Thursday, October 11, 2018

Did the New Testament church believe in Roman Catholic Purgatory?

Did the New Testament church believe in Roman Catholic Purgatory?

No, and this is not taught in any of Scripture. Instead, Roman Catholic (the Eastern Orthodox tend to reject the Roman version) Purgatory is based upon a false premise, not only that there is a need for further atonement for some sins after death, but that justification is on the basis of actual  righteousness, which is first attained  via the act itself of baptism (and which for infants means without even having to repent and to believe on the Lord Jesus with all their heart, which is contrary to Acts 2:38; 8:36,37; 10:43–47- 15:7–9) effecting  "infused” righteousness, for in RC theology one is formally justified by their own righteousness. (Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace) 

However, since  since the unholy sin nature remains, then  after baptism unless the baptized is one of the very few who has become perfect in character in this life and dies in that state, then entering Heaven can only be attained  by attaining perfection of character ("by grace") thru postmortem “purifying punishments” and sufferings, commencing at death, in order to be with God.
 

But which is contrary to what Scripture most manifestly teaches, which is that of penitent faith  appropriating justification, with effectual faith being that purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6

 

From  where they positionally await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.

At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

However, this saving justifying faith is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, (Romans 8:14) in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. 

 

 And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.

The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21)

If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)

If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)

But which progressive practical sanctification is not the
cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.

In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which, to reiterate, it is taught that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism. And which act itself is said to regenerate and render them good enough to go to Heaven, and formally justified by their own righteousness.

 

This itself is a result from the Catholic premise that justification is a process based upon actual sanctification via the act itself of baptism (so that the newly baptized would go straight into glory if they immediately died then, but not after their sin nature that remained manifested itself) vs. heart-purifying regenerating faith being counted for righteousness among the regenerate, but not as making one actually good enough in character to be with God.

 

While in Catholic theology man does not merit the grace by which process one is justified, yet the "the process of justification" means that it is on the basis of sanctification via baptism (by which one receives "sanctifying grace," having an "interior sanctifying quality") that one is justified by, and which "confers the right to heavenly glory." Thus it is held that newly baptized Catholics would go directly in heavenly glory if they died at that time, before committing sin. But since such soon manifest imperfection, then this premise of salvation via actual sanctification leads to the need for Purgatory in order to become good enough to actually be with God. 

 

"This inner quality of righteousness and sanctity is universally termed 'sanctifying (or habitual) grace')." "this justification cannot, according to Christ's precept, be effected except at the fountain of regeneration, that is, by the baptism of water" "by which even an infant in receiving baptism is necessarily made just and pleasing to God," "by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God." "whereby He makes us just, in so far as He bestows on us the gift of His grace which renovates the soul interiorly and adheres to it as the soul's own holiness (Trent, l. c., cap. vii)." 

 

The Council of Trent decreed that the essence of active justification comprises not only forgiveness of sin, but also "sanctification and renovation of the interior man by means of the voluntary acceptation of sanctifying grace and other supernatural gifts" (Trent, l. c., cap. vii)" "According to the Council of Trent sanctifying grace is not merely a formal cause, but "the only formal cause" (unica causa formalis) of our justification." For, "Justification is "considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul." (Catholic Encyclopedia > Justification) Thus one is "formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)." - Catholic Encyclopedia > Sanctifying Grace: emp. mine 

 

What this is means is that "by the grace of God" man, via the act of baptism - which produces its effects ex opere operato=by the act itself - (The Catholic Encyclopedia>Sacraments), the soul receives "sanctifying grace which renders men the adopted sons of God and confers the right to heavenly glory" (Catholic Encyclopedia > baptism) being actually made "just and pleasing to God." 

 

While this magic act is appealing, and is set in contrast to a misleading characterization of sola fide (as if that simply meant believers were merely white-washed sinners), what it means is that souls are imagined to be actually good enough to be with God. Thus the innocence of baptism is not enough, but regeneration, however, while the latter does create a new heart rendering man a "new creature," (2Co. 5:17) yet his sinful nature remains, as the new convert will quickly realize.

 

Therefore most baptized souls are theologically said to go to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and to become good enough to enter glory.

The Catholic Encyclopedia states, “whosoever comes into God's presence must be perfectly pure for in the strictest sense His "eyes are too pure, to behold evil" (Habakkuk 1:13).


The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc. (City of God XXI.24.)

And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness".

One "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) 
 

CCC 1023: Those who die in God's grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ...(provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .)

 Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected. Purification must be complete, and indeed this is precisely what is meant by the Church's teaching on Purgatory. The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ Who removes from them the remnants of imperfection (John Paul II, Audiences, July 21, 1999; cf. Ecumenical Council of Florence, Decretum pro Graecis: DS 1304; Ecumenical Council of Trent, Decretum de iustificatione: DS 1580; Decretum de purgatorio: DS 1820). 

 

Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,

"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." - Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224

"The purpose of purgatory is to bring you up the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants).

Roman Catholics also invoke the exhortation of Matthew 5:48: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect"  (Matthew 5:48) as a requirement to be with God, actually presuming that that they can attain the perfection of God in this life or in RC purgatory!  

 

There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails, and how long, for such are are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.

 

However, to reiterate, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)

And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)

Texts that Catholics attempt to use to support Purgatory:

 

 2 Maccabees  12;44-46 (atonement for the dead to free them from sin ).

O what support is that of praying for men whom the text clearly stated were slain for their idolatry, which is a mortal sin?

 

This does not teach Purgatory, but instead it advocates offerings with prayers for those who were lost, who were clearly said to have died due to idolatry, that they yet might be in the resurrection (of the just), "in that he was mindful of the resurrection." (2 Maccabees 12:43)

 

Thus all one can invoke this text from the Deuteros for is for praying for the dead, even for those who died due to mortal sin ("Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain...they saw before their eyes the things that came to pass for the sins of those that were slain" - 2 Maccabees 12:40,42), for whom according to Rome there is no hope. 

 

Thus RCs must resort to special pleading that maybe they repented in their dying moments, but died anyway due to idolatry. And again, the offerings for them was in hope that they may see the resurrection, which those in purgatory are assured of, not that they may escape from purgatory. 

 

However, while the Holy Spirit records approx. 200 prayers in Scripture in exampling and teaching how to pray and exhorting the same, there are zero prayers to Heaven anywhere in Scripture addressed to anyone in Heaven but God, except by pagans.

 

Meanwhile believing this book was Scripture proper was not required until after Luther died, almost 1400 years after the last book was penned.

Other texts which Catholics often attempt to use for support are:

•  1 Peter 3:18-20;4:6 ( Peter preaching to the spirits in prison)

Which preaching was to the "disobedient" lost souls like those of Noah's day, "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water," and it is obvious they had not attained to perfection of character. But with His resurrection (Matthew 27:52) the Lord set free those in captivity in  Abraham's bosom, (Ephesians 4:8,9) also called paradise,(Luke 23:43) which OT saints went to, and was on the other side of Hades, with a great gulf between the two  (Luke 16:19-31)   since the way into the holiest of all was not yet  enabled under the Old Covenant, (Hebrews 9:8;  10:4) but which Christ enabled by His Death (Matthew 27:51). But which paradise was and  is not purgatory but a place of comfort, (Luke 16:25) not fiery punishments, and Christ having opened the way into the holy of holies by His sinless shed blood, (Hebrews 10:19) then paradise which is now Heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:4

1 Cor 15:29-30  (baptizing the dead)

Which text Mormons also use in attempting to support their false teaching,  but it supports nothing than was it was invoked for by the Holy Spirit thru Paul, that of there being a resurrection which some ("they," says Paul, not "we") thought postmortem baptism would effect, but with nothing inferred as purgatory. And which the Holy Spirit would never fail to clearly teach on, if it indeed was of Catholic importance. 

• 1 Cor 3:15 (saved through fire)

Utterly invalidated as explained below*, by God's grace. 

Mt 5:26 (where you will not be released until you pay the last penny)

 Rather than Matthew 5:25-26 being "explicit about Purgatory" as Staples imagines this either refers to this life, or punishment in Hell, the latter of which is inferred in  the context of  Matthew 5:22-26, (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:27-29; cf. Mark 9:43), and Catholics  themselves argue (Mt. 1:25) that "until" ("till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing") need not mean a terminus is inferred.

And here this story cannot be analogous to purgatory, since that is for souls whose guilt is forgiven (CCC 1471) yet who have to make expiation for venial sins, but  Matthew 5:22-26, does not describe penitent saved souls who guilt is forgiven yet atoning for venial sins as per Purgatory, but one who is denying the faith by knowingly  impenitently and hypocritically mistreating a brother and therefore receiving retributive justice. 

And Matthew 5:22-26  correlates to Matthew 18:23-35  in which the subject of punishment is clearly that of a lost soul who is in no way penitent and acting consistent with Christian faith, but akin to the one in 1 Timothy 5:8 who had denied the faith by refusing to provide for his own dependents.
  
Thus the description there is of a "mortal sin." And contrary to RC Purgatory,  this man was not forgiven, but was damned, and given the vast amount he had to pay, then  I think "Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost [farthest] farthing" (Matthew 5:26) is saying he never will come out, 

Mt 12:32 (sin is forgiven in this age or the next)

That is simple, except Rome rejects the 1,000 year reign of Christ in which there will be sin and forgiveness of sins, as Ezekiel shows in his many chapters which defy then as being mere allegory. 

1 John 5:16-17 (degrees of sin distinguished)

Which refers to apostasy, and there are degrees of sin, and of accountability and guilt, thus degrees of punishment, (Matthew 11:20-24) but which description are only about Hell, not some interim place.

Mark 9:49 (all will be salted by fire)

Which is simply another example of the egregious extrapolation RCs must often resort to in order attempt to postulate some sort of support for what they can only wish Scripture manifestly taught, but which it does not!

Here the only postmortem reality that is seen in the context is that of Hell: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) and otherwise it speaks of salt (Mark 9:49,50; cf. Lev. 2:13; Eze 43:24) which represent holiness, which works for peace, and one either has it or they are good for nothing, (Mt. 5:13) and and there is nothing that infers purgatory in order to get it or more of it, though this would be one of many places we could expect to see it if it were true.

 

Appeal to Tradition. Since Purgatory is one of the many distinctive Catholic teachings which  are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels),  - and the weight of Scriptural warrant is not the basis for Catholic assurance of Truth though many  attempt to employ it in condescension to "Bible Christians" - then they typically must  resort to appeal to Catholic Tradition. 

 

However,   the doctrine of RC Purgatory is clearly not that which is taught by "unanimous consent of the fathers," and has actually been an acquired belief with a  process of development so that now Purgatory is held as not even being an actual place.  Yet hell is Scripturally taught as a actual place in which lost souls are in a state of torment, (Luke 16:19-31) and men like Tertullian held that his equivalent of purgatory was a place, a "prison of Hell," teaching of Abraham's bosom, that, 

 

"Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the 'full recompense of their reward.'" (Against Marcion, 4:34) (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:34, before 220 A.D.), 

 

And French historian [and prolific author specializing in the Middle Ages]  Jacques Le Goff further explains: 

 

"Between Tertullian's refrigerium interim [a region of the afterlife some believers go to] and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind - for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory - but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 47-48) Which refrigerium is akin to what EOs tend to profess. 

 

Also, 

 

"In this vision of the other world [advocated by Clement of Alexandria and Origen] a number of ingredients of the true Purgatory are lacking, however. No clear distinction is made between time in Purgatory and the time of the Last Judgment. This confusion is so troublesome that Origen is forced both to expand the end of the world and to collapse it into a single moment, while at the same time making its prospect imminent. Purgatory is not really distinguished from Hell, and there is no clear awareness that Purgatory is a temporary and provisional abode. 

 

The responsibility for postmortem purification is shared by the dead, with their weight of sin, 

and God, the benevolent judge of salvation; the living play no part. Finally, no place is designated as the place of purgatory. By making the purifying fire not only 'spiritual' but also 'invisible,' Origen prevented the imagination of the faithful from gaining a purchase on it." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 57) 

 

Origen erroneously imagines that 1 Cor. 3 refers to the equivalent of purgatory as a place, (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448) but as clearly shown this cannot be Purgatory. And he also opines, "I think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls... in each of which he will first see clearly what is done there, and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are so done: and thus he will in order pass through all gradations, following Him who hath passed into the heavens. (De Principiis, 2:11:6)

 

3rd century martyr Perpetua also taught that her vision of what Caths call purgatory was a place. "Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment." (Acts of the Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, Chapters iii-x) 

 

Aphrahat (270-345) believed, “For when men die, the animal spirit is buried with the body, and sense is taken away from it, but the heavenly spirit that they receive goes according to its nature to Christ. And both these the Apostle has made known, for he said:–The body is buried in animal wise, and rises again in spiritual wise. The Spirit goes back again to Christ according to its nature, for the Apostle said again:–When we shall depart from the body we shall be with our Lord. 

 

Polycarp refers to over a dozen deceased Christians, and he comments that all of them are in Heaven: that they are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead." (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 9) Polycarp would not know for sure if all of these people had completed their sanctification but would know they died in faith, and even people like the prophet Daniel and the apostle Paul confessed sins as being imperfect.

 Moreover,  even  the tradition-intensive EOs tend to reject RC Purgatory:

The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.

Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.

Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076

Instead, as with compromised Jews, Purgatory flowed from   false beliefs as well as paganism,  thus leading to such practices as one that,

arose in the 12th century among Ashkenazim of the Rhineland, who kept lists of their dead in Memorbücher and recited the Kaddish to help the dead through the interim period of purification after death. According to the French historian French historian  Jacques Le Goff, the conception of purgatory as a physical place dates to the 12th century, the heyday of medieval otherworld-journey narratives and of pilgrims’ tales about St. Patrick’s Purgatory, a cavelike entrance to purgatory on a remote island in northern Ireland. As late as 1220, however, Caesarius of Heisterbach, a Cistercian monk and preacher, thought that purgatory could be in several places at once. With his Purgatorio, in which the “second kingdom” of the afterlife is a seven-story mountain situated at the antipodes to Jerusalem, Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) created a poetic synthesis of theology, Ptolemaic cosmology, and moral psychology depicting the gradual purification of the image and likeness of God in the human soul. (https://www.britannica.com/topic/purgatory-Roman-Catholicism)

Jacques Le Goff also attests,

PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD Christians seem to have acquired the habit of praying for their dead at a very early date. This was an innovation... These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net.

*Purgatory and 1Co. 3:



This cannot refer to Purgatory due to the facts that,

1. The judgment event of 1Co. 3 is the judgment seat of Christ, with its giving of rewards and loss thereof, which
does not occur until the Lords return and the believers resurrection. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) versus purgatory, which (typically prolonged) suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5:10)

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; (2 Timothy 4:1)

Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. (2 Timothy 4:8)
The judgment of 1 Cor. 3:15 will reveal what manner of workmanship they were building church with, for “Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire,” and while saving faith is one that characteristically walks in the obedience of faith, (Heb. 5:9) believers may suffer loss of rewards due to their manner of workmanship.

The fire burns up the fake stones, which like the tares of Mt. 13:40 at the end, are represented here as wood, hay or stubble, while the precious stones with fire-tried faith (1Pt. 1:7) endure, and gain rewards for the instruments of their faithfulness. Thus Paul says to the Thessalonians, "For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming? " (1 Thess. 2:19; cf. Rv. 3:11) And to the Corinthians, “we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” 2Cor. 1:14) And to the Philippians, that being “my joy and crown, so stand fast in the Lord, my dearly beloved.” (Phil. 4:1)


2. Wherever NT Scripture manifestly deals with the next life location for believers, it is to be with the Lord . (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
Not only did the penitent criminal go to "paradise" at death (Lk. 23:43; cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7) as did Stephen, (Acts 7:59) but so would Paul and co. be with the Lord once absent from the body (Phil. 1:23,24) - even though Paul told the Philippians that was he not “already perfect.” (Phil. 3:12). Likewise he stated to the Corinthians, "We [plural] are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." (2 Corinthians 5:8) and so would every believer if the Lord returned in their lifetime: “to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.” (1Thess. 4:17; 1Cor. 15:51ff - even though many believers were in need of greater holiness. (2Cor. 7:1)
Paul confessed he was not already practically perfect, (Phil. 3:12) but he earnestly desired to become as much in this life (to "know him, and the power of his resurrection, being made conformable unto his death" - Philippians 3:10) as he would via the resurrection, yet he knew that if he died before that then he would be with the Lord.

Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (For we walk by faith, not by sight). We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. (2 Corinthians 5:6-8)

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: (Philippians 1:21-23)

I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. (Philippians 3:14-15)

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (Philippians 3:17)

For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. (Philippians 3:20-21)

3. And as expressed in that verse and others, the resurrection is the only transformative event the believer manifestly looks forward to after this life (Rm. 8:23; 2Co. 5:1-4; Phil 3:20,21; 1Jn. 3:2) — not purgatory, which suffering commences at death in order to enable souls to enter Heaven.

4. Furthermore, Scripture only reveals growth in grace and overcoming as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

Thus what Scripture teaches is that it is on earth that testing and overcoming takes place, and that the elect go to be with the Lord upon death, or at His return, whichever comes first, and then they are judged as to the manner of works, reflecting their faith, and rewarded or suffer loss of rewards.

While perfection of character in this life. Mt 5:48 is invoked in support of this perfection being needed to be with God (which in context refers to treating your enemy benevolently), yet this does not teach that the achievement of absolute moral perfection in this life is a perquisite for salvation, which idea requires redefining salvation as to mean progressing to a state of being just enough by moral perfection to be with the Lord, and that being absent from the body means present in purgatory, not with the Lord, contrary to what is expressly stated. And which is akin to placing one under the Law, (Gal. 3:10) versus justification by imputed righteousness (justifying the unGodly by faith: Rm. 4:5) appropriated by a faith, but a faith which effects holiness.

For while salvific faith is one which characteristically effects the “obedience of faith” toward its Object (which faith in any moral authority will do), and which is an overcoming kind of faith, (Rv. 2,3), and grows towards the maturity which is called perfection, (Col. 1:28; 4:12; Ja. 1:4; 3:2; 1Jn. 4:17) and which faith has “great recompense of reward,” (Heb. 10:35), yet Scripture states that believers (being of true faith) are presently saved (Titus 3:5), and positionally perfect (Heb. 10:14) and seated in Heaven. (Eph. 2:6) And thus Christ can dwell with them now - "Christ in you, the hope of glory (Col. 1:27) - and as shown, they can and will go to be with the Lord at death, or at the Lord's return.

Finally, this RC interpretation of 1Co. 3 is not one which is even officially taught by Rome as requiring assent, and is contradicted by the notes in the official RC Bible which notes  state,

The text of ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this. - http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PZ8.HTM#$4AC

 
The following is from a debate with a disciple of Rome, Scott Windsor Sr., who engaged me in debate on James Swans site, "Beggars all. His words are in
italics:
 
While I get the rationalizations you put forth,   

No, what you do not get then is that Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4)

At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

Since all you see are rationalizations I repeated what Scripture says, which all your strained or wrested appeals to texts which do not teach Purgatory cannot refute.
- I can provide prooftexts which allow us to rationalize that there is indeed a Purgatory -

And which attempts have been refuted here in a succession of posts, and shown that belief in Purgatory is not what is manifest in the the only wholly inspired authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels). But there is always another RC devotee who seems compelled to defend whatever Rome imagines, regards of how cultic it makes them look.
and- if it exists, then the Church, through her authority to bind or loose whatsoever she chooses, could indeed loose in a a plenary or partial fashion the time spent in Purgatory.

Please. Parroting prevaricating propaganda may be comforting to the Catholic choir but it simply will not stand the test of examination of what the NT church believed in the most ancient substantive record. But I do understand that Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

Maybe you want to try the "The Church ® gave you the Scriptures, thus it is the supreme infallible authority on what it means" argument.
that indulgences are ONLY for those who are saved already.
I think I expressed that, except that "saved" in Scripture means the next conscious reality for believers after this life it is with the Lord. Who is not in RC Purgatory.

May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

 
Scott Windsor, Sr. said...Greetings PBJ, I took the time to respond fully to your posting. It became too long (mostly because of the list of Bible verses you cited, but didn't quote) for a combox response so I posted to my blog. Click Here for my response.

Pt. 1

I do not recall seeing your reply which came 6 days after my last post, but seeing as I have much later come by your sophistry then I will take some time (hours for me to type) to refute your poor attempt at trying to refute my reproof of RC Purgatory.

In response to Lk. 23:43, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise," you respond
Purgatory IS part of Paradise. Only the SAVED can be in Purgatory, but which bare assertion misses the point of my citing this text, which was part of showing that Paradise is now Heaven.

However, Purgatory is NOT Paradise, AKA "Abraham's bosom," since that is a place of comfort, (Luke 16:25) not "fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.'" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina)

Next, in response to the corresponding text (2Cor. 12:4, "That he was caught up into paradise...") that I listed together with the above, you state,
This speaks NOTHING about after this life, yet it certainly does, being caught "up to the third heaven,"(2Cor. 12:2) and your own NAB notes support the inference that this was God's abode. And with my point being that paradise is now Heaven, where those whom Christ set free went at His resurrection. Thus supporting what I stated, when "Scripture clearly speak[s] of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord."

Next, in response to Rv. 2:7 ("I will give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of my God"), you argue that this cannot be used against Purgatory, but that it even supports it, stating, "He that overcometh (the trials of Purgatory) shall eat of the tree of life...."

However, it is against Purgatory since not only is the tree of life in paradise, versus the two being the same, or preceding it (both of which you have now argued), but together with the other verses this testifies to what I said, that the next conscious reality for believers is with the Lord.

Next, when faced with the next corresponding verse, Phil 1:23, "having a desire to depart and to be with Christ," you admit that Paul here expresses his desire to be with Christ, yet blithely assert, "there is no negation of Purgatory here," yet there certainly is.

For as shown, paradise was a place of comfort, not fire and torments or purifying' punishments, and is the 3rd heaven, where the tree of life is, and thus the Lord, and the imperfect Paul (Philippians 3:12,13) expressed he would go to be with once absent from his earthly body.

Which bring us to the next verse of conflation which you are compelled to deny, 2Cor. 5:8, "to be absent rather from the body, and to be present with the Lord." To which you again blithely assert,
there is no denial of Purgatory here! The desire to be in Heaven does not mean there is no Purgatory.

Yet there certainly is for the same reason as was shown. To die as a believe is to be with the Lord, in paradise, the 3rd Heaven, versus awaiting that reality by becoming actually good enough thru RC Purgatory.

Next up, 1Cor. 15:51ff' "the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed," which (once again taking in isolation) you argue, this "does not preclude going to Purgatory." However it does, for as the next verse in my list states,

1Thess. 4:17 - "After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever."

To which you wishfully assert,
SW: Keep in mind, those in Purgatory WILL be with Him forever too. Still no preclusion of Purgatory here.

However, contrary to your imposed intermediate stage, those who die or are alive at the coming of Christ go directly be with the Lord forever, non-stop, and which is a reality you cannot avoid despite your compelled assertions to the contrary.

11:59 AM, December 11, 2019
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Pt. 2

Yet as you must deny what Scripture teaches, then faced with the next verse, 1Jn. 3:2 ."...when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is," you assert, "what we shall be does not mean we will not be purified before we get there."

However, contrary to this intermediate stage, the substantiated fact remains that to be absent from this life via death or the Lord's return is to be with the Lord forever. And that as stated, "the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection."

And which the next verse conflates with, Rm. 8:23, "...the redemption of our body." Which again is met with your simple denial that this does not equate to no Purgatory, but which intermediate stage is just what is missing and must be imposed to support a tradition of men.

Worse, next, in actually trying to wrest support, you abuse Scripture by taking a verse which speaks about the resurrection (1Co 15:53, "this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality)," and making it refer to or support Purgatory, stating,

"Yes, when we go to Purgatory our corruption puts on incorruption."

However, 1Co 15:53 is not speaking about Purgatory, a condition commencing at death, of making atonement for sins and becoming pure enough to enter Heaven, but refers to the (first) resurrection, that of the bodies of believers who already directly went to be with the Lord, and with the only transformative experience after this life being that of made like Christ in the resurrection!

Moving on, after I stated that "At which time [the resurrection] is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the > only suffering after this life," you incredibly assert that 1 Corinthians 4:5 which refers to this, "supports Purgatory! "Who will bring to light the hidden things of darkness..." but every man shall still have praise from God? Even though the things of darkness are exposed - "every man" who is in this purification IS saved and shall have praise from God!"

Which is either ignorance or sophistry, for RC Purgatory is not the resurrection of believers, which is what 1 Corinthians 4:5 refers to, and which resurrection awaits the return of Christ, and is the time when the Lord gives reward unto His servants at the judgment seat of Christ, making what they did manifest and rewarding them. (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) In which one is saved despite the loss of such fruit, not because of the loss. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

You next try (of-course) to face 2 Timothy 4:1,8 ("...the Lord the just judge will render to me in that day..."and to which you respond with I would be relatively certain that St. Paul suffered his Purgatory while still on Earth."

Which misses the point, that this text goes together with the other texts which show that the day of Christ is the resurrection and when believers shall be judged and gain or less rewards, which is not Purgatory. Meanwhile Paul himself testified that he had not yet attained unto perfection, nor did he ever express hope that Purgatory would do it, but while he strove to presently be (what he was positionally in Christ) perfect like he would be in the resurrection, (Philippians 3:10-15) he only pointed to that event as effecting charge after this life, when Christ "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:21).
12:01 PM, December 11, 2019
Blogger PeaceByJesus said...
Part 3

You next are faced with Revelation 11:18 ("...the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest render reward to thy servants...") which conflates with the other texts which establish that 1 Cor. 3:8-15 awaits the return of the Lord Jesus and the judgment seat of Christ. Yet which you yet try to spin as supporting Purgatory, or at least not denying it, stating, nothing is denying a time of purification of those souls who WILL BE rewarded."

Yet no matter how much RCs need to spin 1 Cor. 3:8-15 as referring to Purgatory or supporting it, this is simply disallowed even by the very FACT that this awaits the return of Christ, versus commencing at death as with Purgatory!

Meanwhile the suffering is not that of being purified of character faults so that one may be good enough to enter Heaven and with "saints" who went there directly, but the judgment is of believers who are already with the Lord, and the suffering loss is that of the manner of workmanship believers attempted to build the church with being burned up (as tares will be), but which one is saved despite of

Next you respond to Matthew 25:31-46, which testifies to believers being rewarded, by asserting, EVERY MAN who goes to Purgatory SHALL GO INTO LIFE EVERLASTING too! . but which is simply begging the question, that of presuming the very thing that has only being invalidated, that of Purgatory being referred to.

Along with this attempt to compel what 1 Cor. 3:8-15 refers to as being Purgatory, or supporting it, that those being purged will "suffer loss" though they will still be "saved" in the end.
But which is the very argument that has just been shown to be utterly untenable! Some RCs seem to think that much of any verse which refers to purification supports Purgatory, but which simply fails, and such extrapolation testifies to the desperate measure RCs can resort to in the light of what Scripture actually manifestly clearly consistently teaches as regards believers after this life.
Yet you actually double-down on arguing what which is untenable, invoking (A verse from me) 1 Cor. 3:15 , which simply cannot refer to Purgatory, and actually contradicts it as explained. IF it is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself is still saved! That is PRECISELY what Purgatory is all about!

The reality that something is being burned up from the saved simply does not translate into Purgatory, due (again) to the fact that this event awaits the Lord's return, and what is consumed are believers works, not character defects, and the subjects are already with the Lord, and will still be saved despite such less, not because of them.

Yet you must still blindly insist, Yes, this IS Purgatory!... NOT ONE of those verses refutes Purgatory and which further testifies to RC blindness or ignorance and or sophistry.
12:04 PM, December 11, 2019
PeaceByJesus said...
Part 4

Which is also invalid, untenable, and the logic (being the magisterial discerners and stewards of Scripture means such possess infallibility of office and thus are to be submitted to) used in support of it ultimately invalidates the NT church itself. The Peter of Scripture was not the Peter of Rome , which even the EO's argue tradition does not support (which it does not ), but this post is already long enough
then Scripture lies to us in telling us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses

Including that she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.

However Scripture nowhere lies to us and tells us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses without error, for while all authority has power to bind and loose, varying in scope and degree, which Scribes and Pharisees has as do fathers and husbands, this does not mean such possess infallibility of office .
IF there is merit to the Church having said authority THEN the matter of Purgatory is not really up for debate anymore. IF the Church does not have this authority - then Scripture lies to us in telling us she can bind or loose whatsoever she chooses and that binding and/or loosing is also in effect in Heaven.

At least you are honest and implicitly reveal why RCs can so blithely dismiss what refutes them and abuse Scripture in compelling it as a slave to support Rome and their assertions in support of her, as you have. For that is what it is so often for them, an slave abused to support Rome, and not the sure and supreme standard for Truth claims as is is abundantly evidenced to be, which even the veracity of the apostles was subject to. Instead church law is to be supreme, under the false premise that God is the author of both.

In contrast , Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church, including in Acts 15, versus the basis for veracity resting upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Yet again, this would be another thread, and as it is I will likely have to split this one up, while RC Purgatory remains a fable, one of the many distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).

May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
12:13 PM, December 11, 2019
 

12:13 PM, December 11, 2019
Delete
 
 

Tuesday, October 9, 2018

How did the serpent seduce Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?


How did the serpent seduce Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?


Actually, it was essentially by using the same tactics as classic Communism and liberal leaders, which was to persuade the victim of deception that she was being treated unjustly, being kept from what should be hers by the one who possessed it. And with the devil playing the role of advocate for the victim (in order to selfishly obtain power for himself), fostering the victim-entitlement mentality, and enticing her to illicitly obtain what belonged to the one who rightfully possessed it, as if it was her right.

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. (Genesis 3:1-6)

Note that the original sin of the devil was that of arrogantly asserting he was going to sit in the throne of God, (Isaiah 14)  the first “occupy movement,” not by being rewarded for obedience that God commands and requires, by as if it was his right.

In contrast, those who believe in the risen Lord Jesus Christ, and trust Him to save them on His account, and then faithfully obey Him in response to” so great salvation,” will sit with Him in His throne: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21) But “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1)

In contrast is the presumption that without merit, and not even by appeal to mercy and grace, one has a right to what others possess by virtue of the merit of the latter. Such is the case with the indolent and wasteful being told (in so many words) that they are victims who have a right to what others have lawfully earned (or even inherited), or that the worker has the right to the same benefits that that an owner has accrued by risking capital and in building a business. That such must be compelled to “share the wealth” by penalizing the productive by progressively burdening them with supporting a state system which effectively rewards the opposite of productivity. Or by actually forcing divestiture by state takeover of established lawful businesses.

And with the ones who promote this doing so in order to obtain power, not by actual merit, but by inculcating a victim-entitlement mentality, and spending the money of others they compelled to provide in order to support their socialist or Communist paradise which actually works poverty insofar as it is not modified by capitalist principals, and in the end, if unrestrained, it is these promoters and their tenuous friends who end up being virtually the only ones enjoying the standard of living they promised to all. Think Venezuela [2018] as a modern example.

To be sure, there are real victims of circumstance as well as prejudice, and their own regretful wrong choices, and those who have inherited benefits as well as those who earned them have a moral obligation to help such, to show mercy and give grace, and which is to be an incentive to the recipients to better their lives and thereby help others.

But in the victim-entitlement ethos, there is no mercy or grace, as instead one who refuses to be productive and actually engages in immoral behavior is told in so many words that they have a right to what others obtained by merit (versus a right to earn benefits without discrimination on account of such amoral aspects as race).

And it is also Biblical and right to take taxes from those who can pay them in order to support valid government services, from infrastructure to defense. And which in Scripture included tithe of one’s increase at the end of three years for a provision at that time for non-paid government servants, and for stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow within the border. (Deuteronomy 14:28,29) And government should enable even waste scavengers and gleaners to do what they do.

However, without further digression, the short answer to your question “How did the serpent seduce Eve to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?,” is that it was by appeal to Eve as a victim of injustice, who had a right to that which was not hers, and which victim-entitlement mentality, with its fostering of envy and lust, was inculcated in order for the devil to obtain what he selfishly wanted, power in the realm of man, the earth, which he thereby gained, (Luke 4:6) to his own just eternal damnation. (Revelation 20:10)

 

Sunday, October 7, 2018

What are some substantial differences between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism?

What are some substantial differences between Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism?
This reply is rather long, and supplemental links more fully answer the question, (see http://peacebyjesus.net/eovs.rome.html which more directly answers this question) but there is much to this issue, and this reply may leave you better informed than some others.
First and mainly to be considered is the largest single church, Roman Catholicism, which is a religion that developed over time as a deformation of the NT church. It officially (if not all effectually) affirms valid Scripturally Truth (though not all) but progressively added mere traditions of men, these being distinctive Catholic beliefs (many of which are shared by the Eastern Orthodox) which are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
For Catholicism exalted herself as the sure and supreme authority on faith and morals, effectively being superior over Scripture.
Pope Leo_xiii in Providentissimus Deus presumes,
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church,” but which is a false premise. For the only substantive source of express public Divine revelation is Scripture. And both men and writings of God were being recognized as being so by common souls before a church presumed she was essential for this as conditionally incapable of error, which Catholicism does presume.
And rather than being subject to Scripture as supreme, Rome began to use the sword of men for ecclesiastical discipline and to achieve power (something early Protestantism, had to unlearn).
By the 4th century, we have a pope, Damasus 1, employing murderous thugs in order to secure his throne from his rival, and the beginning of the Caesario-papacy.
Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College) reports:
Damasus’ grass-roots supporters included squads of the notoriously hard-boiled Roman fossores, and they massacred 137 followers of the rival Pope Ursinus in street-fighting that ended in a bloody siege of what is now the church of Santa Maria Maggiore...”
In addition, the conversion of Constantine, “propelled the bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment. Already powerful and influential men, they now became grandees on a par with the wealthiest senators in the city. Bishops all over the Roman world would now be expected to take on the role of judges, governors, great servants of state..” (Saints and Sinners,” New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997, 2001, pp. 37-38)
J. N. D. (1989 confirms the carnal means of the ascendancy of Damasus, and also records that he was,
indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope. In 378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate... In tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion in that form…for Damasus this primacy was not based on decisions of synods, as were the claims of Constantinople, but exclusively on his [presumption of] being the direct successor of St. Peter...” Upon which false premise he presumed “judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. (Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34)
This would later result in the the formal declaration of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual papal infallibility by Vatican 1. For Rome has presumed to formally “infallibly” declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her (scope and subject-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
However, while men such as the manifest (2Co. 6:4–10) New Testament apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God, and also provide new public Divine revelation thereby - which Catholic “fathers” and popes and prelates did and do not do - Catholic researchers themselves, among others, provide testimony against the New Testament church even looking to Peter (a true apostle) himself as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning as the exalted head of the church from Rome.
**Klaus SchatzJesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy,” finds: “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." **
Moreover, by teaching such things as “It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,” (Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906) then when leadership overall goes “South” then so do those who follow them, or they are left looking for salvation, versus finding that via Scripture, which never falls into immorality or false doctrine.
Being overall not grounded in this sure foundation, then as Cardinal Ratzinger observed, referring to the 14th century,
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“ (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196)
And presently Roman Catholics are part of a church which consists of different brands of Catholics, more so more so than in typical evangelical churches. The most extreme on the “right” are those who espouse the medieval Catholic position of implicit obedience to most everything the pope publicly teaches, but reject modern popes. And those who reject some of the modern Catholic teachings based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching consists of and means, and attack the present pope. As well as those who affirm that modern teaching is not in contradiction to historical Catholic teaching, which are clarifications of it, and are not be submitted and (at the least) not publicly objected to. Then there are the very liberal members such as publicly reject even modern Catholic moral positions. But all of whom (except the first class described) are manifestly considered, in life and in death, to be members in communion with “the Church.”
As for Eastern Orthodoxy, while typically less technical in its theology, and somewhat prone to appeal to mysticism, as said, they hold to many of the same distinctive beliefs which are not not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed, including subscribing to the premise that the church is the supreme sure standard for what is of God:
It is the Church that tells us what is Scripture, and it is also the Church that tells us how Scripture is to be understood...The decisive test and criterion for our understanding of what the Scripture means is the mind of the Church (http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/ware_howto.aspx)
However, while it is true that as seen in Acts 15, magisterial church office is to be the supreme authority in determining what it is to be taught, and as the Westminster Confession states, “It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission,” (Chapter XXXI) the issue is that of the sure infallible status that Catholicism ascribes to its magisterial church office in formally teaching by her ecumenical councils on faith and morals for the whole church.
Which is never seen or promised (or necessary in Scripture. Instead, contrary to the premise that being the magisterial authority over the cooperate body from which Scripture came, and which affirms what it is, means that it possesses ensured infallibility, the reality is that the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher (as far as those who sat in the seat of Moses was concerned) whom the historical magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And despite both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox both laying claim to the title “Catholic” and as being the One True Apostolic Church, after over 1,000 years they remain divided due to irreconcilable differences. (see EO_vs_Rome)
The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." (Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135)
The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. (Roman Catholic theologian Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), p. 26)
Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development."…On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html)
Finally we have Protestantism, but which as typically defined is far too diverse to be meaningful, often encompassing everything from evangelical Christian churches to so-called Christian science” to Swedenborgism. Therefore it cannot be critically examined as one single church. However, based upon its most basic distinctive, that of Scripture being the sure and supreme sufficient standard for faith and morals, as the wholly God-inspired word of God, with its basically literal hermeneutic, then its members attest to being both the most strongly unified major religious group in many core beliefs as well as being a diverse community.
And rather than adopting such unScriptural Catholics beliefs, from prayer to created beings in Heaven, including the virtual worship of its unScriptural Mary by many Catholics, to her mistaken belief in the Lord’s supper, to compelled clerical celibacy, evangelical Bible faith overall tends to be more Scriptural (with some exceptions such as women pastors).

However, the prophesied overall later-day spiritual declension of the church is being seen today, first by lessened commitment to Scripture and its integrity.
And while Catholicism presumes too much of an office and thereby what it promulgates, and to the expense of the authority of Scripture, evangelicalism presumes too much of Scripture as far as practical authority is concerned, and too little of the magisterial office established thereby, as mentioned before
In addition, while Scripture requires separation from false believers, (1 Corinthians 5:9; 2 Corinthians 6:14–18) and dissent from corrupt tyrannical authority when the latter is contrary to the word of God (Acts 4:19) and rejects those who validly dissent (which again, is how the NT church began), yet in Protestantism this too much became the standard recourse in dealing with differences, and fails to pursue a central magisterium. The fact that the church of Rome has effectively rendered that as something to be avoided, in principle a central magisterium of Godly men is Scriptural.
The basic unity of the NT church church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity, "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) And who, unlike what is typically seen today, could say that they, "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)
In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:5-7)
And today Christianity (and I) fail of the degree of holiness and faith the prima NT church exampled and is needed for the church of the living God to manifest itself as being so, and as grounded in and supporting the Truth.
And besides Catholicism, the rest of what is called Protestantism fails more , being liberal.
However, God does not change, and Scripture is His sure established word, and teaches the way of salvation. In which the redeemed have come to God as souls damned by their works of sin - not saved because of works - and as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God.
But who, with contrite heart have cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him, being baptized under water and led by the Spirit of Christ in living according to the word of God (and repenting when convicted by conscience of not doing so).
To God be the glory in Jesus Christ.


Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Will unconfessed sin send me to Hell?

It depends. If they are of saving faith, which trusts/believes in the resurrected Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and that as He will save them on His account, since He is Divine and paid the price for their forgiveness by His crucifixion on the cross, then all his past sins are forgiven in conversion, whether he remembered and named them or not.

The believer is now accepted in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6) on His account, with His faith being counted for righteousness, (Romans 4:5), and is in a covenant with His Lord, a relationship. Therefore this faith, if it is Biblically real, will result in obedience, “things that accompany salvation,” (Hebrews 6:9) including asking forgiveness for sins once one is convicted in his heart of them.

For although he is saved as a believer, the believer is still accountable to God with whom he is in a relationship with, and sin is displeasing to God, but who deals with the believer as a son. (Hebrews 12)

Therefore the believer will have a contrite, penitent heart over sins in general, and confess them when convicted in his conscience of them. (This does not mean one cannot subdue his conscience for a time, placing conviction in the background as David must have done until fingered by Nathan), but when enlightened and he is convicted of his guilty then he will confess and repent from the sin.

If not, then he is acting contrary to saving faith. denying the faith, as he would be if he impenitently consciously practiced sin, including omission, such as not providing for dependents of his family. (1 Timothy 5:8)

However, the key here is faith, as faith in the Lord Jesus is how one is made accepted by God, not on the basis of how good the person is, (Ephesian 2:8,9) but saving faith is only that will effects obedience by the Holy Spirit. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14)

Therefore if unconfessed sin is the result of one hardening one’s heart against the conviction of the Holy Spirit, which can even include attributing the evidence behind the conviction to the devil, as did certain of the scribes in the days of Christ on the earth; and or continues impenitently in known sin, then that would be a denial of faith, and thus an “evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God,” (Hebrews 3:12) making Christ of no effect, to no profit, falling from grace, (Galatians 5:1–4) drawing back unto perdition, (Hebrews 10:25–39) forfeiting what faith had appropriated.

However, if the unconfessed sin is due to ignorance - which are much the reality in the life of believers, or or forgetfulness, then this does not impugn the faith of the believer, for he would live out his pious faith if he was conscious of these sins, and convicted of his guilt. And which faith renders the believer washed, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:11)

And wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff’; 1Thess. 4:17)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord’s return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord’s displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Catholicism against the Jews


The harsh and often regrettable remarks and counsel of (an exasperated) Luther in his latter days against the Jews of Judaism (for a Protestant response, see Luther And The Jews) are often invoked by Catholic apologists in order to impugn the Reformation and Protestants. However, they usually indicate ignorance of the foundation he had in Catholicism for such, even from popes against the Jews of Judaism. And contrary to Evangelicals, she also has a history of opposing the modern state of Israel, while bending over backwards to compliment Muslims.

Any emphasis throughout is mine.

Canons of the 4th Lateran Council (convoked by Pope Innocent III with the papal bull of April 19, 1213)

CANON 67

Text. The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses...

Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

CANON 68

Summary. Jews and Saracens [a generic term for Muslims] of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.

Text: In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning.

This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

[Note by Schroeder: In 581 the Synod of Macon enacted in canon 14 that from Thursday in Holy Week until Easter Sunday, .Jews may not in accordance with a decision of King Childebert appear in the streets and in public places. Mansi, IX, 934; Hefele-Leclercq, 111, 204. In 1227 the Synod of Narbonne in canon 3 ruled: "That Jews may be distinguished from others, we decree and emphatically command that in the center of the breast (of their garments) they shall wear an oval badge, the measure of one finger in width and one half a palm in height. We forbid them moreover, to work publicly on Sundays and on festivals. And lest they scandalize Christians or be scandalized by Christians, we wish and ordain that during Holy Week they shall not leave their houses at all except in case of urgent necessity, and the prelates shall during that week especially have them guarded from vexation by the Christians." Mansi, XXIII, 22; Hefele-Leclercq V 1453. Many decrees similar to these in content were issued by synods before and after this Lateran Council. Hefele-Leclercq, V and VI; Grayzel, The Church and the Jews in the XIlIth Century, Philadelphia, 1933.]

CANON 70

Summary. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.

Text. Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

(From H. J. Schroeder, Disciplinary Decrees of the General Councils: Text, Translation and Commentary, (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1937). pp. 236-296) — http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/344latj.html

Popes Against the Jews

In The Popes Against the Jews : The Vatican's Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism, historian David Kertzer notes,

the legislation enacted in the 1930s by the Nazis in their Nuremberg Laws and by the Italian Fascists with their racial laws—which stripped the Jews of their rights as citizens—was modeled on measures that the [Roman Catholic] Church itself had enforced for as long as it was in a position to do so” (9).

In 1466, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations.

But various other Carnival rites continued. For many years the rabbis of the ghetto were forced to wear clownish outfits and march through the streets to the jeers of the crow, pelted by a variety of missiles. Such rites were not peculiar to Rome. In Pisa in the eighteenth century, for example, it was customary each year, as part of Carnival, for students to chase after the fattest Jew in the city, capture him, weigh him, and then make him give them his weight in sugar-coated almonds.

In 1779, Pius VI resurrected some of the Carnival rites that had been neglected in recent years. Most prominent among them was the feudal rite of homage, in which ghetto officials, made to wear special clothes, stood before an unruly mob in a crowded piazza, making an offering to Rome’s governors.

It was this practice that occasioned the formal plea from the ghetto to Pope Gregory XVI in 1836. The Jews argued that such rites should be abandoned, and cited previous popes who had ordered them halted. They asked that, in his mercy, the Pope now do the same. On November 5, the Pope met with his secretary of state to discuss the plea. A note on the secretary of state’s copy of the petition, along with his signature, records the Pope’s decision: “It is not opportune to make any innovation.” The annual rites continued.

When all is said and done, the [Roman Catholic] Church’s claim of lack of responsibility for the kind of anti-Semitism that made the Holocaust possible comes down to this: The Roman Catholic Church never called for, or sanctioned, the mass murder of the Jews. Yes, the Jews should be stripped of their rights as equal citizens. Yes, they should be kept from contact with the rest of society. But Christian Charity and Christian theology forbade good Christians to round them up and murder them.” See more in part 5 of a series (1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 .

Pope Leo XII

As cardinal vicar of Rome, Della Genga [the new Pope Leo XII] had been outraged to discover that not all of the Holy City’s Jews had returned to their ghetto following the restoration of the papal regime. One of his major projects as cardinal vicar had been to oversee a modest enlargement of the ghetto, to undermine the Jews’ complaint that it was impossible for them all to fit in the densely packed space within the old ghetto walls. Now, as pope, he redoubled these efforts. In 1823, in one of his first pontifical acts [which the Church can officially dismiss as if it were nothing], Leo XII ordered the Jews back into the ghetto, “to overcome the evil consequences of the freedom that [they] have enjoyed…

In the first year of his papacy, he had the Holy Office investigate the extent to which the old restrictions on the Jews in the Papal States were still being enforced. The goal as an internal Inquisition report expressed it, was “to contain the wickedness of the obstinate Jews so that the danger of perversion of the Catholic faithful” could be avoided. The report expressed dismay that some Jews lived outside the ghettoes, some traveled from place to place without the special permits they were required to get from the local office of the bishop or the inquisitor, and some had opened stores and businesses beyond the ghetto’s walls...

The new Pope’s efforts to enforce these restrictions on the Jews relied on the bureaucracy of control provided by the Inquisition and by various other agencies of the Papal States. — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-5-you-will.html

Note that according to the Catechism:

2032 "To the Church belongs the right always and everywhere to announce moral principles, including those pertaining to the social order, and to make judgments on any human affairs to the extent that they are required by the fundamental rights of the human person or the salvation of souls." — http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/popes-against-jews-part-3-positing-big.html

What follows falls under judgments on human affairs which is justified as being necessary for the salvation of souls.

Cum nimis absurdum

Cum nimis absurdum was a papal bull issued by Pope Paul IV dated 14 July 1555 [after Luther]. It takes its name from its first words:[1] "Since it is absurd and utterly inconvenient that the Jews, who through their own fault were condemned by God to eternal slavery..."

The bull revoked all the rights of the Jewish community and placed religious and economic restrictions on Jews in the Papal States, renewed anti-Jewish legislation and subjected Jews to various degradations and restrictions on their personal freedom.

The bull established the Roman Ghetto and required the Jews of Rome, which had existed as a community since before Christian times and numbered about 2,000 at the time, to live in it. The Ghetto was a walled quarter with three gates that were locked at night. Jews were also restricted to one synagogue per city. Under the bull, Jewish males were required to wear a pointed yellow hat, and Jewish females a yellow kerchief (see yellow badge). Jews were required to attend compulsory Catholic sermons on the Jewish shabbat.

The bull also subjected Jews to various other restrictions such as a prohibition on property ownership and practising medicine among Christians. Jews were allowed to practice only unskilled jobs, as rag men, secondhand dealers [2] or fish mongers. They could also be pawnbrokers.

Paul IV's successor, Pope Pius IV, enforced the creation of other ghettos in most Italian towns, and his successor, Pope Pius V, recommended them to other bordering states. The Papal States ceased to exist on 20 September 1870 when they were incorporated in the Kingdom of Italy, but the requirement that Jews live in the ghetto was only formally abolished by the Italian state in 1882. Though the Roman and other ghettos have now been abolished, the bull has never been revoked. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

Cum nimis absurdum text

Laws and ordinances to be followed by Jews living in the Holy See [decreed by the] Bishop [of Rome, the Pope] Paul, servant of the servants of God, for future recollection.

Since it is completely senseless and inappropriate to be in a situation where Christian piety allows the Jews (whose guilt—all of their own doing—has condemned them to eternal slavery) access to our society and even to live among us; indeed, they are without gratitude to Christians, as, instead of thanks for gracious treatment, they return invective, and among themselves, instead of the slavery, which they deserve, they manage to claim superiority: we, who recently learned that these very Jews have insolently invaded Rome from a number of the Papal States, territories and domains, to the extent that not only have they mingled with Christians (even when close to their churches) and wearing no identifying garments, but to dwell in homes, indeed, even in the more noble [dwellings] of the states, territories and domains in which they lingered, conducting business from their houses and in the streets and dealing in real estate; they even have nurses and housemaids and other Christians as hired servants. And they would dare to perpetrate a wide variety of other dishonorable things, contemptuous of the [very] name Christian...

1. Desiring firstly, as much as we can with [the help of] God, to beneficially provide, by this [our decree] that will forever be in force, we ordain that for the rest of time, in the City as well as in other states, territories and domains of the Church of Rome itself, all Jews are to live in only one [quarter] to which there is only one entrance and from which there is but one exit,

2. Furthermore, in each and every state, territory and domain in which they are living, they will have only one synagogue, in its customary location, and they will construct no other new ones, nor can they own buildings. Furthermore, all of their synagogues, besides the one allowed, are to be destroyed and demolished. And the properties, which they currently own, they must sell to Christians within a period of time to be determined by the magistrates themselves...

§ 3. Moreover, concerning the matter that Jews should be recognizable everywhere: [to this end] men must wear a hat, women, indeed, some other evident sign, yellow in color, that must not be concealed or covered by any means, and must be tightly affixed [sewn]; and furthermore, they can not be absolved or excused from the obligation to wear the hat or other emblem of this type to any extent whatever and under any pretext whatsoever of their rank or prominence or of their ability to tolerate [this] adversity...

7. And they may not presume in any way to play, eat or fraternize with Christians...

9. Moreover, these Jews are to be limited to the trade of rag-picking, or "cencinariae" (as it is said in the vernacular), and they cannot trade in grain, barley or any other commodity essential to human welfare.

10. And those among them who are physicians, even if summoned and inquired after, cannot attend or take part in the care of Christians.

11.And they are not to be addressed as superiors [even] by poor Christians...

14. And, should they, in any manner whatsoever, be deficient in the foregoing, it would be treated as a crime:..just as if they were rebels and criminals by the jurisdiction in which the offense takes place. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_nimis_absurdum

Inquisition

In some parts of Spain towards the end of the 14th century, there was a wave of violent anti-Judaism, encouraged by the preaching of Ferrand Martinez, Archdeacon of Ecija. In the pogroms of June 1391 in Seville, hundreds of Jews were killed, and the synagogue was completely destroyed. The number of people killed was also high in other cities, such as Córdoba, Valencia and Barcelona.[32

One of the consequences of these pogroms was the mass conversion of thousands of surviving Jews. Forced baptism was contrary to the law of the Catholic Church, and theoretically anybody who had been forcibly baptized could legally return to Judaism. However, this was very narrowly interpreted. Legal definitions of the time theoretically acknowledged that a forced baptism was not a valid sacrament, but confined this to cases where it was literally administered by physical force. A person who had consented to baptism under threat of death or serious injury was still regarded as a voluntary convert, and accordingly forbidden to revert to Judaism.[33] After the public violence, many of the converted "felt it safer to remain in their new religion."[34] Thus, after 1391, a new social group appeared and were referred to as conversos or New Christians.

King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile established the Spanish Inquisition in 1478. In contrast to the previous inquisitions, it operated completely under royal Christian authority, though staffed by clergy and orders, and independently of the Holy See [but the prior Fourth Lateran Council did require Christians leaders to exterminate all the heretics its prelates convicted under his rule, or else Catholics were not bound to obey him]. It operated in Spain and in all Spanish colonies and territories, which included the Canary Islands, the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples, and all Spanish possessions in North, Central, and South America. It primarily targeted forced converts from Islam (Moriscos, Conversos and secret Moors) and from Judaism (Conversos, Crypto-Jews and Marranos) — both groups still resided in Spain after the end of the Islamic control of Spain — who came under suspicion of either continuing to adhere to their old religion or of having fallen back into it.

In 1492 all Jews who had not converted were expelled from Spain, and those who remained became subject to the Inquisition.— https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

The Inquisition

While many people associate the Inquisition with Spain and Portugal, it was actually instituted by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) in Rome. A later pope, Pope Gregory IX established the Inquisition, in 1233, to combat the heresy of the Abilgenses, a religious sect in France.

In the beginning, the Inquisition dealt only with Christian heretics and did not interfere with the affairs of Jews. However, disputes about Maimonides’ books (which addressed the synthesis of Judaism and other cultures) provided a pretext for harassing Jews and, in 1242, the Inquisition condemned the Talmud and burned thousands of volumes. In 1288, the first mass burning of Jews on the stake took place in France.

In 1481 the Inquisition started in Spain and ultimately surpassed the medieval Inquisition, in both scope and intensity. Conversos (Secret Jews) and New Christians were targeted because of their close relations to the Jewish community, many of whom were Jews in all but their name. Fear of Jewish influence led Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand to write a petition to the Pope asking permission to start an Inquisition in Spain. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain, he set tribunals in many cities. Also heading the Inquisition in Spain were two Dominican monks, Miguel de Morillo and Juan de San Martin.

First, they arrested Conversos and notable figures in Seville; in Seville more than 700 Conversos were burned at the stake and 5,000 repented. Tribunals were also opened in Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia. An Inquisition Tribunal was set up in Ciudad Real, where 100 Conversos were condemned, and it was moved to Toledo in 1485. Between 1486-1492, 25 auto de fes were held in Toledo, 467 people were burned at the stake and others were imprisoned. The Inquisition finally made its way to Barcelona, where it was resisted at first because of the important place of Spanish Conversos in the economy and society.

More than 13,000 Conversos were put on trial during the first 12 years of the Spanish Inquisition. Hoping to eliminate ties between the Jewish community and Conversos, the Jews of Spain were expelled in 1492...

The next phase of the Inquisition began in Portugal in 1536: King Manuel I had initially asked Pope Leo X to begin an inquisition in 1515, but only after Leo's death in 1521 did Pope Paul III agree to Manuel's request. Thousands of Jews came to Portugal after the 1492 expulsion. A Spanish style Inquisition was constituted and tribunals were set up in Lisbon and other cities. Among the Jews who died at the hands of the Inquisition were well-known figures of the period such as Isaac de Castro Tartas, Antonio Serrao de Castro and Antonio Jose da Silva. The Inquisition never stopped in Spain and continued until the late 18th century.

By the second half of the 18th century, the Inquisition abated, due to the spread of enlightened ideas and lack of resources. The last auto de fe in Portugal took place on October 27, 1765. Not until 1808, during the brief reign of Joseph Bonaparte, was the Inquisition abolished in Spain. An estimated 31,912 heretics were burned at the stake, 17,659 were burned in effigy and 291,450 made reconciliations in the Spanish Inquisition. In Portugal, about 40,000 cases were tried, although only 1,800 were burned, the rest made penance [or else].

The Inquisition was not limited to Europe; it also spread to Spanish and Portugese colonies in the New World and Asia. Many Jews and Conversos fled from Portugal and Spain to the New World seeking greater security and economic opportunities. Branches of the Portugese Inquisition were set up in Goa and Brazil. Spanish tribunals and auto de fes were set up in Mexico, the Philippine Islands, Guatemala, Peru, New Granada and the Canary Islands. By the late 18th century, most of these were dissolved. — http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html:

Goa Inquisition

The Goa Inquisition was the office of the Portuguese Inquisition acting in Portuguese India, and in the rest of the Portuguese Empire in Asia. It was established in 1560, briefly suppressed from 1774–1778, and finally abolished in 1812.[1] Based on the records that survive, H. P. Salomon and I. S. D. Sassoon state that between the Inquisition's beginning in 1561 and its temporary abolition in 1774, some 16,202 persons were brought to trial by the Inquisition. Of this number, it is known that 57 were sentenced to death and executed; another 64 were burned in effigy. Others were subjected to lesser punishments or penance, but the fate of many of those tried by the Inquisition is unknown.[2]

The Inquisition was established to punish apostate New Christians—Jews and Muslims who converted to Catholicism, as well as their descendants—who were now suspected of practising their ancestral religion in secret.[2] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_Inquisition

Portuguese Inquisition

...was formally established in Portugal in 1536 at the request of the King of Portugal, João III. Manuel I had asked for the installation of the Inquisition in 1515 to fulfill the commitment of marriage with Maria of Aragon, but it was only after his death that Pope Paul III acquiesced. In the period after the Medieval Inquisition, it was one of three different manifestations of the wider Christian Inquisition along with the Spanish Inquisition and Roman Inquisition.

The major target of the Portuguese Inquisition were those who had converted from Judaism to Catholicism, the Conversos, also known as New Christians or Marranos, who were suspected of secretly practising Judaism. Many of these were originally Spanish Jews, who had left Spain for Portugal. The number of victims is estimated around 40000.[1]

Spanish Inquisition

On November 1, 1478, Pope Sixtus IV published the Papal bull, Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus, through which he gave the monarchs exclusive authority to name the inquisitors in their kingdoms...In 1482 the pope was still trying to maintain control over the Inquisition and to gain acceptance for his own attitude towards the New Christians, which was generally more moderate than that of the Inquisition and the local rulers.

In 1483, Jews were expelled from all of Andalusia. Though the pope wanted to crack down on abuses, Ferdinand pressured him to promulgate a new bull, threatening that he would otherwise separate the Inquisition from Church authority.[21][22] Sixtus did so on October 17, 1483, naming Tomás de Torquemada Inquisidor General of Aragón, Valencia and Catalonia. ...

Henry Kamen estimates that, of a population of approximately 80,000 Jews, about one half or 40,000 chose emigration.[27] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_Inquisition

Tomás de Torquemada

The Pope went on to appoint a number of inquisitors for the Spanish Kingdoms in early 1482, including Torquemada. A year later he was named Grand Inquisitor of Spain, which he remained until his death in 1498. In the fifteen years under his direction, the Spanish Inquisition grew from the single tribunal at Seville to a network of two dozen 'Holy Offices'.[12] As Grand Inquisitor, Torquemada reorganized the Spanish Inquisition (originally based in Castile in 1478), establishing tribunals in Sevilla, Jaén, Córdoba, Ciudad Real and (later) Saragossa. His quest was to rid Spain of all heresy. The Spanish chronicler Sebastián de Olmedo called him "the hammer of heretics, the light of Spain, the savior of his country, the honor of his order".

Under the edict of March 31, 1492, known as the Alhambra Decree, approximately 200,000 Jews left Spain. Following the Alhambra decree of 1492, approximately 50,000 Jews took baptism so as to remain in Spain; however, many of these—known as "Marranos" from Corinthians II, a contraction of anathema—were "crypto-jews" and secretly kept some of their Jewish traditions. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

Related: A Catholic Timeline of Events Relating to Jews, Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust From the 3rd Century to the Beginning of the Third Millennium. (http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/Timeline.htm)

• In addition is The Vatican did not even formally recognize Israel until 1993. A bit late.

Papal–Israel relations

Until 1948 the Pope was motivated by the traditional Vatican opposition to Zionism. Vatican opposition to a Jewish homeland stemmed largely from theological doctrines regarding Judaism.[40] In 1904, the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl obtained an audience with Pope Pius X in the hope of persuading the pontiff to support the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The pope's response was: "Non possumus"--"We cannot." In 1917, Pius X's successor, Pope Benedict XV, equally refused to support any concept for a Jewish state. Minerbi writes that when a League of Nations mandate were being proposed for Palestine, the Vatican was disturbed by the prospect of a (Protestant) British mandate over the Holy Land, but a Jewish state was anathema to it.[27][41]

On 22 June 1943, Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, the Apostolic Delegate to Washington D.C. wrote to US President Franklin Roosevelt, asking him to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. ...

If the greater part of Palestine is given to the Jewish people, this would be a severe blow to the religious attachment of Catholics to this land. To have the Jewish people in the majority would be to interfere with the peaceful exercise of these rights in the Holy Land already vested in Catholics.

It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of a people returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before.[42]

The Vatican view of the Near East was dominated by a Cold War perception that Arab Muslims are conservative but religious, whereas Israeli Zionists are modernist but atheists. The Vatican's then Foreign Minister, Domenico Tardini (without being even a bishop, but a close collaborator of Pius XII) said to the French ambassador in November 1957, according to an Israeli diplomatic dispatch from Rome to Jerusalem:

"I have always been of the opinion that there never was an overriding reason for this state to be established. It was the fault of the western states. Its existence is an inherent risk factor for war in the Middle East. Now, Israel exists, and there is certainly no way to destroy it, but every day we pay the price of this error."[45]
by initially siding with Palestinian claims for compensations on political, social and financial levels, the Vatican shaped its Middle Eastern policy since 1948 upon two pillars. One was based on political and theological reservations against Zionism,... the Holy See has also maintained reservations of its own. The more established the Zionist Yishuv became in Mandatory Palestine, the more political reservations the Vatican added to its initial theological inhibitions.[51]
On 26 May 1955, when the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra performed Beethoven's Seventh Symphony at the Vatican as an act of respect for Pius XII, the Vatican still refrained from mentioning the name of the State, preferring instead to describe the orchestra as a collection of "Jewish musicians of fourteen different nationalities."[53]
Paul VI was Pope from 21 June 1963 to 6 August 1978. He strongly defended inter-religious dialogue in the spirit of Nostra Aetate. He was also the first Pope to mention the Palestinian people by name...On 15 January 1973, the Pope met Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir at the Vatican, which was the first meeting between a Pope and an Israeli Prime Minister. At the meeting, the Pope brought up the issues of peace in the Middle East, refugees and the status of the holy places, but no agreement was reached.[58] According to Meir's own account of the meeting, the Pope criticized the Israeli government for its treatment of the Palestinians, and she said in reply: Your Holiness, do you know what my earliest memory is? A pogrom in Kiev. When we were merciful and when we had no homeland and when we were weak, we were led to the gas chambers.[59]
Relations since 1993[edit]
The opening towards the State of Israel by the Vatican was partially a result of Israel's effective control over the entire Holy City since 1967. This forced the Vatican to introduce a pragmatic dimension to its well-known declaratory policy of political denial. Hence, since 1967, Vatican diplomacy vis-à-vis Israel began to waver between two parameters:
  • A policy of strict and consequent non-recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, far beyond the usual interpretation of international law, as the Holy See still embraces its own ideas regarding the special status of Jerusalem.
  • A pragmatic policy, through which Catholic interests can best be served by having a working relationship with the party who exercises effective authority and control in Jerusalem.
The establishment of full diplomatic relations in 1993–94, on the other hand, was a belated political consequence of the theological change towards Judaism as reflected in Nostra Aetate. It was also a result of the new political reality, which began with the Madrid COnference and later continued with the Oslo peace process, after which the Vatican could not continue to ignore a State that even the Palestinians had initiated formal relations with.
Pope Benedict XVI has declared that he wishes to maintain a positive Christian-Jewish and Vatican-Israel relationship. Indeed, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state, Benedict stated: "The Holy See joins you in giving thanks to the Lord that the aspirations of the Jewish people for a home in the land of their fathers have been fulfilled,"[72] which may be seen as a theological justification of the return of the Jewish People to Israel – indeed, an acceptance that has placed all previous Catholic denials of Zionism in the shade. On the other hand, he has also stressed the political neutrality of the Holy See in internal Mideast conflicts. Like John Paul II, he was disappointed by the non-resolution of the 1993 Fundamental Accord; and like his predecessor, he also expressed support for a Palestinian state alongside Israel. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_See%E2%80%93Israel_relations
Evangelical support for Jews.
In contrast, 46% of white evangelical (blacks only make up 6% of evangelicals) Protestants, versus 33% of Prots and only 21% of Catholics say that the U.S. is not providing enough support for Israel. (2014) — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
As for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, asked whether they sympathize with either side, 72% of white evangelicals sided with Israel, versus 56% of Prots and 46% of Caths overall. — http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-19-13%20Foreign%20Policy%20Release.pdf
Of course, this is consistent with the stats which shows 82% of white evangelical Protestants say that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, versus 64% of Prots and just 34% of white Catholics, while 45% of Catholics outright deny that it was (others do not know). — http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/03/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews-say-god-gave-israel-to-the-jewish-people/
Egregious ecumenism
In addition, Rome being "friendlier"to Israel means not simply affirming Jews and the right to live in peace but also means affirming that Muslims worship the same God as Jews and Christians, that together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)
Which is blasphemous. For with Allah, we are not dealing with an utterly ambiguous "unknown god" as in Acts 17, which had no express revelation and could said to be the true God they were looking for. But Allah is much a distinct God, and in the name of this false deity are the contradictory and skewed Biblical stories of the Qur'an, besides adding its own, and which denies the very essence of the gospel, that of the Divine Son of God procuring salvation with His own sinless shed blood! Yet again and again popes comfort Muslims by assuring them they have the true God, while any gospel is largely replaced by platitudes for peace.
Rome says Muslims the worship the same God as Catholics, "the one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth," and "strive to submit themselves without reserve to the hidden decrees of God, just as Abraham submitted himself to God’s plan." -Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 3, October 28, 1965
And,
We feel sure that as representatives of Islam, you join in our prayers to the Almighty, that he may grant all African believers the desire for pardon and reconciliation so often commended in the Gospels and in the Qur’an... We gladly recall also those confessors of the Muslim faith who were the first to suffer death, in the year 1848, for refusing to transgress the precepts of their religion.” — Paul VI, address to the Islamic communities of Uganda, August 1, 1969.
I deliberately address you as brothers: that is certainly what we are, because we are members of the same human family, whose efforts, whether people realize it or not, tend toward God and the truth that comes from him. But we are especially brothers in God, who created us and whom we are trying to reach, in our own ways, through faith, prayer and worship, through the keeping of his law and through submission to his designs...
Dear Muslims, my brothers: I would like to add that we Christians, just like you, seek the basis and model of mercy in God himself, the God to whom your Book gives the very beautiful name of al-Rahman, while the Bible calls him al-Rahum, the Merciful One.” - John Paul II, address to representatives of Muslims of the Philippines, February 20, 1981
As Christians and Muslims, we encounter one another in faith in the one God, our Creator and guide, our just and merciful judge. - John Paul II, address to representatives of the Muslims of Belgium, May 19, 1985
We believe in the same God, the one God, the living God, the God who created the world and brings his creatures to their perfection...Both of us believe in one God, the only God, - John Paul II , address to the young Muslims of Morocco, August 19, 1985
Christians and Muslims, together with the followers of the Jewish religion, belong to what can be called ‘the tradition of Abraham.’..Our Creator and our final judge desires that we live together. Our God is a God of peace, who desires peace among those who live according to His commandments. Our God is the holy God who desires that those who call upon Him live in ways that are holy and upright. -John Paul II, address to Islamic leaders of Senegal, Dakar, February 22, 1992 -http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/interreligious/islam/vatican-council-and-papal-statements-on-islam.cfm