Heaven and Hellgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Was wondering do you believe when you die you go somewhere like heaven or hell or do you just stay right here ?
-- Fred (frd69@com.net), June 28, 2003
The Catholic Church has taught us, there are FOUR LAST THINGS, Fred.DEATH
JUDGMENTHEAVEN Or HELLThe Purgatory we all face is not in the last four; all who suffer Purgatory are going to HEAVEN next. Purgatory is biblical; don't worry about anything D. Ortiz tells you. He's a Catholic-basher.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 28, 2003.
EugineHow is Purgatory biblical? Can you show me in the Bible where it says that? Thanks...
-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@YAHOO.COM), June 29, 2003.
Soldier,First, something doesn't have to be "biblical" to be true. The Catholic church has both written and oral Tradition passed down, both of which are True. John says that all the books written couldn't contain everything Jesus said and did, so I don't know why you'd think that *absolutely* everything is in the Bible.
But if you *want* something on Purgatory, try 2 Maccabees. Martin Luther hacked the book out because he didn't like Purgatory, but if you'll go back to using a full Bible, you should find it.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 29, 2003.
Here is a page on the biblical basis for Purgatory.Interestingly, orthodox Jews believe in Purgatory, but not in Hell. I quote from this Jewish FAQ: We do not believe in eternal damnation and hell. The Jewish belief is in a purgatory that purifies the soul of its spiritual blemishes prior to its return to G-d. (Psalm 49:15, II Samuel 14:13, Isaiah 45:17)
II Maccabees demonstrates that this belief was already present in Judaism before Christ.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 29, 2003.
Frank You don't believe that God has given us a completed Book in it's entirety?You are right that Jesus did many other things that the Bible can't contain but God told us these events and were recorded for examples to us. 1 Corinthians 10:"11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall."
God has a purpose for every little thing that was put into the Bible. Every historical event recorded is a historical parable which tells us a heavenly meaning. The extra books you have does not harmonize with the OLD Testament and or the New Testament.
They may be a blessing to read but they are not God's words. I only say this because those extra books do not have the same co- heisiveness with the rest of the Bible. By reading them we can see they sound like a different author. They do not have hidden spiritual meassages because they didn't come from the infinite wisdom of God. Don't get mad that I say this, just here me out:
In the scriptures themselves we read in Luke 24, for example, where Christ makes reference to the Law of Moses, and the Prophets, and the writings, or the Psalms. This is Luke 24:44. And so throughout the Bible we find this kind of reference, indicating that our Old Testament, which is the scriptures referred to, has the stamp and seal of approval of Christ Himself.
And so we know that however the Old Testament books were selected, they are the holy scriptures, because we have the commendation of Christ. Now in the New Testament we do not have any evidence within the scriptures as to how they were selected. We do not have any secular evidence that clearly indicates when the books of the New Testament were selected. But we do know this, that by the Second Century there wasn't any question that these were the Holy Canon.
First of all, we know that any writing that came after the writing of the Revelation, the last book of the Bible, could not be the work of God. We know that, because nothing could be added to it. And since Revelation was written approximately AD 95, we know that any writing after that would not be part of the Bible.
Secondly, we can examine the internal evidence of any writing for the period from, let's say, John the Baptist until AD. 95, and it won't be long before we discover what is the Bible and what is not the Bible. You don't have to trust what I say but please I do not want to start disputing again. What you said about the Bible was not good. Do you not trust in God in giving you His completed word?
God Bless
-- CHristian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 29, 2003.
CS:At the time of Christ and the apostles, all the "extra books" were part of the Bible. Jesus definitely treated these books as scripture.
The writers of the New Testament quote from the "extra books" frequently. For example Matt. 27:43 is based on Wis. 2:18-30; Acts 1:18 recalls Wis. 4:19; Heb. 1:3 recalls Wis. 7:25-26; James 1:19 quotes Sirach 5:11.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 29, 2003.
EVERY Catholic doctrine is biblical because the BIBLE clearly states that whatsoever the Church teaches as binding doctrine is bound in heaven. The Bible also informs us that Jesus told the first Catholic bishops that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church to ALL TRUTH. These guarantees from the lips of the Savior Himself, coupled with other Biblical references such as Paul's statement that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth, stand until the end of time as absolute BIBLICAL guarantees of the truth of EVERY binding Catholic doctrine. Nothing more is needed. The fact that a particular doctrine is not spelled out in scripture is irrelevant. The Bible doesn't make inclusion in the Bible a determining factor. According to the BIBLE, the ONLY criterion by which the truthfulness of a doctrine can be determined is the fact that it is taught by the Church.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 29, 2003.
One basic problem in our day is how God's infinite perfection has been overlooked; even by some Catholics. Our slow minds never give reflection to the INFINITY of God's holiness. Jesus repeatedly drilled His followers in this truth. Our Almighty Father is infinitely Holy. The Catholic Church worships Him saying, Holy! Holy! Holy!For this plain reason, no creature of God's is worthy of Him in His glory. He makes them come to His Divine Son; as their only hope of ever pleasing Him. Without Jesus, we were doomed. God will never even LOOK UPON SIN!
He is infinitely set apart in His holiness, and Only His Son is worthy of Him.
His Holy Son incorporates us into Himself; we are identified with Jesus Christ, and that makes our salvation real. But not when we sin. Our identity with Jesus is lost through sin, even the most minor and minute kind of sin. Because Jesus is God, and He is also set apart from all sin. We have to always remember to repent!
Then-- if we die in sin, and have not deserved hell for eternity, we must be purified ABSOLUTELY before coming into His Divine presence, His Glory!
All trace of Adam's sin (in souls who have not committed actual sin) and every minor sin we commit during a lifetime; and even the forgiven sins for which we have not been punished in life, (As you sow, so shall You reap--) are purged in Purgatory; before we can be let into His reward. We already have that reward; eternal life in Jesus Christ, it can't be lost; He died to give it to us.
But we must repent of all sin, or lose our reward. Suppose we die without repenting of slight offenses? Then Purgatory is our guarantee of total worthinesss to enter the glory of Heaven. --I wonder now if, without the last stage in Purgatory, Heaven would not be practically empty except for a few saints and the angelic hosts? Because of the Infinite Holiness and Glory of God /
_____________________________________________________________ ___________
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.
Jmj"John says that all the books written couldn't contain everything Jesus said and did, so I don't know why you'd think that *absolutely* everything is in the Bible." [stated above by a Catholic, with my emphasis added]
Actually, the verse from St. John says:
"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written."Because the verse does not mention what Jesus "said" or "taught," but what he "did" (that was not described), this verse should never be used by Catholics to try to convince non-Catholics about the existence of Sacred Tradition. A convinced protestant will simply scoff at the use of this verse, and rightly so.
As a Catholic, I believe in the Oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition), by which we learn truths taught by Jesus that are not recorded in the Written Word of God. And, as a Catholic, I can refer to certain passages in the Bible (e.g., in 2 Thes) that make it clear that religious truth can be found in Sacred Tradition, not just in the Bible. But, I cannot turn to the last verse in St. John to support this Catholic belief.
Just like convinced protestants, when I read John 21:25, I see only that word, "did" ["other things that Jesus did"], and I picture unrecorded specifics of his travels about the Holy Land, unrecorded instances of his preaching to crowds, unrecorded instances of his private instruction of the Apostles, unrecorded healings of the sick, and unrecorded conflicts with scribes and Pharisees.
When I read John 21:25, I never imagine that the evangelist is saying, "There are also many other things that Jesus taught, but if these doctrines were to be recorded individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." He just could not be saying that, because the Church has indeed handed down all the teachings of Jesus. They can fit in a single book. But the deeds of Jesus were too many to be all written down. It was Jesus's deeds to which St. John was referring, not his words.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.
.
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.
That is one train of thought, John. Not the only viable one.If all truth and divine revelation is simply confined to a collection of books or oral teachings or else is ambivalent, ambiguous or untrustworthy, then Catholics admit the Bible must be a total rule of faith. They admit Christ placed the Bible in superiority over everything. Then a Church is subservient to what some call the Word of God, standing alone. Saint John stated not even all the books in the world if written would CONTAIN Christ's living words and accomplishments. We can still learn, after we read Holy Scripture. From His Bride the Church who lives in conjugal union with her Lord.
This is a truth which has never been proclaimed to Bible Christians. In their eyes, we can reject whatever isn't written in the Bible. Even empiric truths!
Seeing you say, '' I never imagine that the evangelist is saying, "There are also many other things that Jesus taught, but if these doctrines were to be recorded individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." I see an impression here that only exactly what's in scripture can have been learned from Jesus. That's what everybody thinks. But John is careful to tell us; you haven't seen everything. Everything isn't written.
Only the wealth of the apostles' whole teaching, the FAITH, is complete and true. The Bible is a capsule rendition, pertinent to Christ's holy mission of Redemption. It was written to bring us to Him. Not for every aspect of the Church's life on earth. What we see Saint John saying in the epilogue, to me is-- learn everything; and this is not everything.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 29, 2003.
JmjFirst, Gene, I have to say that I was shocked to read these words of yours:
"Saint John stated not even all the books in the world if written would contain Christ's living words and accomplishments."Gene, the most important thing that I was trying to communicate in my last post was that St. John did NOT explicitly say anything about "Christ's living words." Just as the previous poster got it wrong, so did you -- by inserting words that are not in the text.
I should have gone on to say this ... That when a Catholic apologist does this, he does two bad things:
(1) He sets himself up to be criticized (justly) by a non-Catholic who will say, "The text says, 'what Jesus did,' not 'what Jesus said.'"
(2) He makes himself into a modern-day Luther, by inserting words into the verse that are not actually there (as Luther inserted "alone" to create "saved by faith alone").
I am begging my fellow Catholics not to do this!Second, Gene, I want to say that I totally respect your right to interpret the last verse of St. John in a different way from the way that I interpret it. The way you explain that verse's meaning is quite plausible. BUT ... my main point, above, was not so much to persuade anyone that they should interpret the verse exactly as I do. Rather, my main point was to show that we cannot require a non-Catholic to believe that St. John was referring to anything at all that Jesus "said," much less that St. John was referring to some extra-biblical doctrine (Tradition). We have to go to other evidence to support Tradition, to not the last verse of John -- simply because John did not use the word, "said." Overzealous Catholic apologists subconsciously realize this! We know that they do from the fact that they insert additional words ("and said"), realizing that the word "did" does not automatically imply the action of speaking/teaching.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 29, 2003.
I hear you, John,
My approach is not strictly to the letter, as Bible thumper types insist it must be. Right on top I said to you, ''That's one train of thought, not the only viable one.'' Why would I go back to bowdlerize a text-proof? I expanded on it.This was an apologetics venture, not exegesis. And, I'm speaking to a Catholic now; not some anti- Catholic sophist.
Ironically, none of the non-Catholics I wrote that to touched it with a ten-foot pole. If it were so indefensible, one or two might've leapt at the opportunity. I have every reason to interpret such a strong statement as Saint John makes in the Epilogue -- ''not everything Jesus did is written,'' --as all- encompassing with regards to Christ's Gospel. Not merely ''doing'' but saying, thinking, demonstrating and manifesting.
WHY? Because of the superfluity of John's words, ''If every one of these should be written, not even the world itself, I think, could hold the books that would have to be written.''
Here we have a staggering statement, quite open to elaboration.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2003.
CS - Do you know why the "extra-books" were taken out in the first place. After the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. the Jews decided to go a different way when they produced the books. They decided to use only the books that were written in Hebrew. The "extra-books" were written in Greek. So they took these out. But they can be found in the appendix of the Jewish holy book. The protestants followed suit with this. Luther almost took in a step farther though. Luther wanted to take either James or the Letters of John out of the Bible because it didn't jive with what he believed. Why he kept them I don't know. Catholics kept the bible the same. The bible I use today is the same as the one that was used over 1000 years ago.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.
HA HA HA!Oh dear, I never thought I'd hear it! JFG has become a "sola scriptura" supporter. John, if absolutely everything Jesus taught is in the Bible, what is the USE of Tradition? Why not just say "read your Bible" and be done with it? Even if it's just for the correct interpretation, that in itself is teaching, and is NOT found in the Bible. Are you seriously suggesting what you seem to be?
And if I may, I can't see where you can say that Jesus' actions aren't important. Isn't teaching an action, or performing a miracle? I'm sure that John wasn't referring to Jesus sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom, etc., but by *deeds* meant something useful to the faith. What other sober interpretation could there be? And if this is the case, how could you say they aren't isn't valid reason to call the Bible less than a complete Testament? *Sufficient*, Surely, but we could always use more. Why would you not yearn to hear ALL of it, or as much as you could?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.
Regarding Purgatory,One should think of purgatory as not a place but a condition.
When a person dies, they are no longer within place or time. Purgatory is a condition of purification where the stains of sin are removed.
If you think of it as a "crossing over" condition where man gains purification so that they can be in the literal presence of God, it makes perfect sense.
It may be instantaneous, it may take time as we on earth record it, either way, it's logical.
God may have us take off our dirty shoes before we walk on his perfectly clean carpet.
God Bless,
-- john (jplacette@catholic.org), June 30, 2003.
ScotDo you know the date when those extra books were written?
-- (Embasador333@yahoo.com), June 30, 2003.
CS:
That's the wrong name for the books. Not ''extra'' books. Original books. They are in the original canon --the only athentic one. Protestants and false bible scholars drew a line through God'd inspired Word. That's why you deny them. And that's why you deny truth which they contain, including Purgatory.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 30, 2003.
Is it a coincidence that those "extra books" the Catholic church has and that Protestants don't have support only the Catholic church? Why didn't Protestant scholars take out the books that support the virgin birth or trinity? Because protestants took nothing out, it was the Roman Catholic Church who added books (Apocrypha) to the bible to support their doctrines.
I have to admit, whoever added them, they were pretty smart people. They add a couple of books to the bible so that in the future, like today, Catholics can accuse Protestants of not having a complete bible.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.
David,Why don't you at least check your facts before making a fool of yourself. It doesn't take a Church historian to know the basic facts about the formation of the Bible. The canon was finalized at the end of the 4th century, with 73 sacred books. That is a simple historical fact verifiable in any encyclopedia. Every Bible produced before the 16th century included those same 73 books, and not a word was removed or added during those 12 centuries. That is also a historical fact. It is likewise a fact that Martin Luther personally removed 7 Old Testament books, inserted words into parts of the remaining text, and attempted to remove three New Testament books as well. There is no opinion here, no interpretation, just plain straightforward history, easily verifiable by simply comparing pre- 16th century texts with Protestant texts. Posting messages contrary to widely known historical facts just demonstrates ignorance.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.
Ok Paul, show me your evidence. That's not what they said in history class.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.
It was because of God's will that Luther didn't remove the true books from the bible. And yes, we do know Luther wanted to remain catholic. He was just God's instrument, started the Reformation that got us out of the dark ages the Roman Church sent us too.
-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), June 30, 2003.
"Are you seriously suggesting what you seem to be?"Sir, I am neither "suggesting," nor "seem to be" suggesting, the wild conclusions you jumped to.
Unfortunately, you wasted several minutes "refuting" things that I didn't say. Go back and read more carefully what I wrote, please. It should be instructive that Gene understood me and did not jump to the same wrong conclusion.
I cannot fathom how any Catholic could accuse me of teaching "sola scriptura" after reading my posts for a few years. Moreover, I explicitly stated (above): "As a Catholic, I believe in the Oral Word of God (Sacred Tradition), by which we learn truths taught by Jesus that are not recorded in the Written Word of God." [So much for me following "sola scriptura."]
When I said that "all the teachings of Jesus ... can fit in a single book", anyone should have realized that I couldn't have meant "the Bible." I meant the Catechism, which reflects both Scripture and Tradition -- "all the teachings of Jesus."Clearly, someone must have had an even bigger "brain cramp" today than David Ortiz!
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 30, 2003.
JFG,There are also many other things that Jesus taught, but if these doctrines were to be recorded individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." He just could not be saying that, because the Church has indeed handed down all the teachings of Jesus. They can fit in a single book. But the deeds of Jesus were too many to be all written down. It was Jesus's deeds to which St. John was referring, not his words.
Sorry John, I don't buy it. Your implication is that some of what Jesus did wasn't worth recording, and I find that hard to believe. For example, if Jesus healed someone are you saying there's NOTHING you could gain from this? Didn't he SAY anything to the person He was healing like He did to the ones we have record of? There were many ill people, why choose that one? EVERYthing Jesus did would be useful for learning! I think you are making a false dichotomy between teaching and acting. For Jesus, the two are one in the same. This means your "said", "did" separation is also false. John clearly was making some point other than what you seem to be saying -- that all His teachings were stored, but His acts weren't. Since all His actions ARE teaching, we obviously don't have all His teachings.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 30, 2003.
It was because of LUTHER's will, no-one else's, that seven sections of the Holy Word of God were trashed. God does not give us a book of His Holy Word, and then tell some renegade Catholic priest 1,200 years later to start ripping out sections. It was because of the will of Luther's followers that three books of the New Testament were NOT trashed as well. Their will prevailed over Luther's perverted will, thank God. Otherwise the Protestant Bible would be missing 10 books instead of just 7.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 30, 2003.
Poor D.O.
His ''history class'' didn't tell David:The dark ages of Catholic teaching and progress are those during which the finest universities of the western world: the Sorbonne, Salamanca, Oxford, Cambridge and others of highest prestige were founded. All by our Holy Catholic Church!
Not to mention convents, cathedrals, orphanages & missions all over Europe and the New World.
David is worried about the ''dark ages'' of Catholic faith. How many cathedrals did Henry VIII build? He tore them down! What great discoveries did protestants give the world? The revival tent and the Ku Kluzx Klan? Who were Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Dante, Mendel, Madame Curie??? Catholics, D.O.--!
How can you refer to dark ages? You are living in the darkness of brainwashed protestant error and Bible worship.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.
St. Francis de Sales on the Protestant treatment of scripture:
Now, how can an honest soul refrain from giving the rein to the ardour of a holy zeal, and from entering into a Christian anger, without sin, considering with what presumption those who do nothing but cry, Scripture, Scripture, have despised, degraded, and profaned this divine Testament of the eternal Father, as they have falsified this sacred contract of so glorious an alliance! 0 ministers of Calvinism, how do you dare to cut away so many noble parts of the sacred body of the Bibles?Taken from a link on this page. Lots of educational material here for D.O. and C.S.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 01, 2003.
One more quotable quote from the good St. Francis de Sales:Your fine church has not contented itself with cutting off from the Scripture entire books, chapters, sentences and words, but what it has not dared to cut off altogether it has corrupted and violated by its translations.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 01, 2003.
Writing in our time is very easy.Can you imagine the effort that the biblical writers made to write what they did?
Trying to include all aspects of the life of Jesus or even the 3 year public ministry of Jesus would fill volumes.
Today, we have books and books on the short terms of politicians.
The Church fathers had to narrow the books to teaching texts.
Luther and his followers narrowed it even farther. All that did was create another point of controversy.
Oral Tradition has to be included. The Catholic Church has 2000+ years of scholastic and institutional knowledge. How can anyone discount or minimize that?
God Bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), July 01, 2003.
JFG, ... I don't buy it. Your implication is that some of what Jesus did wasn't worth recording, and I find that hard to believe.Last time, I had to write these words:
"Unfortunately, you wasted several minutes 'refuting' things that I didn't say. Go back and read more carefully what I wrote, please."Why was no lesson learned from that experience? Instead, a new false assumption is made, followed by a paragraph's worth of unnecessary writing.
I made no "implication ... that some of what Jesus did wasn't worth recording". No one should assume that I had such a bad idea in mind, since I surely didn't.
Here's what I actually said: "But the deeds of Jesus were too many to be all written down."
My words neither state nor imply that some of what Jesus did "wasn't worth recording." Rather, they state that it was not even feasible to record all that he did. It was technically impossible under the circumstances. Moreover, I can picture much of what he did being "repeated actions" -- the same or very similar things in each of the hundreds of towns and villages he visited. The Gospels are not diaries or modern history books in which infinitesimal details are listed. Only a limited amount of narrative could be recorded, and only a limited amount needed to be recorded.St. John simply ends his account by saying that many more events occurred than he was able to record. Now, as Catholics, we know that in the midst of those unrecorded events, Jesus taught truths that went unrecorded, but that were passed down by word of mouth. We know that, but we cannot try to use that verse of St. John to force protestants to "know" or "believe" the same. Instead, we have to present other verses and use other forms of reasoning to make a case for Sacred Tradition, because St. John used only the word "did," not "taught and did."
JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.
Dear John:
You CAN attempt to reason by this clarification of John's epilogue; we add nothing spurious, but rather testify to the necessity, to every Christian, of apostolic tradition. If the deeds of Our Lord are truly unwriteable in their entirety, it won't matter. We know they have NOT escaped capture in the annals of Sacred Tradition. All our Church's truths originate in Jesus Christ.It wouldn't have the urgency I feel here myself; if every Tom Dick & Harry didn't keep insisting ONLY the Bible is trustworthy! You can see easily by John's last sentences how Tradition is indispensable to the Church. All the Catholic Church teaches, whether or not supportable in scripture has the protection of the Holy Spirit. What is written, and also what is not written.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.
John,Last time, I had to write these words: "Unfortunately, you wasted several minutes 'refuting' things that I didn't say. Go back and read more carefully what I wrote, please."
Why was no lesson learned from that experience? Instead, a new false assumption is made, followed by a paragraph's worth of unnecessary writing.
Talk about unnessesary writing! What a waste of good electrons. Please John, conserve electrons, quit this waste.
In your most recent post you say,
St. John simply ends his account by saying that many more events occurred than he was able to record. Now, as Catholics, we know that in the midst of those unrecorded events, ***Jesus taught truths that went unrecorded, but that were passed down by word of mouth***
Which is radically different from your initial criticism of my post where you said,
Because the verse does not mention what Jesus "said" or "taught," but what he "did" (that was not described), this verse should never be used by Catholics to try to convince non-Catholics about the existence of Sacred Tradition
O.k., here's how I see it: As you haven't argued with me that Jesus' actions ARE teachings, I'd assume you'd agree. In your FIRST post, you say that this verse only applies to Jesus' actions, not His teachings, but NOW you admit that not all His teachings were recorded. Since His actions ARE teachings, there isn't really a diffence *in this case* between his actions and teachings or sayings, is there? Now that you understand this, I really can't see any reason for you to have started this whole thing in the first place! Why are you trying so hard to make a distinction when you yourself seem to agree that it is a spurious one?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 01, 2003.
JmjLately, I have been been encouraging people not to waste time and energy in "beating their heads against a wall," trying to convince people who refuse to try hard enough to learn. If I can't break through with this post, I am going to take my own advice and not post again.
In your most recent post you say, "St. John simply ends his account by saying that many more events occurred than he was able to record. Now, as Catholics, we know that in the midst of those unrecorded events, Jesus taught truths that went unrecorded, but that were passed down by word of mouth." Which is radically different from your initial criticism of my post where you said, "Because the verse does not mention what Jesus 'said' or 'taught,' but what he 'did' (that was not described), this verse should never be used by Catholics to try to convince non-Catholics about the existence of Sacred Tradition."
Not only are my later words not "radically different" from my previous ones, they are not "different" at all (in the sense of mutually contradictory). I was stating two separate ideas at separate times, and I stand behind each. If one re-reads the two passages carefully, one will see that there is no internal contradiction. The later quotation talks about something in which we have faith (the existence of Tradition), while the earlier quotation talks about what St. John actually said and how we are not permitted to abuse it.
O.k., here's how I see it: As you haven't argued with me that Jesus' actions ARE teachings, I'd assume you'd agree.
This was a faulty assumption. I disagreed with that previously stated idea, but I decided not to spend time (and electrons) saying so. I had "bigger fish to fry." Certain actions of Jesus imparted a lesson, but that is irrelevant to this discussion, for two reasons. We don't have some list of "Catholic Tradition" teachings that are based on the "actions" of Jesus. Moreover, the fact that some of his "actions" were "instructive" does not give anyone the license to add words ["and said"] to the sacred text.
In your FIRST post, you say that this verse only applies to Jesus' actions, not His teachings, but NOW you admit that not all His teachings were recorded.
"Admit?" ... "NOW?" ... Falsely implying that I didn't know and believe this previously (or that I hid my knowledge of it) is the kind of cheap tactic I'd expect from an anti-Catholic. The verse does apply only to Jesus's "actions." The fact that not all His doctrines were recorded is irrelevant to a discussion of this verse.
Why are you trying so hard to make a distinction when you yourself seem to agree that it is a spurious one?
I am not "trying" to do anything, "hard" or otherwise. I don't have to "make a distinction," because one exists on its own. Therefore, there is nothing "spurious at all."
And (quoting your basest phrase), "[n]ow that you understand this" (at least I hope to heaven that you finally do) -- you will not make the mistake of modifying and misusing my patron saint's last Gospel verse again.JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 01, 2003.
John, we haven't modified anything. We believe God made a statement by and through His apostle. I said before you were restricting the verse to its literal content. I told you it was one train of thought, but not the only viable one. Because to me, more can be inferred. You may think this is Oh So important because Protestants must necessarily judge by the letter. I'm aware of this. But we're discussing Catholic truths. To me it's not so important to toe the line because of what the Bible Only Camp will say in objection. I believe the truth is served as John expressed it; not all we must believe is confined to the written Word. You actually agree with me. I do expect you to.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 01, 2003.
To the guy that I don't know the name of - Here are the dates of the "extra-books." Tobit - 4th century B.C.; Judith - 2nd century B.C.; Esther - 2nd century B.C.; Wisdom - 250-50 B.C.; Sirach - 200- 180 B.C.; Letters of Jeremiah - 4-2nd century B.C.; Maccabees - 2 or 1st century B.C. All of these dates are approximite.
-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
John,Well, I'm going to take the advice and quit wasting time with you.
Good day to you, and try reading what people write to you sometime.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 02, 2003.
The male priesthood is a matter of doctrine because it is believed Jesus personally indicated that this was His will for His church. Jesus conveyed this intent solely through his actions. As far as we know, He didn't say a single word on the subject. Yet His teaching on this matter, conveyed through His actions, is the basis for doctrine binding on the universal Church. Sometimes the trite idiom holds true - actions do speak louder than words.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.
JmjGene,
I want to try just one last thing here, because there are so many distractions that my main point is being ignored.Let's set aside all the "tangents" that have come up in the course of the debate. Let's forget about the various ways in which what I said was not read carefully enough and (as a consequence) was misinterpreted.
Instead, let's focus in on the one and only thing that ever mattered to me in my first post on this thread. Here is what happened ...
Mr. "Christian Soldier" posted the third message of the thread, stating, "How is Purgatory biblical? Can you show me in the Bible where it says that?"
Then a Catholic wanted to make the perfectly good point that religious truth exists outside the Bible too. However, in speaking to this protestant, the Catholic overstated his case by "pulling a Luther." Rather than rely on verses that genuinely prove the existence of Sacred Tradition, he misused and abused a verse (the last verse of John) that does not prove the existence of Tradition. The Catholic committed the sin of "padding" the verse with extra words (as Luther did), to try to make the verse say more than it does to an objective non-Catholic.
Here is the improper comment, with my emphasis added:
"[St.] John says that all the books written couldn't contain everything Jesus said and did, so I don't know why you'd think that *absolutely* everything is in the Bible."My point -- my only point -- is that "[St.] John" did NOT speak of what Jesus "said and did." St. John spoke only of what Jesus "did." A protestant who is very familiar with that verse would come back and make mincemeat of a Catholic who tries to "pull a Luther" in this way. It was apparently pure luck that "Christian Soldier" did not catch the "Lutherism" being pulled, so he did not complain.
There you have it -- my real reason for speaking up. I was not trying to attack anyone, but rather to help us as apologists -- to help us avoid being humiliated. I want to keep Catholic apologists honest! Let's not insert words! We don't need to do shady things like that. Continuing this bad practice would only make us look foolish when we come up against a knowledgable opponent.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 02, 2003.
Give it a rest John. I was typing from my memory of the passage between tasks at work. Luther was intentionally adding things, I was not. You are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, since as I have painfully tried to point out to you, the *meaning* is the same. Since there really is no issue here,Take your own advice and quit posting on it.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 02, 2003.
As an apologist, I'm always honest. John knows I didn't post the paraphrase as exegesis. It was an applied meaning. John surely knows the difference. But his insinuation is we were dishonest. It's another example of his pedantry. I forgive you, John.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.
If anybody is interested in some history, here are the facts!The question is concerning the authenticity of the Apocrypha as being part of the Holy Canon. These books were written in the period between the last revelation that was given by God to the nation of Israel, about 400 BC, and the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ, about 400 years later. This was a period of silence when there was no vision between God and man.
It's during this period that some of the history of the nation of Israel was written up, and so we have the Book of Maccabbes, and some of these books that are called the Apocrypha or the hidden books.
Now in the Bible that Jesus used, and remember, He came after the Apocryphal books were written, in the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic text that Jesus used, there was no Apocrypha. If you even go into a Jewish synagogue today, and read the Jewish Bible, which is called the Tenach, you will find that it does not include the Apocrypha. That is not part of the Old Testament. It was not a part of the Bible that Jesus used. It is therefore not part of the Holy Canon.
Now if you read the Apocrypha very carefully, and if you're a student of the Bible at all, so that you've really become sensitive to the way God writes, and understand the tremendous internal consistency and integrity and cohesiveness of the whole Bible, then when you read the Apocryphal books you will find that they do not have the same ring of authority. They do not present the truth, the Gospel, the same way the rest of the Bible does.
Now that doesn't mean that one cannot derive certain benefits from reading them. We for example have the writings of Josephus, an historian who lived about the time of Christ, or shortly thereafter. And his writings can be read. But when we read Josephus, or when we read the Apocryphal books, we have to realize that these are secular books. They are not authoritative. There are bound to be biases and prejudices and mistakes, the same as any history book would have these things. They are not the Holy Canon.
You see, the Jews of Jesus' day, when they began to countenance the Apocrypha had added so much to the official, authoritative Bible text, they had added laws and rules of all kinds and shades and descriptions, which they were very careful to be obedient to, in their adding all of these things, they had so much emasculated the true Gospel that when Jesus, the Messiah, came, they did not recognize Him.
They did not know that He was the Messiah. Their problem was that they had added all of these other things to the Bible. They had added not only the Apocrypha, but they had added the commentaries of various learned Rabbis of earlier history. And all of this became the official text. And as a consequence they lost all sensitivity to the authority of the Bible, and they did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. When He came on the scene, the Sanhedrin, the ruling body in the church of that day, the high priests, the highest religious officials, rejected Christ altogether, and refused under any circumstance to recognize Him as the Messiah.
Now the same is true today. There are lots of people who are adding to the Bible. They're adding this, they're adding that. And while they still talk about Jesus as the Messiah (because after all, they can't deny Jesus; He did live and He did do what He did), they have lost their sensitivity to the will of God. They no longer recognize what really is the will of God.
Now the Bible as it stands is a book that no man in ten lifetimes (and that's not too exaggerated a bit) could really plumb the depths of the riches of the Bible. But we're living in a day when men are scarcely scratching the surface of the truths that are found in the Bible. And yet they are desirous of finding a little more here and a little more there, and adding something else in another place. Instead of sitting down and reading the Bible and feeding on the Word of God, listening to God speak to them, they would rather add this and add that. And of course in that way they get farther and farther away from what is truth.
-- C.S (Embasador333@yahoo.com), July 02, 2003.
"The question is concerning the authenticity of the Apocrypha as being part of the Holy Canon"A: There is no such question. Fact: The Church defined the canon at the end of the 4th century. Fact: The canon as defined consists of 73 books. Fact: The canon is closed for all time. Nothing can be added or deleted from it. Either you accept these historical facts. or you don't. If you do, you have absolute assurance that the 73 book of the Bible are ALL the Word of God. If you don't accept the canonm as defined, you have NO assurance that ANY book of the Bible is the Word of God. If the Church made 7 mistakes in selecting the canonical writings, it likely made other mistakes as well, so if you don't accept the entire canon, there is no good reason to accept any of it.
"If you even go into a Jewish synagogue today, and read the Jewish Bible, which is called the Tenach, you will find that it does not include the Apocrypha"
A: This is totally irrelevant. The Church did not select the 73 books on the basis of their acceptance by some other religion. It accepted into the CHRISTIAN Bible the books which the Holy Spirit led them to accept, and nothing else. Again, you either believe that and have a trustworthy Bible of 73 books, or you reject it and have no reliable Bible at all.
"Now if you read the Apocrypha very carefully, and if you're a student of the Bible at all, so that you've really become sensitive to the way God writes, and understand the tremendous internal consistency and integrity and cohesiveness of the whole Bible, then when you read the Apocryphal books you will find that they do not have the same ring of authority. They do not present the truth, the Gospel, the same way the rest of the Bible does"
A: The books of the New Testament differ from one another tremendously in writing style, as do the Old Testament books. God provided the material to the writer by inspiration, but He did not write the text; therefore the expression "the way God writes" is meaningless. God inspired. The human authors wrote, using their own personal literary style. The style of the deuterocanonical books are no more different in style or cohesiveness than any other writings of the Old Testament. "Now that doesn't mean that one cannot derive certain benefits from reading them. We for example have the writings of Josephus, an historian who lived about the time of Christ, or shortly thereafter. And his writings can be read. But when we read Josephus, or when we read the Apocryphal books, we have to realize that these are secular books. They are not authoritative"
A: Josephus is not authoritative. The 46 books of the Old Testament are ALL equally authoritative, as they were ALL chosen by the SAME authority, and listed in the SAME authoritative canon. There is no valid reason for questioning the authority or validity of any given canonical book, and to do so, I repeat, makes the entire Bible suspect, for it denounces the authority under which the entire Bible was compiled.
"Now the Bible as it stands is a book that no man in ten lifetimes (and that's not too exaggerated a bit) could really plumb the depths of the riches of the Bible. But we're living in a day when men are scarcely scratching the surface of the truths that are found in the Bible. And yet they are desirous of finding a little more here and a little more there, and adding something else in another place. Instead of sitting down and reading the Bible and feeding on the Word of God, listening to God speak to them, they would rather add this and add that. And of course in that way they get farther and farther away from what is truth"
A: This is not a problem in the Catholic Church, since the Church has kept the scriptures perfectly pure and complete, changing not a single word.. It is bound to do so, as divinely appointed guardian of the Word of God, and therefore is perfectly clear about what is scriptural and what is not. In a religious tradition that removes books from Sacred Scripture, inserts words into the remaining text, and then tries to interpret the remaining material for themselves,it is little wonder that such confusion as you describe is epidemic. That's what Jesus meant when He said His Church would be built on ROCK, not on the shifting sands of sola scriptura.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.
If your reach were equal to your puny grasp, a little common sense would have entered into your silly-sounding post.It isn't even necessary to prove the deutero- canonicals (apocryphal writings do NOT exist nor have they ever, in the Holy Bible.) are inspired; though we KNOW they are, since Christ's Holy Catholic Church has affirmed it--
Just the plain FACT, according to 2nd Machabees --That Jews knew of a purgative stage other than hell, the fact it was a given belief, means Christ believed it. He knew the existence of Purgatory simply because it was consistent with the faith of Israel; He never had reason to teach otherwise. This belief has passed from the Old into the New Covenants without any problem. (All your tripe about how the jews discarded the ''apocryphals, is ridiculous. They just decided not to keep any books which weren't written in Hebrew. The originals had been copied into Greek; and that's why they dropped them.
Only much later, when Martin Luther had cause to defame the Catholic Church for ''selling'' indulgences, was there any dispute over this doctrine. Luther needed to de-legitimize Purgatory. To condemn the Catholic Church.
He cast out that part of the Bible which supported this doctrine without any authority. Just to spite Catholics. No one can invent this, CS. It's just a historical fact. Purgatory is part of the Old testament narrative (2 Maccabees) and it is a revealed truth. The Catholic Church has affirmed this truth, and whoever denies it is anathema.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.
CS said:Now in the Bible that Jesus used, and remember, He came after the Apocryphal books were written, in the Hebrew Bible, the Masoretic text that Jesus used, there was no Apocrypha.
The Masoretic text dates from around 900 A.D.
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.
"If you even go into a Jewish synagogue today, and read the Jewish Bible, which is called the Tenach, you will find that it does not include the Apocrypha"Actually, you may be making a MUCH more profound error here. The council of the Pharisees that decided which books to keep, and which to toss in (if I remember right) ad 90 didn't include representatives from ALL of Judaism. For instance the Ethiopian Jews weren't there, and they do NOT use the same books as mainline Judaism. They DO however use the same ones that Catholics do.
So you have a choice, use what Christ used, or use what Jews who rejected Christ decided was appropriate after His death and resurrection. You decide.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.
"If your reach were equal to your puny grasp, a little common sense would have entered into your silly-sounding post."Pope John Paul II:
"Dialogue is not simply and exchange of ideas. In some ways it is always an "exchange of gifts". For this reason, the Council's Decree on Ecumenism also emphasizes the importance of "every effort to eliminate words, judgements, and actions which do not repond to the condition of separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations between them more difficult."
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 03, 2003.
Excuse me,I thought the Tenuch was the Jewish book of (on going)interpretations of the Torah. Somebody clarify please.
rod. . . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.
The Tanakh is the full Jewish bible. The Torah is just the first five books (Pentateuch).
-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 03, 2003.
thank you. . . . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.
Emerald,Don't pollute every thread with the same thing. Stick to the topic.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.
But I am.See 1st and 2nd post from top.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 03, 2003.
It's one thing to be obsessed with something, something else to corrupt every thread on the forum with it. You've already got a couple threads going on the same topic, why not keep to them rather than destroying others?Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.
Doesn't anybody fear God in this Forum?The point was, When Jesus was preaching from the Word of God, at that time it was just the Old Testament. Jesus did not use those books which were not inspired by God. If you think God inspired those words then you are adding to the Bible and this is a terrible thing!!! Those books were written before Jesus came!!!!!!
I guess the church feels like doing whatever they feel like, Are they GOD or something?
-- Christian Soldier (Embasador333@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.
Hello? You don't think the Old Testament was inspired by God? If not, this is a wasted discussion, for sure.If you DO, wouldn't you want to use the SAME Old Testament that Jesus used, and not one edited by the Jews who didn't believe after Jesus' death and resurrection?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.
Oh and btw, 2000 years ago different groups of Jews considered different books inspired, from few to many. If the Jews of the time didn't agree, you shouldn't expect to get too concrete of an answer now, other than by having faith. The big question is, where would you put your faith, in the guardian of the Bible since its complilation, or the guy who took an axe to it 1500 years later? Not much of a decision IMO.Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 03, 2003.
Christine Soldier believes (why I wish I knew) that all Jesus preached was out of the Old Testament. Many quotes of His came from it, we realise.But the great scope of his teaching exeeded quotes and references from the Bible.
He Himself is the Divine Word! It states plainly, Jesus spoke as ''One with authority''. Not one with learning.
So, forget about who wrote or quoted out of the Bible. Christ spoke. He knew what God's revelation was, and is to be. CS is just avoiding the truth. No truth is acceptable to him, if the Catholic church teaches it. He is just anti-Catholic!
If Maccabees was written in 90 B.C. by faithful Jews; and in the book we see clearly how Jews viewed life after death, then Christ viewed it in the same way. Only better.
It definitely shows in the book, Jews prayed for the dead. If Maccabees prayed for the dead, all Jews prayed for the dead. If all Jews prayed for the dead, Christ believed in prayer for the dead. It's a historical circumstance, even if CS could somehow prove the book isn't inspired.
Which he/she can't. Because he/she has been taught by false prophets.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.
Man, some people can be such jerks when they get their stubborn testosterone flowing (and I'm not talking about myself)! It's bad enough that the forum is flooded with heretics and anti-Catholics who can't admit that they are wrong. Why do there also have to be Catholics who are so full of self-love and pride that they too are totally incapable of admitting their error? This is truly pathetic.Here we go again, "old-timers."
Take your own advice and quit posting on it.
Scroll up to my July 1 post and realize that I had every intention of quitting. But then Ol' Grandad had to insert his nose into it again (immediately after my post), saying:
John, we haven't modified anything.Since that wasn't true -- because both of you DID "modify" something (the words of my patron saint) -- I could not "take [my] own advice and quit posting." I was forced, against my will, to post again, rather than leave that falsehood unchallenged. ... And now I have to post yet again because of continued rebelliousness!
But his insinuation is we were dishonest. It's another example of his pedantry. I forgive you, John.
Offensive and incorrect thrice!
--- Error #1: I didn't "insinuat[e]" intentional "dishonest[y]," because I wasn't sure if the insertion of spurious words was intentional or accidental (imitating other Catholics who have made the same mistake).
--- Error #2: When you react this way, it is not due to any "pendantry" on my part, but due to guilt that you feel for having done wrong and then being called on it.
--- Error #3: It is for me to "forgive" all these wrongs you have done. I have done nothing wrong for which you can "forgive" me.Now, be smart for a change, and don't force me to post again. Being in the wrong, you can't win.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.
Dear John:
Who forces you to post again? Your posts are welcome if the urge strikes you. Leave me out of it, please. I post my own. God bless you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.
WOW!I just asked a simple question and you guys start arguing over things that don't make sense. Was just wondering what you thought happens after death. I'm a new bible student and I have always heard that if you are good and obey God's rule you will go to heaven and if not you go to hell. I've found it interesting that if i don't think about what I have heard and just pay attention to what I read it seems different. that was the reasoning behind my question. I'm getting that the bible says that you stay right here on earth and not go to heaven. The reasoning behind this is that Jesus is coming again to establish his kingdom which is the kingdom of heaven. His kingdom is coming from heaven but will be here on earth. Then afterwards there will be a new earth and heaven, but the place where the good people go is still on earth and not in heaven. I don't know, maybe i'm wrong but my understanding is that after you die you go to sleep in the earth, then when Jesus comes we are all ressurected to see this event. then at the end of the millenium the good live with Jesus in the new Jerusalem which comes down to earth from heaven. And the bad go to the lake of fire.
-- Fred (frd69@com.net), July 04, 2003.
Fred:
Our Lord is clear, when a person is ''dead'' the person isn't put in a tomb for many centuries. Only the person's remains, the body. The other part, his/her soul, is with Christ if he was saved through faith and good works. Above all, if the person confessed his sins and repented. When Jesus returns in glory, the dead BODIES will rise, some to reunite in heaven with their immortal souls. The whole person will receive a place either in glory with Him, or in the fire of Hell. The ones who have died in sin unrepentent will receive the same. Reunion with their bodies and eternity in Hell as they deserved.The One thing we can be sure of is; Christ will judge the living and the dead. He judges who will reign with Him in heaven.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 04, 2003.
Dear Fred,The traditions you refer to, about a new earthly kingdom, are all manmade fundamentalist theories dating back less than a couple of hundred years. What the Christian Church has taught for 2,000 years, and what the Bible therefore states, is that (1) the bodies of those who undergo physical death return to the earth, while their spirits are immediately judged as saved or lost; (2) The saved go to heaven (with or without a purification in Purgatory), and the lost go to Hell; (3) At the second coming of Christ, the bodies of all who have died will be resurrected and reunited with their spirits, but in a new and glorified form; (4) at the time of the Second Coming, all of physical creation, the entire universe including the earth, as well as time itself, will cease to exist, and all will exist in the spaceless and timeless condition called eternity. Either eternal joy and peace in intimate union with God, or eternal separation from Him and everything He represents.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 04, 2003.
the bodies of all who have died will be resurrected...all of physical creation...will cease to exist, and all will exist in the spaceless and timeless condition called eternity.Hmmm. This is taking me a while to figure out. Why do we have resurrected bodies, if space no longer exists?
Where will our resurrected bodies be?
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 06, 2003.
Catherine Ann,Our resurrected bodies will be 'glorified', like Jesus' body. He is Risen, in a physical but glorified body. We will become as He is, not on this physical earth but with God our Father. Just as Jesus is with the Father. I don't think we can fully understand this beatific vision until we actually meet Him face to face. As St Paul said ...
'Now we see indistinctly as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. My knowledge is imperfect now, then I shall know even as I am known' (1 Cor 13:12).
God bless
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), July 06, 2003.
I'm sorry, I still don't get it.How can we have physical bodies if no physical creation, not even space itself, exists?
Anywhere I can look this up in the Summa?
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 08, 2003.
Anywhere I can look this up in the Summa?BOO-yah.
-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), July 08, 2003.
This is really one of those questions where we have to settle for knowing "what", and cannot insist on knowing "how". We know that bread and wine become the body and blood of the risen Lord. "How" does this happen? The greatest theological minds don't have a clue. We know that there are three distinct Persons Who are each fully God, and yet there is but one God. "How" is this possible? By human logic, it is not possible. It is beyond human comprehension. We know that the physical body of Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, and now exists there, beyond time and space, and that His Resurrection is a sign of our own ressurrection in similar glorified form. How? God knows! Presumably the glorified body is not merely "physical" as we understand that term, even though it is the same body that was part of us during our earthly existence. Beyond that, all is speculation (in fact, that statement itself is speculation). Perhaps we will understand someday. Perhaps not. But as long as we experience it, we will not have a need to understand it.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 08, 2003.
I'm not so sure that there will no longer be an "earth". Earth as we know it will no longer exist but according to the Catechism, there will be a "new earth" and a "new heaven".1043 Sacred Scripture calls this mysterious renewal, which will transform humanity and the world, "new heavens and a new earth." It will be the definitive realization of God's plan to bring under a single head "all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth."
1048 "We know neither the moment of the consummation of the earth and of man, nor the way in which the universe will be transformed. The form of this world, distorted by sin, is passing away, and we are taught that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells, in which happiness will fill and surpass all the desires of peace arising in the hearts of men."
There are other passages regarding the new earth. I always assumed the "new earth" would be similar to the Garden of Eden that man was originally given. And our glorified bodies would inhabit this.
Can someone clarify what is meant by a "new earth" if I am incorrect?
-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), July 08, 2003.
The following excerpts from the Catechism may help clarify heaven a little."1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.
1025 To live in heaven is "to be with Christ." The elect live "in Christ,"600 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.601
For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.602"
"2795 The symbol of the heavens refers us back to the mystery of the covenant we are living when we pray to our Father. He is in heaven, his dwelling place; the Father's house is our homeland. Sin has exiled us from the land of the covenant,56 but conversion of heart enables us to return to the Father, to heaven.57 In Christ, then, heaven and earth are reconciled,58 for the Son alone "descended from heaven" and causes us to ascend there with him, by his Cross, Resurrection, and Ascension.59
2796 When the Church prays "our Father who art in heaven," she is professing that we are the People of God, already seated "with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" and "hidden with Christ in God;"60 yet at the same time, "here indeed we groan, and long to put on our heavenly dwelling."61
[Christians] are in the flesh, but do not live according to the flesh. They spend their lives on earth, but are citizens of heaven.62
2802 "Who art in heaven" does not refer to a place but to God's majesty and his presence in the hearts of the just. Heaven, the Father's house, is the true homeland toward which we are heading and to which, already, we belong."
Incidentally, I copy/pasted these sections from the Vatican website, and you'll notice that heaven is not capitalised, which as we know place names normally are.
I hope this helps
God bless
-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), July 08, 2003.
So, is it an article of faith that eternity is spaceless?
-- Catherine Ann (catfishbird@yahoo.ca), July 09, 2003.
It is an article of faith that material creation will pass away. Space and time are elements of material creation. They didn't exist before the universe was created, and they won't exist after the universe ceases to exist.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 09, 2003.