Penance

[romishpopishorganist]

You Catholics are an inconsistent bunch of people. On the one hand, you strenuously deny that you are saved by works. On the other hand, you insist that at the end of the day, our works will ultimately decide if we enter Heaven or not. So when will you make up your minds, or at least come clean?

And you need to learn the concept of nuance.

In the end, everything depends on Christ. When Catholics say that ULTIMATELY they are not saved by works, but through Christ, what they mean is that---whatever good works we did----those too depended on Christ. They were done with, through and in Christ. Thus, in the ULTIMATE sense we cannot boast for we are saved by Grace alone.

It is just that Catholics believe that Grace is operative in Faith and in works. When God sees our Faith, he sees Christ. When God sees our good works, he sees Christ. That is why works are saving. Note, however, that it is Christ that is at the core of everything. All Christ.

I did not write that any believer has to worry in an eschatological sense. Christ is able to save us to the uttermost. But those who work in the ministry of God will have their work examined and will receive reward or loss accordingly. However, "reward" in this context does not mean salvation.

If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their 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 person's work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:12–15)​

The Catholic "interpretation" of this passage is that it refers to the "purification" that will take place in "purgatory," which is, of course, patently false. Paul writes about what will take place on Judgment Day ("the Day"). The builder (Gospel worker) who has built carelessly will suffer loss but will still be saved.

So what? The PROCESS of judgement is what matters. The works being burned---that is Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification. When God judges our works and those not done in Grace are burned away, we are being purified.

Again, fundamentalists simply do not understand subtly and nuance.

So are you worried about your wickedness? If you rely on your own righteousness to pass judgment, you should be very worried indeed.

Too right you are my friend!

Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. (Jas. 3:1)

Too right you are my friend!

There will be a particular examination of the work of the teachers/builders. It still does not affect salvation. Since Christ is our advocate before the Father, there is no condemnation for those who abide by faith in Him.

Then what is the punishment--for works that do not withstand the judgement--for one who is still saved? The loss of the recognition of the work? When one is saved by Faith alone, why do the works even matter? What is the punishment?

So your "exegetical reason" is that you find it "patently absurd" that the work of Christian ministers will be scrutinized on Judgment Day. Sorry, but that kind of "exegesis" will not award you a high grade.

Even granting that Christian ministers might be judged more harshly, it does not effect the point that ALL will come before the judgement seat of God. All will have their works judged. All will receive recompense.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

God is the creator of men and women. He is also the creator of biology.

Biology states that a human is created at the moment of conception.

The SLED Model

To further show that the unborn fetus is a human being, let’s introduce the SLED model, an acronym that stands for:

S – Size. The unborn fetus is smaller than an infant and most people are shorter than 7-foot basketball star Rudy Gobert. However, rational people would not claim that the infant is more valuable than the fetus nor is Rudy worth more than a teenage girl. In addition, a sumo wrestler does not have more value than a trapeze artist. Therefore, size does not indicate one’s worth.

L – Level of Development. The unborn fetus is at an earlier stage of his or her development than a newborn baby, but an eight-year-old child is less developed (both physically and mentally) than an adolescent. Older, stronger, more intelligent humans do not have more dignity and fundamental rights than those who are younger, weaker, less intelligent, and more vulnerable. To use the acorn analogy, an acorn is not a “potential” oak tree but rather a tiny living oak tree inside a shell. It is at the same level of development that every oak tree once existed during that particular stage of life.

E – Environment. A journey through a birth canal cannot account for a change in a child’s rights. Location does not affect personhood. A child in the womb or outside the womb is still a human being.

D – Degree of Dependency. The unborn fetus is totally dependent on the mother for life through the umbilical cord, but newborn babies are also fully dependent. A baby left to herself will die within hours unless she is attended to and her needs met. In fact, everyone relies on other people and things to some degree. We don’t question the personhood of those who are dependent on kidney machines, insulin, or pacemakers. Elderly people in a nursing home who have to be fed are no less valuable than the person who is feeding them.[4]

I need to make clear that I agree with you on everything here. I am not pro-abortion. Thus, I hate arguing like someone who supports abortion. I am doing so only to illustrate a point. You have implicitly admitted my point, namely, that Scripture does not explicitly and formally state that a human person begins at the moment of conception. Nothing of what you stated is in the Scriptures.

My point is made. Thus, at least on one question of great moral significance you rely not on the Scriptures to guide you, but what you believe the Science of biology says. That is fine if you are Catholic--since Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura. That is not fine if you are Protestant--since it is the Scriptures alone that are the sole infallible rule of Faith.

Since when did biology become a rule of Faith? Is Biology Theopneustos? Is biology infallible? What if further research indicates that something does not become a human person until implantation, or until a heart beat is detected, or until whatever? Then what? That is the problem when you base moral Truth on science and not the Scriptures. Everything you know----may be subject to change based on further research and further refinement of scientific models.

I would be remiss if I did not point out--that the question of personhood is not a scientific question anyway. Science can tell you that there is a life at conception. What Science cannot tell you is whether that life constitutes a human person. The question of personhood is a philosophical question. All biologists agree that life begins at conception. Many biologists disagree that the life is a human person. Thus, biology alone cannot answer the question as to whether you have a human person subject to rights.

I see you here as wanting to have your cake and eat it. One the one hand, you believe the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith, the Norm of norms, the Supreme Court of final appeal. On the other hand, when the Scriptures do not give us enough information to determine a moral question, now you want to utilize something other than the Scriptures to make a determination and tell me that this is perfectly acceptable.

Sorry--it don't work like that.

 

[Mike McK]

And you need to learn the concept of nuance.

And you need to learn the concept of the authority of scripture.

In the end, everything depends on Christ. When Catholics say that ULTIMATELY they are not saved by works, but through Christ, what they mean is that---whatever good works we did----those too depended on Christ.

So what if they depended on Christ? Either way, you're saying our works save. This is precisely why you're going to Hell. If you believe anything other than Christ's vicarious atonement can save, if you have to add your good works, even if you believe those works are motivated by Christ, then you're following a different gospel that CANNOT save.

They were done with, through and in Christ. Thus, in the ULTIMATE sense we cannot boast for we are saved by Grace alone.

If you're not saved by grace alone, then you're not saved.

When God sees our good works, he sees Christ.

So, Christ is analogous to filthy rags?

That is why works are saving.

The Bible says works cannot save.

Note, however, that it is Christ that is at the core of everything. All Christ.

Yeah...and? Adding anything to the cross diminishes the work of Christ.

So what? The PROCESS of judgement is what matters. The works being burned---that is Purgatory. Purgatory is the process of purification. When God judges our works and those not done in Grace are burned away, we are being purified.

Do you have any Bible verses to support this? Or is this just another one of those silly, heretical Catholic traditions?

Again, fundamentalists simply do not understand subtly and nuance.

Oh, insults, huh? Well, good luck in Hell, then, I guess.

When one is saved by Faith alone, why do the works even matter?

Because they give glory to Christ, something you wouldn't understand.

Even granting that Christian ministers might be judged more harshly, it does not effect the point that ALL will come before the judgement seat of God. All will have their works judged. All will receive recompense.

Too bad you won't be there to see it. You'll be at the White Throne Judgment with the other Catholics.

 

[Mike McK]

You know, you fundamentalists

Really? I'm a fundamentalist now??? Well, that's news to me. And it's sure news to the Fundamentalists.

, for reasons that I have never understood, seem to think that works being judged, not the person, not the man, makes a difference.

Yes, when you claim one thing is being judged, and the Bible says a different thing is being judged, it makes a difference. The difference is that you're wrong.

Protestants always bring up that point as though it is supposed to make some kind of a difference.

No, just to point out that you're lying.

Who did the works? The person. Who receives the reward or punishment?

What punishment? Nothing in the text says anything about punishment. Remember, the Bema Seat is for the ones for whom Christ was already punished.

The works or the person? And the passage talks about recompense--good or evil. It talks about the person receiving recompense for the good or evil they did.

Yep. And guess what happens to those rewards: They're given back to Christ as an act of worship.

Wouldn't it be far simpler to just let the Scriptures speak and accept what they say? Then we wouldn't have to come up with all these ridiculous distinctions and complexities worthy of Rube Goldberg in order to make the Scriptures fit your theology.

Exactly. I say the same thing every time one of you pagans tries to insert Purgatory into 1 Cor 5 .

 

[romishpopishorganist]

And you need to learn the concept of the authority of scripture.

We both agree on the authority of Scripture. We disagree on its interpretation.

So what if they depended on Christ? Either way, you're saying our works save. This is precisely why you're going to Hell. If you believe anything other than Christ's vicarious atonement can save, if you have to add your good works, even if you believe those works are motivated by Christ, then you're following a different gospel that CANNOT save.

Works are not "added" to Faith. It is Faith AND works, not Faith plus works. This isn't an arithmetical problem. Fundamentalists want to turn our relationship with God into an algebra problem.

If you're not saved by grace alone, then you're not saved.

Correct. We agree on Grace alone. It is just Catholics believe that when we are in union with Christ, works are products of Grace as much as Faith is.

So, Christ is analogous to filthy rags?

No. Our works when done in Grace are no longer filthy rags. Works done without Grace are filthy rags.

The Bible says works cannot save.

No, the Bible says we are not saved by Faith alone, but Faith and works. That is in James. Yes--I know how you fundamentalists twist the meaning of James to make it fit your theology. James is contrasting a living Faith with a dead Faith, works vindicate Faith, blah, blah, blah. James and Paul are saying the same thing in different ways, yada, yada, yada.

Why not just take James at face value? Oh right--you can't. You have to force the passage to fit Faith alone.

Yeah...and? Adding anything to the cross diminishes the work of Christ.

Correct. Catholics do not "add" to the cross. Salvation is not an arithmetical problem anymore than the Trinity is an arithmetical problem.

Suggesting that Catholics "add" to the cross is like saying "Father, plus the Son, plus the Holy Spirit = one God." It is like saying that the Son "adds" to the Father" and the Holy Spirit "adds" to the Father plus the Son.

Oh, insults, huh? Well, good luck in Hell, then, I guess.

You know----that is one thing I would never say to anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them.

Because they give glory to Christ, something you wouldn't understand.

Sure they do. That is part and parcel of why they are saving. They also give glory to the Father because they are done in Christ.

Too bad you won't be there to see it. You'll be at the White Throne Judgment with the other Catholics.

Again, not something I would say to anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them.

You see, I get, that in the end, God is the only one who can make a judgement like that.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Really? I'm a fundamentalist now??? Well, that's news to me. And it's sure news to the Fundamentalists.

Why, are you not a Sola Scriptura believing Protestant?

Yes, when you claim one thing is being judged, and the Bible says a different thing is being judged, it makes a difference. The difference is that you're wrong.

Except that you, for whatever reason, want to separate the person from the works as though they aren't related, as though it isn't the person, but the work that is rewarded. Yes, the works are judged, but it isn't the work receiving the reward or punishment.

What punishment? Nothing in the text says anything about punishment. Remember, the Bema Seat is for the ones for whom Christ was already punished.

Recompense whether good or evil--means--what then?

Yep. And guess what happens to those rewards: They're given back to Christ as an act of worship.

Great. So that is the reward. They are given to Christ as an act of worship.

What is the punishment? The loss of the work--that is--the work is not given to Christ as an act of worship but is consumed. The person suffers LOSS as a result. What do you think Purgatory is, if not that? THAT is purification--at least a form of purification anyway. Purification is the ESSENCE of Purgatory.

Thank you. I had not considered this--but your post---has given me a way to more clearly explain Purgatory and the biblical basis for it.

Out of the mouth of babes...

It amazes me how God works sometimes. edit per mod

 

[mica]

Johan said:
You Catholics are an inconsistent bunch of people. On the one hand, you strenuously deny that you are saved by works. On the other hand, you insist that at the end of the day, our works will ultimately decide if we enter Heaven or not. So when will you make up your minds, or at least come clean?

And you need to learn the concept of nuance.

In the end, everything depends on Christ.

it does and it will... so why do you depend on the rcc instead of Him?

When Catholics say that ULTIMATELY they are not saved by works, but through Christ,

why don't they say and live what they mean? why do you need to explain what they mean? because they / you don't know His truth. you waffle all around on what you believe because the rcc doesn't teach 'to depend on Him'. it teaches to 'depend on it'

if you believe it, then you aren't depending on Him.

what they mean is that---whatever good works we did----those too depended on Christ.

those who aren't born again have no 'good works in Him'.

They were done with, through and in Christ. Thus, in the ULTIMATE sense we cannot boast for we are saved by Grace alone.
...

not by those who aren't His.

not catholics ... they will claim they need works - to submit to the pope, go to mass, eat the rcc wafer, go to confession etc

 

[balshan]

We both agree on the authority of Scripture. We disagree on its interpretation.

Works are not "added" to Faith. It is Faith AND works, not Faith plus works. This isn't an arithmetical problem. Fundamentalists want to turn our relationship with God into an algebra problem.

Correct. We agree on Grace alone. It is just Catholics believe that when we are in union with Christ, works are products of Grace as much as Faith is.

No. Our works when done in Grace are no longer filthy rags. Works done without Grace are filthy rags.

No, the Bible says we are not saved by Faith alone, but Faith and works. That is in James. Yes--I know how you fundamentalists twist the meaning of James to make it fit your theology. James is contrasting a living Faith with a dead Faith, works vindicate Faith, blah, blah, blah. James and Paul are saying the same thing in different ways, yada, yada, yada.

Why not just take James at face value? Oh right--you can't. You have to force the passage to fit Faith alone.

Correct. Catholics do not "add" to the cross. Salvation is not an arithmetical problem anymore than the Trinity is an arithmetical problem.

Suggesting that Catholics "add" to the cross is like saying "Father, plus the Son, plus the Holy Spirit = one God." It is like saying that the Son "adds" to the Father" and the Holy Spirit "adds" to the Father plus the Son.

You know----that is one thing I would never say to anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them.

Sure they do. That is part and parcel of why they are saving. They also give glory to the Father because they are done in Christ.

Again, not something I would say to anyone, no matter how much I disagreed with them.

You see, I get, that in the end, God is the only one who can make a judgement like that.

Really do you agree? Weren't you the poster who was carrying on about only the originals being the inspired word of God thus throwing clear doubt on scripture and denying its authority.

 

[mica]

Mike McK said:
Really? I'm a fundamentalist now??? Well, that's news to me. And it's sure news to the Fundamentalists.

Why, are you not a Sola Scriptura believing Protestant?
...

post your definitions for fundamentalist and Sola Scriptura and your source for both.

do you think all of those you label as Protestant are believers?

 

[Beloved Daughter]

I need to make clear that I agree with you on everything here. I am not pro-abortion. Thus, I hate arguing like someone who supports abortion. I am doing so only to illustrate a point. You have implicitly admitted my point, namely, that Scripture does not explicitly and formally state that a human person begins at the moment of conception. Nothing of what you stated is in the Scriptures.

My point is made. Thus, at least on one question of great moral significance you rely not on the Scriptures to guide you, but what you believe the Science of biology says. That is fine if you are Catholic--since Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura. That is not fine if you are Protestant--since it is the Scriptures alone that are the sole infallible rule of Faith.

Since when did biology become a rule of Faith? Is Biology Theopneustos? Is biology infallible? What if further research indicates that something does not become a human person until implantation, or until a heart beat is detected, or until whatever? Then what? That is the problem when you base moral Truth on science and not the Scriptures. Everything you know----may be subject to change based on further research and further refinement of scientific models.

I would be remiss if I did not point out--that the question of personhood is not a scientific question anyway. Science can tell you that there is a life at conception. What Science cannot tell you is whether that life constitutes a human person. The question of personhood is a philosophical question. All biologists agree that life begins at conception. Many biologists disagree that the life is a human person. Thus, biology alone cannot answer the question as to whether you have a human person subject to rights.

I see you here as wanting to have your cake and eat it. One the one hand, you believe the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of Faith, the Norm of norms, the Supreme Court of final appeal. On the other hand, when the Scriptures do not give us enough information to determine a moral question, now you want to utilize something other than the Scriptures to make a determination and tell me that this is perfectly acceptable.

Sorry--it don't work like that.

It must be difficult to admit that God, the author of biological systems is not enough evidence for you. You also failed to address

Psalm 139:13-16


13 For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

It must be difficult to admit that God, the author of biological systems is not enough evidence for you. You also failed to address

Psalm 139:13-16


13 For You formed my inward parts;
You wove me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
Wonderful are Your works,
And my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

You got one thing right; I didn't address the Psalm. I apologize----I didn't read it closely enough.

But--thanks for the reference. This does strongly suggest that what is in the womb is a human person, thus subject to rights. I will concede the point.

 

[Terry43]

If one does not complete their penance are they forgiven anyway?

 

[balshan]

If one does not complete their penance are they forgiven anyway?

The answer is no.

“the confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.” (Canon 981)

from thecatholicspirit.com

 

[Terry43]

The answer is no.

“the confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.” (Canon 981)

from thecatholicspirit.com

Just wondering where we find that anywhere in the scriptures.. .

 

[romishpopishorganist]

The answer is no.

“the confessor is to impose salutary and suitable penances in accord with the quality and number of sins, taking into account the condition of the penitent. The penitent is obliged to fulfill these personally.” (Canon 981)

from thecatholicspirit.com

Correct; provided the person can legitimately fulfil the penance. The Church never asks the impossible.

 

[Terry43]

Correct; provided the person can legitimately fulfil the penance. The Church never asks the impossible.

So the cross wasnt enough?

 

[romishpopishorganist]

So the cross wasn't enough?

The cross was more than sufficient to accomplish the purposes for which God intended.

The cross paid the debt for sin-----owed to God-----the debt we could not pay.

The cross does not, however, absolve us of responsibility for our actions, or the responsibility we have to set things right to the people we have wronged.

 

[balshan]

The cross was more than sufficient to accomplish the purposes for which God intended.

The cross paid the debt for sin-----owed to God-----the debt we could not pay.

The cross does not, however, absolve us of responsibility for our actions, or the responsibility we have to set things right to the people we have wronged.

Yes we see how the RCC gets its leaders to absolve sin. It ignores its own catechism to hide them from facing up to their actions. Hypocrisy is ripe in the RCC leadership.

 

[balshan]

Correct; provided the person can legitimately fulfil the penance. The Church never asks the impossible.

Of so the priest gives a person something they cannot do legitimately as penance. Please provide said example?

 

[balshan]

So the cross wasnt enough?

You know in the RCC it was never enough to offset, if it was how would they control the laity.