Catholicism and Abortion.

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
DD214 said:
I agree. We had unity until 500 years ago. Thanks Martin Luther!
I would agree with the "fine art" statement if Catholics did not bow to them or pray to the saint represented by them. Nor can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says to pray to the saints or Mary. It does say to pray for the saints (but all Christians are saints according to the Bible).

And I would reply to the "Thanks Martin Luther!" statement as maybe we should thank the pope that was selling indulgences. Buying your way or your love ones way out of hell is not a concept taught in the Bible anywhere and the word purgatory or the concept of such a place is also no where to be found in the Bible.

As to being "closed minded", I will gladly accept reproof given from scripture quoted in context. I, by no means, think I know all things Spiritual. But as to being closed minded, one might say the same thing about you, don't you think? You have Catholcism down pat. Priest, brother, nun?
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
citysherry said:
There are several places in the Bible where God commissions statues and images for religious usage:
Exodus 25:10-22
1 Kings 6:23; 7:13-51
Numbers 21:6-9
Judges 17:1-6

An image is not an idol. There is a difference. An image is simply a spiritual ‘visual aid’ that is used by the faithful to increase their spirit of prayerfulness and devotion to God. An idol, on the other hand, is an image that is worshipped by the unfaithful in place of the one true God.

The late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “There are not one hundred people in this world who hate Catholicism, but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly believe Catholicism to be.”
I can agree that an image is not an idol. Idols are anything worshiped other than God. Money is certainly an idol for many.
 
J

JPC, Sr.

Guest
The Truth Will Set Us All Free.

forever jewel said:
I'm split on the issue. I do believe that all children are gifts from God. I agree that abortions should not be used as a method of disposal. Yet, I would feel horrible forcing a woman to bare a child from rape, a constant reminder of a horrific event. But then I'm torn again, because although you may not want that child, it is possible to go full-term and then give the child up for adoption. That offers a child of rape the gift of life, a child that did not ask to be put in that situation...

:popcorn: I agree with this post quote.

Except that my own split feelings come down to one conclution that we must put reasonable limits and restrictions on abortions, and always consider it as an unhappy event no matter why it gets done.

Even if it is needed to save the life of the mother then sure it is happy the mother has a chance to live but we can still morn for the lost one.
 

DD214

Member
2ndAmendment said:
I would agree with the "fine art" statement if Catholics did not bow to them or pray to the saint represented by them. Nor can you find anywhere in the Bible where it says to pray to the saints or Mary. It does say to pray for the saints (but all Christians are saints according to the Bible).

And I would reply to the "Thanks Martin Luther!" statement as maybe we should thank the pope that was selling indulgences. Buying your way or your love ones way out of hell is not a concept taught in the Bible anywhere and the word purgatory or the concept of such a place is also no where to be found in the Bible.
I'll try to keep this one short. We Catholics do not consider those that are in heaven dead. They are just as alive as you or I. See Luke 20:38:

38He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.

Now, since Catholics believe that all of those that have gone before us and are now in heaven are truly alive, we have no problem asking them to pray for us, for we are all members of the same body, which is the unbroken body of Christ. For Catholics, asking St. Mary or St. John to pray for us is no different that you asking one of your church members to pray for you. After all, we do know that the prayers of the righteous carry a lot of weight. James 5:16:

16Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.

Following this logic, who better to ask for prayerful intercession than someone we believe is now in the actual presence of God in heaven?

We do not worship them, we make no attempt to conjure them up, and we don't ask them to communicate with us. It is merely as follows:

Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.

Amen.


That is all there is to it. I think St. Augustine said it best:

"At the Lord’s table we do not commemorate martyrs in the same way that we do others who rest in peace so as to pray for them, but rather that they may pray for us that we may follow in their footsteps" (Homilies on John 84, AD 416).

I'm not going to go into indulgences here, but if you are interested I can point you to some literature that will explain it. It has never been a big issue to me, and I think that it was just a lame excuse for the Reformation.
2ndAmendment said:
As to being "closed minded", I will gladly accept reproof given from scripture quoted in context. I, by no means, think I know all things Spiritual. But as to being closed minded, one might say the same thing about you, don't you think? You have Catholicism down pat. Priest, brother, nun?
As I have pointed out in other discussions that we have had, I have only been a Catholic for a few years. I spent most of my life as a member of the Baptist church and Assembly of God. It was only in my late 20's/early 30's that I found the truth in the Catholic Church. No one convinced me, and I didn't talk to a priest until my mind was made up. I spent the better part of 3 years studying and learning, and made the choice to change my ways because I found that I had been wrong about many, many things. And believe me when I say that it was a very, very difficult conversion, because I was very anti-Catholic for the majority of my life. I told more than my share of Pope jokes growing up. And if you are asking if I am a priest/brother/nun, the answer is absolutely not. Far from it! I learned what I know through my own personal pursuit of the truth.
 
Last edited:

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
I also believe that those that die in Christ are not dead but living, so I can accept that you are asking Mary or saint whatever to pray for you. But why do you need to keep praying it over and over again? If I ask someone to pray for me, I accept that they will; I don't keep asking unless another need comes up. As for asking God, I believe in going direct. Jesus said we should pray to our Father who is heaven, but I do see your point.

I am sure the RCC has lots of literature on indulgences, but show me in the Bible, the word of God, where it says you can buy your or someone else's way to heaven.

If you pointed out that you were only a Catholic for a few years in a previous post, sorry, I either missed it or my sometimers is kicking in.

I am not anti Catholic. I received the empowering of the Holy Spirit when I was prayed over at a non-denomination prayer group hosted at Ryken by a Catholic brother. I don't agree with some practices, but I readily accept Catholics, at least some of them, as Christian bother and sisters. Don't get in a uproar of "some of them". There are many people that attend church that do not have a personal relationship with Jesus as Savior and Lord and thus, are not Christians. I don't presume to know who is or who isn't. Only God knows each person's heart, but as James pointed out, a person's works, the way they live their day to day life, will reveal who is and who isn't. As Jesus said,
Luke 6:43-45

43"For there is no good tree which produces bad fruit, nor, on the other hand, a bad tree which produces good fruit.

44"For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

45"The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart.
Thanks for shedding some light on Catholic customs and traditions. I still have a problem with some of them, but I trust that Christ's peace will be between us.
 

DD214

Member
I appologize in advance for the length of this post. I tried to keep it as brief as possible, but as you can see...

2ndAmendment said:
I also believe that those that die in Christ are not dead but living, so I can accept that you are asking Mary or saint whatever to pray for you. But why do you need to keep praying it over and over again? If I ask someone to pray for me, I accept that they will; I don't keep asking unless another need comes up. As for asking God, I believe in going direct. Jesus said we should pray to our Father who is heaven, but I do see your point.
We repeat some prayers over and over again only as means to keep our minds in a prayerful, meditative state. Similar to if you repeat "praise God, praise you Lord" over and over again. It really is no different. And I have found that the act of repeating prayers, many of which are just Bible verses, helps me to focus on my Christian life even when I am not trying to consciously do so. Think of it as a new catchy song you hear on the radio. After you've listened to it a number of times you find yourself singing or humming the tune even when you don't mean to. You know, one of those songs that gets stuck in your head. Repeating prayers tends to have the same effect, but rather than some mindless pop song, I instead find myself repeating a prayer such as this one from the Rosary:

O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to heaven, especially those who are in most need of Thy mercy.

2ndAmendment said:
I am sure the RCC has lots of literature on indulgences, but show me in the Bible, the word of God, where it says you can buy your or someone else's way to heaven.
I still don't want too go to deep into indulgences, but I'll give a brief explanation. Indulgences are NOT a way to buy your way into heaven, they will NOT get you out of hell, and they will NOT free you from sin for which you have not repented. They are not something that is "sold". True, this happened during the time of the Reformation, but it was not endorsed by the Pope or the Bishops of Germany.

The Pope sent a group of priests throughout Europe to try and raise money to build St. Peter's Basilica. These priests were to grant indulgences (blessings) to those who either donated money OR agreed to pray for the project. What happened in one instance was that a priest named Fr. Tetzel decided to be deceptive and tell the peasants that they would receive the indulgence only if they gave money, so in a sense he was trying to sell indulgences. This is the priest that sparked Martin Luther's initial revolt. When the Pope learned of the deception being committed by Fr. Tetzel he put an end to it. There is much more to the story, but that is it in a nutshell.

In a sense an indulgence is another word for what you would call a blessing. I have received many indulgences, and I never had to, nor was I asked to pay a dime for them. The only thing that was asked of me was that I have a sincere, repentant heart. Sometimes a donation is requested, but it is never required. I have not personally seen that happen. You can also think of it this way. When you tithe, or you give money to your church's building fund, your pastor may say that God will bless you for being generous. There you go - an indulgence.

The only thing that differentiates between a Protestant "blessing" and a Catholic "indulgence" is the benefit that is being offered. While you may say that God will bless you financially for your regular tithe, a Catholic indulgence will mean that the believer will be freed from some amount of temporal punishment after death. This leads to another subject with which you strongly disagree with - Purgatory.

Once again, I'll only give a brief explanation for Purgatory. First, what Purgatory is not. It is NOT a holding tank between heaven and hell that one can be prayed or bought out of and redirected to heaven rather than hell. The Church teaches Purgatory more as a transitory state of existence rather than an actual place. Souls in Purgatory are destined for heaven. If you are headed for hell, Purgatory is not for you.

I've heard it explained this way. The thief that accepted Jesus while they were dying on the cross was freed of eternal punishment (hell), but he still had to suffer the consequences of his sin by suffering on a cross (temporal punishment). Jesus told him that he was forgiven and would be with him in heaven, but Jesus still allowed him to suffer the painful death of crucifixion even though he could have called down angels to free him. The thief was forgiven, but he still had to suffer the consequences of his sin. Purgatory is the same thing. A soul that is headed for heaven must be stripped clean of any stain that is left from sin, as Rev 21:27 states that "Nothing unclean can enter heaven". Christ's death and resurrection offered us freedom from eternal punishment, but not from temporal punishment. I'm sure you can agree with this as you know that you can be forgiven but still have to pay the consequences for your sin. Catholics believe that Paul was speaking of Purgatory in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

St. Augustine explains it well:

"The time which interposes between the death of a man and the final resurrection holds souls in hidden retreats, accordingly as each is deserving of rest or of hardship, in view of what it merited when it was living in the flesh. Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead find relief through the piety of their friends and relatives who are still alive, when the Sacrifice of the Mediator [Mass] is offered for them, or when alms are given in the Church. But these things are of profit to those who, when they were alive, merited that they might afterward be able to be helped by these things. There is a certain manner of living, neither so good that there is no need of these helps after death, nor yet so wicked that these helps are of no avail after death" (ibid., 29:109)

And I like the way C.S. Lewis explained Purgatory:

"Our souls demand Purgatory, don't they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, 'It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip 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. But I don't think the suffering is the purpose of the purgation. I can well believe that people neither much worse nor much better than I will suffer less than I or more. . . . The treatment given will be the one required, whether it hurts little or much.

My favorite image on this matter comes from the dentist's chair. I hope that when the tooth of life is drawn and I am 'coming round',' a voice will say, 'Rinse your mouth out with this.' This will be Purgatory. The rinsing may take longer than I can now imagine. The taste of this may be more fiery and astringent than my present sensibility could endure. But . . . it will not be disgusting and unhallowed."


2ndAmendment said:
... Don't get in a uproar of "some of them". There are many people that attend church that do not have a personal relationship with Jesus as Savior and Lord and thus, are not Christians. I don't presume to know who is or who isn't. Only God knows each person's heart, but as James pointed out, a person's works, the way they live their day to day life, will reveal who is and who isn't. ... I trust that Christ's peace will be between us.
I agree completely. Peace.
 

DD214

Member
I forgot to add this. This is the official explination of Purgatory from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.611
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
I believe Jesus died once for all and washed all my and those that believe sins away for all time. In God's eyes, a Christian is purer than the driven snow worthy of a white robe and a new name. As the Jesus said, we are no longer under judgment.
John 5:24 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
I believe and I think scripture bears it out that when a Christian dies, it is straight to heaven; no waiting period or further atonement needed because Christ did it all. God knew every sin I would ever commit when Jesus died for me and when He rose, He rose as a promise to all believers of eternal life. There is nothing I can do to deserve or add to God's plan of salvation.

I can't find the word purgatory or any concept of a waiting period anywhere in the Bible. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on purgatory.

Glad we agree on Jesus as Savior and Lord. All the other stuff will just have to wait until the day we know for sure.
1 Corinthians 13:12-13

12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

13But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love.
 

DD214

Member
I wasn't going to post anymore, because I think you are right that we should just agree to disagree, but I came across this snipet from an article that I thought was good. I don't expect that it will change your mind, but it brings up some scriptural points that I failed to address.
Purgatory in Scripture

The word "Purgatory" is not in the Bible. This has fed a lot of arguments against it. But let us look at another word that is not in the Bible - "Trinity." For that matter, the word "Bible" itself does not appear in Scripture.

Some Evangelicals say "everything that is true is in the Bible." Catholics say that "everything that is in the Bible is true." There is a subtle distinction. Many Evangelicals would say "if its true its in the Bible, if its not true its not in the Bible." But the early Christians didn't have a Bible. It wasn't written for at least a hundred years and the exact books to include were not formally decided upon until the 300's. So the tradition of the Church is important. Catholics believe there are spiritual truths that are inferred in the Bible but not expressly articulated. The Catholic Church thinks Jesus has given authority to the Church to articulate these things. These are articulated slowly and carefully as the Church marches through time on its "Pilgrimage of Faith." Both Catholics and Evangelicals agree that no spiritual truth will conflict with the Bible. Amen to that.

Some Evangelicals claim that Deut 18:10-12 rails against the concept of Purgatory and praying for the dead. The Church feels there is an important distinction between Deut 18:10-12 and Purgatory. Catholics pray for the dead -not to them. I would pray for you but I would not pray to you.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body. (2 Cor 5:10)

Catholics believe there is enough evidence of Purgatory in Scripture to validate its existence. Evangelicals would agree that even if there is one instance of a spiritual principle in the Bible, then it is true because the Bible is the embodiment of Truth.

Paul prayed for Onesiphorous after he died, "may the Lord grant that he will find mercy from the lord on that day" (2nd Timothy 1:16-18).

"After his death, Jesus went to preach to the Spirits in prison" (1 Pet 3:19)

"Nothing unclean can enter heaven" (Rev 21:27)

Catholics believe Jesus speaks of purgatory in Matthew 18:23-35. He says: "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to..." and then He tells a story about a king who forgave a servant's large debt. That same servant refused to forgive a much smaller amount of a fellow servant. The king then threw the first servant into prison "until he should pay back the whole debt." Jesus then says, "So will my Heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart." Catholics feel the prison in the Kingdom of Heaven where one might remain until the debt is satisfied is Purgatory.

Catholics believe Paul also spoke of purgatory:

"The work of each will builder willcome to light, for the day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire [itself] will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss, the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)

Of course some of the most obvious verses about Purgatory appear in the Deuterocanoncial books which the Evangelicals call the Apocrypha. Anyone who accepts those books will have a hard time arguing against Purgatory. ... The Deuteros were always part of the Bible. The books of the Bible were ratified in 393AD and it remained stable until Martin Luther discarded the Deuteros in the mid 1500's.(He also tried to throw out the Book of James and Revelation) Evangelicals say "Purgatory is not in the Bible" but that is because the parts of the Bible that best defend it were discarded by the Protestant Reformation.

OK. I'll let it rest now. :whistle:
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
Of course some of the most obvious verses about Purgatory appear in the Deuterocanoncial books which the Evangelicals call the Apocrypha. Anyone who accepts those books will have a hard time arguing against Purgatory. ... The Deuteros were always part of the Bible. The books of the Bible were ratified in 393AD and it remained stable until Martin Luther discarded the Deuteros in the mid 1500's.(He also tried to throw out the Book of James and Revelation) Evangelicals say "Purgatory is not in the Bible" but that is because the parts of the Bible that best defend it were discarded by the Protestant Reformation.
Not quite true.
500 BC: Roughly the time of completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up the 39 Books of the Old Testament.

200 BC: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain The 39 Old Testament Books and the 14 Apocrypha Books.

100 AD: Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which make up the 27 Books of the New Testament.

390 AD: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All 80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha + 27 New Test; though the Apocrypha was a cut and paste effort upon pressure by the church, and not by Jerome’s choice (he did not believe the apocryphal books were canonical.).

397 AD: Athanasius heads a council to canonize the Bible as Protestants have it today. 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books without the Apocryphal books.
Anyway, as I said, neither of us really know. God bless you.
 

DD214

Member
2ndAmendment said:
Not quite true.

Anyway, as I said, neither of us really know. God bless you.
True, there are many things we don't know, but this is not one of them. Since the accepted books of the Bible are a matter of historical record, we can easily look back and see with our own eyes exactly what was considered inspired scripture for the past 2000 years. I think that you have to make a conscious effort to not accept the deuterocanon, as the fact that it has been part of the Christian Bible since the earliest days is indisputable. To say that they were not accepted as inspired books would be about the same as trying to argue that there are no amendments to the Constitution! Clearly we can look at the historical record and see that the amendments are an accepted part of the Constitution, just as one that is truly interested in the facts can look back and see that those 7 books are as much a part of the Christian Bible as Genesis or Matthew. I'm really surprised that Protestants don't spend more time researching this as they know the implications of tearing out and discarding parts of the Bible. History is on the side of the deuterocanon. Anyway, we've hashed this out before, so I'll just post that link and let it be, but I urge you to research this for yourself. http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?p=1191345#post1191345
 
Last edited:

DD214

Member
I propose that we end this here, as it appears that I've severly hijacked this thread. If you want to continue to debate, then we should start a new thread. If you want to agree to disagree, then I would say that I've enjoyed the debate, and I'm sure at some point we will do it again. Deus Vobiscum.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
DD214 said:
True, there are many things we don't know, but this is not one of them. Since the accepted books of the Bible are a matter of historical record, we can easily look back and see with our own eyes exactly what was considered inspired scripture for the past 2000 years. I think that you have to make a conscious effort to not accept the deuterocanon, as the fact that it has been part of the Christian Bible since the earliest days is indisputable. To say that they were not accepted as inspired books would be about the same as trying to argue that there are no amendments to the Constitution! Clearly we can look at the historical record and see that the amendments are an accepted part of the Constitution, just as one that is truly interested in the facts can look back and see that those 7 books are as much a part of the Christian Bible as Genesis or Matthew. I'm really surprised that Protestants don't spend more time researching this as they know the implications of tearing out and discarding parts of the Bible. History is on the side of the deuterocanon. Anyway, we've hashed this out before, so I'll just post that link and let it be, but I urge you to research this for yourself. http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?p=1191345#post1191345
I have researched this and the accepted books of the Bible are 66 canonical books without the apocraphal books, so, again, we must agree to disagree.

you obviously use Catholic doctrinal information for your research and I use protestant, but history is history and the timeline I presented is true. Martin Luther did not write his own Bible. This is what he posted. It is long, so it is posted in parts.

_Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther
on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences_
by Dr. Martin Luther, 1517
Published in:
_Works of Martin Luther_
Adolph Spaeth, L.D. Reed, Henry Eyster Jacobs, et Al., Trans. & Eds.
(Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Company, 1915), Vol. 1, pp. 29-38.

DISPUTATION OF DOCTOR MARTIN LUTHER
ON THE POWER AND EFFICACY OF
INDULGENCES

OCTOBER 31, 1517

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light,
the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg,
under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther,
Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in
Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that
those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us,
may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said Poenitentiam
agite, willed that the whole life of believers should be
repentance.

2. This word cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance,
i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by
the priests.

3. Yet it means not inward repentance only; nay, there is no
inward repentance which does not outwardly work divers
mortifications of the flesh.

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as
hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward
repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom
of heaven.

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit any
penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his
own authority or by that of the Canons.

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that
it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God's
remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases
reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in
such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely
unforgiven.

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same
time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His
vicar, the priest.

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and,
according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us,
because in his decrees he always makes exception of the
article of death and of necessity.

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who,
in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for
purgatory.

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of
purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown
while the bishops slept.

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not
after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are
already dead to canonical rules, and have a right to be
released from them.

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the
imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity,
great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say
nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of
purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair,
almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror
should grow less and love increase.

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that
they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of
increasing love.

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all
of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness,
though we may be quite certain of it.

20. Therefore by "full remission of all penalties" the pope
means not actually "of all," but only of those imposed by
himself.

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who
say that by the pope's indulgences a man is freed from every
penalty, and saved;

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which,
according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this
life.

23. If it is at all possible to grant to any one the remission
of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission
can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very
fewest.

24. It must needs be, therefore, that the greater part of the
people are deceived by that indiscriminate and highsounding
promise of release from penalty.

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over
purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate
has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
...
26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in
purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not
possess), but by way of intercession.

27. They preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles
into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the
money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result
of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God
alone.

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be
bought out of it, as in the legend of Sts. Severinus and
Paschal.

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much
less that he has attained full remission.

31. Rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also
the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most
rare.

32. They will be condemned eternally, together with their
teachers, who believe themselves sure of their salvation
because they have letters of pardon.

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the
pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man
is reconciled to Him;

34. For these "graces of pardon" concern only the penalties of
sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that
contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls
out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full
remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of
pardon.

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in
all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is
granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the
blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in
no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the
declaration of divine remission.

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest
theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people
the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal
pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at
least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest
the people may falsely think them preferable to other good
works of love.

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend
the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of
mercy.

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor
or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes
better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more
free from penalty.

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in
need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons,
purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation
of God.

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more
than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary
for their own families, and by no means to squander it on
pardons.

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is
a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

48. Christians are to be taught that the pope, in granting
pardons, needs, and therefore desires, their devout prayer for
him more than the money they bring.

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope's pardons are
useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether
harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the
exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St.
Peter's church should go to ashes, than that it should be
built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope's
wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many
of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money,
even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain,
even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself,
were to stake his soul upon it.

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the
Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order
that pardons may be preached in others.

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon,
an equal or a longer time is spent on pardons than on this
Word.

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if pardons,
which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell,
with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which
is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred
bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

56. The "treasures of the Church," out of which the pope.
grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among
the people of Christ.

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident,
for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so
easily, but only gather them.

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even
without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man,
and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were
the Church's poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the
word in his own time.

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given
by Christ's merit, are that treasure;
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
...
61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of
reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

62. The true treasure of the Church is the Most Holy Gospel of
the glory and the grace of God.

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes
the first to be last.

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is
naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

65. Therefore the treasures of the Gospel are nets with which
they formerly were wont to fish for men of riches.

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they
now fish for the riches of men.

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the "greatest
graces" are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote
gain.

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared
with the grace of God and the piety of the Cross.

69. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of
apostolic pardons, with all reverence.

70. But still more are they bound to strain all their eyes and
attend with all their ears, lest these men preach their own
dreams instead of the commission of the pope.

71 . He who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let
him be anathema and accursed!

72. But he who guards against the lust and license of the
pardon-preachers, let him be blessed!

73. The pope justly thunders against those who, by any art,
contrive the injury of the traffic in pardons.

74. But much more does he intend to thunder against those who
use the pretext of pardons to contrive the injury of holy love
and truth.

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could
absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and
violated the Mother of God -- this is madness.

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not
able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its
guilt is concerned.

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could
not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter
and against the pope.

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and
any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit,
the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written
in I. Corinthians xii.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms,
which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal
worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk
to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy
matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to
the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of
the laity.

82. To wit: -- "Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the
sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are
there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake
of miserable money with which to build a Church? The former
reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial."

83. Again: -- "Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the
dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the
withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it
is wrong to pray for the redeemed?"

84. Again: -- "What is this new piety of God and the pope,
that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy
to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and
do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul's own
need, free it for pure love's sake?"

85. Again: -- "Why are the penitential canons long since in
actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now
satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were
still alive and in force?"

86. Again: -- "Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day
greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one
church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the
money of poor believers?"

87. Again: -- "What is it that the pope remits, and what
participation does he grant to those who, by perfect
contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?"

88. Again: -- "What greater blessing could come to the Church
than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now
does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and
participations?"

89. "Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of
souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences
and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal
efficacy?"

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by
force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to
expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their
enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the
spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily
resolved; nay, they would not exist.

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people
of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of
Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in
following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and
hell;

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather
through many tribulations, than through the assurance of
peace.



_________________________________________________________________

This text was converted to ascii format for Project Wittenberg by
Allen Mulvey and is in the public domain. You may freely
distribute, copy or print this text. Please direct any comments
or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the Walther Library at
Concordia Theological Seminary.

E-mail: smithre@mail.ctsfw.edu
Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
Phone: (260) 481-2123 Fax: (260) 481-2126
________________________________________________________________




file: /pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther: ninetyfive.txt

.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
You may notice that Martin Luther mention purgatory in #25, so, at the time, his issue was not with purgatory but the means of ones release from purgatory. He was, after all, a Catholic priest.

If all the literature you are using to do research is from the Catholic church, I would suggest that you may want to compare that to other sources as I have.
 

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
DD214 said:
I propose that we end this here, as it appears that I've severly hijacked this thread. If you want to continue to debate, then we should start a new thread. If you want to agree to disagree, then I would say that I've enjoyed the debate, and I'm sure at some point we will do it again. Deus Vobiscum.
Sorry. Missed this before I replied.

This would not be the only thread ever hijacked.

We just disagree on several issues and no amount of debate will change your or my mind, so I guess we should drop it. The thread link you supplied is just going over the same stuff we have discussed and disagreed on before.

Here are a couple of links for research if you are interested in other than a Catholic point of view.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/BibleTimeline.htm
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
 
Last edited:

DD214

Member
2ndAmendment said:
Sorry. Missed this before I replied.

This would not be the only thread ever hijacked.

We just disagree on several issues and no amount of debate will change your or my mind, so I guess we should drop it. The thread link you supplied is just going over the same stuff we have discussed and disagreed on before.

Here are a couple of links for research if you are interested in other than a Catholic point of view.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/ChristianWalk/BibleTimeline.htm
http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm
Thanks for the links. I'm familiar with the first one, as I've studied it before. I hadn't seen the second, but it contains quite a number of inaccuracies. While I'd love to deconstruct it, I think this thread has outlived its usefulness, in this forum anyway. I will say that I don't only study Catholic sources. When I was first learning about the Catholic Church, I was very suspicious of anything written from a Catholic perspective, so I checked and double checked almost everything I read with neutral sources, if I could find one. I also try to read the opposing point of view whenever possible. I hope that you do the same.

Thanks for the debate. Until next time, Peace!
 
Last edited:

2ndAmendment

Just a forgiven sinner
PREMO Member
DD214 said:
inaccuracies ... Thanks for the debate. Until next time, Peace!
And I could respond with inaccuracies by who's standard.

I didn't consider it a debate. I do not debate. I am not good at it. If I get to a point that I think we are debating, I will choose not to participate.
 

DD214

Member
2ndAmendment said:
And I could respond with inaccuracies by who's standard.

By the standards of fact and logic, neither of which are demonstrated on that site. For instance, I’ll take on the first five. I’ll leave the rest for you to research because I know that it is going to take me about 1 hour per statement and I don’t want to be up all night doing this. I'll break them into separate posts since it is going to be quite long, so please read through to the end.

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
While it is true that the Bible was not canonized once and for all until Trent, the second sentence had nothing to do with it. What many critics of the Catholic Church fail to realize is that most matters of faith were not formally defined unless they were challenged. Some things that we now take for granted were matters of much debate in the early Church. For instance, the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit were challenged in the 4th century by a heresy known as Arianism. Two Church councils (Nicaea and Constantinople) were called to formally define the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit once and for all. These two councils ended up giving us the Nicene Creed. Now, fast forward to the Reformation. Martin Luther decided to remove the Deuterocanonical books from the Old Testament (he also tried to remove Esther from the Old Testament, and Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelations from the New Testament). This was the first time in Church history that the official canon of the Bible, as determined in the 4th century, had been challenged on a large scale. All they did at Trent was to reaffirm what had been already been accepted for more than a thousand years. No changes were made whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
Top