Purgatory

[the lumberjack]

and what about Enoch?

Gen 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Enoch didn't go to Heaven:
[quote][b]"No one[/b] has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man."
John 3:13[/quote]

He went to Abraham's Bosom:
[quote]"By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death, and "he was found no more because God had taken him." Before he was taken up, he was attested to have pleased God..."
Hebrews 11:5
"...All these died in faith. [b]They did not receive what had been promised[/b] but saw it and greeted it from afar and acknowledged themselves to be strangers and aliens on earth, for those who speak thus show that [b]they are seeking a homeland[/b]. If they had been thinking of the land from which they had come, they would have had opportunity to return. [b]But now they desire a better homeland, a heavenly one[/b]. Therefore, God is not ashamed to be called their God, for [b]he has prepared a city for them[/b]."
Hebrews 11:13-16[/quote]

Edited June 17, 2004 by thedude

[the lumberjack]

so you're saying that Enoch walked with God in Paradise?

and that God WASN'T in heaven?

[Apotheoun]

God is omnipresent.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

I know Enoch wasn't in Heaven. Here is the footnote from my Bible about Genesis 5:24:
[quote]In place of the usual formula, Then he died, the change to Enoch walked with God clearly implies that he did not die, but like Elijah (2 Kings 2:11, 12) was taken alive to God's abode.[/quote]
It doesn't say they walked together in Heaven.

Edited June 17, 2004 by thedude

[Guest JeffCR07]

This post is either to IronMonk, Apotheoun, or thedude. Everything that has been said about Purgatory, Paradise, Heaven, and Hell all makes intuitive sense to me,

However, the following argument ALSO makes sense to me:

Mary was born without Original Sin because she was bestowed with Grace that comes from Christ's death and ressurection.

But how, if Christ had not died "yet?"

The answer is that the Grace bestowed upon Mary [i]anticipated[/i] Christ's victory on the cross.

But how can it "anticipate" that which has not happened yet?

It can "anticipate," as such, because in Heaven, where Christ Reigns Eternal, that sacrifice is Eternal. His sacrifice in heaven is always anticipated, always occuring, and always completed, because of the timeless, eternal nature of the Trinity.

Now, if the Grace that can only come from Christ's victory can be bestowed upon Mary "before" Christ's death can't the same be said of the salvific act? Couldn't those who came "before" enter heaven through a Grace that [i]anticipates[/i] the merits of Christ?

Why doesn't this argument work?

Just two other comments:

First, Ironmonk: you have been quick and authoritative in your establishment that what you say IS the teaching of the Catholic Church.

I believe you. But, mearly for my own benefit and so that I can go to the source, I'm interested to know where the teachings on "Paradise" are in the Catechism, or from what Council they come from, or, if it is not a doctrine as such, what Church Fathers/Saints writings can I look at that espouse it?

Second: I am absolutely faithful to the Magisterium, and when I verify that these things ARE in fact Magisterial teachings, you should all know that I will believe them with my whole heart. This does not mean, however, that I will stop trying to use logic to justify those teachings. If anyone can help me logically justify these things (assuming they are in fact - and I trust Ironmonk - the teachings of the Magisterium)

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[ironmonk]

[url="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art5.htm"]http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art5.htm[/url]


[b]ARTICLE 5
"HE DESCENDED INTO HELL ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN"[/b]


[b]631 [/b]
Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles' Creed confesses in the same article Christ's descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:


Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead,
and shed his peaceful light on all mankind,
your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.477



[b]Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell[/b]

[b]632 [/b]
The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479


[b]633 [/b]
Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell"—Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483


[b]634 [/b]
"The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.


[b]635 [/b]
Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, "the Author of life," by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades," so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487


Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him—He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488



[b]IN BRIEF[/b]
[b]636 [/b]
By the expression "He descended into hell," the Apostles' Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil "who has the power of death" (Heb 2:14).


[b]637 [/b]
In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. [b]He opened heaven's gates for the just who had gone before him.[/b]


Notes


476 Eph 4:9-10.

477 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 18, Exsultet.

478 Acts 3:15; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20; cf. Heb 13:20.

479 Cf. 1 Pet 3:18-19.

480 Cf. Phil 2:10; Acts 2:24; Rev 1:18; Eph 4:9; Pss 6:6; 88:11-13.

481 Cf. Ps 89:49; 1 Sam 28:19; Ezek 32:17-32; Lk 16:22-26.

482 Roman Catechism I, 6, 3.

483 Cf. Council of Rome (745): DS 587; Benedict XII, Cum dudum (1341): DS. 1011; Clement VI, Super quibusdam (1351): DS 1077; Council of Toledo IV (625): DS 485; Mt 27:52-53.

484 1 Pet 4:6.

485 Jn 5:25; cf. Mt 12:40; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9.

486 Heb 2:14-15; cf. Acts 3:15.

487 Rev 1:18; Phil 2:10.

488 Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday: PG 43, 440A, 452C: LH, Holy Saturday, OR.


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 17, 2004 by ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote]Ichtus,

"devil's advocate" with no logic? Why play DA - what good does it do but cast stones infront of others who do not have the logic to draw the conclusions?

Stop listening to circle.

How do you know context? - Circle certainly doesn't.[/quote]

Ironmonk, I'm being perfectly logical. If you think I'm not, point out the fallacies! I'm playing DA in order to deal with my own inclinations towards the Reformed faith - if my argumentation from that perspective can be refuted, then I know that it's not true.

I'm not listening to Circle master, but you, sir, are being a [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess][/color] by assuming that I am and then rudely asking me "How I know context" as if I am a fool, and then implicating Circle master as if he is too!

[quote]Nothing any anti-Catholic says can take away the fact that THIS IS NOT A Catholic Doctrine![/quote] Quite right, it is an unbiblical one, and not catholic at all.

[quote]This has come from the Jews![/quote] The same Jews who reject Jesus as the messiah? They are in error - why should we trust anything from Jews after Christ's birth?

[quote]It's very simple... pride keeps anti-Catholics from accepting it. When they accept Christ, they must accept it once they hear the truth.[/quote] No, the Bible and her teaching keeps Protestants from accepting it.

I can see why Musty got annoyed at you, Max.

[quote]Macc. is NOT apocryphal. The Councils of Hippo and Carthage determined the NEW Testament Canon.[/quote] They were not Ecumenical, and thus, only applied to the churches in those areas.

Edited June 18, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[the lumberjack]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 17 2004, 03:05 PM'] I'm not listening to Circle master, but you, sir, are being a [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess[/color]]...


....by assuming that I am and then rudely asking me "How I know context" as if I am a fool, and then implicating Circle master as if he is too! [/quote]
you'll get no arguement from me...



you see, ironmonk has a perception that unless you fit into his intricate molding of catholocism and agree with him in the way HE agrees with the Church, then you must be in error...

at least thats what I've gathered...

not that my two pesos count for much in these parts.

Edited June 18, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jun 17 2004, 11:03 AM'] ... a place of bliss and security known under the names of "Paradise" (cf. Luke, xxiii, 43) and "the Bosom of Abraham" (Luke, xvi, 22 23).....

[/quote]
If you would have read my post you would have seen the verification, it's from the Catholic Encyclopedia.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='the lumberjack' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:11 PM'] you'll get no arguement from me...



you see, ironmonk has a perception that unless you fit into his intricate molding of catholocism and agree with him in the way HE agrees with the Church, then you must be in error...

at least thats what I've gathered...

not that my two pesos count for much in these parts. [/quote]
You have not a clue.



Icthus, no, you are not being logical... there are no fallicies from the Catholic Church.

The fallicy is in the logic you are using.

[b]EDIT:[/b] Let me clarify what I mean. The points you bring up do not take into account what has always been taught. The points you bring up in reference to context are that of your own (or someone who has never studied what the Christian Church has been teaching since 33 AD).

Before you can say what context anything in the bible is, you must first establish who has the authority to say what the context is.... the only answer for that is the Catholic Church... which is another topic, and has been amply covered before on this board... can be summed up by this:
Jesus gave authority (keys-binding-loosing) to Peter. Jesus promised that the Church would never be overcome. Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit and Himself would always be with the Church guiding the Church in Truth, teaching the Church, and reminding the Church. Jesus promised that the Church would be like a city on a mountain which cannot be hidden. Jesus told everyone that if they have a disagreement to take it to the Church.

Therefore the Church is the sole Authority of proper interpretation of the context of Scripture. If we do not go by what the Church established by Christ says, then our arguments are nothing but clattering gongs, full of fallicy.

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 17, 2004 by ironmonk

[the lumberjack]

okay, I spelled Catholicism wrong...

but YOU spelled fallacy wrong.

can I buy you a vowel for lunch?

God bless you ironmonk.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Just a couple things:

In general, there isnt much charity on this thread right now: Ironmonk, my questions were sincere, and I even agree with you, so, while I understand you may feel ganged up on, the extra emphasis wasn't necessary. Know that I'm with you on this one.

LJ & Icthus: I know that Ironmonk has been, in your words "a .... [color=red][Edited by IcePrincess]" [/color]but I WOULD like to try to keep the discussion on topic.

I think the evidence he has set out has been pretty persuasive, seeing as I didn't agree with him in the beginning. So can we get back to addressing the actual issues? (I'm really interested in seeing where this all goes)

Ironmonk - sorry about not seeing the CE thing, you have a lot of information in there, its hard to get it all

Edited June 18, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[ironmonk]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Jun 17 2004, 06:20 PM'] Just a couple things:

In general, there isnt much charity on this thread right now: Ironmonk, my questions were sincere, and I even agree with you, so, while I understand you may feel ganged up on, the extra emphasis wasn't necessary. Know that I'm with you on this one.

LJ & Icthus: I know that Ironmonk has been, in your words [color=red][Edited by Ice Princess][/color] but I WOULD like to try to keep the discussion on topic.

I think the evidence he has set out has been pretty persuasive, seeing as I didn't agree with him in the beginning. So can we get back to addressing the actual issues? (I'm really interested in seeing where this all goes)

Ironmonk - sorry about not seeing the CE thing, you have a lot of information in there, its hard to get it all [/quote]
Please don't read tone in my posts, I like to be short and sweet...

Now, if I say something like 'you have not a clue' then it's meant as a brotherly backhand for silly comments. ( lumber)

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited June 18, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jun 17 2004, 04:05 PM']They were not Ecumenical, and thus, only applied to the churches in those areas.[/quote]
The Councils of Hippo and Carthage were particular synods, and so your comment is correct to a point, but they were raised to universal authority by the approbation of Pope St. Boniface, and thus your comment is also incorrect, if by it you are implying that those councils were not accepted as universally binding upon the Church. The various particular councils that occurred in North Africa during the 4th and 5th centuries became a part of the canonical tradition of both the Eastern and the Western sections of the Church. The Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicea II (787 AD) in its first canon, approved all of the existing canons of the Church (including those issued by the various North African particular synods) as binding upon the universal Church. Thus, the canons of the Council of Hippo (393 AD), the Council of Carthage (397 AD), the Council of Carthage (419 AD), etc., are all a part of the universal partimony of the Church. This means that, as an infallible act of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium the canon of scripture was defined during the 4th century. It should also be noted that the Synod of Rome (382 AD), held under the authority of Pope St. Damasus I, also participates in this act of defining the extent of the canon of scripture, along with other Papal letters and documents including the letter of Pope St. Innocent I to the Bishop of Toulouse (405 AD). The canon of scripture was enumerated and solemnly reaffirmed at the councils of Florence, Trent, and Vatican I and II. Thus what had been an infallible act of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium as early as the 4th century, became a solemn judgment of the Magisterium in the 15th century, approximately 75 years before the Reformation even began.

Edited June 17, 2004 by Apotheoun