Discussion with regards to Church history

. . . and he will continue to ignore it. He doesn't want to hear what he doesn't want to hear.

 

In response to DHK assertion that he doubted that the ECF's held any notion of a state of purgation:

From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages [ e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16]

Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin)....

For Clement of Alexandria, the 'intelligent' fire that enters into the sinner's soul was not a material thing...but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a 'spiritual' fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)....what is involved [in Origen's view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle....Origen's eschatological notions were highly personal...He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day.

Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the 'fire of combustion' is brief; and 'mortal sinners,' who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian's idea of refrigerium and Origen's concept of a purifying fire....Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]...Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen.

[Ambrose] also clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world...[cites Ambrose on the Emperor Theodosius].... (page 60)

Ambrosiaster, if he adds little to what Ambrose has already said, is important because he is the author of the first real exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. As such he had considerable influence on the medieval commentators on this passage, which played a key role in the inception of Purgatory, and in particular on the early scholastics of the twelfth century. Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith...[then quotes Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 3:15].

It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian 'authorities,' to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory....Augustine's importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. 'Purgatorius' figured in the phrase 'poenae purgatoriae': I prefer to translate this as 'purgatorial punishments' rather than 'purificatory punishments,' the latter being too precise for Augustine's way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus's edition of the City of God (21:26).

Now for the Church Fathers on prayers for the dead, purgatory, and the development of the doctrine.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'." (Acts of Paul and Thecla [c. AD 160] or ANF VIII:490)

 

You know, Lori, you're absolutely right. I do ignore you when you try to tell me what Catholicism teaches because what you say Catholicism teaches contradicts what Catholicism says Catholicism teaches.

I quoted five different Catholic sources that stated that Purgatory is for sinners to expiate their sin and you still insist that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sins.

Why do you and thinkingstuff believe that your opinions on what Catholicism teaches are more authoritative than the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches?

OK. What makes her "better qualified to make assertions about what Catholicism teaches" than the five Catholic sources I cited?

Yes, actually, each of the five sources I quoted are Catholic sources and so do represent Catholic beliefs.

But again, I didn't write those things. All five of the sources I quoted are Catholic sources. What makes thinkinstuff and Lori more authoritative than them?

For that matter, what makes them authoritative at all?

First of all, how is it that all of the years I spent in the Catholic Church don't count?

Second, do you understand the difference between being exposed to such materials and actually seeing first hand statements from the authorities behind those statements, themselves?

Sorry, but I trust the CCC, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Karl Keating, and the Catholic priest I cited more than I trust Lori and Thinkingstuff.

Tell me, when you were a child, did you ever play the game "telephone"?

 

[Deleted by me. See next post.]

 

Even though she clearly is better qualified than you to make assertions about what Catholicism teaches.

The Catholic church is not posting, so we are not getting "the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches." That being the case, both both Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs are more authoritative than you to tell us Catholicism teaches.

Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs, even if they are not Catholic, have clearly
a) been heavily exposed to Catholic materials, written by Catholics for Catholics, and
b) have first-hand knowledge of what happens in Catholic circles.
You show no sign of either, but they show it clearly and unmistakably.

 

No one needs TS or Lori to tell them what the Catholic church teaches. That information is out for anyone to see. And Lori is less credible because she had the truth at one time and turned to a lie.

 

So far, there is very little about church history on this thread that I can see.

It became an attack on the rapture and then some fighting over purgatory.

It's a good thing that as someone who does believe in the rapture, I am not turning every thread into an attack on some belief like the amil view, the preterist view, Calvinism, etc. I wonder if it's possible for the group here to discuss the topic rationally.

 

You know, if you're going to copy and paste somebody else's work, you really should give them credit for it.

 

You are absolutely right. The source is Phil Porvaznik. He is a Catholic apologist.

 

Bill -- my guess is that our denoms are fairly similar. Apostle's Creed & Nicene Creed, and then Westminster Confession. I agree with your comment about local churches.

 

OK. Tell me how the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited are not accurate.

Fine. Then go to the sources I cited and you post them in their entirety and explain how I allegedly took them out of context and explain what the correct context is.

I don't care.

I'm sorry, but neither one of you have any more authority to speak on what Catholicism teaches than the CCC.

Then why are you defending it?

Right. So when you declare what Catholicism teaches, it's "knowledge". But when the Catholic Church declares what Catholicism teaches, it's just their "opinion".

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

JDF: This is from a person who DISAGREES with the teaching of Purgatory but understands what the Catholic Church actually believes about it.

 

Actually, he's defending the heresy of Purgatory precisely because he does not understand it. The fact that keeps contradicting the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that he neither knows nor cares what Catholicism teaches.

 

Yes, you have consistently defended the heresy of Purgatory.

No, that doesn't show that I took it out of context. You're citing a second, unrelated source.

Again, you're citing a second, unrelated source. That's mighty dishonest of you.

Why do I say that? Well in the CCC it states that [/quote]

So, basically, you're citing the CCC stating that Purgatory is for the expiation of sin, in order to make the case that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sin?

I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time you tell me how stupid I am.

Irrelevant. Doesn't contradict the passage I cited from Trent at all.

I'm sorry, but that's just not what the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited for you say.

The FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited each say that the purpose of Purgatory is for the sinner to expiate his sins.

 

JDF: Cover ears with hands . . . . go la, la, la, la, la!

 

But not one of them contradict what the sources I provided say.

Actually, I quoted directly from Catholic sources.

You're right. I did choose to quote only the salient parts of those sources. However, each time you've accused me of taking them out of context, I've invited you to reproduce them in their entirity and explain how I took them out of context and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

I did not "ignore" them. I chose not to address them because none of the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I quoted made any such disctinction.

Gee, another personal attack. Why does that not surprise me?

Then he would have the responsibility of explaining where these FIVE CATHOLIC sources got it wrong.

Actually, I did not write the CCC, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor is Karl Keating my psuedonym.

And, with this post, I will follow the Bible's admonition to not argue with a fool.