In this section Prasch challenges the
concept of Purgatory and erroneously attributes the Deuterocanonicals (which
he, like many other non-Catholics, calls "Apocrypha") to the
"Middle Ages," but we'll get to that in a moment. Let us begin
this response where he begins:
Let us begin, please, with my first question. In the first
epistle of St. John 1 :7 we read that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. The
blood of Christ “cleanses” – Greek “katharizo” – takes away all our sins. All
sin. We are told in the New Testament we are saved by grace through faith. (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:8)The Greek word for “repentance” is “metanoeo” which came in the
Middle Ages to be understood as “to do penance”, but the Greek word means “to
repent”. The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin when we repent and accept
Him. That is what the New Testament teaches. My first question to my Catholic
friends is this: If the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, can you explain
why the Roman Catholic catechism imparted by the Roman Church – nihilo obstat
from the Vatican – why it says you can atonement in purgatory for you own?
Indeed, you must. And why the temporal consequence of sin can in part be
negated by indulgences?
First off, we're in "Part
Three" now and have already answered several questions, yet Prasch is
stating this is his first question? He sure has an interesting way of
counting! Triviality aside, the Greek word for "repentance"
(metanoeo) he has correct, but repentance is not merely lip-service. To
"do penance" is to demonstrate you are/were sincere in your
confession. From the earliest days of the Church we have examples of even
public penance for certain sins. Pope St. Clement wrote to the
Corinthians during the First Century:
"...to a system of penance that was already in
operation and needed only to be applied to particular cases, like that of the
Corinthians to whom Clement of Rome wrote his First Epistle about A. D. 96,
exhorting them: “Be subject in obedience to the priests (presbyteris) and
receive discipline [correctionem) unto penance, bending the knees of your
hearts” (Ep. I “Ad Cor.”, lvii). [qtd. here].
So we see that the practice was
already in place of receiving discipline from the priests, which is what we
call "penance."
With that said, let us answer
Prasch's "first question:" "If the blood of Christ
cleanses from all sin, can you explain why the Roman Catholic catechism
imparted by the Roman Church - nihilo obstat from the Vatican - why it says you
can atonement (sic) in purgatory for your own?" My first
objection to this question is that while Prasch cites a source, it is only a
vague reference. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is broken into
paragraphs which are numbered. If you're going to say the CCC says
something, please cite the actual paragraph, not the whole volume.
Second, the nihil obstat is not a statement of infallibility, it simply
states that the reviewer (which is not "the Vatican" in any case, but
might be someone AT the Vatican). Finally, to the meat of the question, I
submit the CCC nowhere says we can atone for our own sins. Prasch
exhibits an ignorance of Catholic teaching on this matter. Purgatory
is not a place of atonement - for every single soul in Purgatory has
already had each and every sin atoned for through the blood of Christ. Purgatory
is a place of final purification before entering Heaven, for nothing impure can
enter into Heaven (Rev. 21:27). For example, Johnny broke Mr. Jones' window; Johnny
asked for Mr. Jones to forgive him for the offense - which Mr. Jones did, but
Mr. Jones still expects Johnny to do whatever is necessary to replace that
broken window. While Johnny is forgiven, all is not good until that
window is replaced. Likewise, if we commit a mortal sin which is a
"sin unto death" (1 John 5:17) and confess that sin, the priest may give a discipline, a
penance (like we saw earlier reference to in the First Century) and while God
may forgive that sin - the stain of that sin is not remitted until the penance
is done.
Then his "second question:"
And why the temporal consequence of sin can in part be negated by
indulgences? Well, at least Prasch is seeing the difference between the
sin itself and the temporal consequence of the sin (in our previous example,
Johnny breaking the window was the sin, replacing the window is the temporal
consequence). Why can or does this happen? Because the Church has
so decreed! Keep in mind, Matthew 18:18, the subject matter of the discussion is (but not limited to)
the forgiveness of sins - and Jesus Christ empowered our first bishops, the
Apostles, with the authority to forgive OR retain sins. Sins they forgive
are forgiven, sins they do not forgive are not forgiven.
That, we all know – the indulgences– were the way the
construction of St. Peter’s, the Vatican, was financed. The Dominicans said when
a coin into the box rings, a soul in purgatory springs. You can have sex with
Mary, the mother of Christ and be forgiven if you have the right price. That's
what they said. Catholic scholars have admitted this. (The Dominicans, of
course, the perpetrators of the Inquisition.) Again, I’m not attacking, I’m
only stating facts that Catholic historians admit.
On to another question:
If the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, why is it
that you have to atonement in purgatory for your own?
Now, I wasn't going to say anything
the first time, but he's done it again. "Atonement" is not a
verb, it is a noun but twice now Prasch has used it as a verb. I believe
he means to use the word "atone" and perhaps English is not Prasch's first
language. We can get what he means, but it makes for an awkward sentence.
To answer Prasch's question directly - we don't atone for our sins - Jesus did that. Purgatory is a place for saved people (each and every soul in Purgatory is already saved) to be purified from any stain of sin before entering Heaven.
To answer Prasch's question directly - we don't atone for our sins - Jesus did that. Purgatory is a place for saved people (each and every soul in Purgatory is already saved) to be purified from any stain of sin before entering Heaven.
The New Testament says perfect love casts out all fear. (1 Jn. 4:18) All fear. Why should someone die in fear of going to
purgatory? In fact the Roman Catholic Church says in the catechism that if you
say you're going to heaven and you know you're going you’ve committed the sin
of presumption.
Well again, this is not completely a
true statement. In fact, if you find yourself in Purgatory, REJOICE!
You have been judged to be SAVED ALREADY! There should be no
"fear" of Purgatory, at least not fear as in being afraid - but a
healthy fear of respect is a good thing to have and can motivate one to lead a
life which may avoid Purgatory altogether - for those, their purgation time has
been here on Earth.
Now the New Testament says we can have a confidence we’re
going to heaven (1 Jn. 4:17) if His blood has cleansed you from all sin, if you’ve truly
repented and accepted Him. Please tell me, my dear friend, and again I'm only
asking the question of you I once asked of myself, if His blood cleanses from
all sin, why do you have to atone for your own in purgatory?
And again, there is no
"atoning" in Purgatory (and this time you used the verb properly, as
opposed to the noun earlier). Every single sin of those in Purgatory has
been atoned for. Any "sins which are unto death" (mortal sins)
have been forgiven. Any unconfessed "sins which are not unto
death" (venial sins) are cleansed away in Purgatory along with any stain
of any sin. The point is, every single soul in Purgatory is already
saved! They are on their way to Heaven with no chance of going to Hell at
that point.
And why can you go out and do something or buy something
or get something that will give you an indulgence to reduce your sentence?
Where is any such thing found or taught in the New Testament? Where did Jesus
or the apostles teach it?
In the Middle Ages the Roman Catholic Church added the
Apocrypha, the intratestamental literature to the canon of Scripture because
there is one verse in the book of Macabees that says it's good to pray for the
dead, which they took to mean getting people out of purgatory. However, the
Early Church never held the Apocrypha to be part of the canon of Scripture –
even the Roman Church didn't.
This statement is not true. Mr.
Prasch needs to study the foundations of Scripture more. The FACT is the
Deuterocanonicals (Second Canon) were ALWAYS part of the Septuagint.
There are very good arguments that it was actually a Septuagint copy that
Jesus and the Apostles quoted from. For the first 400 years the Canon of
Sacred Scripture was not as solidified as we have it now - in fact that
solidification came at the end of the 4th century. Prior to that there
were several books of the New Testament which were not considered canonical -
so by Prasch's standard should we reject those too? And several other
books were in earlier canons which were not included in the final canon, should
we add those back in? (Clement's Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermes, the
Didache, etc.)
Secondly, it was a Jewish book written in the Greek
language to Jewish people.
Not quite true in that statement
either. The Septuagint was written BY Jewish people FOR Greek speaking
Jewish people - keeping in mind that Greek was the lingua franca of the time
right up until the time of Christ when Latin began supplanting it.
We’re told the Old Testament saints were in the bosom of
Abraham waiting for the Messiah to come. In the context in which it was written
that plainly meant praying that the Messiah would come so the Old Testament
saints could go to heaven. It doesn’t mention purgatory.
Agreed! The Bosom of Abraham is
NOT the same as Purgatory.
The term “purgatory” is found no place, even in the
Apocrypha or in the church fathers as such. Not the Early Church fathers and
not in the New Testament at all.
Agreed! The English word
"purgatory" would come about the 12th Century, the concept, however,
predates the Incarnation.
His blood cleanses from all sin. Boldly we can approach
the eternal throne the Scripture says. (Heb. 4:16) If we can boldly come before the throne of grace, how is that
the sin of presumption? Is the New Testament wrong?
Yes! Boldly approach, be
confident in your faith! There's nothing wrong with such!
Proclaiming "I AM saved" before you have been judged is the sin
of presumption. Do not presume that you will not fall from grace and/or
exactly how you will be judged.
If His blood cleanses from all sin, why should I believe
in a religion, as I once did, that says I have to atone for my own?
Again, you cannot atone for your sins
and the Catholic Church does not teach that you can.
St. Paul points out in his epistle to the Galatians if an
angel of God comes with another gospel, don't believe it. (Gal. 1:8) If even an angel like Gabriel or Michael, an archangel, came
and appeared to you and told you there was another gospel, another way of
salvation, another good news of salvation by some other means other than Jesus
paying the price for your sin on the cross, don't believe it. His blood
cleanses from all sin. But I'm expected to believe it if I were Roman Catholic.
As a Catholic we believe and profess
that Faith which was given to the Apostles, our first bishops, and passed down
through the bishops in valid apostolic succession. Catholics do not
believe in the innovations of the 16th Century, ala Luther, Calvin and Henry
VIII (among others), as I once did.
That is my question. If His blood cleanses from all sin,
why should I be part of a religion that says I have to atone for my own in
purgatory, when according to the New Testament there’s no such place. It’s
never mentioned or named.
And
again, it is NOT Catholic teaching that you can atone for your sins - Jesus
Christ did that! Purgatory is NOT a place of atonement!As for Purgatory not being mentioned by name in Scripture - neither is the word "Trinity" mentioned, but the concept is there and defined later, by the Catholic Church.
Adapted from:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2015/09/questions-for-catholics-part-3-purgatory.html
God Bless
Nathan
No comments:
Post a Comment