One on One: Eternal Damnation VS Universal Salvation (Logos_X VS Apologist)
- Thread starter Apologist
- Start date
- Status
logos_x
New member
logos_x
New member
What Jews believe
What Jews believe
As an exercise, and before we begin to view the Catholic errors in detail, I want to present a brief treatment of Jewish belief concerning the afterlife.
The reason is I think it helps to have in view what Jesus' audience used as their thought filters when they heard him teach, as long as they were not politically motivated like the Pharisees and Saducees were.
So...below is a very brief overview of Jewish Faith's view of the afterlife according to the "being Jewish" website:
Now...this is radically different than what the Christian Faith has come to believe, isn't it?
Note how the author attributes an eternal hell to a "Christian invention". This is perhaps because of what Christianity became under the Roman Catholic error...which is the largest and most militant force insisting that eternal torment is the truth.
There's more. The Following is an answer to a simple and straightforward question:
It's amazing, isn't it?
Do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth taught something so radically monsterous a doctrine as eternal torment to His own? It was the pagans...the Gentiles...that believed in eternal torment. Did Jesus put His stamp of approval upon a Gentile invention?
Jesus read the same Torah, How would He have been heard by the people of the Book?
Certainly, ears that were taught to hear the Torah would not hear what a pagan Gentile might hear centuries later. The Talmudic commentaries on the Torah are markedly different than Catholic and other Christian theologian's commentaries. I find that rather mystifying.
Just some fuel for thought.
What Jews believe
As an exercise, and before we begin to view the Catholic errors in detail, I want to present a brief treatment of Jewish belief concerning the afterlife.
The reason is I think it helps to have in view what Jesus' audience used as their thought filters when they heard him teach, as long as they were not politically motivated like the Pharisees and Saducees were.
So...below is a very brief overview of Jewish Faith's view of the afterlife according to the "being Jewish" website:
Judaism has no eternal hell. That is a Christian invention, to the best of my knowledge. "The judgment of the wicked in purgatory is twelve months," says the Talmud (Sabbath 33b). Nevertheless, there are exceptions where one might have to go for a little longer.
Sometimes, a soul that has already been here on earth is returned to earth and placed into the body of a child soon to be born. This happens for several reasons. The primary reason is as follows: A person has a job to do on earth. If that job is not done, the soul might have to come down to try again.
Hashem gives each soul certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Some of our weaknesses are given to us to be rectified and strengthened. Some of our weaknesses are meant to be overcome in other ways. We may have to learn to live with a problem (and everyone has problems) and learn to be happy in spite of it. Or learn and attain some other good characteristic trait. There are a myriad of permutations and possible situations. In fact, there's one for each person alive, since no two people have exactly the same situation or the same makeup.
Sometimes a person is given a strength or advantage so that he or she can use that to help others. The obvious example is a person born into riches, and who can therefore help poor or otherwise disadvantaged people. At the same time, he or she might also be born with the trait of miserliness, and must work to overcome that trait in this life. Again, this is just one example of millions.
If a person does not accomplish what he has been sent down on earth to accomplish in his first lifetime, he might be sent down to try again. And again. And again. (I do not know if there is a limit.)
There are numerous other things that can bring someone down again. One example (of many) is someone who has died without paying back a loan or something he stole. He is sent down and given the opportunity somehow to do something for the person he owes the debt to.
And sometimes a completely righteous person with no sins is sent down again to be a guide and teacher for others who need him or her.
If, however, the person who just died is judged to be righteous, he or she is taken to the Realm of Souls. (Sorry I had to use the word "soul" there, but you know what I mean.)
The Realm of Souls is a temporary place. Its purpose is to allow the naranchai to recharge its batteries, so to speak.
As long as we are on this physical world, we are unable to express the full holiness of the naranchai. This is because of the sin of Adam and Eve. When they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, without permission from Hashem, they caused this world to become much more physical than it had been. This world therefore dampens the spiritual side of the human being, and makes it difficult for us to fully blossom spiritually.
The Realm of Souls has no such preventive. The naranchai therefore has the opportunity to grow in holiness constantly.
The Realm of Souls is not a static or boring place. It is a place of constant spiritual growth, unimpeded by physical limitations or drawbacks.
The means by which we absorb holiness in the Realm of Souls is through the study of Torah. The Torah that one is given to study in the Realm of Souls is only the Torah that he has studied in this world, though there are occasional exceptions. One exception is Torah that he has helped others learn, by, for example, supporting someone so he can study Torah, or by donating to Torah Academies so that people can study Torah. Another example is that people on this world can study Torah in the merit of the deceased, and it is considered as if the deceased has studied it himself.
Torah studied on this world, but not understood despite sincere and hard effort, is studied and finally understood in the Realm of Souls.
And there the souls await and grow, until the Resurrection.
Sometimes, a soul that has already been here on earth is returned to earth and placed into the body of a child soon to be born. This happens for several reasons. The primary reason is as follows: A person has a job to do on earth. If that job is not done, the soul might have to come down to try again.
Hashem gives each soul certain strengths and certain weaknesses. Some of our weaknesses are given to us to be rectified and strengthened. Some of our weaknesses are meant to be overcome in other ways. We may have to learn to live with a problem (and everyone has problems) and learn to be happy in spite of it. Or learn and attain some other good characteristic trait. There are a myriad of permutations and possible situations. In fact, there's one for each person alive, since no two people have exactly the same situation or the same makeup.
Sometimes a person is given a strength or advantage so that he or she can use that to help others. The obvious example is a person born into riches, and who can therefore help poor or otherwise disadvantaged people. At the same time, he or she might also be born with the trait of miserliness, and must work to overcome that trait in this life. Again, this is just one example of millions.
If a person does not accomplish what he has been sent down on earth to accomplish in his first lifetime, he might be sent down to try again. And again. And again. (I do not know if there is a limit.)
There are numerous other things that can bring someone down again. One example (of many) is someone who has died without paying back a loan or something he stole. He is sent down and given the opportunity somehow to do something for the person he owes the debt to.
And sometimes a completely righteous person with no sins is sent down again to be a guide and teacher for others who need him or her.
If, however, the person who just died is judged to be righteous, he or she is taken to the Realm of Souls. (Sorry I had to use the word "soul" there, but you know what I mean.)
The Realm of Souls is a temporary place. Its purpose is to allow the naranchai to recharge its batteries, so to speak.
As long as we are on this physical world, we are unable to express the full holiness of the naranchai. This is because of the sin of Adam and Eve. When they ate from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, without permission from Hashem, they caused this world to become much more physical than it had been. This world therefore dampens the spiritual side of the human being, and makes it difficult for us to fully blossom spiritually.
The Realm of Souls has no such preventive. The naranchai therefore has the opportunity to grow in holiness constantly.
The Realm of Souls is not a static or boring place. It is a place of constant spiritual growth, unimpeded by physical limitations or drawbacks.
The means by which we absorb holiness in the Realm of Souls is through the study of Torah. The Torah that one is given to study in the Realm of Souls is only the Torah that he has studied in this world, though there are occasional exceptions. One exception is Torah that he has helped others learn, by, for example, supporting someone so he can study Torah, or by donating to Torah Academies so that people can study Torah. Another example is that people on this world can study Torah in the merit of the deceased, and it is considered as if the deceased has studied it himself.
Torah studied on this world, but not understood despite sincere and hard effort, is studied and finally understood in the Realm of Souls.
And there the souls await and grow, until the Resurrection.
Now...this is radically different than what the Christian Faith has come to believe, isn't it?
Note how the author attributes an eternal hell to a "Christian invention". This is perhaps because of what Christianity became under the Roman Catholic error...which is the largest and most militant force insisting that eternal torment is the truth.
There's more. The Following is an answer to a simple and straightforward question:
Q. Does Judaism believe in an afterlife, and in heaven and hell? Do we live our "human" lives in order to go to this afterlife?
A. Yes, we do believe in the Afterlife. However, we do not believe in an eternal hell.
Okay, first, here is the timetable in a nutshell: We now live in what we call Olam Hazeh, "This World." The last part of Olam Hazeh will begin to change at some point, and we will eventually live in what will be called the Messianic Era. For this, the Messiah has to come, the Sanhedrin (highest Rabbinical Court) along with all subsidiary Rabbinical Courts will be reinstated, and the Holy Temple will be rebuilt (but not necessarily in that order). All Jews will be gathered to the Land of Israel, and there will be peace all over earth.
All Jews will know all about Judaism, and there will be no estrangement or doubt. The Gentiles will not engage in warfare, and no one will have the need to fear anyone else.
We will all grow spiritually.
The change I mentioned above will not be a physical change. Nature will not change. Our attitudes will change, and we will all be more spiritual.
Of course, there is more to the Messianic Era, but this will do for now.
Eventually, Olam Hazeh will come to an end, when people have perfected themselves under the guidance of the King Messiah in accordance with the teachings of the Torah and Talmud.
The entire world will become dormant. All souls will leave this world, and reside in the World of Souls. For a thousand years all the souls will absorb pure spirituality. After a thousand years, the world will be rejuvenated, and all the souls will be brought down to earth again for the Resurrection.
Then will begin what we call Olam Habah -- the World to Come.
Now, do we live in this world to gain the other? Yes and no. The Talmud teaches that This World has an advantage over the Next World. It is only in This World that we can serve G-d through adversity, overcome temptation, and fulfill the Commandments of G-d. The Next World is for the reward. It is only in This World that we can actually perform the Commandments.
On the other hand, this world is only a corridor that leads to the main "banquet hall," so to speak. The Talmud says: "Rabbi Yaakov says, This World is the antechamber that leads to the Next World. Prepare yourself in the antechamber so you can enter the banquet hall."
And then The Talmud continues: "Rabbi Yaakov also used to say, Better one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world than all the life in the World to Come. And better one hour of tranquility of spirit in the World to Come than all the life of this world."
One hour of the World to Come contains more pleasure in it than all the pleasure of an entire life in this world. But we cannot get a share in the World to Come unless we repent in this world, for it is only in this world that we can repent and do good deeds.
But nevertheless, says the Talmud, "one should serve G-d not like a hired worker who works for the reward, but be like a devoted servant who does not work for reward but out of love for the master." We are to do good not because it will give us reward, but out of love for G-d, Who desires that we do good.
And the Talmud also says about this world:
Rabbi Akiva used to say, "Everything is given as a loan, which we are obligated to repay. Good deeds and faith are held in trust and as repayment. The store is open, and the Merchant (i.e., G-d) gives credit. The ledger is open, and every transaction is being recorded. Whoever wants to borrow may come and borrow. The collectors make their rounds constantly, and they take payment whether we realize it or not. Everything is done "by the book," so to speak, and the legal procedure is always correct. Everything is prepared for the feast (i.e., the World to Come)."
It is important to understand that the best motive for keeping the Torah and Mitzvos (Commandments) is to fulfill Hashem's will. The next-best motive for keeping the Torah and Mitzvos is in order to come close to Hashem, and to thus become holy. Another good motive, but certainly not as good, is to fulfill the Torah and Mitzvos in order to get rewarded for it. That's obviously not the best motive, but it is an acceptable one. It is doubtful that too many of us today actually have a better motive than that. I am sure there are a few people who have so perfected themselves that they actually have the best motive, but most of us are not able to reach that level, and it would be unhealthy to try.
A. Yes, we do believe in the Afterlife. However, we do not believe in an eternal hell.
Okay, first, here is the timetable in a nutshell: We now live in what we call Olam Hazeh, "This World." The last part of Olam Hazeh will begin to change at some point, and we will eventually live in what will be called the Messianic Era. For this, the Messiah has to come, the Sanhedrin (highest Rabbinical Court) along with all subsidiary Rabbinical Courts will be reinstated, and the Holy Temple will be rebuilt (but not necessarily in that order). All Jews will be gathered to the Land of Israel, and there will be peace all over earth.
All Jews will know all about Judaism, and there will be no estrangement or doubt. The Gentiles will not engage in warfare, and no one will have the need to fear anyone else.
We will all grow spiritually.
The change I mentioned above will not be a physical change. Nature will not change. Our attitudes will change, and we will all be more spiritual.
Of course, there is more to the Messianic Era, but this will do for now.
Eventually, Olam Hazeh will come to an end, when people have perfected themselves under the guidance of the King Messiah in accordance with the teachings of the Torah and Talmud.
The entire world will become dormant. All souls will leave this world, and reside in the World of Souls. For a thousand years all the souls will absorb pure spirituality. After a thousand years, the world will be rejuvenated, and all the souls will be brought down to earth again for the Resurrection.
Then will begin what we call Olam Habah -- the World to Come.
Now, do we live in this world to gain the other? Yes and no. The Talmud teaches that This World has an advantage over the Next World. It is only in This World that we can serve G-d through adversity, overcome temptation, and fulfill the Commandments of G-d. The Next World is for the reward. It is only in This World that we can actually perform the Commandments.
On the other hand, this world is only a corridor that leads to the main "banquet hall," so to speak. The Talmud says: "Rabbi Yaakov says, This World is the antechamber that leads to the Next World. Prepare yourself in the antechamber so you can enter the banquet hall."
And then The Talmud continues: "Rabbi Yaakov also used to say, Better one hour in repentance and good deeds in this world than all the life in the World to Come. And better one hour of tranquility of spirit in the World to Come than all the life of this world."
One hour of the World to Come contains more pleasure in it than all the pleasure of an entire life in this world. But we cannot get a share in the World to Come unless we repent in this world, for it is only in this world that we can repent and do good deeds.
But nevertheless, says the Talmud, "one should serve G-d not like a hired worker who works for the reward, but be like a devoted servant who does not work for reward but out of love for the master." We are to do good not because it will give us reward, but out of love for G-d, Who desires that we do good.
And the Talmud also says about this world:
Rabbi Akiva used to say, "Everything is given as a loan, which we are obligated to repay. Good deeds and faith are held in trust and as repayment. The store is open, and the Merchant (i.e., G-d) gives credit. The ledger is open, and every transaction is being recorded. Whoever wants to borrow may come and borrow. The collectors make their rounds constantly, and they take payment whether we realize it or not. Everything is done "by the book," so to speak, and the legal procedure is always correct. Everything is prepared for the feast (i.e., the World to Come)."
It is important to understand that the best motive for keeping the Torah and Mitzvos (Commandments) is to fulfill Hashem's will. The next-best motive for keeping the Torah and Mitzvos is in order to come close to Hashem, and to thus become holy. Another good motive, but certainly not as good, is to fulfill the Torah and Mitzvos in order to get rewarded for it. That's obviously not the best motive, but it is an acceptable one. It is doubtful that too many of us today actually have a better motive than that. I am sure there are a few people who have so perfected themselves that they actually have the best motive, but most of us are not able to reach that level, and it would be unhealthy to try.
It's amazing, isn't it?
Do you really believe that Jesus of Nazareth taught something so radically monsterous a doctrine as eternal torment to His own? It was the pagans...the Gentiles...that believed in eternal torment. Did Jesus put His stamp of approval upon a Gentile invention?
Jesus read the same Torah, How would He have been heard by the people of the Book?
Certainly, ears that were taught to hear the Torah would not hear what a pagan Gentile might hear centuries later. The Talmudic commentaries on the Torah are markedly different than Catholic and other Christian theologian's commentaries. I find that rather mystifying.
Just some fuel for thought.
logos_x said:
Do you concur that Hell is a matter of faith and morality? Do you concur that Hell is a matter that, upon being decreed, was something that all of the faithful under the Roman authority were expected to hold as truth?
Absolutely.
Therefore, because Mother Church and the Pope decreed it by virtue of their office to be held true by the entire church, and is a matter of faith and morality, the doctrine must therefore be true. Mother Church teaches that Hell is everlasting.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
Are you suggesting that if the Catholic Church decrees falsehood to be true, it is therefore true and no longer falsehood?
Absolutely not.
Therefore, whatever the Church and the Pope decree to be held to be true must be true before the Church and Pope should decree it as held to be true. To decree a falsehood as a matter of faith and an immoral judgement as coming from God is idolatry. Mother Church is therefore idolatrous...and no decree from anyone can make that right.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
:rotfl: You want to know something really funny:
When the First Vatican Council defined papal infallibility, it claimed it was the ancient and constant faith of the Church. In fact, the first statement on personal infallibility came from Pope Leo the Great in 457: 'By the power of the Holy Spirit he needs no human instruction and is incapable of doctrinal error.' It is clear and precise. But there's a snag. Leo was referring not to himself but to the new Roman Emperor.
In Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Brian Tierney showed that the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented by enemies of the papacy between 1280 and 1320 in an attempt to limit the power of the reigning pontiff. The more rebellious they became, the more they exaggerated the infallibility of past popes.
No pontiff ever claimed that he personally could propound dogmas, that is, irreformable doctrines to be held by all Catholics. Popes were chiefly interested in their supremacy. Integral to this was ultimate authority in doctrine and discipline.
Why didn't they want infallibility as well? Partly because history showed beyond question that many popes had been heretics and apostates. There was also a more important political reason: it would limit their personal power. How? If they were infallible, so were their predecessors. If a predecessor had spoken infallibly they would be bound by what he said. Popes held that only Christ could not err. This meant that they were only bound by scripture and definitions of Councils which interpreted scripture.
Incidentally, to suggest that the pope was above General Councils makes nonsense of the whole history of the early and medieval Church. The pope had no choice but to accept the doctrinal decisions of the early Councils, especially the first four, for a Council is greater than a pope. Popes could err; Councils could not.
When Pope John XXII (1316-34) heard that some upstart Franciscans had proposed papal infallibility, he was furious. They were accusing him of being a heretic for denying his own infallibility when no pope had ever claimed it. What John XXII's foes were implying was he had contradicted his infallible predecessors, therefore, he should be removed from office and handed over to his own Inquisition to be burnt.
In his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, John XXII quoted those who said, 'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.' This was a lie, he said, and inspired by the 'Father of lies'. He was not infallible. He, the Pope, retained the right, in principle, to be a heretic, like anyone else, but he didn't intend to exercise this right by espousing the new heresy of papal infallibility.
The first pope to hear of papal infallibility called it insane, the teaching of the devil.
Like all medieval popes, John XXII saw that papal infallibility would make him not the equal of his predecessors but their inferior, for he would only be able to teach some things with their consent. This violated a basic legal principle that an equal cannot bind an equal. Papal absolutism demanded that a pope be answerable to God and no one else. Far from his predecessors being necessarily free from error, every pope had a duty to say that popes had erred but their heresies had been corrected by Councils and popes after them. (p. 163)
Not until the 16th century did popes see the positive side of infallibility. At one point, Innocent XI (1676-89) thought of infallibly defining his own infallibility. The "devil's teaching" was on the way to becoming Catholic doctrine. With good reason. If a pope wasn't infallible and a Council was, a Council was superior to the pope. Dissidents could appeal over the pope's head to a Council. Such a right of appeal was reasonable for as long as the papacy kept to the Catholic teaching that popes can err while Councils cannot.
This is why the papacy in the end rejected traditional doctrine in favour of what John XXII called pernicious novelty. They chose to be above Councils even if the price was making themselves subject to the teaching of their predecessors.
That was annoying, all right. Each pontiff would always have to be looking over his shoulder at the ever-lengthening line of pontiffs behind him to make sure he didn't contradict them. Even so, being subject to dead popes, having dried-mouthed conversations with skeletons, was less threatening than being subject to future Councils.
After Pius IX insisted on having himself declared infallible in 1870, Cardinal Newman wrote: 'We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a pope to live twenty years. He becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts and does cruel things without meaning it.'
Many people don't realize how novel the idea of infallible popes is. It was only proclaimed at the instigation of Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council in 1870, about whom his private secretary, Monsignor Talbot said:
When the fathers of Vatican I defined the pope's infallibility, they showed a contempt for history, preferring their own fables and fantasies. As if dogma is able to rise above the stone facts of history. As if dogma can fashion its own history. 'The very first thing dictators do, ' said Gerald Stern, 'is to efface memory.' Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four, my choice of the most brilliant novel of the 20th century, 'The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.'
Popes are experts in doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously. In this case, the past is what they say it is. This is because they have changed their minds about it and forgotten that they have. As Orwell put it, 'The past is whatever the Party (Church) chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance … this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed … At all times the Party (Church) is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now … And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so.'
No wonder that Gary Wills entitled his book on the papacy Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit.
______________________________________________________________________
There are Catholics for whom reason is of no avail, because their idea of "faith" is to believe in spite of human reason and logic, as epitomized by this quote from the very scholarly defender of the papacy, Robert Bellarmine,
In 1931, Pope Pius XI, Cardinal of the Society of Jesus, Robert Bellarmine, a Saint and a "Doctor of the Universal Church", saying about him :
Among the gems this "Doctor of the Universal Church" taught are the following:
whatever the pope commands, however evil or ridiculous, has to be obeyed, as if it is virtue itself. Whatever the pope does, even when he deposes an emperor ( or Prime Minister or President ?) on the most frivolous pretext, has to be accepted by Catholics who henceforward have to obey the pope and not the emperor."
Pages 217 through 219 of the book, Vicars of Christ, shows how Cardinal Bellarmine explained how he advised Pope Sixtus' successor to publish blattant lies when a new version of the Bible which Sixtus had personally translated, to correct the many serious mistakes he had made in it. In order to preserve the undeserved "honor of Pope Sixtus", he gave this sage and holy advice, which the pope followed. "This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes (i.e. errors made by the pope) as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus' name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the fault of printers and other persons (rather than their true author, Pope Sixtus).
Although Galileo considered Bellarmine a friend and the Catholic clergyman most likely to appreciate his discoveries, he was devasted to learn that , according to this "Doctor of the Universal Church", when the Fathers and all modern scripture scholars analyse the relevant Bible passages,
In Origins of Papal Infallibility 1150-1350, Brian Tierney showed that the doctrine of papal infallibility was invented by enemies of the papacy between 1280 and 1320 in an attempt to limit the power of the reigning pontiff. The more rebellious they became, the more they exaggerated the infallibility of past popes.
No pontiff ever claimed that he personally could propound dogmas, that is, irreformable doctrines to be held by all Catholics. Popes were chiefly interested in their supremacy. Integral to this was ultimate authority in doctrine and discipline.
Why didn't they want infallibility as well? Partly because history showed beyond question that many popes had been heretics and apostates. There was also a more important political reason: it would limit their personal power. How? If they were infallible, so were their predecessors. If a predecessor had spoken infallibly they would be bound by what he said. Popes held that only Christ could not err. This meant that they were only bound by scripture and definitions of Councils which interpreted scripture.
Incidentally, to suggest that the pope was above General Councils makes nonsense of the whole history of the early and medieval Church. The pope had no choice but to accept the doctrinal decisions of the early Councils, especially the first four, for a Council is greater than a pope. Popes could err; Councils could not.
When Pope John XXII (1316-34) heard that some upstart Franciscans had proposed papal infallibility, he was furious. They were accusing him of being a heretic for denying his own infallibility when no pope had ever claimed it. What John XXII's foes were implying was he had contradicted his infallible predecessors, therefore, he should be removed from office and handed over to his own Inquisition to be burnt.
In his Bull, Quia quorundam of 1324, John XXII quoted those who said, 'What the Roman Pontiffs have once defined in faith and morals stands so immutably that it is not permitted to a successor to revoke it.' This was a lie, he said, and inspired by the 'Father of lies'. He was not infallible. He, the Pope, retained the right, in principle, to be a heretic, like anyone else, but he didn't intend to exercise this right by espousing the new heresy of papal infallibility.
The first pope to hear of papal infallibility called it insane, the teaching of the devil.
Like all medieval popes, John XXII saw that papal infallibility would make him not the equal of his predecessors but their inferior, for he would only be able to teach some things with their consent. This violated a basic legal principle that an equal cannot bind an equal. Papal absolutism demanded that a pope be answerable to God and no one else. Far from his predecessors being necessarily free from error, every pope had a duty to say that popes had erred but their heresies had been corrected by Councils and popes after them. (p. 163)
Not until the 16th century did popes see the positive side of infallibility. At one point, Innocent XI (1676-89) thought of infallibly defining his own infallibility. The "devil's teaching" was on the way to becoming Catholic doctrine. With good reason. If a pope wasn't infallible and a Council was, a Council was superior to the pope. Dissidents could appeal over the pope's head to a Council. Such a right of appeal was reasonable for as long as the papacy kept to the Catholic teaching that popes can err while Councils cannot.
This is why the papacy in the end rejected traditional doctrine in favour of what John XXII called pernicious novelty. They chose to be above Councils even if the price was making themselves subject to the teaching of their predecessors.
That was annoying, all right. Each pontiff would always have to be looking over his shoulder at the ever-lengthening line of pontiffs behind him to make sure he didn't contradict them. Even so, being subject to dead popes, having dried-mouthed conversations with skeletons, was less threatening than being subject to future Councils.
After Pius IX insisted on having himself declared infallible in 1870, Cardinal Newman wrote: 'We have come to a climax of tyranny. It is not good for a pope to live twenty years. He becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts and does cruel things without meaning it.'
Many people don't realize how novel the idea of infallible popes is. It was only proclaimed at the instigation of Pope Pius IX at the First Vatican Council in 1870, about whom his private secretary, Monsignor Talbot said:
'Theology was not Pius' forte.' and 'As the Pope is no great theologian, I feel convinced that when he writes, his encyclicals are inspired by God.' Complete ignorance was no bar to infallibility, he said, since God can point out the right road even by the mouth of a talking ***.' (regarding which De Rosa comments) 'Talbot, without meaning it, had reached the heights of Voltaire.' " (p. 133)
When the fathers of Vatican I defined the pope's infallibility, they showed a contempt for history, preferring their own fables and fantasies. As if dogma is able to rise above the stone facts of history. As if dogma can fashion its own history. 'The very first thing dictators do, ' said Gerald Stern, 'is to efface memory.' Orwell wrote in Nineteen Eighty-Four, my choice of the most brilliant novel of the 20th century, 'The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth.'
Popes are experts in doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously. In this case, the past is what they say it is. This is because they have changed their minds about it and forgotten that they have. As Orwell put it, 'The past is whatever the Party (Church) chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance … this new version is the past, and no different past can ever have existed … At all times the Party (Church) is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now … And if it is necessary to rearrange one's memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to forget that one has done so.'
No wonder that Gary Wills entitled his book on the papacy Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit.
______________________________________________________________________
There are Catholics for whom reason is of no avail, because their idea of "faith" is to believe in spite of human reason and logic, as epitomized by this quote from the very scholarly defender of the papacy, Robert Bellarmine,
In 1931, Pope Pius XI, Cardinal of the Society of Jesus, Robert Bellarmine, a Saint and a "Doctor of the Universal Church", saying about him :
"God in his great providence has from the beginnings of Christ's Church even up to more recent times continually raised up men distinguished by learning and holiness to defend and illuminate the truths of the Catholic faith and opportunely to repair the damage inflicted by heretics on those same Christian truths. Among these men [i.e. distinguished by learning and holiness], Saint Robert Bellarmine, Cardinal of the Roman Church, of the Society of Jesus, is without the slightest doubt to be counted. Even from the days of his most holy death he was called “an outstanding man, a distinguished theologian, an ardent defender of the faith, the hammer of heretics” and he was also declared to be “as pious, prudent and humble, as he was generous to the poor”.
Among the gems this "Doctor of the Universal Church" taught are the following:
whatever the pope commands, however evil or ridiculous, has to be obeyed, as if it is virtue itself. Whatever the pope does, even when he deposes an emperor ( or Prime Minister or President ?) on the most frivolous pretext, has to be accepted by Catholics who henceforward have to obey the pope and not the emperor."
Pages 217 through 219 of the book, Vicars of Christ, shows how Cardinal Bellarmine explained how he advised Pope Sixtus' successor to publish blattant lies when a new version of the Bible which Sixtus had personally translated, to correct the many serious mistakes he had made in it. In order to preserve the undeserved "honor of Pope Sixtus", he gave this sage and holy advice, which the pope followed. "This result could be achieved by removing inadvisable changes (i.e. errors made by the pope) as quickly as possible, and then issuing the volume with Sixtus' name upon it, and a preface stating that owing to haste some errors had crept into the first edition through the fault of printers and other persons (rather than their true author, Pope Sixtus).
Although Galileo considered Bellarmine a friend and the Catholic clergyman most likely to appreciate his discoveries, he was devasted to learn that , according to this "Doctor of the Universal Church", when the Fathers and all modern scripture scholars analyse the relevant Bible passages,
all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the sun is in the heavens and revolves around the Earth with immense speed and the Earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider, then, in your prudence, whether the Church can tolerate that the Scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy Fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek . . . Scripture says, `The sun also riseth and the sun goeth down'.
Old Bellarmine was a good and wise man. How could he take so childish a view of the Old Testament? His Eminence went on to say that anyone, simply by consulting his senses, could know for sure that the earth is motionless. . . Great theologian he might be, but Bellarmine was as clueless about astronomy as those people who seriously said that if the earth moved round the sun all the towers in Italy would fall down. `Their senses told them' everything in the universe was moving except the earth! {p. 225}From The Hillarious History of Papal Infallibility by Peter De Rosa
That's all a nice load of bull, but do you deny that the Church, in her infallible virtue, declared the doctrine of Hell to be everlasting? If so, you must either accept it ir deny it...at pain of excommunication of latent sentence for Heresy.
You must either accept that Hell is everlasting...
Or deny that Hell is everlasting...and end up there.
You must either accept that Hell is everlasting...
Or deny that Hell is everlasting...and end up there.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
And THAT is precisely the Catholic error.
First of all, I am a Christian. That has nothing to do with the church...Catholic or otherwise.
Second. I never was nor never will be, God willing, a Catholic. How can I be excommunicated from that which I was never a member to begin with. This would be like the Pharisees excommunicating Jesus.
The only thing that can be done to be rid of Him was to kill Him. In His case, that turned out to be futile as well.
And third...the basis upon which judgement rests is upon how you treat your fellow man.
"As you've done to the least, the last, the lost...so you have done unto me" (Matt. 25)
And fourth...that logic makes absolutely no sense whatsoever...particularly:
"You must either accept that Hell is everlasting...
Or deny that Hell is everlasting...and end up there."
Could just as easily be the other way 'round...if what you believed about "Hell" defined whether one is saved. (It doesn't) If the Mother Whore Church is wrong..it's wrong.
Probably won't have much to do with any judging at all...if it does it would have to send itself there....So they all better hope, at least, that Hell is corrective, because if Hell is as they think it is...well, you know.
After all, one of Hell preachers favorite parables is "The Rick Man and Lazarus", which is a classic reversal of fortunes parable (a fact they convieniently overlook). What would that mean to the rich and powerful Catholic Church?
Last edited:
logos_x said:
:sozo2: Mother Church does not make mistakes! :sozo:
Strictly defined, Heresy is a post baptismal denial of an article of the Catholic Faith, or an otherwise obstinate doubt concerning the same. (Going from my memory of one of Father Corrapi's talks)
Normally, Heresy does not impose condemnation upon baptized Protestants, generally because invincible ignorance applies. However, the more I read your posts, the more I doubt your ignorance. Therefore, presuming ignorance does NOT apply:
Heresy demands a sentence of Excommunication of Latence Sentence, namely an excommunication that occurs without need for someone to enact it; it happens by the result of itself. You said that you don't claim allegiance to any church; that's the problem. By your obstinate denial, you incur (presuming invincible ignorance doesn't apply) the full punishment of Heresy. Heresy is a retroactive (continuous until the circumstances no longer apply) mortal (deserving of eternal punishment and demanding of the sacrament of reconciliation [or a perfect act of contrition with the intent of foresaid sacrament] for absolution) sin.
Again, this doesn't apply presuming invincible ignorance applies; however, i doubt your ignorance.
:sozo2: Mother Church is never wrong!
And even if it were, i'd still come up smelling like roses. The way it ends up is this: If i am right (And i am), and you are wrong (and you are), then you stand to lose everything.
If you are right (and you aren't), and i am wrong (and i am not), then i stand to lose nothing.
logos_x
New member
Apologist said:
Yes, it does.
Especially on this subject.
Heresy is a post baptismal denial of an article of the Catholic Faith.
Could have stopped there.
By that definition I AM A HERETIC!
I am also a Christian.
I am a Christian that believes the Catholic Faith is in error.
That makes me, by the above definition, a heretic.
By the above definition...heresy has NOTHING TO DO WITH TRUTH. It has to do with your beliefs about the Catholic Faith.
I believe the Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon.
That would be wise. :chuckle:
Right. She's a whore with a heart of gold. :angel:
If you are wrong (and you are) you have maligned God all your life within the Catholic Faith. You have misrepresented His character, His intent, His very heart. You have perpetuated the lie of Satan, and done the Devil's work for him.
If you come up smelling like a rose after that...well it won't be because of what you taught. And it won't be because you, or anyone else, earned it either.
If anyone ends up smelling like a rose it will be because of Jesus Christ...and NOTHING ELSE!
Observe for yourself. Look at those preachers and Christians who spend the most time warning of "Hell," and judgment day. The more "Hell and damnation" they preach, the more unlike Christ they appear. This should tell you something. The more an individual glorifies God and His power to save, the more an individual rests from their labors, their boasts, their judgmental ways, their vindictive spirits...in other words, those who believe in an absolutely Sovereign God Who IS Love have ceased striving in their works and have entered into the "rest" promised them. They can begin to enter into the labor of the Lord which brings forth fruits of righteousness, not "self-"righteousness produced from labors of religion. A person who is still in their own works cannot bring forth the fruit of the kingdom. They can talk about "agape" love, but they can't manifest it. They can only manifest "Moses, the law-giver" who is dead and can only bring forth death.
The "letter of the law" kills. Those who still serve as "Hagar and her son" cannot receive the promises the Scriptures hold out. Those who have ceased from their labors have an assurance built on a substance which, although not seen, is more sure than the substance of religion which is nothing more than the traditions of men brought forth by carnal minds.
But what of those whose mentality says, "My belief in a "Hell of torture" is "safer" to believe because at least that way I am sure of being "in"-what can we ascertain from such a view? If they are wrong, then they spent their entire life maligning God's name and character to the whole of creation. But they will say, "Well, God will understand. I just wanted to be sure I was in." What kind of spirit is this? Do not the Scriptures tell us that the "fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom?" The fear spoken of here is a reverence, a respect, a lifting up His being above our own.
It speaks of exalting Him, magnifying Him, glorifying Him. Those who preach a "Hell" because it is "safer" reveal to the world they are thinking of themselves, not of glorifying God in the highest. They have given themselves away. It is clear this kind of person has not laid down their lives. They are still very much into themselves. They cannot enter into the promised "rest." Their "religious works" will hopefully "earn" them a place in the kingdom.
And that is the hub of the wheel my friend. I am into Him. You are into Church.
Last edited:
logos_x
New member
The Scriptures declare, "You will know them by their fruit." Look at the life of such a person, and you will discover what kind of tree it is. There are "Trees of Righteousness," and there are "trees of self-righteousness," commonly called "religious." Just because someone doesn't "drink, cuss, or smoke," that doesn't make one "righteous." We have all seen that often the greatest "law-keepers" are also the greatest tyrants.
Now our Father will certainly have to make some kind of provision for these souls.
Imagine, the very heaven they hope to attain would become the very "Hell" they hoped to escape. How could anyone live in a place of perfect love created by the One Who loved so much that He gave His life-how could a person who told people here on earth that this very One was going to torture many of His own sons and daughters in the most diabolical ways and never cease this activity-how could that individual live with themselves? Every time they saw Jesus lovingly embrace one of those who surely should have been roasting in hell, the conscience would gnaw at that individual, reminding them of the picture of Jesus they described on earth, one who took His enemies and did to them what no human being could ever do-torture them ceaselessly, forever and ever, without even taking a break! Talk about a "worm that dyeth not." There is a worm which would gnaw at their conscience and make heaven "Hell."
It appears to me that these folks would need as much forgiveness as anyone.
Do you not agree?
These religious folks often say that this world would be a mess if we took away the teaching of an "eternal Hell." This shows two things about this person. First, they obviously do not study. If they did, they would discover that there was a church which preached an "eternal Hell" and had complete control of the government, economic system, and religious system.
It should have manifested the kingdom of God. But what it produced was the "dark ages." The Roman Catholic Church has used the doctrine of eternal torment for centuries and it has never manifested the kingdom of God nor its righteousness, but just the opposite.
Study European history, which is nothing more than church history. See what thousands of wars, killings, hatred, and decadent societies the doctrine of eternal torment has wrought upon the earth.
Then spend some time studying the lives of some of those who have embraced the "Larger Hope," those who have been redeemed by the Lamb, those who have laid down their lives and exchanged them for the life of Christ Who lays down His Life. Look into the fruit of their lives. Compare the lives of those who have written the most about Hell, judgment, damnation and compare them with those who write about love, glory, mercy. Look into their lives and you will see we become what is the passion in our heart.
A heart full of hate will love to write about "Hell and judgment." A heart full of love will want to write about glorious things. They try to live in peace and seek to spread that peace to others. They look to the author and finisher of their faith, the author of the love in their hearts and hope to plant that love into another heart. They look into the very Kingdom of God itself and express the joy of their salvation and that joy encompassed all of creation.
They do not lust after your possessions, for they have been given the Kingdom. They do not seek to "sin" because they know that the wages of sin is "death," death to the joy, love, and peace that is in their hearts... and they would not trade the short pleasures of sin for the fruit of the kingdom because they have tasted of both and have developed a taste for the fruit from above, which is the only thing which will satisfy the hunger of a spiritual person.
A religious mind cannot fathom that. It still is chained to the lusts of the flesh and whips it to obedience through the Laws of Moses. It does not understand the higher Law which Christ brought, the Law of Love, the New Commandment. The Law of Moses says "Love your neighbor as yourself." But most people are self-condemned. They do not love themselves and so to "love their neighbor as themselves" gives them the right to actually hate their neighbor and still fulfill the Law of Moses in their own minds.
But the New Commandment, the Law of Life in Christ Jesus commands us to love our neighbor more than ourselves. This can only be done by laying down our own lives and taking on the Life Who laid down His life for the whole world, including the enemies, ours and God's.
"He who clings to his life shall lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it." "you will know them by their fruit."
Now our Father will certainly have to make some kind of provision for these souls.
Imagine, the very heaven they hope to attain would become the very "Hell" they hoped to escape. How could anyone live in a place of perfect love created by the One Who loved so much that He gave His life-how could a person who told people here on earth that this very One was going to torture many of His own sons and daughters in the most diabolical ways and never cease this activity-how could that individual live with themselves? Every time they saw Jesus lovingly embrace one of those who surely should have been roasting in hell, the conscience would gnaw at that individual, reminding them of the picture of Jesus they described on earth, one who took His enemies and did to them what no human being could ever do-torture them ceaselessly, forever and ever, without even taking a break! Talk about a "worm that dyeth not." There is a worm which would gnaw at their conscience and make heaven "Hell."
It appears to me that these folks would need as much forgiveness as anyone.
Do you not agree?
These religious folks often say that this world would be a mess if we took away the teaching of an "eternal Hell." This shows two things about this person. First, they obviously do not study. If they did, they would discover that there was a church which preached an "eternal Hell" and had complete control of the government, economic system, and religious system.
It should have manifested the kingdom of God. But what it produced was the "dark ages." The Roman Catholic Church has used the doctrine of eternal torment for centuries and it has never manifested the kingdom of God nor its righteousness, but just the opposite.
Study European history, which is nothing more than church history. See what thousands of wars, killings, hatred, and decadent societies the doctrine of eternal torment has wrought upon the earth.
Then spend some time studying the lives of some of those who have embraced the "Larger Hope," those who have been redeemed by the Lamb, those who have laid down their lives and exchanged them for the life of Christ Who lays down His Life. Look into the fruit of their lives. Compare the lives of those who have written the most about Hell, judgment, damnation and compare them with those who write about love, glory, mercy. Look into their lives and you will see we become what is the passion in our heart.
A heart full of hate will love to write about "Hell and judgment." A heart full of love will want to write about glorious things. They try to live in peace and seek to spread that peace to others. They look to the author and finisher of their faith, the author of the love in their hearts and hope to plant that love into another heart. They look into the very Kingdom of God itself and express the joy of their salvation and that joy encompassed all of creation.
They do not lust after your possessions, for they have been given the Kingdom. They do not seek to "sin" because they know that the wages of sin is "death," death to the joy, love, and peace that is in their hearts... and they would not trade the short pleasures of sin for the fruit of the kingdom because they have tasted of both and have developed a taste for the fruit from above, which is the only thing which will satisfy the hunger of a spiritual person.
A religious mind cannot fathom that. It still is chained to the lusts of the flesh and whips it to obedience through the Laws of Moses. It does not understand the higher Law which Christ brought, the Law of Love, the New Commandment. The Law of Moses says "Love your neighbor as yourself." But most people are self-condemned. They do not love themselves and so to "love their neighbor as themselves" gives them the right to actually hate their neighbor and still fulfill the Law of Moses in their own minds.
But the New Commandment, the Law of Life in Christ Jesus commands us to love our neighbor more than ourselves. This can only be done by laying down our own lives and taking on the Life Who laid down His life for the whole world, including the enemies, ours and God's.
"He who clings to his life shall lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake will find it." "you will know them by their fruit."
logos_x
New member
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of "Reserve."
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of "Reserve."
Since we have moved on to issues of the Church and what should be regarded as true, I think that now would be a really good time for me to ease up on the Catholics.
I don't hate Catholics. I don't hate the people in any church. All churches have their own unique set of problems..and it is the institutions themselves...not the people in them...that is the source of the current problems I'm trying to set forth as needing reformation.
People change. Institutions, on the other hand, don't. Institutionalised religion is particularly troublesome in that they, in defining what one must believe to be a member, automatically have built into them the tendancy to ostracize, ridicule, or persecute those who do not agree, no matter how hineous the implications of a given tenent of belief that must be accepted as true by the individual members.
This situation is not in the least exclusively the product of the Catholic Church. In fact the Catholic faith, at least, had some redeeming qualities when it comes to it's doctrines concerning Hell.
The Protestants removed these redeeming qualities so we were left with eternal conscious torment for everyone who dies without knowing Christ as Savior.
No Mitigation. No Purgatory. No opportunities after death.
At least the Catholics saw the problems with that concept and attempted to find some way to resolve them.
Now..into this discussion, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the following...little known in todays laity within the Christian Church...doctrinal positions held by "Church Fathers"...including some who were Universalists.
They represent...for me at least...the "smoking gun" on the issue of eternal torment.
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of "Reserve".
The above was taken from:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html#53
Emphasis is mine.
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of "Reserve."
Since we have moved on to issues of the Church and what should be regarded as true, I think that now would be a really good time for me to ease up on the Catholics.
I don't hate Catholics. I don't hate the people in any church. All churches have their own unique set of problems..and it is the institutions themselves...not the people in them...that is the source of the current problems I'm trying to set forth as needing reformation.
People change. Institutions, on the other hand, don't. Institutionalised religion is particularly troublesome in that they, in defining what one must believe to be a member, automatically have built into them the tendancy to ostracize, ridicule, or persecute those who do not agree, no matter how hineous the implications of a given tenent of belief that must be accepted as true by the individual members.
This situation is not in the least exclusively the product of the Catholic Church. In fact the Catholic faith, at least, had some redeeming qualities when it comes to it's doctrines concerning Hell.
The Protestants removed these redeeming qualities so we were left with eternal conscious torment for everyone who dies without knowing Christ as Savior.
No Mitigation. No Purgatory. No opportunities after death.
At least the Catholics saw the problems with that concept and attempted to find some way to resolve them.
Now..into this discussion, I would be remiss if I didn't bring up the following...little known in todays laity within the Christian Church...doctrinal positions held by "Church Fathers"...including some who were Universalists.
They represent...for me at least...the "smoking gun" on the issue of eternal torment.
Doctrines of "Mitigation" and of "Reserve".
There was no controversy among Christians over the duration of the punishment of the wicked for at least three hundred years after the death of Christ. Scriptural terms were used with their Scriptural meanings, and while it is not probable that universal restoration was polemically or dogmatically announced, it is equally probable that the endless duration of punishment was not taught until the heathen corruptions had adulterated Christian truth. God's fatherhood and boundless love, and the work of Christ in man's behalf were dwelt upon, accompanied by the announcement of the fearful consequences of sin; but when those consequences, through Pagan influences, came to be regarded as endless in duration, then the antidotal truth of universal salvation assumed prominence through Clement, Origen, and other Alexandrine fathers. Even when some of the early Christians had so far been overcome by heathen error as to accept the dogma of endless torment for the wicked, they had no hard words for those who believed in universal restoration, and did not even controvert their views. The doctrines of Prayer for the Dead, and of Christ Preaching to those in Hades, and of Mitigation, were humane teachings of the primitive Christians that were subsequently discarded.
"Mitigation" Explained.
The doctrine of Mitigation was, that for some good deed on earth, the damned in hell would occasionally be let out on a respite or furlough, and have surcease of torment. This doctrine of mitigation was quite general among the fathers when they came to advocate the Pagan dogma. In fact, endless punishment in all its enormity, destitute of all benevolent features, was not fully developed until Protestantism was born, and prayers for the dead, mitigation of the condition of the "lost," and other softening features were repudiated.
It was taught that the worst sinners--Judas himself, even--had furloughs from hell for good deeds done on Earth. Matthew Arnold embodies one of the legends in his poem of St. Brandon. The saint once met, on an iceberg on the ocean, the soul of Judas Iscariot, released from hell for awhile, who explains his respite. He had once given a cloak to a leper in Joppa, and so he says--
It remained for Protestantism to discard all the softening features that Catholicism had added to the bequest of heathenism into Christianity, and to give the world the unmitigated horror that Protestantism taught from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century.
The Doctrine of "Reserve."
We cannot read the patristic literature understandingly unless we constantly bear in mind the early fathers' doctrine of "O Economy," or "Reserve." Plato distinctly taught it, and says that error may be used as a medicine. He justifies the use of the "medicinal lie". The resort of the early fathers to the esoteric is no doubt derived from Plato. Origen almost quotes him when he says that sometimes fictitious threats are necessary to secure obedience, as when Solon had purposely given imperfect laws.
Many, in and out of the church, held that the wise possessor of truth might hold it in secret. when its impartation to the ignorant would seem to be fraught with danger, and that error might be properly substituted.
The object was to save "Christians of the simpler sort" from waters too deep for them. It is possible to defend the practice if it be taken to represent the method of a skillful teacher, who will not confuse the learner with principles beyond his comprehension. Gieseler remarks that "the Alexandrians regarded a certain accommodation as necessary, which ventures to make use even of falsehood for the attainment of a good end; nay, which was even obliged to do so." Neander declares that "the Orientals, according to their theology of oeconomy, allowed themselves many liberties not to be reconciled with the strict laws of veracity."
Some of the fathers who had achieved a faith in Universalism, were influenced by the mischievous notion that it was to be held esoterically, cherished in secret, or only communicated to the chosen few, -- withheld from the multitude, who would not appreciate it, and even that the opposite error would, with some sinners, be more beneficial than the truth.
Clement of Alexandria admits that he does not write or speak certain truths. Origen claims that there are doctrines not to be communicated to the ignorant. Clement says: "They are not in reality liars who use circumlocution because of the oeconomy of salvation." Origen said that "all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all. For the mass need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of æonian punishment restrain their recklessness." The reader of the patristic literature sees this opinion frequently, and unquestionably it caused many to hold out threats to the multitude in order to restrain them; threats that they did not themselves believe would be executed.
The gross and carnal interpretation given to parts of the Gospel, causing some, as Origen said, to "believe of God what would not be believed of the cruelest of mankind," caused him to dwell upon the duty of reserve, which he does in many of his homilies. He says that he can not fully express himself on the mystery of eternal punishment in an exoteric statement. The reserve advocated and practiced by Origen and the Alexandrians was, says Bigg, "the screen of an esoteric belief." Beecher reminds his readers that while it was common with Pagan philosophers to teach false doctrines to the masses with the mistaken idea that they were needful, "the fathers of the Christian church did not escape the infection of the leprosy of pious fraud;" and he quotes Neander to show that Chrysostom was guilty of it, and also Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Basil the Great. The prevalence of this fraus pia in the early centuries is well known to scholars. After saying that the Sibylline Oracles were probably forged by a gnostic, Mosheim says: "I cannot yet take upon me to acquit the most strictly orthodox from all participation in this species of criminality; for it appears from evidence superior to all exception that a pernicious maxim was current, * * * namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure."
What Was Held as to Doctrine.
It seems to have been held that "faith, the foundation of Christian knowledge, was fitted only for the rude mass, the animal men, who were incapable of higher things. Far above these were the privileged natures, the men of intellect, or spiritual men, whose vocation was not to believe but to know."
The ecclesiastical historians class as esoteric believers, Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen; and Beecher names Athanasius and Basil the Great as in the same category; and Beecher remarks: "We cannot fully understand such a proclamation of future endless punishment as has been described, while it was not believed, until we consider the influence of Plato on the age. * * * Socrates is introduced as saying in Grote's Plato: 'It is indispensable that this fiction should be circulated and accredited as the fundamental, consecrated, unquestioned creed of the whole city, from which the feeling of harmony and brotherhood among the citizens springs."
Such principles, as a leprosy, had corrupted the whole community, and especially the leaders.
In the Roman Empire pagan magistrates and priests appealed to retribution in Tartarus, of which they had no belief, to affect the masses. This does not excuse, but it explains the preaching of eternal punishment by men who did not believe it. They dared not entrust the truth to the masses, and so held it in reserve--to deter men from sin."
General as was the confession of a belief in universal salvation in the church's first and best three centuries, there is ample reason the believe that it was the secret belief of more than gave expression to it, and that many a one who proclaimed a partial salvation, in his secret "heart of heart" agreed with the greatest of the church's fathers during the first four hundred years of our era, that Christ would achieve a universal triumph, and that God would ultimately reign in all hearts.
"Mitigation" Explained.
The doctrine of Mitigation was, that for some good deed on earth, the damned in hell would occasionally be let out on a respite or furlough, and have surcease of torment. This doctrine of mitigation was quite general among the fathers when they came to advocate the Pagan dogma. In fact, endless punishment in all its enormity, destitute of all benevolent features, was not fully developed until Protestantism was born, and prayers for the dead, mitigation of the condition of the "lost," and other softening features were repudiated.
It was taught that the worst sinners--Judas himself, even--had furloughs from hell for good deeds done on Earth. Matthew Arnold embodies one of the legends in his poem of St. Brandon. The saint once met, on an iceberg on the ocean, the soul of Judas Iscariot, released from hell for awhile, who explains his respite. He had once given a cloak to a leper in Joppa, and so he says--
"Once every year, when carols wake
On earth the Christmas night's repose,
Arising from the sinner's lake'
I journey to these healing snows.
"I stand with ice my burning breast,
With silence calm by burning brain;
O Brandon, to this hour of rest,
That Joppan leper's ease was pain."
On earth the Christmas night's repose,
Arising from the sinner's lake'
I journey to these healing snows.
"I stand with ice my burning breast,
With silence calm by burning brain;
O Brandon, to this hour of rest,
That Joppan leper's ease was pain."
It remained for Protestantism to discard all the softening features that Catholicism had added to the bequest of heathenism into Christianity, and to give the world the unmitigated horror that Protestantism taught from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century.
The Doctrine of "Reserve."
We cannot read the patristic literature understandingly unless we constantly bear in mind the early fathers' doctrine of "O Economy," or "Reserve." Plato distinctly taught it, and says that error may be used as a medicine. He justifies the use of the "medicinal lie". The resort of the early fathers to the esoteric is no doubt derived from Plato. Origen almost quotes him when he says that sometimes fictitious threats are necessary to secure obedience, as when Solon had purposely given imperfect laws.
Many, in and out of the church, held that the wise possessor of truth might hold it in secret. when its impartation to the ignorant would seem to be fraught with danger, and that error might be properly substituted.
The object was to save "Christians of the simpler sort" from waters too deep for them. It is possible to defend the practice if it be taken to represent the method of a skillful teacher, who will not confuse the learner with principles beyond his comprehension. Gieseler remarks that "the Alexandrians regarded a certain accommodation as necessary, which ventures to make use even of falsehood for the attainment of a good end; nay, which was even obliged to do so." Neander declares that "the Orientals, according to their theology of oeconomy, allowed themselves many liberties not to be reconciled with the strict laws of veracity."
Some of the fathers who had achieved a faith in Universalism, were influenced by the mischievous notion that it was to be held esoterically, cherished in secret, or only communicated to the chosen few, -- withheld from the multitude, who would not appreciate it, and even that the opposite error would, with some sinners, be more beneficial than the truth.
Clement of Alexandria admits that he does not write or speak certain truths. Origen claims that there are doctrines not to be communicated to the ignorant. Clement says: "They are not in reality liars who use circumlocution because of the oeconomy of salvation." Origen said that "all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all. For the mass need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of æonian punishment restrain their recklessness." The reader of the patristic literature sees this opinion frequently, and unquestionably it caused many to hold out threats to the multitude in order to restrain them; threats that they did not themselves believe would be executed.
The gross and carnal interpretation given to parts of the Gospel, causing some, as Origen said, to "believe of God what would not be believed of the cruelest of mankind," caused him to dwell upon the duty of reserve, which he does in many of his homilies. He says that he can not fully express himself on the mystery of eternal punishment in an exoteric statement. The reserve advocated and practiced by Origen and the Alexandrians was, says Bigg, "the screen of an esoteric belief." Beecher reminds his readers that while it was common with Pagan philosophers to teach false doctrines to the masses with the mistaken idea that they were needful, "the fathers of the Christian church did not escape the infection of the leprosy of pious fraud;" and he quotes Neander to show that Chrysostom was guilty of it, and also Gregory Nazianzen, Athanasius, and Basil the Great. The prevalence of this fraus pia in the early centuries is well known to scholars. After saying that the Sibylline Oracles were probably forged by a gnostic, Mosheim says: "I cannot yet take upon me to acquit the most strictly orthodox from all participation in this species of criminality; for it appears from evidence superior to all exception that a pernicious maxim was current, * * * namely, that those who made it their business to deceive with a view of promoting the cause of truth, were deserving rather of commendation than censure."
What Was Held as to Doctrine.
It seems to have been held that "faith, the foundation of Christian knowledge, was fitted only for the rude mass, the animal men, who were incapable of higher things. Far above these were the privileged natures, the men of intellect, or spiritual men, whose vocation was not to believe but to know."
The ecclesiastical historians class as esoteric believers, Chrysostom and Gregory Nazianzen; and Beecher names Athanasius and Basil the Great as in the same category; and Beecher remarks: "We cannot fully understand such a proclamation of future endless punishment as has been described, while it was not believed, until we consider the influence of Plato on the age. * * * Socrates is introduced as saying in Grote's Plato: 'It is indispensable that this fiction should be circulated and accredited as the fundamental, consecrated, unquestioned creed of the whole city, from which the feeling of harmony and brotherhood among the citizens springs."
Such principles, as a leprosy, had corrupted the whole community, and especially the leaders.
In the Roman Empire pagan magistrates and priests appealed to retribution in Tartarus, of which they had no belief, to affect the masses. This does not excuse, but it explains the preaching of eternal punishment by men who did not believe it. They dared not entrust the truth to the masses, and so held it in reserve--to deter men from sin."
General as was the confession of a belief in universal salvation in the church's first and best three centuries, there is ample reason the believe that it was the secret belief of more than gave expression to it, and that many a one who proclaimed a partial salvation, in his secret "heart of heart" agreed with the greatest of the church's fathers during the first four hundred years of our era, that Christ would achieve a universal triumph, and that God would ultimately reign in all hearts.
The above was taken from:
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html#53
Emphasis is mine.
Last edited:
- Status