Re: He also told us to avoid Purgatory at all costs.
I'll ask the Catholics here this: Is it possible to avoid Purgatory? Wouldn't you have to be utterly sinless like the Virgin Mary?
Orthodoxy does not believe in a separate purgatory, but does hold that we shall have to work on our theosis so we may draw still closer to God in the hereafter. Why would one seek to avoid that even if it takes some work? Should Heaven be a place of spiritual sloth?
It is possible, yes. I think some saints have reached such a state of freedom from attachment to sin that they went straight to heaven. But rather than speculating, we are better off focusing on our sanctification here and now. God in His mercy has us in His keeping, and we can trust Him that the truth that "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Apocalypse 21:27) will not exclude us in the end, even if we finish our earthly life still wounded by sin.
James C. -- The Catholic Church teaches that martyrdom by blood or by desire obviates any need for purgatory. Martyrdom, of course, would be the ultimate, but not the only, example of what you describe as "freedom from attachment to sin."
You say you wanna reformaaayshun, wee ell, you know...
I am so grateful to God that my acceptance by Him is guaranteed because He sees me in Christ Jesus, not in myself.
Is there a Purgatory? One might interpret it as a possibility from 1 Corinthians 3:15. But as I understand Catholic theology of Purgatory, it isn't a place of suffering, but of winnowing; Catholic theology asserts that those who are in Purgatory are in Heaven, essentially, but that the sanctification which they hadn't yet attained in life will be worked out in them in Purgatory. Isn't this correct?
I'm intrigued by, not at all closed to, arguments that Purgatory may exist, but my Protestantism keeps me confident that if God could bear to take up residence in me when I was an unsaved sinner, His seeing me in Christ is more than sufficient for me at my death.
In one of her letters, Flannery O'Connor wrote that she had a room reserved for herself in Purgatory. Yet in what I, unlike most O'Connor fans, think was her masterpiece story, Revelation, she gives a much different portrait of the transition of the newly dead from Earth to Heaven, as seen in the vision of the main character, Ruby. It's extraordinary, one of the best written and most moving pieces of American fiction ever. If you haven't read it, I urge you to do so.
The Eastern (or just Russian?) Orthodox belief in aerial tollhouses always sounds like purgatory to me.
I'm Oriental Orthodox, and our official doctrine is that the souls of the saved dead enter paradise, a place of rest, like a garden, and prayers for the dead are for mercy at the Last Judgment. I have noticed that some OO doctrines sound closer to Protestant than EO or RC doctrines.
I'm not qualified to judge any of this, and, as long as I'm not being told to do or believe anything clearly evil or heretical, I accept what my church believes. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 3 does look to me to be about purgatory.
I think tollhouses is just Russian. As a metaphor it works, but I don't think it be taken too literally.
All of us have besetting sins and gaping spiritual flaws and we will need to work on these things well beyond the day we breathe our last. The great saints were generally those most conscious of how they fell short and were quick to accuse themselves of it.
This is where Protestantism takes exception, Jon. The idea that we can add anything to the death of Christ insults God. Yes, I know, there are sufferings we must endure in this life, but these are sanctifying, not redemptive. There has been only one redemptive suffering, that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am talking about the process of theosis, not about salvation. Salvation is through Christ, period. But salvation only gets us in the gate of the Kingdom; to proceed "farther in and farther up" (I quote Lewis' Narnia) we must put forth our own effort.
I'm not sure that theosis as the Eastern Orthodox use the term isn't synonymous with the more Protestant term, sanctification. Sanctification as a Protestant speaks of it occurs here, in a reborn life which is supposed to "work out" its salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.
St. Paul's phrase about our changing "from glory to glory" suggests to me that, coming before God after our death as people saved by Christ's grace, we are already saints, but for all eternity we grow. Someone said it's not that we feel a lack in the state of blessedness; we are always full of joy; but we are like vessels that expand continually in our capacity for ever more blessedness.
The Greeks thought, I guess, that perfection must be static; if it could change, it would not be perfect. But Christians see how heavenly blessedness could always be perfect and yet change in the way I've suggested.
"One vision I have is that when it's time for us to depart from this realm, we will all be obliged to pass through a wall of purifying fire, and our egos are highly flammable. If we have spent our lives here drawing closer to God, then we may experience the fire as fulfilling our deepest desire; whereas if we have spent them clinging to the stuff that will burn, then the fire could seem like a sort of torture and loss of self. In other words, hellfire and holy fire might be one and the same fire, subjectively experienced by two different sorts of people."
So, what happens if we pass from this life while we're still at least partly flammable? Probably something like the tollhouses—although it may be best to take it as a general metaphor and not obsess over the nuts and bolts of how it works.
There are passages that do indicate that our life's stuff is "purified" in heavenly fire. And the remnant, that which remains, pure, is forged into our "crowns". That may be what this refers to. No way to know exactly until we get there. But passages do seem to indicate some kind of cleansing or sorting when we do get over there.
As an Orthodox, I should, but as a tv baby whose brain has been colonized all I can think of when I hear the phrase are Toll House cookies. Maybe there is some connection?
You wouldn’t have to be “utterly sinless” but absolved from your sins through the sacrament of confession. Devoted Catholics, not because of their desire to avoid just punishment but because of their love of Jesus Christ, embrace those practices (fasting, prayer, etc.) that the church pronounces that indulgences are attached to. Much holier Catholics than myself - a low bar indeed - can attest to the transformation of their lives by the Love that does not disappoint. But even they will attest to being “the chief of sinners.”
As people crippled by the sin of our first parents, we all must desire the purity that the process of Purgatory brings about. To assign to ourselves the conceit that we will be in a state at death that as-we-are we are worthy to enter into that land without first being properly dressed is the kind of spiritual delusion that Purgatory cures.
Correct, Catholics believe the 'guilt' of sin can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession, but the 'temporal punishment' remains to be expiated. Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1472-73. Also, 1030-32.
Yes, it is possible. One simple example, a person who joins the church and is baptized but then dies shortly after without committing any sin. That person would achieve the beatific vision immediately and would not pass through purgatory. Baptism washes away original sin, personal sin AND any temporal punishment due to sin.
I personally do believe that Heaven will be an active, dynamic place where we will still be learning, growing and becoming. That we do not enter into our absolute fullness and get a complete data dump about life, the universe(s) and everything up arriving. We will know and be far more than we are now, but it will be another beginning in a much better place, surrounded by great people and the love and presence of our Lord. I mean, right off the bat, we will be a new realm (for us new arrivals), with whole things to discover. It is exciting to consider, especially for perpetual students and the exploration-minded.
In the words of C.S. Lewis in the last book in the Narnia series, the Last Battle, when they reach the true Narnia, Aslan urges them “farther up and farther in,” I believe the phrase was.
Christ died once for sin, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. Salvation is by grace, through faith in Christ. You're in Christ, Laura, and because you are, He takes great pleasure in you. He will never leave you or forsake you.
My temptations to cancel Rod dissolve when I read a blog entry such as this one, and especially when I see from the comments what superstitions, insecurities, confusion, and outright fear a non - Protestant Christianity leaves people in.
I'm referring to people who believe that Jesus is Lord God Incarnate, and their Savior, but who still are terrorized by the apprehension that it's somehow not enough. I wish they would pause to consider what an insult that pays to Christ's Passion.
Then, there are the ones who are scared that they aren't sanctified enough ( they're not, because none of is ) or faithful enough ( they're not, because none of us is ) to merit life with Christ. Again, this kind of thinking is a great insult to Jesus Christ.
We Protestants, Presbyterians and Calvinistic fellow travelers, have our own version of this, people who terrorize themselves with the thought that they may not be among the Elect.
All true. But we are human and weak and sometimes let voices we should not listen to, be they our own or someone else's, bum us out. I know that is something I wrestle with at times. Not nearly as bad as it used to be, but it happens. Time with the Lord, His Word, and/or a believing friend usually does the trick, though...renewing of the mind, peace to the soul.
We should all be in agreement that despair, the view that anyone is beyond saving is a sin; as is presumption, that I can do anything I want to without consequences. I have tried to drive that home to more than one Calvinist friend, worried about whether they truly were among "the elect," so protestants are by no means immune.
Hi, Darrel. I had a hard day yesterday, so I didn't even look at email. It's funny that I should see this now, because I just replied to someone and used this as my example.
May seem like a bad word to some but average people can get to Heaven directly through indulgences. A loving God makes it easy if we listen. For example, from All Souls 1 November to 8 November you can win a plenary indulgence for a soul in Purgatory by visiting a graveyard and praying for the dead. A plenary indulgence is basically a get out of jail card for a soul. You can do this 1 time a day for the period.
Well, no, sorry, you can't. Read the New Testament and you discover that there is only one way to Heaven, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And I say this without any personal dislike of you, but your "plan of salvation" by indulgence is blasphemous, disgusting, and based on nothing of any substance in the Bible.
Well, shit, here I was thinking I was helping my mother in law whose ashes no one has bothered to retrieve from the funeral home be a little more at rest.
If you decide to scatter the ashes, make sure you wait until there is no wind, or best of all, a little downwind. It's a hard lesson I learned when I scattered my father's ashes, as he had wished. They also came out a little lumpy. Most of them sat there, a few feet away from us, glaring reproachfully at me as I read through the funeral service in the Lutheran hymnal.
Indulgences are not in any way claimed to be a "plan of salvation." They only shorten time in purgatory, but all souls in purgatory have already been saved.
That is what I have always understood Catholic theology teaches, and it constitutes the reedy, swaying bridge to the possibility that Purgatory exists which makes Protestant inquiry into the matter possible.
But talk of indulgences brings out the Lutheran rage in me.
Good! I'm sure you know that Luther saw himself as a Reformed and Reforming Catholic. It's why Lutherans have thought of themselves as inheritors of The Conservative Reformation, in contrast with the "reformation" fronted by Calvin and carried on by his wooly loon friends. I can never remember the name of the Scottish termagant who was so outraged by the presence of a visiting Anglican bishop that she threw a bench at him.
"Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drop with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy.'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know.'--'Even so, sir.'
I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it.”
Lewis was a high Anglican and believed in Purgatory even though article 22 of the Thirty-Nine Articles in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer expressly forbids it. Joseph Pearce's book C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church is a good read.
I read somewhere—maybe it was St. Teresa of Avila?—that Purgatory is for our own benefit, because in our corrupted condition, we would not be able to bear the direct light of God. As St. Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I'm a sinful man."
St. Catherine of Genoa also taught this, but the Catholic Church has always understood that Purgatory is for our own benefit. The Church refers to the souls in Purgatory as "the holy souls," whose suffering consists in their as yet unrealized longing for the Beatific Vision.
C.S. Lewis describes this beautifully in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, one of the Narnia books, when on an island, Eustace, a dreadfully behaved boy becomes fascinated with a dragon and accidentally becomes one with it. As a dragon he is permanently separated from his group and becomes desperately lonely. Only Aslan can remove the dragon skin from him and it is a terribly painful process. But worth it. Eustace is a different boy after. C.S. Lewis was a marvel and his Narnia books hold so many wonderful imaginings of Christian life and doctrine.❤️
The Apostle Jack he was not. Anyone who is a Christian who does much reading of the man's "theological" writing won't have to read very much before he finds his eyeballs rolling.
Classify him as a great devotional writer, and you'll get only "amens" from me.
As a Catholic, I believe Purgatory is a necessary step to Heaven. When you achieve Purgatory, you will ultimately make it into Heaven. It is right to pray for the dead so they might achieve Heaven more quickly. I often dedicate my morning Rosary to someone who is dead, usually a family member. It can't hurt.
I don't normally post here but I've been a long time reader. I'm a Protestant and I don't believe in purgatory. For something like this, there is often a way when we think and pray about something so much that we start to think about it in our dreams. As an example, when I was growing up I was obsessed with getting an Xbox 360. I would pray about it constantly, think about it even more, talk about it so much. I saved up my money for it, my entire idea of the future was essentially wrapped up in it. At my count, I had at least three dreams about it in probably a six month to a year span, and those were just the dreams I could remember. My point being, what you think about and care about a lot can translate over into dreams, and there doesn't have to be a supernatural significance to it, even if the dream itself is about the supernatural. I'm guessing he and his family cared incredibly much about Dan, and I am sad for his loss. I'll keep him and his family in my prayers. (Side note, I am also skeptical because the Bible doesn't look that favorably on communicating with people beyond the grave).
<<(Side note, I am also skeptical because the Bible doesn't look that favorably on communicating with people beyond the grave).>>
I think there's an important difference here - when I pray for those who have died, especially those who were troubled, I don't pray to communicate with them. I pray that God will have mercy on their souls. I pray that my prayers may be a help and a comfort to them. Sometimes, when we are open to it, I think God does give us the opportunity to hear from them.
I had a high school friend who killed himself in 2002. We had already drifted apart a good deal, and I didn't find out that this had happened until four years later. I was devastated. I could tell that the mutual friend who let me know was still so hurt that he couldn't talk about it, so apart from God, I had nowhere to go with this pain. Having come from a Protestant background, praying for the dead didn't necessarily come naturally, but it seemed like the only fitting thing to do. I also believe at least one priest I knew offered prayers for Charlie's soul at that time too. Over time, I do believe that God allowed me to know that these prayers were concretely fitting and helpful to Charlie's soul; on more than one occasion in a "miraculous" way. I don't know what Charlie's relationship with God was, but his family seemed to be at least nominally Roman Catholic.
Our Orthodox tradition of holding periodic memorials for dead loved ones is one I would recommend for all churches. We shouldn't just write off our departed in some vague hope we'll see them "in the by and by".
My family holds a memorial for all those who passed in the family after we met the last time. Their names are on a wall at a campground chapel in rural Arkansas. I try to get back there once a year. Also, when I periodically visit the graves of my Mom, Dad, brother and uncle, probably too seldom, truthfully.
A friend of mine, also in the radio business, takes care of my cats when I'm out of town. She comments on how quiet, peaceful and tranqil my little corner of the neighborhood is, despite its close proximity to a high school and a middle school.
I tell her my house is looked after by angels assigned to watch over me and my and her cats.
Part of me really thinks this is true. Taking care of her cats was a dying wish of hers.
I also stop by my parents' grave (near Toledo OH) once a year, to say the prayers for the departed and to leave flowers. My grandparents are also buried in the same cemetery just a couple rows away.
My RC Church had a memorial Mass for all departed family members of parishoners from the last year, on Saturday. We submitted our loved ones names and the pastor read them aloud and offered the Mass for their souls.
He looked over the people gathered during his homily and recalled his personal interactions with many of them and really mourned with people. It was beautiful.
He made a point to emphasize Anointing of the Sick and encouraged everyone to call him before it gets too late. People apparently think that this final opportunity for repentance and blessing will result in instantaneous death.
November is the month dedicated to the "Holy Souls" in the RC church btw.....We of Irish heritage (and I know my Italian friends are the same) will be saying prayers and tending our loved ones gravesites this month.
Our church says a memorial once a month for all who departed that month in the history of the parish according to its records. A wonderful new institution by our new priest.
Your story is similar to the one I have. My mom died when I was really young. It felt empty and horrifying that because my mom actively wanted to die (she refused medical care after a car accident and had severe anorexia) that she’d end up in hell (in the Protestant version I was given). That messes with your head, especially as a young kid.
I find it much more comforting and compelling to be able to pray for her soul (and the souls of all the departed) as a Catholic. I pray that she gets the emotional healing that she didn’t get while she was here with us.
I heard recently on a video that because God in outside of time - our current prayers actually help at their judgement, even if to us, they’ve been dead for years and years. Again, that’s a lot more comforting than ‘mom’s in hell, oh well, sorry’ and people looking on in pity.
It really makes a lot more sense to me than the black and white version that you are given as an fundamentalist/Protestant. I just don’t think a just God would condemn people who are mentally ill and not in their right mind at the time of their death, Especially one we claim is merciful and forgiving.
I admit I could be wrong, but I am not going to know for sure until I die, so it’s just an unknown and this is what the church teaches. I find a lot of comfort in what the RCC teaches on this.
I am a Protestant, or at least that's the door I came into Christianity by, but I wonder. The idea of cleansing has merit.
I don't believe in the Virgin Mary worship either, and yet apparently prayer to her is efficacious, and many of these Marian apparitions are hard to write off.
I am growing more fond of the Catholic church as the years go by despite the corruption in its top leadership. The leaders aren't the church, and their thinkers and saints have been people of deep faith and knowledge.
Catholics do not "worship" the Virgin Mary, Dan. They revere, venerate, honor, and pray to her as the Mother of God, the greatest of the saints, Queen of the Angels, and the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the only human being whom God spared the taint of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve). Everything she does and says is for God's glory, not her own (think the wedding feast at Cana: "Do whatever He tells you."). I pray that she guides you, with her motherly love, to a closer union with her Son.
You are overreacting to my comment. I know there are people who accuse you of "worshipping" the Virgin Mary, i.e. inappropriate idolatry, but I am not one. I don't think any of us Christians have the last word on some of these questions of doctrine, and if you read my comment you would note I am very open minded about such questions and very positive toward the Catholic church.
But I am on a phone and thus my inclination to inject appropriate nuance is limited. But be ye not offended, as believers in this world in its present state we need to stay united.
Far from being offended by your comment, Dan, I was overjoyed by it! I found your open-mindedness refreshing and inspiring, and was simply trying to correct an unfortunately widespread misapprehension that Catholics "worship" Mary. Peace be to you.
Your response was a clarification worth making for any readers of the comments. It is good for us both to keep away from the tendency to be offended, as occurs too easily in online interaction. Peace.
This is another area where I find myself in emphatic agreement with the early Martin Luther, who maintained the unanimous teaching of the undivided church that she remained ever virgin, and worthy of our veneration.
Catholics (and Christians in general) are forbidden to deliberately try to call up spirits of the dead, seances, etc. God does sometimes allow saints or those in purgatory to communicate with the living.
It is wise to be cautious, both because of possible self-deception, but also because of possible deception by false spirits.
1. A belief and faith in Jesus Christ result in salvation through grace and eternal life.
2. Upon our death in this life, recognition and rewards and how we spend eternity are then determined by our stewardship of time, opportunities, and resources earning the accolade “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Good works alone without a belief in Christ “will not” lead to salvation.
Scripture implies that our experience in heaven will vary and also reinforces that Jesus hears our prayers.
Thank you for this wonderful story. I have a Monday night prayer group and during the month of November we are committed to praying for deceased souls. I'm going to share this story with them.
Our shared life experiences such as this helps to booster our faith.
Beautiful witness! My grandfather had a devotion to the Poor Souls, prayed Mass cards from their funeral for them everyday. Thank you for sharing thus experience.
In the afterlife, we believe in spirit prison and spirit paradise--an initial sorting before final judgment and resurrection. However, personal progress can be made in both realms. In fact, those in paradise are sent as teachers and ministers to those in spirit prison who wish to make progress. Repentance is possible even after this life. God will save all who repent, even if they repent after this life is over. What we in mortality can do is never forget our loved ones who have gone beyond the veil, and, if possible, provide the blessings of the temple for them in advance of the time when their hearts are changed. Our kindred dead need us, and we need them, in the great family of mankind who are all the children of God.
I’m not a theologian. I’m not sure I understand a lot of this Catholics believe in purgatory but the Orthodox don’t but they do believe that for some people there is some kind of post death state where a soul is neither in heaven nor hell. That sounds a bit like purgatory.
It's pretty much the same thing. My understanding is that with the Reformation, the Protestants made a big fuss about rejecting Purgatory because the Catholic Church was corrupt and asked people to pay money to get souls out of there (that is, they sold indulgences). So that became a Catholic thing, and then the Orthodox made a big fuss about rejecting the Catholic thing, sort of like how they reject the Immaculate Conception although it's just about the same in practice. A lot of politics, in short.
I think you’re right. I was reading all this and thinking- I don’t know that this is much ado about nothing but it seems much ado about not very much.I know some of the history and could give opinions but I have the feeling I’d pointlessly upset someone who’ d hit me with various Greek or Latin terms and assure me there are questions of burning importance here.One thought that has occurred to me , when someone says they believe in say purgatory are they saying they believe it because they believe it or because they believe in a religion that tells them that’s so or tells them it’s not so. There’s some kind of interesting question here that I haven’t done a great job of framing.
I think that a lot of people believe what they're told to believe about most things, although I don't operate that way. I only got officially baptized on Easter 2021, long after I'd had enough experiences to give me some idea of spiritual realities and the nature of the Truth. You can find my own view about Purgatory nested under the first comment to this blog post.
And I am pretty sure that there is no such thing as Hell except the one that we all live in, and also that people who have thoughts such as yours are the ones He wants to know the most of all.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I do know that Catholicism teaches that despair, thinking that one has no hope of salvation, is a sin. I am one of those who considers the Reformation a "tragic necessity". The Lutheran reformers rightly restored the emphasis on the assurance of God's grace, while keeping as much as they could from the ancient, undivided church. Rod correctly points out that they did leave open the question of praying for the departed. Anyway, who am I to argue with the likes of C.S. Lewis!
The point is that Orthodox have a different model for sin and forgiveness, one that isn't built on a legal concept, as in Western Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant); the Catholic teaching about indulgences makes sense within the Catholic system, but not within Orthodoxy. Plus, we don't believe in Purgatory as an actual place. But we do believe that some souls after death go through a kind of purgation, and that they can benefit from our prayers. I agree that it is a distinction without a lot of difference.
One difference is that Catholics believe there is a penal element to it that Orthodox don't accept. This is related to the "legal" understanding of sin in the West that you mention.
Catholics and Orthodox have a much livelier sense of the unity of the Church over time and space, in life and in death. It is not totally absent in Protestantism, but it is not as lively.
God could act directly without intermediaries, without secondary causes, but He chooses to act through intermediaries, through secondary causes, through both the living and the dead, so that thanksgiving may be multiplied. We are grateful for all his benefits which come to us through his chosen intermediaries, and love is thereby increased.
I pray for my ancestors and my descendants. As I walked the Camino de Santiago, I remembered that as the Jacobsweg it went through Regensburg, where my German ancestors lived, and that some of my ancestors undoubtedly walked on the very stones that I was walking on. I prayed that some of my descendants would go on the pilgrimage and pray for me.
As I near 80, most of the people I have known in my life are gone: parents, aunts and uncles, teachers, neighbors, cousins, people who have injured me, and people whom I have injured. I pray for them all. I pray for the forgotten dead, for those who have no one to pray for them.
Purgatory is not a place of punishment but of purgation. We confront the reality of our lives in the divine light and see the truth about our lives. It is a painful process, because we live in a cloud of self-deception and ignorance. The fire of purgatory is the fire of divine love burning away all the dross of our lives.
An excellent introduction is A Hiker’s Guide to Purgatory (Michael Norton, Ignatius Press, 2022). A seventy-seven year old man has a heart attack and wakes up in a beautiful forest and finds himself equipped with camping equipment. It is beautiful place, because Purgatory is the foothills of heaven, not the antechamber of hell. He goes on a long hike and what his life has been is slowly shown to him and he must face it. It is a guy book, as the sins he has committed are male sins, and some parts of the book really tear the heart out.
Orthodox, some Anglicans, and Catholics, who have systematized the process to a bizarre degree, believe that somehow God uses our love for them to help the dead go through the process of purification. Perhaps as they sense our love for them, they are able to overcome their own obstacles to perfect love, and it speeds the process of purification. One of the spiritual acts of mercy is to pray for the living and the dead, because in that way we can participate in the work of the Mercy that saves us.
This is a kind of a coincidence because for me lately it has been very important to pray for family members. I've been hurt by some, and some who've passed have been instrumental in causing hurtful problems between myself and my living siblings. In my family it was pretty much off limits to expect an apology for anything or to complain about being hurt. This would be met with acrimony.
But my prayers have been on forgiveness and on prayer for salvation for all of them. The difference is that now I understand I can separate mysel if needed from abusive behavior, but at the same time love and pray. In some way, and I think this is very Orthodox, a needful separation can prevent more unnecessary sin. So in God's time I can pray for the ultimate good for all, even if in human time perhaps that doesn't take the form of closeness I wish it did. But love is there anyway, and that makes things much easier.
But as you're suggesting, this has become very important, even essential lately.
Thanks for passing along this encouraging narrative, Rod. The idea of purgation was one of the easiest Catholic teachings for me to accept, and did so long before my crossing the Tiber 12 years ago. It's not about sins forgiven; it's about the stain of sin on our souls. It's frankly a very rational notion that follows from Hebrews 12:14. It's about our sanctification, not our justification. I think of my own life and how my actions and mind are tainted, sometimes deeply so--and I know it. And progress in it is slow, difficult, and reversible. Lewis's Great Divorce is a helpful description--that the purity of heaven is intense. That there is a pathway by which sanctification can be accomplished and finished is a great mercy of God's. Yet another thing He provides that we do not deserve.
Your friend's account also seems to tacitly highlight the importance of baptism. I don't think about that enough. Our Lord asks for and recognizes it (Matt 28: 19-20). Another reminder of how the stuff of earth is elemental to a God who entered the material world to redeem us.
The mind is a powerful thing. It will convince us of what we already believe in a thousand ways.
Scripture is extremely clear that there is only heaven and hell, and the final state of a person is permanent. That's too much for most of us to deal with. Catholics deal with it by thinking they can pray their loved one into heaven. Protestants deal with it by clinging to any prayer or church going the dead loved one did at some point during their life, or that they may have had an unknown death bed conversion.
Heaven is real. Hell is real. Death is eternal. No one can cross from one to another, as Jesus made clear in his story of the rich man and Lazarus. Repent and believe yourself in this life; there's no second chances. You can't save anyone else.
That is pretty glum, and I see no reason to see it that way, and many saints and theologians from the very start have most definitely not seen it that way. You may believe it if you wish, of course, but there are a lot of other ways to look at it.
The reason to see it that way is that is what Jesus and the apostles taught. I place no weight on "saints" and theologians where they differ from Scripture. It's glum because it's serious, and that's exactly how Jesus intended us to understand it.
No problem. No interest in arguing per se either, but I think it's important. It's much more profound than your view of Scripture, which I think is an issue in itself, but leaving that aside - it's rooted in your view of Jesus. Is Jesus the Head of the church and its supreme authority, or not? He teaches us about hell and heaven, never Purgatory. He explicitly says in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, "between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." (Luke 16:26)
The reason I won't argue is that we don't have enough priors in common for any discussion to be productive. Also, you don't know what my view of Scripture is, but you're already sure that yours is more profound, so that's not very promising.
Please feel free to explain it to me if I am not understanding it correctly. I am not at all sure that mine is "more profound". My view of Scripture is that it is authoritative for the church for all time, and that the opinions of saints and theologians cannot supersede it. It sounded to me that your view is that they can. Please correct any misunderstanding.
I agree with what I think you are indicating. I base my faith and beliefs on what is in the Bible as the inspired word of God. I'll pay attention to what "experts" say if it helps understand what is written in the Bible. I don't pay much attention to what experts say if it creates doctrine or beliefs that are not in the Bible.
Some might call me a Dispensationalist and maybe I am. I've noticed comments here that throw that term around as a pejorative. From the little I understand what a Dispensationalist is, I hardly find it bad to say I believe what is written in the Bible. I'd rather be accused of believing what is in the Bible (even literally) than be accused of not believing the Bible.
Overall, my notion is simply that it is a book and should be read as such. The way some people go on about it seems idolatrous to me, and it also suggests the possibility that they've never seen a book before: sort of makes me think of that film *The Gods Must Be Crazy*, where a coke bottle falls out of the airplane onto the bushmen. And to read a book, you need a hermeneutic, or some sort of key to interpret and process what it is you're reading. The assumption that one's own plain understanding of the words on the page is the best or only way to go about the thing—that is truly bizarre to me. That's not how you read a book.
I agree with part of what your wrote. Yes, you need a hermeneutic to understand the Bible. My view is Jesus was instrumental in providing a hermeneutic for the Old Testament and the Apostles for the New Testament. They collectively provided excellent understanding of the words on those pages.
Although it's referred to as "a book", I assume you know the Bible is actually a biblical canon collection of many books. I don't agree the coke bottle story is applicable.
Oh, of course—it's more like a little library of books. My view, though, is that even the Bible as such is only the formal written artifact of a much broader living Tradition (including written and oral elements), and that the Bible's use for the longest time was primarily liturgical. So I see that as the "meta-hermeneutic", if you will, for what this book of books is. We are of course free to read it in English translation and get what we will from it—as we are free to do so with any book. But I think that a lot of important context can go missing, and then it can start to feel idolatrous, which is why I mentioned the cargo cult thing.
Basically, I think that it's absurd to cite the Bible against the saints, because they are both flowerings of one and the same Tradition. That's like citing a leaf against the root: it suggests a deep confusion about the way that the entire organism works. And the hermeneutic is very rich and expansive, from this standpoint. The theologians add layers of meaning, and there is no question of whether you believe in the Bible *or* in St. Maximus' interpretation of it. It's just a totally different mindset.
Your eyes' perception of the Bible sees it that way, Bobby. Among many, many, many others, see St. Isaac of Nineveh.
The Bible doesn't see things in any way. That is a grammatical error, subbing the object for subject. You, a living soul, see the Bible in one way. And I, a living soul, see it in an another.
Indeed, according to Catholic doctrine, the only final states are heaven and hell. The souls in purgatory are saved, that is, they have escaped eternal damnation. This is why they are called the holy souls. But they a certain amount of purification of the effects and consequences of sin left to be done after death, which is why we pray for them and offer our own sacrifices for them. In no way could this ever bring someone from hell into heaven. In the Catholic view, there are several scriptural passages supporting this concept, as any apologist can tell you. You are free to reject this teaching of the Church, but don’t misrepresent it, please!
It is impossible for us to be purified for sins by anything other than the perfect, one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Please read Hebrews 10: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..... But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God....For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." We cannot add anything to what the sinless Son of God has already done.
Of course, in the Catholic view, every Mass offered IS the one sacrifice of Christ’s body, Including Masses offered for the dead. Is there any Catholic who would argue that we are saved by anything else? When we offer personal sacrifices such as those described in the post, we are uniting our (admittedly puny) suffering to his, not performing some separate, salvific act.
Thanks for explaining that, but I can't see how the necessity to offer ongoing masses or personal sacrifices, as you describe, does anything but contradict what the book of Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament tells us about Jesus' sacrifice being final, once for all, and sufficient. Either we are completely saved by faith in what Jesus did for us, or we are adding something to what he did, which indicates that his sacrifice was not, indeed, one for all or sufficient. This is exactly what the author of Hebrews tells us is no longer necessary: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins." (10:1-2) It is good news that we don't have to, and can't, add anything to or continue what Christ already did for us.
That’s a whole other topic, in which I’m no expert. If you want to learn about the Catholic view of salvation in Jesus Christ, I really can’t do better than to point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’m just a layman and no expert. To keep it scriptural, I would only say that we are told by Jesus that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we will have no life within us. The disciples at the last supper were also told to “do this.” In our view, the one perfect sacrifice of the Cross is made present on each altar when the Mass is celebrated. And united in this sacrifice is the one Church which is also the mystical body of Christ.
Anyway, my initial point, which I hope I can make clear, is that the Church of Rome does not teach and has never taught that anything we do can bring someone from hell to heaven or that those are not the two definitive final states for humans. If you’ve ever heard otherwise that was definitely not real Church doctrine but rather someone’s mistaken or imperfect view of it.
Hi Charles, thanks for explaining further. I do understand your point in your second paragraph; my point was that Jesus and Scripture speak only of hell and heaven as the two final states of man after death, never of Purgatory. I would likewise encourage you to read Scripture. The teachings of Jesus, the Head of the Church, and his apostles are available to you. You don't need to be an expert, only ask God by his Holy Spirit to teach you as you read his word. Blessings to you.
I just read (mostly) Rod's link to Benedict XVI on Purgatory (Heaven and Hell, too) and he points to 1 Corinthians 3:10-3:15 as scriptural foundation for Purgatory. The concept, if you believe Benedict XVI, has been around in Judaism and Hellenism predating Christianity as well. Personally, I don't think characterizing it as a psychological coping mechanism is quite accurate.
I'll check it out and respond here once I've read it, thanks. It seems for the church itself it was more of a power/money gathering concept, from what I understand. People's desperation at the loss of a loved one is prime territory for exploitation (think mediums, etc.)
I don't believe in the particular Catholic concept of Purgatory, which allows for indulgences, but I can see how that would make sense within the Catholic system. But the abuse of that system by greedy Renaissance churchmen doesn't negate the truth of the teaching (if it is true, I mean). I do, of course, agree that there can be for some souls who are saved but not ready to bear the fullness of God's glory, an intermediate, temporary state. I believe that what happened to my friend with his brother Dan really did happen. The specifics of how it happened don't really interest me. I believe in praying to God to show mercy to our dead. When I found out last winter some of the evil things my father was probably involved in during his life, my confessor instructed me to pray every day for the peace of my dad's soul. I hope he repented of his wrongdoing before death, but I don't know that he did, in part because he was raised in such a culture that he would have struggled to see his deeds as culpable (it had to do with racism). I would not be surprised if somehow my father was saved by his expression of faith in Christ, but needed some sort of posthumous spiritual purification. Or maybe not! In any case, prayers on his behalf to the Lord do not hurt, and may actually help.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Benedict XVI seems to argue that the fires of purgatory are really Christ's grace transforming us into a suitable form to merge with the "communion of saints." He links grace with repentance, which is beautiful and worth much more contemplation.
I would just suggest caution in being too conclusive on the meaning of a particular story in scripture. There is another possibility: the rich man was still unrepentant perhaps. After all, he tries to send Lazarus to fetch him a drop of water, like a servant. He does not apologize. Arguably, he is still treating Lazarus as beneath him. So it could be that the problem is the disposition of the rich man’s heart even after death, where-ever he is now. Prayers for him might turn it around. We don’t know because that’s not part of that story. Faith, hope and love are virtues, we do know that. And so we have faith and hope in our loving prayers for the dead. But God has the final say and his judgment will be perfect. And I would not presume to understand, not easily anyway, the judgements of God. It’s a terrifying story, that’s for sure. And we should do all we can to repent in this life, that’s true. But it is silent about prayers for the dead and their effect. My 2 cents.
I appreciate your humble attitude; it's commendable (no sarcasm whatsoever). However, it seems that you're saying that we *should* believe things that Scripture is silent about, while *not* believing things it clearly says. I don't think that's a safe principle, personally.
With all due respect, I'm struggling with whether this comment deserves a serious reply. Falling on the side of yes, I'll repeat what I've said above: I base my beliefs on Jesus and inspired Scripture. Nothing less, nothing more. It is only a matter of academic interest what anyone in history may or may not have believed. I'm not familiar enough with the development of the doctrine of Purgatory to know who believed it starting when, and it doesn't really matter that much to me except as an interesting facet of church history.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with Rod and the rest of us. . I think we are all striving to write comments to each other worthy of response and being taken seriously. In that same vein, I have the following thought on what you say here about inspired scripture vs. church history:
Doesn’t the very idea of what belongs in the canon of scripture rely on the Church? I mean, since it is the Church that has established what books we read as inspired scripture. In that case, you can’t really separate your beliefs from the somewhat complex history of that Church. For instance, as a Catholic, I have a book in my bible, 2 Maccabees, where I read that it is a commendable thing to pray for the dead. Does the fact that this is in my bible and perhaps not in yours (I am assuming based on your comments that you are expressing a Protestant viewpoint) not rely on some aspect of Church history?
We Catholics also believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and certainly we do not think any of the things that you suggest in these comments are unscriptural (purification of the temporal punishment of sin after death, etc.) are in fact so. If I thought any of my Catholic beliefs contradicted scripture, there would have to be some kind of contradiction with my belief in the inerrancy of scripture. Our differences, then, are differences of interpretation, which is hardly easy, even as we both approach the scriptures seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
I’ve pretty much never written a comment on Substack, but somehow I was led to engage with yours, since I think there is some more clarity to be found and shared here about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this subject.
Charles, likewise thank you for your very thoughtful and respectful comment. I appreciate it. It's really a bit of a big topic to respond to in a comment, but I'll try to keep it brief:
"Doesn’t the very idea of what belongs in the canon of scripture rely on the Church?" Well, yes, if you mean the church as the body of believers in Jesus, indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit, and not an authoritative magisterium telling people what to believe. My understanding of what happened at the Council of Nicea was that it was basically a confirmation of what was mostly universal existing agreement in the church about what books belonged in the canon.
I haven't read 2 Maccabees, although I've long had it on my "someday" to-do list to read the Apocrypha, as we non-Catholics call those books (not sure if you have a different name for them). Nonetheless, I understand that it's a book relating Jewish history, and as such I wouldn't take it as a source of doctrine. I understand that there is/was a Jewish practice of praying for the dead, and I imagine that's what it's referring to, though I'd need to know more detail.
"We Catholics also believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and certainly we do not think any of the things that you suggest in these comments are unscriptural (purification of the temporal punishment of sin after death, etc.) are in fact so." I'm glad to hear that, and for me that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture runs up against the fact that there is no clear Scriptural teaching of Purgatory, or example to pray for or to the dead, particularly in the New Testament. In fact, the Old Testament warns against it in several places, e.g. Saul was condemned for calling the ghost of Samuel up. Jesus spoke and warned quite a bit about hell, and that would be a perfect time for him to mention the concept of Purgatory, if it existed. There are, on the contrary, many clear statements in Scripture to the effect that death is the end, that the final judgement follows death, and that there is no alternate path to heaven for one who has rejected God in this life. Conversely, as the Hebrews 10 passages I cited in another comment make clear, as well as many other passages of Scripture, the sacrifice of Jesus is completely sufficient to save those who put their trust in him in this life.
Rod's comment made me curious and I read in Wikipedia that Purgatory did not become an official Catholic doctrine till the 11th century. So that's about a thousand years at the beginning of church history, at least.
I would make a serious challenge to you to simply read straight through the New Testament and ask yourself if you could or would derive the idea of Purgatory solely from it, if you did not have the teaching of the Catholic Church? My question always is, how can we know whether what anyone is teaching us is truth, or whether they are leading us astray? I don't believe there's a better measuring rod than God's own word. Blessings to you and I'll end this already too-long comment.
Oh Susanna, thank you for your comments. I think the best and safest stance about this kind of subject is that of the Lutheran Confessions: our Confessions expressly allow prayer for the departed, but we decline to theorize very much about the issues involved because the Scriptures are our sure guide and there is some reserve in them.
A favorite Bible verse of mine is Deuteronomy 29: 29. There *are* some matters that, for now, God reserves (we believe) to Himself, and His Faithful will respect that.
We might have some notions that seem highly intriguing to us and that do not conflict with the Bible (in my case, this includes the idea of angels of the nations/peoples). But there is a chastity of thinking in the Lutheran church, in that we modestly refuse to bind the consciences of Christ's beloved people with matters that cannot be demonstrated from the Bible. We do not forbid things that the Bible does not forbid (while the Reformed had a habit of holding that all that is not commanded is forbidden). But we do not burden the consciences of the believer with uncertain things, as the Roman church seems to me to do, in regard to some doctrines and practices that need not be enumerated.
Interesting, thanks for explaining that. I admit that Lutheranism is a branch of the church I don't know much about. It sounds like you take a bit of a middle way in this type of question.
It is well to recall, that the Christian church existed for decades before any of the New Testament was written.
Re the New Testament canon, there were a number of contested books, but it is correct that most were not contested.
Re the Old Testament, there was no dispute at Council: the Septuagint canon was used by all Christians....until Luther and the other Reformers. If you check Scripture, you will notice that the Apostles used the Septuagint. For instance, Hebrews 10:5-7 quotes from Psalm 40 in the Septuagint version.
Actually, most of the Old Testament quotations are from the Septuagint, which only makes sense, since the NT was, after all, in Greek. If you've ever compared passages, and been puzzled by the discrepancies, that's usually why.
Personally, I have found myself astonished by the deep unintelligence of this idea that the Bible somehow just fell out of the sky in one piece, and moreover that its meaning is self-evident. No thought to the fact that the Church assembled the Bible in the first place; no thought about how the Bible is merely the formal written element of a much broader Tradition. No theologians, no saints, no nothing—just you and your own two infallible eyes. The epistemological problems with that entire approach are as vast as the oceans; and to be honest, until recently, I wasn't even aware that there were serious Christians who thought about it in these terms. it is very alien to my experience.
Well, we Christians who actually take the Bible seriously and give God the credit and the glory for EVERYTHING good are glad to educate you. The Bible is far more than just a book. It says so in its own pages. The effect it has on the world is supernatural. And this would not be possible if it were just another book assembled by men. Were men involved? Of course there were. Would the Bible have the effect and the power it has if it were their efforts and minds, and not the Holy Spirit driving it all?
No. To God be the Glory. It is HIS work. Men, as always in the kingdom, are just one instrument.
And if you had a chance to ask them, those involved in that work, I've no doubt in my mind they would confirm my words. If they are truly men of God. And I've no doubt they are, for the fruits of the Spirit are evidence.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Their works. If the KIngdom increases, it is not by our work, but His.
Oh, and yes, it is meant to be read, understood and memorized by all Christians, not just elders to be disseminated. The sheer history of the tome testifies to this. And again, in its pages, we, ALL OF US, not just clergy, are called to read it, memorize it, commit it to our hearts for the renewing of our minds. This idea that the everyday Christian is not fit to read it and only should rely on clergy is alien, and against the words written therein.
Pastors and teachers are of course important. But that does not absolve the individual Christian of the need to read, study, learn and take it on for themselves.
Your elders are only human and only reading the same thing. In that regard, they are nothing special, no more than any other Christian.
I know what saints are, but I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you mean do I focus on saints in the Catholic sense? No. I do not. But I've nothing particular against it.
I like you, Tee, but I wasn't talking to you here, and I will not argue with you about this matter. See you on the next thread about *Blade Runner*, right?—now there's a point of serious agreement.
Thank you, I like you, too. Look, again, I do not mean to disrespect Orthodox views, but please, let the opinionated Protestant step up to the mike too.
:)
Blade Runner is awesome. I even enjoyed the sequel. That director is doing great work. So far, he's doing Dune right, too. The only other director I think would have had a chance at Dune is Chris Nolan. And he's angling for a 60s era James Bond trilogy. Let us hope that happens.
The sequel made me think a lot about the Virgin Birth, actually; that film *Children of Men* also had the same effect. The sheer miraculous immediacy of it, of this thing that is not supposed to be possible somehow suddenly having happened.
Sethu, this is a caricature of the understanding of Bible and tradition held at least by some people labeled as Protestants, i.e. Lutherans. Martin Chemnitz has a fine discussion of tradition in the first book of his Examination of the Council of Trent.
My point is that I had assumed it was a caricature, before encountering Christians who appear to quite sincerely believe exactly what I said. I wasn't speaking about Protestants in general.
Thanks. I've become perhaps too readily annoyed by many remarks around here about "Protestants" and "the" "Protestant Reformation" and so on. The level of knowledge here about the Lutheran reformation is generally nothing to be proud of. Rod's Substack seems to have rather more of that kind of thing than comments written in his American Conservative days.
I am pretty open-minded, overall—pretty heretical by most standards. My standard is the music of the spheres, and I like creative development in all things. At the time of Luther, I have no doubt that I would have sided with him. The type of thing that I lampooned irks me precisely for how doctrinaire it is, how ignorant, how closed off to the promptings of the human spirit, to say nothing of the Holy Ghost.
I find a lot of misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Scripture/Tradition matrix among Protestants. I gave up trying to explain it. And like Sethu, I gather, I have had to deal with Bible-alone lectures, and have bitten my tongue so as not to get involved in a huge argument, because even quoting the Bible doesn't get you a hearing! For instance, I might point out Paul's command in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to "hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." No dice. Even worse, I might point out that the Bible itself never says that it alone is the only source of doctrine. Actually, I never tried that one, but I've been sorely tempted.
Of course, as a Catholic, I firmly believe in the Bible as the Word of God. But I try to avoid this kind of discussion, because I always wonder if I might do harm to someone else's faith by perhaps not being able to explain clearly that rejecting "Bible-alone" or private interpretation does not mean rejecting the Bible as God's Word. God forbid I should put a stumbling block in another's way!
Rod, watch for a long message or two from me sometime in which i will try to help you past your habit of referring to "the Reformation." There's a Narrative about "the Reformation" that discourages people from learning about what was really the case, that there was an era of the reformationS. One of my biggest fears about your current book project is that it will be severely impaired in its historical analysis.
Thanks for your comments here, Oh Susanna. I don’t doubt that many mysterious things happen in this life that can’t be explained materially. Spiritual forces are real. I don’t think Rod is wrong to think we moderns discount much of our unseen world to our detriment. We have believed too deeply that science and the material world are basically all we need to understand reality (reality, of course, being what we can touch and see and explain rationally).
At the same time, precisely because the unseen world is unseen, I think dwelling on those experiences with it and the fact that it exists can become its own kind of distraction at best, idolatry at worst. Christ is both God—fundamentally of the spiritual world, though I’m no theologian and that’s probably not the way to say it—and man—incarnated into this world. I believe that He cast out demons because He could see and exercise power over them. I’m a little (like insignificant and worthless) sinner, and I’m frankly terrified of spending time and energy trying to better understand the unseen world, which contains both benevolent and malevolent forces. The benevolent ones are of God and to my good, so it is enough for me to thank Him for guardian angels (with children, this is a fairly frequent occurrence) and pray He protects me from the evil ones. So I honestly think more of an emphasis on Christ’s incarnational reality, if that makes sense, would be better than a plunge into the metaphysical. If events happen to portend God’s judgment, like the flag ripping that RD has written about a lot, then I think we acknowledge that they happen and fall on our knees to pray for Christ’s guidance in a paganizing world. We don’t keep talking about how these things happen and how to think about them beyond actually turning to God, which we should do anyway.
And the southern influence on RD’s way of thinking, the shades of the gothic, seem important, too. My grandfather had a few formative spiritual experiences, and they were weird, definitely without earthly explanation. I’ve had a few myself. But I take them as gifts like the millions of other ones God has given me. They are valuable and true, but the experiences themselves are not the ultimate focus. Jesus is and always should be.
And that’s where I land with this story about Dan. I pray his family who are faithful to Christ continue to cling to Him above all else, and I pray his family who have fallen away return to Christ and receive His unending mercy. I honestly was a little confused about the writer’s belief that because his son stopped crying in the cave after he appealed to Dan for help means that Dan is in heaven. God gave the writer peace after all of his turmoil about Dan, and maybe that was the point of the experience--that Dan’s fate is with Christ, not anyone else. All of the words spilled about people and inexplicable experiences (in this post, the comments, and elsewhere) are interesting, and maybe they can point us back to Christ. But as a small-o orthodox Lutheran, I have 1000% more trust in Christ’s words, like “take, eat, this is My body, which is shed for you for the remission of sins” and “drink of it, all of you; this cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” than countless individual stories. Again, those experiences might be instrumental, but only insofar as they point people directly back to the Word and to Christ.
I think about my family all the time. Being the sole survivor of my immediate family, I miss them terribly, but know they are in good hands. My brother, Chip, was one of those rare, St. Paul-type recipients of radical transformation in an instant. My last communication with him before he was killed in a tragic car accident revealed to me what had happened to him. He did not even say anything about it, but the change in his voice and the way he spoke was night and day. At the time, I did not understand what I was hearing and still believed he was the same hard to deal with jerk I had grown up with. But he was not. And I'm grateful I had one last chance to communicate with my brother. And that glimpse that God gave he and has so powerfully affected me later, I do think that was a a God-thing and not just chance.
I bring it up to say that was not even the end of the story. My father, deeply devoted man of God (and engineer who started his career with NASA during the moon shots) described experiencing a visit from Chip early in the morning, shortly after he departed this life. He said to Dad, "Dad, I'm fine. Do not worry about me." Interesting he picked Dad to sent this message. Of the three of us remaining, Dad was the one least likely to entertain such fancy, as he had the classical Protestant idea that souls do not hang around here for any reason, nor do they communicate with us still doing our biological thing. But there are way too many of these kinds of stories to dismiss them.
Also, my mother, also a deeply devoted woman of faith who loved the Lord, she struggled after Dad left eight years ago. But she kept herself busy, mostly with church and family after Dad went to Heaven. But more than once, she asked God why she was still here. I visited her most mornings, sharing a Bible devotion with her, as I did with both of them when Dad was still here. Her prayers began consistently including an appeal to God to do something for Uncle William, Dadi's older brother. He had begun showing signs of some kind of degenerative nerve condition when Dad was still here, like Parkinson's, though it had not been diagnosed back when Dad began expressing concerns. He went from a strong, hearty man to this feeble presence. And eventually, he was all but in a coma state, that my aunt struggled to care for. Mom could see this and prayed for God to please either restore him or bring him home, as this in between state was not helping anyone.
Then came when my Mom was taken, January of last year. COVID did her in. I also got my first and only case, but came through fine. But I had to bury my last immediate family member. In addition, Uncle William, who had gone into the hospital again a few days after Mom died, passed on as well. But because Mom had passed from COVID, quarrantine procedures made it that she got laid to rest after my uncle.
Thing is, when I showed up for his funeral, I had a cluster of cousins come up to me with strange looks on their faces. "Did you know?" they asked. I asked what were they talking about. They explained.
Apparently one night at the hospital, Uncle William, who had been comatose for some time, opened his eyes, sat up in bed and said in a clear voice, "Mary is here."
"Where?" the family members present asked. Also, one said, "Whose Mary?"
"JB's Mary," he said in response, pointing to a seeming empty space in the room. JB is my Dad's name.
I can tell you Mom loved William and was deeply concerned. Being over there, she absolutely would want to be in the party escorting him over if she had the option.
Since then, the Lord has been helping me with a few long-standing issues in my faith and such. And in my supreme doubts about my path He intends, especially thing Navy chaplain thing I've been wrestling against Him for years.
He sent me a dream, a vision, of me in that role, ministering to sailors. It was so beautiful, real and vivid.
This small group on spiritual warfare, I had one guy who has made every class. But he absolutely needed this class and the spiritual change in him as we approach the end of the semester, you can see.
The Lord will leave the 99 temporarily to go retrieve the one. No ministering effort is too small.
I'm now helping out with a local mission effort standing up. They will need bus drivers. And I just so happen to have a Class B license I got decades ago that I hung onto, because you never know.
And there are other things, but I've gone on enough.
The Lord is always there. He never leaves us, my friends. And he is always waiting to hear from us.
My family has two similar stories where the very soon-to-be deceased reported seeing a vision of their pre-deceased spouses standing in the room. Make of that what you will. I'm not sure myself. A grace? Wish fulfilment? Failing synapses?
Separately, I have two different devout relatives who died surrounded by loved ones. One breathed her last on the final "Amen" just as the ten surrounding her bed completed a family Rosary. An uncle died on the final syllable of a Marian hymn that had been sung in his presence. We account these as beautiful passings, in so far as that makes sense.
The real kicker about my uncle seeing my mother, btw, is that he had no way of knowing, in the temporal news passing sense, that she had already gone ahead. That adds much more weight.
Oh, believe me, this is super-common in the testimonies of people who work in the hospice field. I even had the opportunity to question my dad's home hospice nurse about it. She said it happened all the time. She told me there was one absolutely terrifying instance, though, in which a patient, in his final moments, began screaming that demons were clawing at him, pulling him down to hell. "He was an Episcopal priest, too," she said. You just never know... .
My grandfather died at 5:05 AM, on December 22. My mother died at 5:05 AM, on December 22.
My mother was badly injured in her left leg at age seven, but recovered. She died of a traumatic brain injury. When I was seven, I nearly died of a traumatic brain injury, and in that same violent event was injured much more severely in the same part of the left leg as my mother had been at the same age; I came within two minutes at most of bleeding to death.
Most people have things like this, phantasmagoria, I think I can call them not disrespectfully. Their meanings are beyond any of us.
And then there are the various weird phenomena such as spontaneous internal combustion. Is it real, or were these people murdered? The victims really do appear to have spontaneously combusted.
Re: He also told us to avoid Purgatory at all costs.
I'll ask the Catholics here this: Is it possible to avoid Purgatory? Wouldn't you have to be utterly sinless like the Virgin Mary?
Orthodoxy does not believe in a separate purgatory, but does hold that we shall have to work on our theosis so we may draw still closer to God in the hereafter. Why would one seek to avoid that even if it takes some work? Should Heaven be a place of spiritual sloth?
It is possible, yes. I think some saints have reached such a state of freedom from attachment to sin that they went straight to heaven. But rather than speculating, we are better off focusing on our sanctification here and now. God in His mercy has us in His keeping, and we can trust Him that the truth that "nothing unclean shall enter [heaven]" (Apocalypse 21:27) will not exclude us in the end, even if we finish our earthly life still wounded by sin.
Amen!
James C. -- The Catholic Church teaches that martyrdom by blood or by desire obviates any need for purgatory. Martyrdom, of course, would be the ultimate, but not the only, example of what you describe as "freedom from attachment to sin."
You say you wanna reformaaayshun, wee ell, you know...
I am so grateful to God that my acceptance by Him is guaranteed because He sees me in Christ Jesus, not in myself.
Is there a Purgatory? One might interpret it as a possibility from 1 Corinthians 3:15. But as I understand Catholic theology of Purgatory, it isn't a place of suffering, but of winnowing; Catholic theology asserts that those who are in Purgatory are in Heaven, essentially, but that the sanctification which they hadn't yet attained in life will be worked out in them in Purgatory. Isn't this correct?
I'm intrigued by, not at all closed to, arguments that Purgatory may exist, but my Protestantism keeps me confident that if God could bear to take up residence in me when I was an unsaved sinner, His seeing me in Christ is more than sufficient for me at my death.
In one of her letters, Flannery O'Connor wrote that she had a room reserved for herself in Purgatory. Yet in what I, unlike most O'Connor fans, think was her masterpiece story, Revelation, she gives a much different portrait of the transition of the newly dead from Earth to Heaven, as seen in the vision of the main character, Ruby. It's extraordinary, one of the best written and most moving pieces of American fiction ever. If you haven't read it, I urge you to do so.
This might be one of those matters in which our bringing to the situation our ordinary experience of time will mislead us.
The Eastern (or just Russian?) Orthodox belief in aerial tollhouses always sounds like purgatory to me.
I'm Oriental Orthodox, and our official doctrine is that the souls of the saved dead enter paradise, a place of rest, like a garden, and prayers for the dead are for mercy at the Last Judgment. I have noticed that some OO doctrines sound closer to Protestant than EO or RC doctrines.
I'm not qualified to judge any of this, and, as long as I'm not being told to do or believe anything clearly evil or heretical, I accept what my church believes. Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 3 does look to me to be about purgatory.
I think tollhouses is just Russian. As a metaphor it works, but I don't think it be taken too literally.
All of us have besetting sins and gaping spiritual flaws and we will need to work on these things well beyond the day we breathe our last. The great saints were generally those most conscious of how they fell short and were quick to accuse themselves of it.
This is where Protestantism takes exception, Jon. The idea that we can add anything to the death of Christ insults God. Yes, I know, there are sufferings we must endure in this life, but these are sanctifying, not redemptive. There has been only one redemptive suffering, that of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am talking about the process of theosis, not about salvation. Salvation is through Christ, period. But salvation only gets us in the gate of the Kingdom; to proceed "farther in and farther up" (I quote Lewis' Narnia) we must put forth our own effort.
I'm not sure that theosis as the Eastern Orthodox use the term isn't synonymous with the more Protestant term, sanctification. Sanctification as a Protestant speaks of it occurs here, in a reborn life which is supposed to "work out" its salvation with fear and trembling, knowing that it is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure.
I'm sure there are differences in the details but I do think that, broadly, theosis and sanctification are referencing the same path.
St. Paul's phrase about our changing "from glory to glory" suggests to me that, coming before God after our death as people saved by Christ's grace, we are already saints, but for all eternity we grow. Someone said it's not that we feel a lack in the state of blessedness; we are always full of joy; but we are like vessels that expand continually in our capacity for ever more blessedness.
The Greeks thought, I guess, that perfection must be static; if it could change, it would not be perfect. But Christians see how heavenly blessedness could always be perfect and yet change in the way I've suggested.
I have read by authoritative EO theologians that tollhouses come from Russian folklore
Here's something that I wrote elsewhere:
"One vision I have is that when it's time for us to depart from this realm, we will all be obliged to pass through a wall of purifying fire, and our egos are highly flammable. If we have spent our lives here drawing closer to God, then we may experience the fire as fulfilling our deepest desire; whereas if we have spent them clinging to the stuff that will burn, then the fire could seem like a sort of torture and loss of self. In other words, hellfire and holy fire might be one and the same fire, subjectively experienced by two different sorts of people."
So, what happens if we pass from this life while we're still at least partly flammable? Probably something like the tollhouses—although it may be best to take it as a general metaphor and not obsess over the nuts and bolts of how it works.
There are passages that do indicate that our life's stuff is "purified" in heavenly fire. And the remnant, that which remains, pure, is forged into our "crowns". That may be what this refers to. No way to know exactly until we get there. But passages do seem to indicate some kind of cleansing or sorting when we do get over there.
Does anyone else find the idea of Aerial Tollhouses terrifying?
As an Orthodox, I should, but as a tv baby whose brain has been colonized all I can think of when I hear the phrase are Toll House cookies. Maybe there is some connection?
You wouldn’t have to be “utterly sinless” but absolved from your sins through the sacrament of confession. Devoted Catholics, not because of their desire to avoid just punishment but because of their love of Jesus Christ, embrace those practices (fasting, prayer, etc.) that the church pronounces that indulgences are attached to. Much holier Catholics than myself - a low bar indeed - can attest to the transformation of their lives by the Love that does not disappoint. But even they will attest to being “the chief of sinners.”
As people crippled by the sin of our first parents, we all must desire the purity that the process of Purgatory brings about. To assign to ourselves the conceit that we will be in a state at death that as-we-are we are worthy to enter into that land without first being properly dressed is the kind of spiritual delusion that Purgatory cures.
Confession absolves sins, but Catholics teach it does not remove the responsibility for repairing the damage sin has done.
Correct, Catholics believe the 'guilt' of sin can be forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession, but the 'temporal punishment' remains to be expiated. Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1472-73. Also, 1030-32.
Yes, it is possible. One simple example, a person who joins the church and is baptized but then dies shortly after without committing any sin. That person would achieve the beatific vision immediately and would not pass through purgatory. Baptism washes away original sin, personal sin AND any temporal punishment due to sin.
I personally do believe that Heaven will be an active, dynamic place where we will still be learning, growing and becoming. That we do not enter into our absolute fullness and get a complete data dump about life, the universe(s) and everything up arriving. We will know and be far more than we are now, but it will be another beginning in a much better place, surrounded by great people and the love and presence of our Lord. I mean, right off the bat, we will be a new realm (for us new arrivals), with whole things to discover. It is exciting to consider, especially for perpetual students and the exploration-minded.
On this I very much agree with you.
Agreed. You're surprising, sometimes. Haha.
In the words of C.S. Lewis in the last book in the Narnia series, the Last Battle, when they reach the true Narnia, Aslan urges them “farther up and farther in,” I believe the phrase was.
One thing I’m learning is that I’m just screwed.
Christ died once for sin, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. Salvation is by grace, through faith in Christ. You're in Christ, Laura, and because you are, He takes great pleasure in you. He will never leave you or forsake you.
My temptations to cancel Rod dissolve when I read a blog entry such as this one, and especially when I see from the comments what superstitions, insecurities, confusion, and outright fear a non - Protestant Christianity leaves people in.
Re: when I see from the comments what superstitions, insecurities, confusion, and outright fear a non - Protestant Christianity leaves people in.
What do you mean by this?
I'm referring to people who believe that Jesus is Lord God Incarnate, and their Savior, but who still are terrorized by the apprehension that it's somehow not enough. I wish they would pause to consider what an insult that pays to Christ's Passion.
Then, there are the ones who are scared that they aren't sanctified enough ( they're not, because none of is ) or faithful enough ( they're not, because none of us is ) to merit life with Christ. Again, this kind of thinking is a great insult to Jesus Christ.
We Protestants, Presbyterians and Calvinistic fellow travelers, have our own version of this, people who terrorize themselves with the thought that they may not be among the Elect.
Definitely going to adoration tonight. Some quiet time with the real presence will be good.
Always is.
Laura, I have nothing against this, but the precursor of peace of mind and of usefulness as a Christian is that we become renewed in mind.
That, the growing in faith which works the renewing of the mind, comes by hearing ( or reading, obviously ), and hearing by the Word of God.
All true. But we are human and weak and sometimes let voices we should not listen to, be they our own or someone else's, bum us out. I know that is something I wrestle with at times. Not nearly as bad as it used to be, but it happens. Time with the Lord, His Word, and/or a believing friend usually does the trick, though...renewing of the mind, peace to the soul.
Not only will He never leave you or forsake you, if, for some reason, you go wandering away, He will come find you.
Yes. It's why I have to evaluate people who do appear to have walked away for good as people who never were saved.
Well said.
Thank you, George.
We should all be in agreement that despair, the view that anyone is beyond saving is a sin; as is presumption, that I can do anything I want to without consequences. I have tried to drive that home to more than one Calvinist friend, worried about whether they truly were among "the elect," so protestants are by no means immune.
Hi, Darrel. I had a hard day yesterday, so I didn't even look at email. It's funny that I should see this now, because I just replied to someone and used this as my example.
May seem like a bad word to some but average people can get to Heaven directly through indulgences. A loving God makes it easy if we listen. For example, from All Souls 1 November to 8 November you can win a plenary indulgence for a soul in Purgatory by visiting a graveyard and praying for the dead. A plenary indulgence is basically a get out of jail card for a soul. You can do this 1 time a day for the period.
Well, no, sorry, you can't. Read the New Testament and you discover that there is only one way to Heaven, faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
And I say this without any personal dislike of you, but your "plan of salvation" by indulgence is blasphemous, disgusting, and based on nothing of any substance in the Bible.
Well, shit, here I was thinking I was helping my mother in law whose ashes no one has bothered to retrieve from the funeral home be a little more at rest.
I’m teasing you.
If you decide to scatter the ashes, make sure you wait until there is no wind, or best of all, a little downwind. It's a hard lesson I learned when I scattered my father's ashes, as he had wished. They also came out a little lumpy. Most of them sat there, a few feet away from us, glaring reproachfully at me as I read through the funeral service in the Lutheran hymnal.
Just to clarify the actual Catholic belief:
Indulgences are not in any way claimed to be a "plan of salvation." They only shorten time in purgatory, but all souls in purgatory have already been saved.
That is what I have always understood Catholic theology teaches, and it constitutes the reedy, swaying bridge to the possibility that Purgatory exists which makes Protestant inquiry into the matter possible.
But talk of indulgences brings out the Lutheran rage in me.
The selling of them brings out my Catholic rage!
Good! I'm sure you know that Luther saw himself as a Reformed and Reforming Catholic. It's why Lutherans have thought of themselves as inheritors of The Conservative Reformation, in contrast with the "reformation" fronted by Calvin and carried on by his wooly loon friends. I can never remember the name of the Scottish termagant who was so outraged by the presence of a visiting Anglican bishop that she threw a bench at him.
"Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would it not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drop with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy.'? Should we not reply, 'With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.' 'It may hurt, you know.'--'Even so, sir.'
I assume that the process of purification will normally involve suffering. Partly from tradition; partly because most real good that has been done me in this life has involved it.”
CS Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, Letter XX
Lewis was a high Anglican and believed in Purgatory even though article 22 of the Thirty-Nine Articles in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer expressly forbids it. Joseph Pearce's book C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church is a good read.
When Anglican, I was told that, although it's best not to use the word "purgatory", it exists, and is a region of paradise.
I don't know that it would demand "suffering" except maybe in the sense that vigorous exercise and hard work involves "suffering".
I read somewhere—maybe it was St. Teresa of Avila?—that Purgatory is for our own benefit, because in our corrupted condition, we would not be able to bear the direct light of God. As St. Peter said: "Depart from me, O Lord, for I'm a sinful man."
St. Catherine of Genoa also taught this, but the Catholic Church has always understood that Purgatory is for our own benefit. The Church refers to the souls in Purgatory as "the holy souls," whose suffering consists in their as yet unrealized longing for the Beatific Vision.
C.S. Lewis describes this beautifully in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, one of the Narnia books, when on an island, Eustace, a dreadfully behaved boy becomes fascinated with a dragon and accidentally becomes one with it. As a dragon he is permanently separated from his group and becomes desperately lonely. Only Aslan can remove the dragon skin from him and it is a terribly painful process. But worth it. Eustace is a different boy after. C.S. Lewis was a marvel and his Narnia books hold so many wonderful imaginings of Christian life and doctrine.❤️
The Apostle Jack he was not. Anyone who is a Christian who does much reading of the man's "theological" writing won't have to read very much before he finds his eyeballs rolling.
Classify him as a great devotional writer, and you'll get only "amens" from me.
As a Catholic, I believe Purgatory is a necessary step to Heaven. When you achieve Purgatory, you will ultimately make it into Heaven. It is right to pray for the dead so they might achieve Heaven more quickly. I often dedicate my morning Rosary to someone who is dead, usually a family member. It can't hurt.
Rod, this is my vote for you to set your subscription price for next year wherever you need to set it.
Where your writing is concerned the good ship HMS Budget Priorities has sailed.
Hurumph
I don't normally post here but I've been a long time reader. I'm a Protestant and I don't believe in purgatory. For something like this, there is often a way when we think and pray about something so much that we start to think about it in our dreams. As an example, when I was growing up I was obsessed with getting an Xbox 360. I would pray about it constantly, think about it even more, talk about it so much. I saved up my money for it, my entire idea of the future was essentially wrapped up in it. At my count, I had at least three dreams about it in probably a six month to a year span, and those were just the dreams I could remember. My point being, what you think about and care about a lot can translate over into dreams, and there doesn't have to be a supernatural significance to it, even if the dream itself is about the supernatural. I'm guessing he and his family cared incredibly much about Dan, and I am sad for his loss. I'll keep him and his family in my prayers. (Side note, I am also skeptical because the Bible doesn't look that favorably on communicating with people beyond the grave).
<<(Side note, I am also skeptical because the Bible doesn't look that favorably on communicating with people beyond the grave).>>
I think there's an important difference here - when I pray for those who have died, especially those who were troubled, I don't pray to communicate with them. I pray that God will have mercy on their souls. I pray that my prayers may be a help and a comfort to them. Sometimes, when we are open to it, I think God does give us the opportunity to hear from them.
I had a high school friend who killed himself in 2002. We had already drifted apart a good deal, and I didn't find out that this had happened until four years later. I was devastated. I could tell that the mutual friend who let me know was still so hurt that he couldn't talk about it, so apart from God, I had nowhere to go with this pain. Having come from a Protestant background, praying for the dead didn't necessarily come naturally, but it seemed like the only fitting thing to do. I also believe at least one priest I knew offered prayers for Charlie's soul at that time too. Over time, I do believe that God allowed me to know that these prayers were concretely fitting and helpful to Charlie's soul; on more than one occasion in a "miraculous" way. I don't know what Charlie's relationship with God was, but his family seemed to be at least nominally Roman Catholic.
That's the key part. You direct it to the Lord and let Him conduct things. Bring it all to the Lord. He will arrange things and take it from there.
Our Orthodox tradition of holding periodic memorials for dead loved ones is one I would recommend for all churches. We shouldn't just write off our departed in some vague hope we'll see them "in the by and by".
My family holds a memorial for all those who passed in the family after we met the last time. Their names are on a wall at a campground chapel in rural Arkansas. I try to get back there once a year. Also, when I periodically visit the graves of my Mom, Dad, brother and uncle, probably too seldom, truthfully.
A friend of mine, also in the radio business, takes care of my cats when I'm out of town. She comments on how quiet, peaceful and tranqil my little corner of the neighborhood is, despite its close proximity to a high school and a middle school.
I tell her my house is looked after by angels assigned to watch over me and my and her cats.
Part of me really thinks this is true. Taking care of her cats was a dying wish of hers.
I also stop by my parents' grave (near Toledo OH) once a year, to say the prayers for the departed and to leave flowers. My grandparents are also buried in the same cemetery just a couple rows away.
My RC Church had a memorial Mass for all departed family members of parishoners from the last year, on Saturday. We submitted our loved ones names and the pastor read them aloud and offered the Mass for their souls.
He looked over the people gathered during his homily and recalled his personal interactions with many of them and really mourned with people. It was beautiful.
He made a point to emphasize Anointing of the Sick and encouraged everyone to call him before it gets too late. People apparently think that this final opportunity for repentance and blessing will result in instantaneous death.
November is the month dedicated to the "Holy Souls" in the RC church btw.....We of Irish heritage (and I know my Italian friends are the same) will be saying prayers and tending our loved ones gravesites this month.
We have a Saturday set aside (the first in Lent) for a Liturgy memorializing our departed.
Our church says a memorial once a month for all who departed that month in the history of the parish according to its records. A wonderful new institution by our new priest.
Your story is similar to the one I have. My mom died when I was really young. It felt empty and horrifying that because my mom actively wanted to die (she refused medical care after a car accident and had severe anorexia) that she’d end up in hell (in the Protestant version I was given). That messes with your head, especially as a young kid.
I find it much more comforting and compelling to be able to pray for her soul (and the souls of all the departed) as a Catholic. I pray that she gets the emotional healing that she didn’t get while she was here with us.
I heard recently on a video that because God in outside of time - our current prayers actually help at their judgement, even if to us, they’ve been dead for years and years. Again, that’s a lot more comforting than ‘mom’s in hell, oh well, sorry’ and people looking on in pity.
It really makes a lot more sense to me than the black and white version that you are given as an fundamentalist/Protestant. I just don’t think a just God would condemn people who are mentally ill and not in their right mind at the time of their death, Especially one we claim is merciful and forgiving.
I admit I could be wrong, but I am not going to know for sure until I die, so it’s just an unknown and this is what the church teaches. I find a lot of comfort in what the RCC teaches on this.
I am a Protestant, or at least that's the door I came into Christianity by, but I wonder. The idea of cleansing has merit.
I don't believe in the Virgin Mary worship either, and yet apparently prayer to her is efficacious, and many of these Marian apparitions are hard to write off.
I am growing more fond of the Catholic church as the years go by despite the corruption in its top leadership. The leaders aren't the church, and their thinkers and saints have been people of deep faith and knowledge.
Catholics do not "worship" the Virgin Mary, Dan. They revere, venerate, honor, and pray to her as the Mother of God, the greatest of the saints, Queen of the Angels, and the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the only human being whom God spared the taint of the original sin committed by Adam and Eve). Everything she does and says is for God's glory, not her own (think the wedding feast at Cana: "Do whatever He tells you."). I pray that she guides you, with her motherly love, to a closer union with her Son.
You are overreacting to my comment. I know there are people who accuse you of "worshipping" the Virgin Mary, i.e. inappropriate idolatry, but I am not one. I don't think any of us Christians have the last word on some of these questions of doctrine, and if you read my comment you would note I am very open minded about such questions and very positive toward the Catholic church.
But I am on a phone and thus my inclination to inject appropriate nuance is limited. But be ye not offended, as believers in this world in its present state we need to stay united.
Far from being offended by your comment, Dan, I was overjoyed by it! I found your open-mindedness refreshing and inspiring, and was simply trying to correct an unfortunately widespread misapprehension that Catholics "worship" Mary. Peace be to you.
Your response was a clarification worth making for any readers of the comments. It is good for us both to keep away from the tendency to be offended, as occurs too easily in online interaction. Peace.
This is another area where I find myself in emphatic agreement with the early Martin Luther, who maintained the unanimous teaching of the undivided church that she remained ever virgin, and worthy of our veneration.
Catholics (and Christians in general) are forbidden to deliberately try to call up spirits of the dead, seances, etc. God does sometimes allow saints or those in purgatory to communicate with the living.
It is wise to be cautious, both because of possible self-deception, but also because of possible deception by false spirits.
Interesting story and makes me wonder how common this experience may be for others.
Dr. Mark Hitchcock reinforces that God has identified a two-part individual assessment in his book and podcast– Heavenly Rewards Episode 70: http://marklhitchcock.com/2019/06/episode-70-heavenly-rewards/
1. A belief and faith in Jesus Christ result in salvation through grace and eternal life.
2. Upon our death in this life, recognition and rewards and how we spend eternity are then determined by our stewardship of time, opportunities, and resources earning the accolade “Well done, good and faithful servant.” Good works alone without a belief in Christ “will not” lead to salvation.
Scripture implies that our experience in heaven will vary and also reinforces that Jesus hears our prayers.
Thank you for this wonderful story. I have a Monday night prayer group and during the month of November we are committed to praying for deceased souls. I'm going to share this story with them.
Our shared life experiences such as this helps to booster our faith.
Beautiful witness! My grandfather had a devotion to the Poor Souls, prayed Mass cards from their funeral for them everyday. Thank you for sharing thus experience.
In the afterlife, we believe in spirit prison and spirit paradise--an initial sorting before final judgment and resurrection. However, personal progress can be made in both realms. In fact, those in paradise are sent as teachers and ministers to those in spirit prison who wish to make progress. Repentance is possible even after this life. God will save all who repent, even if they repent after this life is over. What we in mortality can do is never forget our loved ones who have gone beyond the veil, and, if possible, provide the blessings of the temple for them in advance of the time when their hearts are changed. Our kindred dead need us, and we need them, in the great family of mankind who are all the children of God.
I’m not a theologian. I’m not sure I understand a lot of this Catholics believe in purgatory but the Orthodox don’t but they do believe that for some people there is some kind of post death state where a soul is neither in heaven nor hell. That sounds a bit like purgatory.
It's pretty much the same thing. My understanding is that with the Reformation, the Protestants made a big fuss about rejecting Purgatory because the Catholic Church was corrupt and asked people to pay money to get souls out of there (that is, they sold indulgences). So that became a Catholic thing, and then the Orthodox made a big fuss about rejecting the Catholic thing, sort of like how they reject the Immaculate Conception although it's just about the same in practice. A lot of politics, in short.
I think you’re right. I was reading all this and thinking- I don’t know that this is much ado about nothing but it seems much ado about not very much.I know some of the history and could give opinions but I have the feeling I’d pointlessly upset someone who’ d hit me with various Greek or Latin terms and assure me there are questions of burning importance here.One thought that has occurred to me , when someone says they believe in say purgatory are they saying they believe it because they believe it or because they believe in a religion that tells them that’s so or tells them it’s not so. There’s some kind of interesting question here that I haven’t done a great job of framing.
I think that a lot of people believe what they're told to believe about most things, although I don't operate that way. I only got officially baptized on Easter 2021, long after I'd had enough experiences to give me some idea of spiritual realities and the nature of the Truth. You can find my own view about Purgatory nested under the first comment to this blog post.
I’m pretty sure I’m going to hell. The more I learn, I’m sure Christ is the way and I’m more sure I’ll never get to meet him.
And I am pretty sure that there is no such thing as Hell except the one that we all live in, and also that people who have thoughts such as yours are the ones He wants to know the most of all.
You may find my view on these things here (sort by top comments): <https://paulkingsnorth.substack.com/p/the-monthly-salon-october-1ae/comments>.
If there is no such thing as Hell, Sethu, Christ's Passion was a waste, the biggest, fattest nothing of them all.
Laura, salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Please read Ephesians 2: 8 and 9.
This is what Catholicism seems to do to so many people, and every comment such as yours only confirms me in my hot eyed Protestantism.
I was already like this! I will read those verses. I also think I’ll spend some time in adoration tonight.
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I do know that Catholicism teaches that despair, thinking that one has no hope of salvation, is a sin. I am one of those who considers the Reformation a "tragic necessity". The Lutheran reformers rightly restored the emphasis on the assurance of God's grace, while keeping as much as they could from the ancient, undivided church. Rod correctly points out that they did leave open the question of praying for the departed. Anyway, who am I to argue with the likes of C.S. Lewis!
The point is that Orthodox have a different model for sin and forgiveness, one that isn't built on a legal concept, as in Western Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant); the Catholic teaching about indulgences makes sense within the Catholic system, but not within Orthodoxy. Plus, we don't believe in Purgatory as an actual place. But we do believe that some souls after death go through a kind of purgation, and that they can benefit from our prayers. I agree that it is a distinction without a lot of difference.
One difference is that Catholics believe there is a penal element to it that Orthodox don't accept. This is related to the "legal" understanding of sin in the West that you mention.
Catholics and Orthodox have a much livelier sense of the unity of the Church over time and space, in life and in death. It is not totally absent in Protestantism, but it is not as lively.
God could act directly without intermediaries, without secondary causes, but He chooses to act through intermediaries, through secondary causes, through both the living and the dead, so that thanksgiving may be multiplied. We are grateful for all his benefits which come to us through his chosen intermediaries, and love is thereby increased.
I pray for my ancestors and my descendants. As I walked the Camino de Santiago, I remembered that as the Jacobsweg it went through Regensburg, where my German ancestors lived, and that some of my ancestors undoubtedly walked on the very stones that I was walking on. I prayed that some of my descendants would go on the pilgrimage and pray for me.
As I near 80, most of the people I have known in my life are gone: parents, aunts and uncles, teachers, neighbors, cousins, people who have injured me, and people whom I have injured. I pray for them all. I pray for the forgotten dead, for those who have no one to pray for them.
Purgatory is not a place of punishment but of purgation. We confront the reality of our lives in the divine light and see the truth about our lives. It is a painful process, because we live in a cloud of self-deception and ignorance. The fire of purgatory is the fire of divine love burning away all the dross of our lives.
An excellent introduction is A Hiker’s Guide to Purgatory (Michael Norton, Ignatius Press, 2022). A seventy-seven year old man has a heart attack and wakes up in a beautiful forest and finds himself equipped with camping equipment. It is beautiful place, because Purgatory is the foothills of heaven, not the antechamber of hell. He goes on a long hike and what his life has been is slowly shown to him and he must face it. It is a guy book, as the sins he has committed are male sins, and some parts of the book really tear the heart out.
Orthodox, some Anglicans, and Catholics, who have systematized the process to a bizarre degree, believe that somehow God uses our love for them to help the dead go through the process of purification. Perhaps as they sense our love for them, they are able to overcome their own obstacles to perfect love, and it speeds the process of purification. One of the spiritual acts of mercy is to pray for the living and the dead, because in that way we can participate in the work of the Mercy that saves us.
What a beautiful comment. Thank you—I'm probably going to check out that book.
Another book I found edifying is "Hungry Souls."
The book Pilgrim's Progress, mentioned elsewhere here, relates to this topic and is also worth reading. www.amazon.com/Pilgrims-Progress-Bunyan-English-Illustrations/dp/1622452399
This is a kind of a coincidence because for me lately it has been very important to pray for family members. I've been hurt by some, and some who've passed have been instrumental in causing hurtful problems between myself and my living siblings. In my family it was pretty much off limits to expect an apology for anything or to complain about being hurt. This would be met with acrimony.
But my prayers have been on forgiveness and on prayer for salvation for all of them. The difference is that now I understand I can separate mysel if needed from abusive behavior, but at the same time love and pray. In some way, and I think this is very Orthodox, a needful separation can prevent more unnecessary sin. So in God's time I can pray for the ultimate good for all, even if in human time perhaps that doesn't take the form of closeness I wish it did. But love is there anyway, and that makes things much easier.
But as you're suggesting, this has become very important, even essential lately.
PS Surely the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus is important here as teaching. Yesterday's reading in GO lectionary btw.
Thanks for passing along this encouraging narrative, Rod. The idea of purgation was one of the easiest Catholic teachings for me to accept, and did so long before my crossing the Tiber 12 years ago. It's not about sins forgiven; it's about the stain of sin on our souls. It's frankly a very rational notion that follows from Hebrews 12:14. It's about our sanctification, not our justification. I think of my own life and how my actions and mind are tainted, sometimes deeply so--and I know it. And progress in it is slow, difficult, and reversible. Lewis's Great Divorce is a helpful description--that the purity of heaven is intense. That there is a pathway by which sanctification can be accomplished and finished is a great mercy of God's. Yet another thing He provides that we do not deserve.
Your friend's account also seems to tacitly highlight the importance of baptism. I don't think about that enough. Our Lord asks for and recognizes it (Matt 28: 19-20). Another reminder of how the stuff of earth is elemental to a God who entered the material world to redeem us.
I like what you said, but also, if your username is factual, then we live in the same city. So hello!
Tis.
The mind is a powerful thing. It will convince us of what we already believe in a thousand ways.
Scripture is extremely clear that there is only heaven and hell, and the final state of a person is permanent. That's too much for most of us to deal with. Catholics deal with it by thinking they can pray their loved one into heaven. Protestants deal with it by clinging to any prayer or church going the dead loved one did at some point during their life, or that they may have had an unknown death bed conversion.
Heaven is real. Hell is real. Death is eternal. No one can cross from one to another, as Jesus made clear in his story of the rich man and Lazarus. Repent and believe yourself in this life; there's no second chances. You can't save anyone else.
That is pretty glum, and I see no reason to see it that way, and many saints and theologians from the very start have most definitely not seen it that way. You may believe it if you wish, of course, but there are a lot of other ways to look at it.
The reason to see it that way is that is what Jesus and the apostles taught. I place no weight on "saints" and theologians where they differ from Scripture. It's glum because it's serious, and that's exactly how Jesus intended us to understand it.
Not my view of Scripture at all, but I'm not gonna argue.
No problem. No interest in arguing per se either, but I think it's important. It's much more profound than your view of Scripture, which I think is an issue in itself, but leaving that aside - it's rooted in your view of Jesus. Is Jesus the Head of the church and its supreme authority, or not? He teaches us about hell and heaven, never Purgatory. He explicitly says in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, "between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us." (Luke 16:26)
The reason I won't argue is that we don't have enough priors in common for any discussion to be productive. Also, you don't know what my view of Scripture is, but you're already sure that yours is more profound, so that's not very promising.
Please feel free to explain it to me if I am not understanding it correctly. I am not at all sure that mine is "more profound". My view of Scripture is that it is authoritative for the church for all time, and that the opinions of saints and theologians cannot supersede it. It sounded to me that your view is that they can. Please correct any misunderstanding.
Oh Susanna, it's a delight to read truth so unashamedly stated.
I have a habit of it....gets me into trouble a lot
I agree with what I think you are indicating. I base my faith and beliefs on what is in the Bible as the inspired word of God. I'll pay attention to what "experts" say if it helps understand what is written in the Bible. I don't pay much attention to what experts say if it creates doctrine or beliefs that are not in the Bible.
Some might call me a Dispensationalist and maybe I am. I've noticed comments here that throw that term around as a pejorative. From the little I understand what a Dispensationalist is, I hardly find it bad to say I believe what is written in the Bible. I'd rather be accused of believing what is in the Bible (even literally) than be accused of not believing the Bible.
Overall, my notion is simply that it is a book and should be read as such. The way some people go on about it seems idolatrous to me, and it also suggests the possibility that they've never seen a book before: sort of makes me think of that film *The Gods Must Be Crazy*, where a coke bottle falls out of the airplane onto the bushmen. And to read a book, you need a hermeneutic, or some sort of key to interpret and process what it is you're reading. The assumption that one's own plain understanding of the words on the page is the best or only way to go about the thing—that is truly bizarre to me. That's not how you read a book.
I agree with part of what your wrote. Yes, you need a hermeneutic to understand the Bible. My view is Jesus was instrumental in providing a hermeneutic for the Old Testament and the Apostles for the New Testament. They collectively provided excellent understanding of the words on those pages.
Although it's referred to as "a book", I assume you know the Bible is actually a biblical canon collection of many books. I don't agree the coke bottle story is applicable.
Oh, of course—it's more like a little library of books. My view, though, is that even the Bible as such is only the formal written artifact of a much broader living Tradition (including written and oral elements), and that the Bible's use for the longest time was primarily liturgical. So I see that as the "meta-hermeneutic", if you will, for what this book of books is. We are of course free to read it in English translation and get what we will from it—as we are free to do so with any book. But I think that a lot of important context can go missing, and then it can start to feel idolatrous, which is why I mentioned the cargo cult thing.
Basically, I think that it's absurd to cite the Bible against the saints, because they are both flowerings of one and the same Tradition. That's like citing a leaf against the root: it suggests a deep confusion about the way that the entire organism works. And the hermeneutic is very rich and expansive, from this standpoint. The theologians add layers of meaning, and there is no question of whether you believe in the Bible *or* in St. Maximus' interpretation of it. It's just a totally different mindset.
The Bible sees it that way, Sethu. And who are the Christians ( "...many saints and theologians..." ) who have not seen it that way?
Your eyes' perception of the Bible sees it that way, Bobby. Among many, many, many others, see St. Isaac of Nineveh.
The Bible doesn't see things in any way. That is a grammatical error, subbing the object for subject. You, a living soul, see the Bible in one way. And I, a living soul, see it in an another.
Indeed, according to Catholic doctrine, the only final states are heaven and hell. The souls in purgatory are saved, that is, they have escaped eternal damnation. This is why they are called the holy souls. But they a certain amount of purification of the effects and consequences of sin left to be done after death, which is why we pray for them and offer our own sacrifices for them. In no way could this ever bring someone from hell into heaven. In the Catholic view, there are several scriptural passages supporting this concept, as any apologist can tell you. You are free to reject this teaching of the Church, but don’t misrepresent it, please!
It is impossible for us to be purified for sins by anything other than the perfect, one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Please read Hebrews 10: "And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all..... But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God....For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy." We cannot add anything to what the sinless Son of God has already done.
Of course, in the Catholic view, every Mass offered IS the one sacrifice of Christ’s body, Including Masses offered for the dead. Is there any Catholic who would argue that we are saved by anything else? When we offer personal sacrifices such as those described in the post, we are uniting our (admittedly puny) suffering to his, not performing some separate, salvific act.
Thanks for explaining that, but I can't see how the necessity to offer ongoing masses or personal sacrifices, as you describe, does anything but contradict what the book of Hebrews and the rest of the New Testament tells us about Jesus' sacrifice being final, once for all, and sufficient. Either we are completely saved by faith in what Jesus did for us, or we are adding something to what he did, which indicates that his sacrifice was not, indeed, one for all or sufficient. This is exactly what the author of Hebrews tells us is no longer necessary: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. Otherwise, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins." (10:1-2) It is good news that we don't have to, and can't, add anything to or continue what Christ already did for us.
That’s a whole other topic, in which I’m no expert. If you want to learn about the Catholic view of salvation in Jesus Christ, I really can’t do better than to point you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’m just a layman and no expert. To keep it scriptural, I would only say that we are told by Jesus that unless we eat his flesh and drink his blood, we will have no life within us. The disciples at the last supper were also told to “do this.” In our view, the one perfect sacrifice of the Cross is made present on each altar when the Mass is celebrated. And united in this sacrifice is the one Church which is also the mystical body of Christ.
Anyway, my initial point, which I hope I can make clear, is that the Church of Rome does not teach and has never taught that anything we do can bring someone from hell to heaven or that those are not the two definitive final states for humans. If you’ve ever heard otherwise that was definitely not real Church doctrine but rather someone’s mistaken or imperfect view of it.
Hi Charles, thanks for explaining further. I do understand your point in your second paragraph; my point was that Jesus and Scripture speak only of hell and heaven as the two final states of man after death, never of Purgatory. I would likewise encourage you to read Scripture. The teachings of Jesus, the Head of the Church, and his apostles are available to you. You don't need to be an expert, only ask God by his Holy Spirit to teach you as you read his word. Blessings to you.
I just read (mostly) Rod's link to Benedict XVI on Purgatory (Heaven and Hell, too) and he points to 1 Corinthians 3:10-3:15 as scriptural foundation for Purgatory. The concept, if you believe Benedict XVI, has been around in Judaism and Hellenism predating Christianity as well. Personally, I don't think characterizing it as a psychological coping mechanism is quite accurate.
I'll check it out and respond here once I've read it, thanks. It seems for the church itself it was more of a power/money gathering concept, from what I understand. People's desperation at the loss of a loved one is prime territory for exploitation (think mediums, etc.)
I don't believe in the particular Catholic concept of Purgatory, which allows for indulgences, but I can see how that would make sense within the Catholic system. But the abuse of that system by greedy Renaissance churchmen doesn't negate the truth of the teaching (if it is true, I mean). I do, of course, agree that there can be for some souls who are saved but not ready to bear the fullness of God's glory, an intermediate, temporary state. I believe that what happened to my friend with his brother Dan really did happen. The specifics of how it happened don't really interest me. I believe in praying to God to show mercy to our dead. When I found out last winter some of the evil things my father was probably involved in during his life, my confessor instructed me to pray every day for the peace of my dad's soul. I hope he repented of his wrongdoing before death, but I don't know that he did, in part because he was raised in such a culture that he would have struggled to see his deeds as culpable (it had to do with racism). I would not be surprised if somehow my father was saved by his expression of faith in Christ, but needed some sort of posthumous spiritual purification. Or maybe not! In any case, prayers on his behalf to the Lord do not hurt, and may actually help.
Thanks for your thoughtfulness. Benedict XVI seems to argue that the fires of purgatory are really Christ's grace transforming us into a suitable form to merge with the "communion of saints." He links grace with repentance, which is beautiful and worth much more contemplation.
I would just suggest caution in being too conclusive on the meaning of a particular story in scripture. There is another possibility: the rich man was still unrepentant perhaps. After all, he tries to send Lazarus to fetch him a drop of water, like a servant. He does not apologize. Arguably, he is still treating Lazarus as beneath him. So it could be that the problem is the disposition of the rich man’s heart even after death, where-ever he is now. Prayers for him might turn it around. We don’t know because that’s not part of that story. Faith, hope and love are virtues, we do know that. And so we have faith and hope in our loving prayers for the dead. But God has the final say and his judgment will be perfect. And I would not presume to understand, not easily anyway, the judgements of God. It’s a terrifying story, that’s for sure. And we should do all we can to repent in this life, that’s true. But it is silent about prayers for the dead and their effect. My 2 cents.
I appreciate your humble attitude; it's commendable (no sarcasm whatsoever). However, it seems that you're saying that we *should* believe things that Scripture is silent about, while *not* believing things it clearly says. I don't think that's a safe principle, personally.
So nobody in the Church got it right until the Reformation? OK.
With all due respect, I'm struggling with whether this comment deserves a serious reply. Falling on the side of yes, I'll repeat what I've said above: I base my beliefs on Jesus and inspired Scripture. Nothing less, nothing more. It is only a matter of academic interest what anyone in history may or may not have believed. I'm not familiar enough with the development of the doctrine of Purgatory to know who believed it starting when, and it doesn't really matter that much to me except as an interesting facet of church history.
Thank you for engaging so thoughtfully with Rod and the rest of us. . I think we are all striving to write comments to each other worthy of response and being taken seriously. In that same vein, I have the following thought on what you say here about inspired scripture vs. church history:
Doesn’t the very idea of what belongs in the canon of scripture rely on the Church? I mean, since it is the Church that has established what books we read as inspired scripture. In that case, you can’t really separate your beliefs from the somewhat complex history of that Church. For instance, as a Catholic, I have a book in my bible, 2 Maccabees, where I read that it is a commendable thing to pray for the dead. Does the fact that this is in my bible and perhaps not in yours (I am assuming based on your comments that you are expressing a Protestant viewpoint) not rely on some aspect of Church history?
We Catholics also believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and certainly we do not think any of the things that you suggest in these comments are unscriptural (purification of the temporal punishment of sin after death, etc.) are in fact so. If I thought any of my Catholic beliefs contradicted scripture, there would have to be some kind of contradiction with my belief in the inerrancy of scripture. Our differences, then, are differences of interpretation, which is hardly easy, even as we both approach the scriptures seeking to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
I’ve pretty much never written a comment on Substack, but somehow I was led to engage with yours, since I think there is some more clarity to be found and shared here about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on this subject.
Charles, likewise thank you for your very thoughtful and respectful comment. I appreciate it. It's really a bit of a big topic to respond to in a comment, but I'll try to keep it brief:
"Doesn’t the very idea of what belongs in the canon of scripture rely on the Church?" Well, yes, if you mean the church as the body of believers in Jesus, indwelt and guided by the Holy Spirit, and not an authoritative magisterium telling people what to believe. My understanding of what happened at the Council of Nicea was that it was basically a confirmation of what was mostly universal existing agreement in the church about what books belonged in the canon.
I haven't read 2 Maccabees, although I've long had it on my "someday" to-do list to read the Apocrypha, as we non-Catholics call those books (not sure if you have a different name for them). Nonetheless, I understand that it's a book relating Jewish history, and as such I wouldn't take it as a source of doctrine. I understand that there is/was a Jewish practice of praying for the dead, and I imagine that's what it's referring to, though I'd need to know more detail.
"We Catholics also believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and certainly we do not think any of the things that you suggest in these comments are unscriptural (purification of the temporal punishment of sin after death, etc.) are in fact so." I'm glad to hear that, and for me that commitment to the inerrancy of Scripture runs up against the fact that there is no clear Scriptural teaching of Purgatory, or example to pray for or to the dead, particularly in the New Testament. In fact, the Old Testament warns against it in several places, e.g. Saul was condemned for calling the ghost of Samuel up. Jesus spoke and warned quite a bit about hell, and that would be a perfect time for him to mention the concept of Purgatory, if it existed. There are, on the contrary, many clear statements in Scripture to the effect that death is the end, that the final judgement follows death, and that there is no alternate path to heaven for one who has rejected God in this life. Conversely, as the Hebrews 10 passages I cited in another comment make clear, as well as many other passages of Scripture, the sacrifice of Jesus is completely sufficient to save those who put their trust in him in this life.
Rod's comment made me curious and I read in Wikipedia that Purgatory did not become an official Catholic doctrine till the 11th century. So that's about a thousand years at the beginning of church history, at least.
I would make a serious challenge to you to simply read straight through the New Testament and ask yourself if you could or would derive the idea of Purgatory solely from it, if you did not have the teaching of the Catholic Church? My question always is, how can we know whether what anyone is teaching us is truth, or whether they are leading us astray? I don't believe there's a better measuring rod than God's own word. Blessings to you and I'll end this already too-long comment.
Oh Susanna, thank you for your comments. I think the best and safest stance about this kind of subject is that of the Lutheran Confessions: our Confessions expressly allow prayer for the departed, but we decline to theorize very much about the issues involved because the Scriptures are our sure guide and there is some reserve in them.
A favorite Bible verse of mine is Deuteronomy 29: 29. There *are* some matters that, for now, God reserves (we believe) to Himself, and His Faithful will respect that.
We might have some notions that seem highly intriguing to us and that do not conflict with the Bible (in my case, this includes the idea of angels of the nations/peoples). But there is a chastity of thinking in the Lutheran church, in that we modestly refuse to bind the consciences of Christ's beloved people with matters that cannot be demonstrated from the Bible. We do not forbid things that the Bible does not forbid (while the Reformed had a habit of holding that all that is not commanded is forbidden). But we do not burden the consciences of the believer with uncertain things, as the Roman church seems to me to do, in regard to some doctrines and practices that need not be enumerated.
Interesting, thanks for explaining that. I admit that Lutheranism is a branch of the church I don't know much about. It sounds like you take a bit of a middle way in this type of question.
It is well to recall, that the Christian church existed for decades before any of the New Testament was written.
Re the New Testament canon, there were a number of contested books, but it is correct that most were not contested.
Re the Old Testament, there was no dispute at Council: the Septuagint canon was used by all Christians....until Luther and the other Reformers. If you check Scripture, you will notice that the Apostles used the Septuagint. For instance, Hebrews 10:5-7 quotes from Psalm 40 in the Septuagint version.
The so-called Apocrypha were part of the Septuagint, i.e. they were part of Holy Scripture.
Actually, most of the Old Testament quotations are from the Septuagint, which only makes sense, since the NT was, after all, in Greek. If you've ever compared passages, and been puzzled by the discrepancies, that's usually why.
Personally, I have found myself astonished by the deep unintelligence of this idea that the Bible somehow just fell out of the sky in one piece, and moreover that its meaning is self-evident. No thought to the fact that the Church assembled the Bible in the first place; no thought about how the Bible is merely the formal written element of a much broader Tradition. No theologians, no saints, no nothing—just you and your own two infallible eyes. The epistemological problems with that entire approach are as vast as the oceans; and to be honest, until recently, I wasn't even aware that there were serious Christians who thought about it in these terms. it is very alien to my experience.
Well, we Christians who actually take the Bible seriously and give God the credit and the glory for EVERYTHING good are glad to educate you. The Bible is far more than just a book. It says so in its own pages. The effect it has on the world is supernatural. And this would not be possible if it were just another book assembled by men. Were men involved? Of course there were. Would the Bible have the effect and the power it has if it were their efforts and minds, and not the Holy Spirit driving it all?
No. To God be the Glory. It is HIS work. Men, as always in the kingdom, are just one instrument.
And if you had a chance to ask them, those involved in that work, I've no doubt in my mind they would confirm my words. If they are truly men of God. And I've no doubt they are, for the fruits of the Spirit are evidence.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Their works. If the KIngdom increases, it is not by our work, but His.
Oh, and yes, it is meant to be read, understood and memorized by all Christians, not just elders to be disseminated. The sheer history of the tome testifies to this. And again, in its pages, we, ALL OF US, not just clergy, are called to read it, memorize it, commit it to our hearts for the renewing of our minds. This idea that the everyday Christian is not fit to read it and only should rely on clergy is alien, and against the words written therein.
Pastors and teachers are of course important. But that does not absolve the individual Christian of the need to read, study, learn and take it on for themselves.
Your elders are only human and only reading the same thing. In that regard, they are nothing special, no more than any other Christian.
It is the same Holy Spirit at work in ALL OF US.
I take it you are not a fan of the Lives of the Saints, then?
I know what saints are, but I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. If you mean do I focus on saints in the Catholic sense? No. I do not. But I've nothing particular against it.
I like you, Tee, but I wasn't talking to you here, and I will not argue with you about this matter. See you on the next thread about *Blade Runner*, right?—now there's a point of serious agreement.
Thank you, I like you, too. Look, again, I do not mean to disrespect Orthodox views, but please, let the opinionated Protestant step up to the mike too.
:)
Blade Runner is awesome. I even enjoyed the sequel. That director is doing great work. So far, he's doing Dune right, too. The only other director I think would have had a chance at Dune is Chris Nolan. And he's angling for a 60s era James Bond trilogy. Let us hope that happens.
The sequel made me think a lot about the Virgin Birth, actually; that film *Children of Men* also had the same effect. The sheer miraculous immediacy of it, of this thing that is not supposed to be possible somehow suddenly having happened.
Sethu, this is a caricature of the understanding of Bible and tradition held at least by some people labeled as Protestants, i.e. Lutherans. Martin Chemnitz has a fine discussion of tradition in the first book of his Examination of the Council of Trent.
My point is that I had assumed it was a caricature, before encountering Christians who appear to quite sincerely believe exactly what I said. I wasn't speaking about Protestants in general.
Thanks. I've become perhaps too readily annoyed by many remarks around here about "Protestants" and "the" "Protestant Reformation" and so on. The level of knowledge here about the Lutheran reformation is generally nothing to be proud of. Rod's Substack seems to have rather more of that kind of thing than comments written in his American Conservative days.
I am pretty open-minded, overall—pretty heretical by most standards. My standard is the music of the spheres, and I like creative development in all things. At the time of Luther, I have no doubt that I would have sided with him. The type of thing that I lampooned irks me precisely for how doctrinaire it is, how ignorant, how closed off to the promptings of the human spirit, to say nothing of the Holy Ghost.
I find a lot of misrepresentation/misunderstanding of the Scripture/Tradition matrix among Protestants. I gave up trying to explain it. And like Sethu, I gather, I have had to deal with Bible-alone lectures, and have bitten my tongue so as not to get involved in a huge argument, because even quoting the Bible doesn't get you a hearing! For instance, I might point out Paul's command in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to "hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter." No dice. Even worse, I might point out that the Bible itself never says that it alone is the only source of doctrine. Actually, I never tried that one, but I've been sorely tempted.
Of course, as a Catholic, I firmly believe in the Bible as the Word of God. But I try to avoid this kind of discussion, because I always wonder if I might do harm to someone else's faith by perhaps not being able to explain clearly that rejecting "Bible-alone" or private interpretation does not mean rejecting the Bible as God's Word. God forbid I should put a stumbling block in another's way!
Rod, watch for a long message or two from me sometime in which i will try to help you past your habit of referring to "the Reformation." There's a Narrative about "the Reformation" that discourages people from learning about what was really the case, that there was an era of the reformationS. One of my biggest fears about your current book project is that it will be severely impaired in its historical analysis.
Rod, by your own repeated admissions, you know next to nothing about orthodox Protestantism, and this comment is unworthy of you.
Thanks for your comments here, Oh Susanna. I don’t doubt that many mysterious things happen in this life that can’t be explained materially. Spiritual forces are real. I don’t think Rod is wrong to think we moderns discount much of our unseen world to our detriment. We have believed too deeply that science and the material world are basically all we need to understand reality (reality, of course, being what we can touch and see and explain rationally).
At the same time, precisely because the unseen world is unseen, I think dwelling on those experiences with it and the fact that it exists can become its own kind of distraction at best, idolatry at worst. Christ is both God—fundamentally of the spiritual world, though I’m no theologian and that’s probably not the way to say it—and man—incarnated into this world. I believe that He cast out demons because He could see and exercise power over them. I’m a little (like insignificant and worthless) sinner, and I’m frankly terrified of spending time and energy trying to better understand the unseen world, which contains both benevolent and malevolent forces. The benevolent ones are of God and to my good, so it is enough for me to thank Him for guardian angels (with children, this is a fairly frequent occurrence) and pray He protects me from the evil ones. So I honestly think more of an emphasis on Christ’s incarnational reality, if that makes sense, would be better than a plunge into the metaphysical. If events happen to portend God’s judgment, like the flag ripping that RD has written about a lot, then I think we acknowledge that they happen and fall on our knees to pray for Christ’s guidance in a paganizing world. We don’t keep talking about how these things happen and how to think about them beyond actually turning to God, which we should do anyway.
And the southern influence on RD’s way of thinking, the shades of the gothic, seem important, too. My grandfather had a few formative spiritual experiences, and they were weird, definitely without earthly explanation. I’ve had a few myself. But I take them as gifts like the millions of other ones God has given me. They are valuable and true, but the experiences themselves are not the ultimate focus. Jesus is and always should be.
And that’s where I land with this story about Dan. I pray his family who are faithful to Christ continue to cling to Him above all else, and I pray his family who have fallen away return to Christ and receive His unending mercy. I honestly was a little confused about the writer’s belief that because his son stopped crying in the cave after he appealed to Dan for help means that Dan is in heaven. God gave the writer peace after all of his turmoil about Dan, and maybe that was the point of the experience--that Dan’s fate is with Christ, not anyone else. All of the words spilled about people and inexplicable experiences (in this post, the comments, and elsewhere) are interesting, and maybe they can point us back to Christ. But as a small-o orthodox Lutheran, I have 1000% more trust in Christ’s words, like “take, eat, this is My body, which is shed for you for the remission of sins” and “drink of it, all of you; this cup is the New Testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins” than countless individual stories. Again, those experiences might be instrumental, but only insofar as they point people directly back to the Word and to Christ.
I think about my family all the time. Being the sole survivor of my immediate family, I miss them terribly, but know they are in good hands. My brother, Chip, was one of those rare, St. Paul-type recipients of radical transformation in an instant. My last communication with him before he was killed in a tragic car accident revealed to me what had happened to him. He did not even say anything about it, but the change in his voice and the way he spoke was night and day. At the time, I did not understand what I was hearing and still believed he was the same hard to deal with jerk I had grown up with. But he was not. And I'm grateful I had one last chance to communicate with my brother. And that glimpse that God gave he and has so powerfully affected me later, I do think that was a a God-thing and not just chance.
I bring it up to say that was not even the end of the story. My father, deeply devoted man of God (and engineer who started his career with NASA during the moon shots) described experiencing a visit from Chip early in the morning, shortly after he departed this life. He said to Dad, "Dad, I'm fine. Do not worry about me." Interesting he picked Dad to sent this message. Of the three of us remaining, Dad was the one least likely to entertain such fancy, as he had the classical Protestant idea that souls do not hang around here for any reason, nor do they communicate with us still doing our biological thing. But there are way too many of these kinds of stories to dismiss them.
Also, my mother, also a deeply devoted woman of faith who loved the Lord, she struggled after Dad left eight years ago. But she kept herself busy, mostly with church and family after Dad went to Heaven. But more than once, she asked God why she was still here. I visited her most mornings, sharing a Bible devotion with her, as I did with both of them when Dad was still here. Her prayers began consistently including an appeal to God to do something for Uncle William, Dadi's older brother. He had begun showing signs of some kind of degenerative nerve condition when Dad was still here, like Parkinson's, though it had not been diagnosed back when Dad began expressing concerns. He went from a strong, hearty man to this feeble presence. And eventually, he was all but in a coma state, that my aunt struggled to care for. Mom could see this and prayed for God to please either restore him or bring him home, as this in between state was not helping anyone.
Then came when my Mom was taken, January of last year. COVID did her in. I also got my first and only case, but came through fine. But I had to bury my last immediate family member. In addition, Uncle William, who had gone into the hospital again a few days after Mom died, passed on as well. But because Mom had passed from COVID, quarrantine procedures made it that she got laid to rest after my uncle.
Thing is, when I showed up for his funeral, I had a cluster of cousins come up to me with strange looks on their faces. "Did you know?" they asked. I asked what were they talking about. They explained.
Apparently one night at the hospital, Uncle William, who had been comatose for some time, opened his eyes, sat up in bed and said in a clear voice, "Mary is here."
"Where?" the family members present asked. Also, one said, "Whose Mary?"
"JB's Mary," he said in response, pointing to a seeming empty space in the room. JB is my Dad's name.
I can tell you Mom loved William and was deeply concerned. Being over there, she absolutely would want to be in the party escorting him over if she had the option.
Since then, the Lord has been helping me with a few long-standing issues in my faith and such. And in my supreme doubts about my path He intends, especially thing Navy chaplain thing I've been wrestling against Him for years.
He sent me a dream, a vision, of me in that role, ministering to sailors. It was so beautiful, real and vivid.
This small group on spiritual warfare, I had one guy who has made every class. But he absolutely needed this class and the spiritual change in him as we approach the end of the semester, you can see.
The Lord will leave the 99 temporarily to go retrieve the one. No ministering effort is too small.
I'm now helping out with a local mission effort standing up. They will need bus drivers. And I just so happen to have a Class B license I got decades ago that I hung onto, because you never know.
And there are other things, but I've gone on enough.
The Lord is always there. He never leaves us, my friends. And he is always waiting to hear from us.
My family has two similar stories where the very soon-to-be deceased reported seeing a vision of their pre-deceased spouses standing in the room. Make of that what you will. I'm not sure myself. A grace? Wish fulfilment? Failing synapses?
Separately, I have two different devout relatives who died surrounded by loved ones. One breathed her last on the final "Amen" just as the ten surrounding her bed completed a family Rosary. An uncle died on the final syllable of a Marian hymn that had been sung in his presence. We account these as beautiful passings, in so far as that makes sense.
The real kicker about my uncle seeing my mother, btw, is that he had no way of knowing, in the temporal news passing sense, that she had already gone ahead. That adds much more weight.
That's wild. Yes, significant.
Oh, believe me, this is super-common in the testimonies of people who work in the hospice field. I even had the opportunity to question my dad's home hospice nurse about it. She said it happened all the time. She told me there was one absolutely terrifying instance, though, in which a patient, in his final moments, began screaming that demons were clawing at him, pulling him down to hell. "He was an Episcopal priest, too," she said. You just never know... .
There is a chapter in Lewis' "The Great Divorce" about an apostate bishop, after all.
My grandfather died at 5:05 AM, on December 22. My mother died at 5:05 AM, on December 22.
My mother was badly injured in her left leg at age seven, but recovered. She died of a traumatic brain injury. When I was seven, I nearly died of a traumatic brain injury, and in that same violent event was injured much more severely in the same part of the left leg as my mother had been at the same age; I came within two minutes at most of bleeding to death.
Most people have things like this, phantasmagoria, I think I can call them not disrespectfully. Their meanings are beyond any of us.
My family also has some oddly specific coincidences between members. Yes, the meaning is beyond me, perhaps it will be apparent in the afterlife.
And then there are the various weird phenomena such as spontaneous internal combustion. Is it real, or were these people murdered? The victims really do appear to have spontaneously combusted.
And by the way, this is a very good comment. Thank you.
Wonderful story. Thanks for sharing.
I have no family. This is a beautiful story.