Purgatory came from a source I was reading (critical of the idea, but EO) which said One EO priest has written: But the way you explain it seems more in line with what the Church has always taught. It is the almost legalistic reading in Rose which disturbs; that, and the almost 'proof-text' way he proceeds. Reading the 'scopos' of St. Cyril, for example, I fear that Rose is 'doing a Protestant' job on him by quoting some examples well out of context.
It seems to me that we are best off accepting what the Risen Lord has told us - after all, He is the only one to rise from the grave - and He said nothing about being tempted by demons after His death on the Cross. There is something about this tollhouse business which strikes me as, at least in the form Rose has it, an addition to the Fathers; as far as I can see, the Coptic Church, widely, seems to have avoided getting enmeshed in it all.
But I am immensely grateful for your help - and in the form you present it, it does seem less pernicious - many thanks.
In Christ,
John
But the way you explain it seems more in line with what the Church has always taught. It is the almost legalistic reading in Rose which disturbs; that, and the almost 'proof-text' way he proceeds. Reading the 'scopos' of St. Cyril, for example, I fear that Rose is 'doing a Protestant' job on him by quoting some examples well out of context.
Fr. Seraphim's style of writing was a lot like that of the Russian writers he so admired (although his thoroughly western upbringing obviously gave it a slightly different flavour). What one will quickly notice about Russian theological books is that they are very blunt and to the point (as is very true of the Russian people and language in general). Even when very esoteric and mystical things are being spoken of, the way in which they are described can often seem overly literal or legalistic.
However, this does not mean the authors themselves were prone to literalism or legalism as such. Rather it is simply a reflection of the language and literary style of their culture. And so, as someone who has read quite a few of Fr. Seraphim's books, I feel many of the accusations of legalism or fanaticism are unwarranted, and that many of those who make them have simply missed the point.
I do, however, agree that he has a tendency (particularly in the Soul After Death) to take both Scriptural and patristic quotations out of context.
Renewed thanks for bearing with me.
It seems not to be much of an issue for the Coptic Church - which does not altogether surprise me. It may, as you say, be partly a cultural thing in so far as the speculations he makes are those of other Russian mystics. Interesting.
In Christ,
Anglian