Chrysostom (349-407) commenting on Matthew 6:12:
Let us know these and let us remember that terrible day and that fire. Let us put in our mind the terrible punishments and return once for all from our deluded road. For the time will come when the theater of this world will be dissolved, and then no one will be able to contend anymore. No one can do anything after the passing of this life. No one can be crowned after the dissolution of the theater. This time is for repentance, that one for judgment. This time is for the contests, that one for the crowns. This one for toil, that one for relaxation. This one for fatigue, that one for recompense.FC, Vol. 96, St. John Chrysostom on Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 9.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 129.
Chrysostom (349-407):
Anticipate the exodus of the soul with repentance and correction, because when death comes suddenly, at absolutely no time will the therapy of repentance be fruitful. Repentance is powerful upon the earth; only in Hades is it powerless. Let us seek the Lord now while we have time. Let us do what is good so that we will be delivered from the future endless punishment of Gehenna, and will be made worthy of the Kingdom of the Heavens.FC, Vol. 96, St. John Chrysostom on Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 9.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 130.
Chrysostom (349-407):
I testify and affirm, that if any of us who have offended shall forsake his former sins, and promise to God with sincerity that he will turn to them no more, God will require no further satisfaction from him.For translation, see William John Hall, The Doctrine of Purgatory and the Practice of Praying for the Dead (London: Henry Wix, 1843), p. 203.
Greek text:
Ἐγὼ διαμαρτύρομαι καὶ ἐγγυῶμαι, ὅτι τῶν ἁμαρτανόντων ἡμῶν ἕκαστος, ἂν ἀποστὰς τῶν προτέρων κακῶν ὑπόσχηται τῷ Θεῷ μετὰ ἀληθείας μηκέτι αὐτῶν ἅψασθαι, οὐδὲν ἕτερον ὁ Θεὸς ζητήσει πρὸς ἀπολογίαν μείζονα.De Beato Philogonio (On the Blessed Philogonius), Homilia VI, §4, PG 48:754.
- TurretinFan (with the assistance of Pastor David King)
87 comments:
Why did you leave this quote out from Saint John Chrysostom? You really need to familiarize yourself with these Saints' writings before you quote them out of context over and over making yourself look like a fool. Cutting and pasting from "pastor" King is not helping you.
"But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who takes away the sin of the world—not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them. Not in vain does he that stands by the altar cry out when the tremendous mysteries are celebrated, For all that have fallen asleep in Christ, and for those who perform commemorations in their behalf. For if there were no commemorations for them, these things would not have been spoken: since our service is not a mere stage show, God forbid! Yea, it is by the ordinance of the Spirit that these things are done.
Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why do you doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? Since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others."
Chrysostom- Homily 41 1:Cor.
Bellisario:
a) Look at the title of the post. It's not "passages that sound consistent with Purgatory" but the opposite. That should give you a clue why lots of things from Chrysostom would not be quoted.
b) While the passage you quote might sound consistent to you, have you noticed that there is not actually any reference to Purgatory there?
c) Furthermore, have considered that there's another obvious possibility? Those who "deparated with sin upon" them are those in hell.
So, yeah. There's are several good reasons it wasn't included.
By the way, I will tolerate your puerile and unfounded insults of me, but I will not tolerate your insults of Pastor King.
-TurretinFan
So Saint Chrysostom is praying for those in hell? Is that what you are implying?
And if Chrysostom is praying for those in hell how is it in his homily on 1 Corinthians, he asks for the purification of the dead?
""Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them." (Homilies on First Corinthians"
Also I made a mistake in the first quote in the above post, it was from his homily #41 on 1 Philippians, not 1 Corinthians.
See entire text here.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220141.htm
Obviously, in this place he's not doing it - he's suggesting it.
Notice, for example, that he suggests that "some refreshment may thereby ensue" and that the prayers etc. will "help him as far as possible."
This is not prayers for someone to be released from Purgatory to heaven, as in the Roman system, but for refreshment.
The context you left out also provides clarification. I'll post it shortly.
Chrysostom said:
“But I know not whither he hath gone,” say you. Wherefore knowest thou not, tell me? For according as he lived well or otherwise, it is evident whither he will go. “Nay, on this very account I lament,” say you, “because he departed being a sinner.” This is a mere pretext and excuse. For if this were the reason of thy mourning for the departed, thou oughtest to have formed and corrected him, when he was alive. The fact is thou dost every where look to what concerns thyself, not him.
But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings. For not unmeaningly have these things been devised, nor do we in vain make mention of the departed in the course of the divine mysteries, and approach God in their behalf, beseeching the Lamb Who is before us, Who taketh away the sin of the world;–not in vain, but that some refreshment may thereby ensue to them. Not in vain doth he that standeth by the altar cry out when the tremendous mysteries are celebrated, “For all that have fallen asleep in Christ, and for those who perform commemorations in their behalf.” For if there were no commemorations for them, these things would not have been spoken: since our service is not a mere stage show, God forbid! yea, it is by the ordinance of the Spirit that these things are done.
Let us then give them aid and perform commemoration for them. For if the children of Job were purged by the sacrifice of their father, why dost thou doubt that when we too offer for the departed, some consolation arises to them? since God is wont to grant the petitions of those who ask for others. And this Paul signified saying, “that in a manifold Person your gift towards us bestowed by many may be acknowledged with thanksgiving on your behalf.” (2 Corinthians 1:11) Let us not then be weary in giving aid to the departed, both by offering on their behalf and obtaining prayers for them: for the common Expiation of the world is even before us.
- Homily 41 on 1 Corinthians, §8.
Bellisario:
You wrote: "Also I made a mistake in the first quote in the above post, it was from his homily #41 on 1 Philippians, not 1 Corinthians."
There's no such book of 1 Philippians in the Bible.
It was homily 41 on 1 Corinthians that you were quoting above in the first post. May I suggest you get some coffee and come back?
As for your other quotation - again "consolation" is something to alleviate the sufferings of the damned, not release from Purgatory.
Both quotations you gave are from the same Homily 41 on 1 Corinthians, Section 8, for which the more complete context has been provided above.
So it is your explanation that Chrysostom is praying for the refreshment of those in hell? Is that your position?
You are correct there is no 1 Phil, I typed in my quotes wrong, please forgive me. I actually look my quotes up directly, I don't simply cut and paste them in.
It seems to me that Chrysostom mentions purification for a reason. I do not think those in hell are purified.
As I said before, when you asked if Chrysostom is praying for the damned: "Obviously, in this place he's not doing it - he's suggesting it."
I'm glad you don't think that those in hell are purified. I'm not encouraging you to agree with Chrysostom on this one (although actually Chrysostom says that they are "refreshed" or "consoled" not purified, although he does use that word in reference to Job's offerings).
The reason he uses that term in reference to Job's offerings is this verse:
Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified (ἐκαθάριζεν in the LXX) them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.
Notice that those are offerings that Job made "continually" while the children lived.
So, it seems like a slender reed from which to hang Purgatory.
He is obviously advocating praying for the dead. Those in hell cannot benefit from it, those in heaven do not need it. That leaves only one place or state left in which to pray for souls. I'll let you figure that out.
"He is obviously advocating praying for the dead. Those in hell cannot benefit from it, those in heaven do not need it. That leaves only one place or state left in which to pray for souls. I'll let you figure that out."
a) Chrysostom never mentions any third place. In fact, in context, there are only two places. See the context I provided.
b) I agree with you that prayers won't help those in hell. That's a reason not to agree with Chrysostom, not a reason to reinterpret what Chrysostom said.
c) If you disagree with (b), please show me where Chrysostom says that those in hell cannot benefit from prayer. You cannot simply assume that he agreed with you and me on that.
d) There are actually a variety of other fictional places (or states) besides Purgatory that people have invented over the years. Your reason for picking Purgatory rather than one of the Limbos is simply arbitrary and wishful thinking on your part.
The bottom line: you won't find even one reference in Chrysostom to a place or state by the name of "Purgatory." There's no evidence that he believed that there was a third place or state, though I welcome your attempt to show otherwise rather than just assert it.
-TurretinFan
"He is obviously advocating praying for the dead. Those in hell cannot benefit from it, those in heaven do not need it. That leaves only one place or state left in which to pray for souls. I'll let you figure that out. "
Several errors are found there.You appear to equate prayers for the dead with belief in purgatory. That is a false assumption due to the fact Eastern Orthodox holds to prayers for the dead and yet reject the doctrine of Purgatory. You start off with your presuposition of Purgatory and then think prayers for the dead is proof of that. That is basically anchronism being done with regard to purgatory. Where is proof of purgatory in which speaks of it in Saint John Chrysostom ? I saw no specific or implied statements of purgatory in it.
TF writes, "If you disagree with (b), please show me where Chrysostom says that those in hell cannot benefit from prayer. You cannot simply assume that he agreed with you and me on that."
You cannot assume he was talking about hell either. Where does it say hell? It doesn't, so you have no more proof than I. The context actually fits theologically with purgatory, since St. John's theology does not allow for prayer for those in hell because it would not benefit them. That is evident by the quotes you put up in the original post. You'll have to do better than that.
"You cannot assume he was talking about hell either."
I can easily demonstrate Chrysostom's belief in a very real place called Hell. It's not an assumption on my part. Plus, the context shows a bifurcation of places. So, again I don't have to assume.
"Where does it say hell?"
It doesn't say the word "hell" in this particular context, to be sure. If you think that Chrysostom thought that there was no hell, but only Purgatory and Heaven, this would be very amusing to hear. But it seems unlikely you'd say that.
"It doesn't, so you have no more proof than I."
a) If that's so, then I presume your argument is at an end, since you (not I) brought up this passage.
b) However, it's not so, as I've pointed out.
"The context actually fits theologically with purgatory, since St. John's theology does not allow for prayer for those in hell because it would not benefit them."
Where does Chrysostom say that prayers do not benefit those in hell? By all means share! This would be a step in the right direction of ruling out hell as the meaning here.
"That is evident by the quotes you put up in the original post."
For example? Which quotation above would deny that there is hope for refreshment or consolation in hell, but admit that there is possibility of hope or refreshment purgatory?
"You'll have to do better than that."
See above.
-TurretinFan
TF writes, "Where does Chrysostom say that prayers do not benefit those in hell? By all means share!"
Where does he say that prayer benefit those in hell? Please share. The Old Testament reference made by St. John is talking about purification of souls, not refreshing those that are burning in hell. Those burning in hell are not purified, nor is there any reason to think that St John thought they could be purified or refreshed. It makes no reference to hell, period. No one in hell can be purified or refreshed, ad St. John never even implies such a thing. You are assuming that Chrysostom cannot possibly be talking about purgatory, and yet you have no evidence to prove that he is not. That is also an assumption. There is no reason to think that he was talking about hell and in his other works he makes it clear that hell is an eternal hellfire that is an extreme punishment. He makes no mention of prayers reducing the punishment. He makes reference to prayer purifying. Hence he was referring to neither heaven nor hell, period.
You cannot assume he was talking about hell either. Where does it say hell? It doesn't, so you have no more proof than I.
Notice that the Romanist has absolutely no proof for his claim, but his imagination that it "fits theologically with purgatory."
This is how Romanists attempt to read back into the ECFs the notions of their own peculiar dogmas.
Here is what Chrysostom affirmed concerning those who have departed this present life...
Chrysostom (349-407) commenting on Matthew 6:12: Let us know these and let us remember that terrible day and that fire. Let us put in our mind the terrible punishments and return once for all from our deluded road. For the time will come when the theater of this world will be dissolved, and then no one will be able to contend anymore. No one can do anything after the passing of this life. No one can be crowned after the dissolution of the theater. This time is for repentance, that one for judgment. This time is for the contests, that one for the crowns. This one for toil, that one for relaxation. This one for fatigue, that one for recompense. FC, Vol. 96, St. John Chrysostom on Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 9.5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 129.
Chrysostom (349-407): Anticipate the exodus of the soul with repentance and correction, because when death comes suddenly, at absolutely no time will the therapy of repentance be fruitful. Repentance is powerful upon the earth; only in Hades is it powerless. Let us seek the Lord now while we have time. Let us do what is good so that we will be delivered from the future endless punishment of Gehenna, and will be made worthy of the Kingdom of the Heavens. FC, Vol. 96, St. John Chrysostom on Repentance and Almsgiving, Homily 9.7 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 130.
Chrysostom (349-407): While we are here, we have good hopes; when we depart to that place, we have no longer the option of repentance, nor of washing away our misdeeds. For this reason we must continually make ourselves ready for our departure from here. Catharine P. Roth, trans., St. John Chrysostom On Wealth and Poverty, 2nd Sermon on Lazarus and the Rich Man, §3 (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), p. 45.
Bellisario:
You seem to simply have repeated your earlier argument, without any fresh points. So, my rebuttal stands above.
I see Pastor King has added some further rebuttal.
-TurretinFan
Yes and King's reiteration of the same quotes do not disprove purgatory. The quotes used only prove that those who did not die in a state of grace cannot be saved or prayed for after death. That actually proves my point that when St. John talks about praying for the dead, it can only be for those who are not already damned. Your quotes prove my argument.
"Yes and King's reiteration of the same quotes do not disprove purgatory. The quotes used only prove that those who did not die in a state of grace cannot be saved or prayed for after death. That actually proves my point that when St. John talks about praying for the dead, it can only be for those who are not already damned. Your quotes prove my argument. "
Please reread their quotes and indeed it shows no evidence at all of purgatory. Purgatory is basically a doctrine held by Roman Catholicism and rejected by Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics. It is hardly can be called a " catholic belief " when it is held basically only by Roman Catholicism as an essential article of faith.
Yes and King's reiteration of the same quotes do not disprove purgatory. The quotes used only prove that those who did not die in a state of grace cannot be saved or prayed for after death. That actually proves my point that when St. John talks about praying for the dead, it can only be for those who are not already damned. Your quotes prove my argument.
You gotta love the Romanist approach of "name it/claim it" apologetics. Just put on your best game face, and act triumphant when your claims are exposed for what they are, mere claims. :)
Notice the first quote..
"For the time will come when the theater of this world will be dissolved, and then no one will be able to contend anymore. No one can do anything after the passing of this life."
No one is saying that in purgatory that people can contend for their salvation, for those in purgatory are already guaranteed heaven.
Second quote, "because when death comes suddenly, at absolutely no time will the therapy of repentance be fruitful. Repentance is powerful upon the earth; only in Hades is it powerless."
No one says that those in hades can repent. What does this have to do with purgatory? Nothing, it does not disprove it. It only proves that those who are damned cannot repent.
Third quote, "While we are here, we have good hopes; when we depart to that place, we have no longer the option of repentance, nor of washing away our misdeeds."
Again this quote only proves that cannot repent after we die. No one repents in purgatory. They are already saved, they are just purified by the prayers of the Church before they reach heaven. None of these quotes disprove purgatory, they only prove that no one can repent after they die, and that hell is eternal and unchangeable. These quotes prove that St. john was not talking about praying for those in hell.
Alexander:
Whether or not your church dogmatically teaches anything about any of the limbos is really quite irrelevant to this conversation.
Please stop trolling.
- TurretinFan
Thanks for the insults King, but we can all see that your quotes are useless when it comes to addressing purgatory. It is just wishful thinking on your part.
"The same charge can be leveled against the Protestors."
I have never seen Protestants claim the church fathers as being " Protestant " . What you said is incorrect. What can be said is some church fathers held and taught some teachings that are held by Protestants. You have to remember it is Roman Catholicism that thinks all the church fathers held and taught present day Roman Catholicism and uses gross anchronism in a majority of their quotes of the church fathers. This is shown by the RCC claims that it is the only one true holy catholic church.
"How does your quotation of Chrysostom address Matt's argumentation? In fact, I think that after reading Matt's quote, the ones you have provided work in his favor."
The fallacy in your argument is as almost all Roman Catholics they mistakenly equate belief in and practice of prayers for the dead as proof for the existance of purgatory. As I said before one can believe in prayers for the dead like Eastern Orthodox and yet reject the doctrine of purgatory. To two are distinct ideas and concepts.And does not necessiate the other.
Again, I addressed each quote provided and proved that they do not address purgatory, and that they only refer to the damned who cannot repent or contend for their salvation after they die. Purgatory falls into none of those illustrations used by St. John C.
Cases like this - cases where we let Chrysostom be Chrysostom and point out that he's suggesting that those in hell can be refreshed - help to demonstrate that we are not trying to force Chrysostom to be a "Protestant."
Rome's apologists aren't able to let the fathers be the fathers, though, as we've seen above. They try to impose RC views on them, like the view of Purgatory here.
"The quotes used only prove that those who did not die in a state of grace cannot be saved or prayed for after death."
Where does Chrysostom make reference to a "state of grace"? This is very interesting. Maybe Chrysostom was a closet Augustinian!
We await the evidence.
-TurretinFan
TF writes, "Rome's apologists aren't able to let the fathers be the fathers, though, as we've seen above. They try to impose RC views on them, like the view of Purgatory here."
Well I provided an explanation to the quotes you used, and as far as I am concerned you have not been convincing in your argument. I have let St. John speak for himself. The quotes you used only prove that the damned cannot repent after death, and that they cannot contend for their faith. Until you can provide more specific material we must in order to be consistent with St. John's theology that he was not referring to praying for those in hell.
I deleted the comments related to the off-topic question of whether or not Rome has dogmatically defined that any of the various limbos is or is not a place other than heaven or hell.
If Alexander wishes to discuss Rome's view of the limbos, he's welcome to do so on a blog of his own.
The Romanist continues to rage...
No one is saying that in purgatory that people can contend for their salvation, for those in purgatory are already guaranteed heaven.
Chrysostom also said, "No one can do anything after the passing of this life. No one can be crowned after the dissolution of the theater. This time is for repentance, that one for judgment. This time is for the contests, that one for the crowns. This one for toil, that one for relaxation." People enduring satispassio in an alleged Purgatory are not relaxing.
The Romanist continues to rant...
No one says that those in hades can repent. What does this have to do with purgatory? Nothing, it does not disprove it. It only proves that those who are damned cannot repent.
Chrysostom also said, "Let us seek the Lord now while we have time" implying that departure from this life ends any opportunity for amendment for sins committed in this life. Of course, Chrysostom doesn't mention purgatory, because he never believed in such a mythical place. Moreover, if people need to be cleansed of sin in purgatory, you mean to tell me they can then proceed to heaven when they never repented of the sins for which they were cleansed in purgatory? This keeps getting stranger all the time.
The Romanist proclaims a "name it/claim it" vacuous victory...
Again this quote only proves that cannot repent after we die. No one repents in purgatory. They are already saved, they are just purified by the prayers of the Church before they reach heaven. None of these quotes disprove purgatory, they only prove that no one can repent after they die, and that hell is eternal and unchangeable. These quotes prove that St. john was not talking about praying for those in hell.
Chrysostom also said "nor of washing away our misdeeds." I thought the myth of purgatory was all about cleansing! But, hey, the Romanist makes it up as he goes along. :)
Obviously those in hell are not in the state of grace, they are damned, which is all the quotes that you used tell us. They say that no one can repent after they die. In case you don't know, people do not repent in purgatory. So the quotes do not in any way relate to the idea or theology of purgatory. I await your proof that he is talking about prayers for those in hell, because he is obviously referring to praying for people after they die, and you have no idea as to why he is doing so. I have read enough of St. John to deduce that his theology does not allow for the prayers of the damned.
Bellisario:
I gave you the chance to try to show where it is in Chrysostom's theology that he says that those in hell cannot receive consolation or relief in view of our prayers.
You couldn't do it. You made a vague reference to the quotations set forth in the post, but when asked for specifics, you dodged - trying to assert instead that I simply couldn't prove it refers to hell.
Go back up and read for yourself.
LOL Bellisario. Read what you are writing. You're just imposing your church's theology onto Chrysostom left and right. I love this newest justification for reading "state of grace" into Chrysostom: "obviously."
Well I provided an explanation to the quotes you used, and as far as I am concerned you have not been convincing in your argument.
Who gives a rip but you as to how far you're convinced? This is simply more "name it/claim it" rhetoric. You haven't posted a single meaningful response.
King, read the quotes, he is talking about hell. You are making it up as you go along implying motives to St. john that he never himself even makes mention of. And so the Protestant rages on in his attempt to twist St. John out of context to make him say what he wants him to say. Much the same way you do with Scripture. :)
Of course he's talking about hell, Bellisario. He had never even heard of the fictional place called "Purgatory."
Thanks for admitting that finally, and so they do not disprove purgatory. Quit using quotes out of context.
King, read the quotes, he is talking about hell.
Mr. Romanist, he's talking about departure from this life, and he knows only two destinations thereafter. Of course he's talking about hell, and heaven too, because he knows no such mythical place as purgatory! That's the whole point. LOL
I have read the quotes without the special Romanist Gnostic lens on them. :)
Bellisario:
We admit we were right all along. He never once mentions purgatory, and when he describes the afterlife, it is just heaven and hell. There is no escape from hell, though - apparently, based on this single place in his works - he believed that there could be some consolation or refreshment for the souls there.
You were saying?
- TurretinFan
Thanks for admitting that finally, and so they do not disprove purgatory. Quit using quotes out of context.
I absolutely love this style of Roman apologetics, "name it/claim it" and presto, no work required!
Oh, and always fall back on the "out of context" tactic, even when the Romanist couldn't produce the context for you if a gun were held to his head. LOL
King says, "Mr. Romanist, he's talking about departure from this life, and he knows only two destinations thereafter."
Mr. Protester, the quotes never say that do they? No they do not. They only refer to people in hell who cannot repent. I have read St. john without the Protesters lens attached to them. :)
"Mr. Protester, the quotes never say that do they? No they do not."
Maybe you need Chrysostom to add "and I really mean it" to his comments that there is no repentance in the afterlife?
"They only refer to people in hell who cannot repent."
We're glad you acknowledge this. There's no third place for Chrysostom, so you're very safe in claiming that.
-TurretinFan
Mr. Protester, the quotes never say that do they? No they do not. They only refer to people in hell who cannot repent. I have read St. john without the Protesters lens attached to them. :)
This "name it/claim it" stuff is really great. I am so thankful I don't have to use the Romanist Gnostic lens to read the ECFs.
BTW, want to discuss Basil of Caesarea, and his denial of venial sins? Oops, guess we better not go there, because with no venial sins the Romanist would have no need of purgatory, and he couldn't live with that! :)
This is so amusing to watch you two dance around when you get put on the spot with your quotes, which have nothing to do with the subject matter you are refuting. When you are proven wrong, and it is made clear that St. Chrysostom advocated prayers for the dead, then you make up a fictional reason for it that you cannot prove. Chrysostom writes about hell and those in it who cannot repent, and you make the fallacy of assuming that those who are not in hell (in heaven) could not have possibly passed through purgatory to get to heaven. In case you do not understand logic, the two are synonymous.
Let me help you reason this out.
. St. John says that those in hell cannot repent or contend for their salvation, does not equal : those in heaven did not pass through purgatory first.
You and King are essentially saying, since St. John says that the damed cannot repent after death, purgatory does not exist. That is a logical fallacy and anyone can see that from a mile away.
This is so amusing to watch you two dance around when you get put on the spot with your quotes, which have nothing to do with the subject matter you are refuting.
Keep it up, you're getting a lot of mileage out of this "name it/claim it" tactic. :)
When you are proven wrong, and it is made clear that St. Chrysostom advocated prayers for the dead, then you make up a fictional reason for it that you cannot prove.
No, it's not fictional simply because you're ignorant of it.
Chrysostom writes about hell and those in it who cannot repent, and you make the fallacy of assuming that those who are not in hell could not have possibly passed through purgatory to get to heaven. In case you do not understand logic, the two are synonymous.
That's the whole point, no one can repent, no one can be cleansed of sins after this life. That's Chrysostom's whole point. And if I were in your shoes, I don't think I'd be invoking logic for the nonsense to which you've attached it.
Let me help you reason this out.
We've seen how you reason, no thanks.
St. John says that those in hell cannot repent or contend for their salvation, does not equal : those in heaven did not pass through purgatory first.
You keep missing the point, so let me help you out - there is no opportunity for repentance or cleansing after this life, hence no mythical purgatory.
You and King are essentially saying, since St. John says that the damed cannot repent after death, purgatory does not exist. That is a logical fallacy and anyone can see that from a mile away.
Let me see, we have committed a "logical fallacy" because we affirm that Chrysostom denies repentance for the damned? He knows no place of purgatory, that's why he proclaims, "Let us seek the Lord now while we have time"---There is no opportunity for amendment or cleansing via satispassio following this life - That's the whole point Chrysostom is making.
You see, you're the one who has to import into Chrysostom's theology something that never entered his mind, and you want to speak to us about logic??? LOL
Bellisario:
"This is so amusing to watch you two dance around when you get put on the spot with your quotes, which have nothing to do with the subject matter you are refuting."
How are passages supposed to have something to do with Purgatory before Purgatory is actually invented? Please explain this novel concept.
"When you are proven wrong, and it is made clear that St. Chrysostom advocated prayers for the dead, then you make up a fictional reason for it that you cannot prove."
It's a mark against your intelligence that you think we say he did not advocate prayers for the dead. We cheerfully admitted it! But you won't let that be - you want to impose a view of purgatory on him!
"Chrysostom writes about hell and those in it who cannot repent, and you make the fallacy of assuming that those who are not in hell (in heaven) could not have possibly passed through purgatory to get to heaven."
Unless Purgatory is part of this life, not the next, please explain how it is possible for Purgatory to fit into the quotations Pastor King provided?
You're not following the argument at all - just rejoicing at the fact that Chrysostom talks only of heaven and hell.
But your rejoicing is vain, because that's our very point. Those are all he talks about, because those are all he knows. That's all that exists. Read the Bible: there's no mention of Purgatory there.
"In case you do not understand logic, the two are synonymous."
Logic and definitions are two different topics.
"Let me help you reason this out."
It's nice of you to offer! Let's see how you do.
". St. John says that those in hell cannot repent or contend for their salvation, does not equal : those in heaven did not pass through purgatory first."
Is that all Chrysostom says? Is it just "those in hell cannot repent or contend for their salvation" - or is that those who are in the next life cannot get to heaven if they are not already there?
You see, the problem is you are not carefully reading Chrysostom, because you desperately wish that he would endorse Purgatory, a fictional place of which he knew absolutely nothing! (which is why you haven't found any clear reference to it among his vast body of writings)
"You and King are essentially saying, since St. John says that the damed cannot repent after death, purgatory does not exist. That is a logical fallacy and anyone can see that from a mile away."
The logical fallacy is yours, Bellisario. You aren't quoting King or myself, but simply changing the argument to suit your purposes. That's the fallacy known as the straw man.
You are the ones inventing straw men to burn. Where does the doctrine of purgatory have anything to do with making the amendment of the damned in which St. John is referring to? It does not. It amuses me that you insist on making the Saints say something he never said or even intended to imply.
TF writes, "You're not following the argument at all - just rejoicing at the fact that Chrysostom talks only of heaven and hell."
It is a straw man to say that I believe that there are more than only two final resting places after death, heaven and hell. Purgatory is only a purification, which St. John makes reference to in the actual quote, which puts him in the context of praying for people other than those in hell. Sorry the straw men burning here are form the torches of the Protesters. When the smoke clears from all of the straw men you two torched, perhaps you can make a real argument.
"You are the ones inventing straw men to burn."
Apparently you don't know what that expression means.
"Where does the doctrine of purgatory have anything to do with making the amendment of the damned in which St. John is referring to?"
Let's see if you can try to understand this:
1) Chrysostom states that there is no amendment after death.
2) Your doctrine of purgatory would require such amendment, namely the satisfaction of "venial" sins.
3) Therefore, Chrysostom's comment is inconsistent with your view.
Now, you're welcome to observe that Chrysostom is talking about those in hell - but that's because that's where people go when they don't have their sins covered. There's no amendment in heaven, because there's no need. There's no amendment in hell, because it is too late. Chrysostom's comments don't say "only in hell" or anything like that, as much as you might wish he did.
Yes, he's speaking about those in hell, but his comment is expressed in general terms, not specific terms. Do you understand this?
"It does not."
It does not follow the argument we haven't used.
"It amuses me that you insist on making the Saints say something he never said or even intended to imply."
If that were true, it shouldn't be amusing. But it is not true.
"It is a straw man to say that I believe that there are more than only two final resting places after death, heaven and hell."
I don't say that.
"Purgatory is only a purification, which St. John makes reference to in the actual quote, which puts him in the context of praying for people other than those in hell."
a) You can't say with any certainty even whether Purgatory is a place or state. Your church hasn't thought that through for you yet.
b) Not every purification relates to Purgatory, as demonstrated above.
c) Chrysostom doesn't say that the people in hell are purified, but that they are refreshed or consoled. But, I know that for your position it would have been nicer if he had said that they are "purified." That was Job's children who were "purified" and - as we saw - they weren't dead yet.
"Sorry the straw men burning here are form the torches of the Protesters. When the smoke clears from all of the straw men you two torched, perhaps you can make a real argument."
See above.
-TurretinFan
MB
Can you show me purgatory in these Words?
Heb 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Heb 9:25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own,
Heb 9:26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,
Heb 9:28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Tf says, "Chrysostom states that there is no amendment after death."
I never said there was, and the theology of purgatory does not imply the amendment of the damned after death either, of which St John is referring to explicitly in this passage.
Tf says, "Your doctrine of purgatory would require such amendment, namely the satisfaction of "venial" sins."
No, since St. John only used the term of amendment in reference to the damned in hell, it does not apply to those who are purified before they reach heaven. That has nothing to do with purification in purgatory. Straw man, understand?
Tf. says, "Therefore, Chrysostom's comment is inconsistent with your view."
No, therefore St. John says that no one in hell can be amended after death. I agree. Again, straw man.
Tf says, "Yes, he's speaking about those in hell, but his comment is expressed in general terms, not specific terms. Do you understand this?"
He is speaking specifically about hell in these passages, period. It has nothing to do with a generality which includes purgatory, which your entire argument rests on. Again assumptions which are never proven on your part.
TF says, "You can't say with any certainty even whether Purgatory is a place or state. Your church hasn't thought that through for you yet."
So what, this has no bearing on the argument at hand since purgatory is not an addition to the final resting places of heaven and hell, but only a purification before heaven. In the end it makes no difference if it is a place or a state. Stick to the argument instead of useless side arguments.
I wrote: "Chrysostom states that there is no amendment after death."
MB wrote: "I never said there was, and the theology of purgatory does not imply the amendment of the damned after death either, of which St John is referring to explicitly in this passage."
Please show where Chrysostom differentiates between the damned and those in Purgatory, so that we can see that Chrysostom is making a difference between them, as you seem to be suggesting.
I wrote: "Your doctrine of purgatory would require such amendment, namely the satisfaction of "venial" sins."
MB wrote: "No, since St. John only used the term of amendment in reference to the damned in hell, it does not apply to those who are purified before they reach heaven. That has nothing to do with purification in purgatory. Straw man, understand?"
a) Even if you were right, that wouldn't be a "straw man."
b) The quotation rules out the possibility of purgatory. So, only in that sense does it have "nothing to do with purification in purgatory."
I wrote: "Therefore, Chrysostom's comment is inconsistent with your view."
MB wrote: "No, therefore St. John says that no one in hell can be amended after death. I agree. Again, straw man."
a) Again, even if you were right, that wouldn't be an example of a "straw man."
b) Furthermore, Chrysostom speaks about the next life in general. He is - of course - referring to hell, but his comments are general. You haven't been able to deal with this.
I wrote: "Yes, he's speaking about those in hell, but his comment is expressed in general terms, not specific terms. Do you understand this?"
MB wrote: "He is speaking specifically about hell in these passages, period. It has nothing to do with a generality which includes purgatory, which your entire argument rests on. Again assumptions which are never proven on your part."
a) Please explain where he distinguishes hell from purgatory in talking about the next life. If he never ever makes this distinction, then how can your argument stand?
b) He can't be talking about purgatory any more than he could be talking about (I'm making up something here) a "soul hotel" where people get a second chance at life in the afterlife. He can't talk about those places, because he's never heard of them - they don't exist yet, even in fiction. He's simply ruling out the possibility of amendment in the next life in general. He does not limit to hell as distinct from some other place or state in the afterlife, because he does not know of any future places or states except heaven or hell.
c) Find one place where he names another state or place in the afterlife besides heaven or hell, for those dying after Christ's ascension. You won't be able to do it. Since you can't do it, it's completely unreasonable of you to try to read your church's modern theology onto Chrysostom.
I wrote: "You can't say with any certainty even whether Purgatory is a place or state. Your church hasn't thought that through for you yet."
You wrote: "So what, this has no bearing on the argument at hand since purgatory is not an addition to the final resting places of heaven and hell, but only a purification before heaven. In the end it makes no difference if it is a place or a state. Stick to the argument instead of useless side arguments."
It's hardly useless to point out that your church's fictional Purgatory is so ill-defined that you can't even say whether it is a state or place.
You shouldn't be surprised that you can't find it in Chrysostom, when you can't even say with any certainty what it is.
-TurretinFan
Bellisario:
Your argument hinges on your claim that Chrysostom is limiting his comments to hell. But, in fact, Chrysostom does not limit his comments to hell, he speaks in general about the afterlife.
Find one place where he distinguishes between hell and purgatory in his writings. I know you can't. Have you realized you can't?
You seem to think that the fact that you can't even say with certainty whether Purgatory is a state or place is an irrelevant side-note.
It's relevance is this: the fact that your church's doctrine of Purgatory is so ill-defined even today should help you to realize that it was something that didn't exist in Chrysostom's time.
That's part of the point of what we've been telling you as well. There's no reference to Purgatory in Chrysostom because the fiction hadn't been created yet.
That's why you're left grasping at the straw of the fact that Chrysostom is talking about hell. Of course, he's talking about hell - and he doesn't use the word hell because for him there are only two places one goes after death: heaven or hell.
Thus, he's able to speak in general about the afterlife, without specifying "hell" and yet while referring to "hell" both in the passages we have brought to your attention and in the passage you have brought to the comment box.
It's all about hell in the afterlife, because Chrysostom knows nothing of a place or state called "Purgatory."
TF says, "Please show where Chrysostom differentiates between the damned and those in Purgatory, so that we can see that Chrysostom is making a difference between them, as you seem to be suggesting."
Since no one in purgatory is damned it is obvious he is only talking about hell, so I am not imposing anything on the text, you are.
Tf writes, it's completely unreasonable of you to try to read your church's modern theology onto Chrysostom."
Wrong, my argument does not need to rest on any statement that St. is making pertaining to hell in these passages. It was you who took these passages out of context as you always do, and they do not prove what you claim they prove. It is plain that St. John believes that nothing can be done for those in hell, therefore he is endorsing prayers for the souls not in hell, nor those is heaven. Do the math.
Tf writes, "It's hardly useless to point out that your church's fictional Purgatory is so ill-defined that you can't even say whether it is a state or place."
It is a useless and pitiful effort on your part to divert attention away from your other pathetic argument. State or place has no bearing whatsoever on the arguement at hand. Again stay focused....shiny..shiny..shiny..
Tf writes, "Find one place where he distinguishes between hell and purgatory in his writings. I know you can't. Have you realized you can't?"
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
TF writes, It's relevance is this: the fact that your church's doctrine of Purgatory is so ill-defined even today should help you to realize that it was something that didn't exist in Chrysostom's time."
Another irrelevant comment chalked up to pure rhetorical BS. Again...shiny, shiny....stay focused.
Tf writes, "That's why you're left grasping at the straw of the fact that Chrysostom is talking about hell."
I know he is talking about hell in the quotes you used, and nothing other than that. It is you who is reading into the text something which is not there. Someone talking about people in hell not being able to repent has nothing to with the possibiluy or non-possibility of purgatory. St. Chrysostom could have been talking about feeding his mule too. Though of course that has nothing to do with purgatory any more that the quotes you put up do. They are about the damned and the impossibilty of being able to repent after death, pure and simple. The quotes have no bearing on whether purgation after death exists or does not exist.
"Tf writes, "It's all about hell in the afterlife, because Chrysostom knows nothing of a place or state called "Purgatory."
Again, pure presumption on your part. Is this really the best you have? I am going to have so much fun on my next podcast with these last 2 cut and paste hit pieces you have put up. Truly a joke on your part.
MB
I asked you to comment on some verses from the Book of Hebrews above and show us "purgatory" in them.
You, as yet, have not done that.
Why?
Is it because you cannot show us purgatory in the verses?
I am assuming or rather presuming your basis of accepting the religious faith of the RCC doctrines is the "Word of God"?
I would think it would be fairly easy for you to make that assumption about the Early Church Fathers being quoted and examined by you and us in here and at the other threads Turrentinfan presents for us on this blog for consideration where you come in and make your comments questioning or arguing our understandings and interpretations of the quotations in question?
Do you realize the Patristics base their reasonings from the Scriptures?
Of course, it is already understood that there are variants? We consider only a certain number of books of the Bible to be inerrant. We stay fairly close to, if not spot on, the four corners of the page when it comes to our basis of reason and logic in interpreting the meaning of the Word of God or relevant doctrines of the Faith based on, from or in the Word of God.
After all, you would agree that there are doctrines of demons and errant doctrines of the faith that exist, that are dangerous and that we need to familiarize ourselves with, our of a spirit of prudence, as we defend the Faith once delivered to the Saints, right?
Of course, if any of the Patristics make a claim as Truth about the invisible realms or the forensic make up of the human being or a material subject that affects our present and future relationship with God, from out of the Bible, we should be able to go to those portions of the Bible that they speak from, to read for ourselves and make a judgment as to their particular point of interpretation, right?
That's what you do, right?
We would either accept it outright, having a similar or the same interpretation as the one they put forward. Or we might hesitate, ask questions, do further reading, broaden the context, so that we gain a comprehension of the interpretation so as to accept it. Or, it might just be a portion of Scripture we have never given much thought to or given any thought to at all, so their interpretation of concepts or ideas based in the Scriptures, that they are giving, is brand new to us. And being brand new, yet having some understanding of other parts of the Scriptures we might gladly accept what is being taught to be understood or we might be a bit hesitant to receive their interpretations on spot until we learn more about what they are bringing forth.
All doctrine, wouldn't you say, has a similar or exactly the same purpose for you and us as these Scriptures?
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
And wouldn't you want to experience this after learning something from the doctrines taught?
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Having put all that over, I would ask you to kindly address my concerns here. Do you see it is beneficial for us to engage with you in this place and abruptly engage you in some of your interpretations you have about matters written about and embraced by others long ago as being an accurate understanding of God and His Word of Grace? Or do you much care that we care enough about you and the Truth to keep faithfully and patiently addressing everything we consider inaccurate with your interpretation of some doctrine of the Faith?
MB
I asked you to comment on some verses from the Book of Hebrews above and show us "purgatory" in them.
You, as yet, have not done that.
Why? Is it because you cannot show us purgatory in the verses?
I am assuming or rather presuming your basis of accepting the religious faith of the RCC doctrines is the "Word of God"?
I would think it would be fairly easy to make that assumption about the Early Church Fathers being quoted and examined by you and us in here and at the other threads Turrentinfan presents us on this blog for consideration where you come in and make comments questioning the interpretations of the quotations in question?
Do you realize the Patristics base their reasonings on the Scriptures?
Of course, it is already understood the variants? We consider only a certain number of books of the Bible to be inerrant and do not fudge it. We stay fairly close to if not dead on the four corners of the page when it comes to our basis of reason and logic.
Of course, if any of the Patristics make a claim as the Truth about the invisible realms, or the forensic make up of the human being our of the Bible, we would be able to go to those portions of the Bible to read for ourselves and make a judgment as to their particular point of interpretation. We would either accept it outright, having a similar or the same interpretation as the one they put forward. Or we might hesitate, ask questions, do further reading, broaden the context so that we have a comprehension of the interpretation so as to accept it. Or, it might just be a portion of Scripture we have never given much thought to or any thought at all to so their interpretation of concepts or ideas based in the Scriptures that they are giving is brand new to us. And being brand new, yet having some understanding of other parts of the Scriptures we might gladly accept what is being taught to be understood or we might be a bit hesitant to receive their interpretations on spot until we learn more about what they are bringing forth.
All doctrine, wouldn't you say has a similar or exactly the same purpose to you as these Scriptures?
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
And wouldn't you want to experience this after learning something from the doctrines taught?
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Having put all that over, I would ask you to kindly address my concerns here about you. Do see it beneficial for us to engage you in this place and abruptly engage interpretations you have about matters written about and embraced by others lone ago as accurate understanding of God and His Word of Grace or do you much care that we care enough about you and the Truth to keep faithfully and patiently addressing everything we consider inaccurate with your interpretation of some doctrine of the Faith?
MB
I asked you to comment on some verses from the Book of Hebrews above and show us "purgatory" in them.
You, as yet, have not done that.
Why? Is it because you cannot show us purgatory in the verses?
I am assuming or rather presuming your basis of accepting the religious faith of the RCC doctrines is the "Word of God"?
I would think it would be fairly easy to make that assumption about the Early Church Fathers being quoted and examined by you and us in here and at the other threads Turrentinfan presents us on this blog for consideration where you come in and make comments questioning the interpretations of the quotations in question?
Do you realize the Patristics base their reasonings on the Scriptures?
Of course, it is already understood the variants? We consider only a certain number of books of the Bible to be inerrant and do not fudge it. We stay fairly close to if not dead on the four corners of the page when it comes to our basis of reason and logic.
Of course, if any of the Patristics make a claim as the Truth about the invisible realms, or the forensic make up of the human being our of the Bible, we would be able to go to those portions of the Bible to read for ourselves and make a judgment as to their particular point of interpretation. We would either accept it outright, having a similar or the same interpretation as the one they put forward. Or we might hesitate, ask questions, do further reading, broaden the context so that we have a comprehension of the interpretation so as to accept it. Or, it might just be a portion of Scripture we have never given much thought to or any thought at all to so their interpretation of concepts or ideas based in the Scriptures that they are giving is brand new to us. And being brand new, yet having some understanding of other parts of the Scriptures we might gladly accept what is being taught to be understood or we might be a bit hesitant to receive their interpretations on spot until we learn more about what they are bringing forth.
cont'd.
MB
All doctrine, wouldn't you say has a similar or exactly the same purpose to you as these Scriptures?
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
And wouldn't you want to experience this after learning something from the doctrines taught?
Php 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me--practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you.
Having put all that over, I would ask you to kindly address my concerns here about you. Do see it beneficial for us to engage you in this place and abruptly engage interpretations you have about matters written about and embraced by others lone ago as accurate understanding of God and His Word of Grace or do you much care that we care enough about you and the Truth to keep faithfully and patiently addressing everything we consider inaccurate with your interpretation of some doctrine of the Faith?
Wow, what happened there?
My ability to make comments when down the drain, I guess?
I apologize for the repeated posting here. I just don't know what happened?
The Romanist continues to rant...
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
This is pure garbage, as the following passage from Chrysostom makes clear. He advocated prayer for those in hell as his third homily on Philippians makes clear...
Chrysostom (349-407): Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal they indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
1) Chrysostom says they’ve “died in their sins,” and that they can no longer repent. He says weep for the unbelievers. He says they are with the condemned.
2) He advocates prayer for these in hell, “Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.”
3) Chrysostom says that praying for them actually helps the living in this way – “For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee.”
So, the Romanist’s contention that Chrysostom’s advocacy of praying for the dead proves purgatory is just so much Roman propaganda and nonsense. Chrysostom is advocating prayer for the damned.
The Romanist continues to rant...
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
This is pure garbage, as the following passage from Chrysostom makes clear. He advocated prayer for those in hell as his third homily on Philippians makes clear...
Chrysostom (349-407): Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal they indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
The Romanist continues to rant...
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
This is pure garbage, as the following passage from Chrysostom makes clear. He advocated prayer for those in hell as his third homily on Philippians makes clear...
Chrysostom (349-407): Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal they indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
The Romanist continues to rant...
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
This is pure garbage, as the following passage from Chrysostom makes clear. He advocated prayer for those in hell as his third homily on Philippians makes clear...
Chrysostom (349-407): Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal they indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
The Romanist continues to rant...
By the clear fact that he endorses prayers for the dead which are not in heaven or in hell tells us that there must be souls in another state other than those two final places of rest. Again, do the math.
This is pure garbage, as the following passage from Chrysostom makes clear. He advocated prayer for those in hell as his third homily on Philippians makes clear...
Chrysostom (349-407): Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears. For tell me what hope is there, when our sins accompany us Thither, where there is no putting off sins? As long as they were here, perchance there was great expectation that they would change, that they would become better; but when they are gone to Hades, where nought can be gained from repentance (for it is written, “In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?”) (Psalm 6:5), are they not worthy of our lamentation? Let us wail for those who depart hence in such sort; let us wail, I hinder you not; yet in no unseemly way, not in tearing our hair, or baring our arms, or lacerating our face, or wearing black apparel, but only in soul, shedding in quiet the bitter tear. For we may weep bitterly without all that display. And not as in sport only. For the laments which many make differ not from sport. Those public mournings do not proceed from sympathy, but from display, from emulation and vainglory. (cont...)
(cont…)
Many women do this as of their craft. Weep bitterly; moan at home, when no one sees you; this is the part of true sympathy; by this you profit yourself too. For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee. Weep for the unbelievers; weep for those who differ in nowise from them, those who depart hence without the illumination, without the seal they indeed deserve our wailing, they deserve our groans; they are outside the Palace, with the culprits, with the condemned: for, “Verily I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” Mourn for those who have died in wealth, and did not from their wealth think of any solace for their soul, who had power to wash away their sins and would not. Let us all weep for these in private and in public, but with propriety, with gravity, not so as to make exhibitions of ourselves; let us weep for these, not one day, or two, but all our life. Such tears spring not from senseless passion, but from true affection. The other sort are of senseless passion. For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
So, the Romanist’s contention that Chrysostom’s advocacy of praying for the dead proves purgatory is just so much Roman propaganda and nonsense. Chrysostom is advocating prayer for the damned.
1) Chrysostom says they’ve “died in their sins,” and that they can no longer repent. He says weep for the unbelievers. He says they are with the condemned.
2) He advocates prayer for these in hell, “Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf.”
3) Chrysostom says that praying for them actually helps the living in this way – “For he who laments another in such sort, will be much the more earnest never to fall into the same sins. Sin henceforth will be an object of dread to thee.”
So, the Romanist’s contention that Chrysostom’s advocacy of praying for the dead proves purgatory is just so much Roman propaganda and nonsense. Chrysostom is advocating prayer for the damned.
Wow Pastor King!!
When I read those quotes, I tremble deeply to the core.
Maybe it is because I am gaining weight, showing gray hairs and signs of aging that I am particularly focused on his revelation!
Also when I consider these words of Scripture I assume he must have had them in mind as well when preaching that homily?:
Ecc 3:14 I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him.
and
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
and
Mat 10:24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household.
Mat 10:26 "So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known.
Mat 10:27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops.
Mat 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Wow "pastor" King! We are so amazed that you managed to bastardize yet another quote from St. John! Ha the Protester rants and takes another quote our of context! King quotes Chrysostom, "Let us then not make wailings for the dead simply, but for those who have died in sins. They deserve wailing; they deserve beating of the breast and tears."
Where does it say prayer here? It doesn't. When St. John talks about prayer he clearly says so, as in the quote I used, "But grant that he departed with sin upon him, even on this account one ought to rejoice, that he was stopped short in his sins and added not to his iniquity; and help him as far as possible, not by tears, but by prayers and supplications and alms and offerings." Here however in the quotes used by King, he is merely referring to wailing and lamenting those in hell who die in unrepentant sin, again, nothing to do with the topic at hand. Wailing and lamentation is hardly synonymous with prayers, supplication and alms giving. This just gets better an better. What else are you going to drudge up King?
Where does it say prayer here? It doesn't.
The Romanist seems to have a problem with sight. I doubt this will help him, but it will demonstrate for the rest of us his blindness. He is more anxious to respond than he is to read what we actually post.
Here's the pertinent portion...Notice, when the Romanist sees it, he'll move on to something else instead of apologizing for his blindness...
Chrysostom (349-407): By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
Just goes to demonstrate that a Romanist refuses to own it even when it's right before him.
There is also another fact that has also been overlooked in this whole mess here in quoting St. John. You have to be careful in the way he uses the word Hades. It is not always synonymous with the final resting place of hell. The Greek Patristics often used the term to denote a general resting place of the dead before final judgment, which would also make it impossible to say that he was praying for those in "hell", as we use the word today to denote the final resting place of the damned. This is worth noting and investigating to be sure of the proper context that St. John is using the word "Hades."
There is also another fact that has also been overlooked in this whole mess here in quoting St. John. You have to be careful in the way he uses the word Hades...
No, Mr. Romanist, you don't get to pick and choose the descriptions of Chrysostom here. This continues to be very insightful for others in seeing how Romanists see what they want to see and turn a blind eye to, and pretend the obvious does not exist.
Chrysostom spoke of those who "died in their sins," "unbelievers," "with the condemned," and "who had power to wash away their sins and would not."
It simply goes to show that the Romanist cannot see what Chrysostom actually wrote, but nonetheless sees "purgatory" where it is not written. This keeps getting better.
Notice, he will not own and apologize for his blindness on this as well.
"I guess this is what happens when you have a church tells you what the church father believed and taught instread of reading them for yourself without restorting to gross anchronism"
As far as I know the Catholic Church has never declared that these particular passages of St. John teach the doctrine of purgatory. In short, if St. John is speaking of praying for those in Hades-or hell as understood by us today, and I am proven wrong, this does not change the fact that purgatory exists. It only means that I was wrong in interpreting St. John, which would not shake my faith one bit, since I do not rely on my own abilities to read and interpret all of the Church Fathers for myself and let it determine my faith. This would not be faith, but it would only be making myself the authority to decide what is true and what is not. That is not faith. I trust Jesus Christ and those whom Christ sent to declare the Gospel, not in my own abilities to read and interpret all of the Church Fathers and Scriptures on my own.
I dug up a work by Fr. Laurent A. Cleenewerck who kindly sent me a PDF file a couple of years back of one his books that I already had a hard copy of. It is called "His Broken Body." In it he explains the Greek Partristic mindset of the prayers for the dead. I thought it may be relevant to the discussion at hand. I will put up a few passages from the book.
I agree with Matt's statement above 100%. The Catholic Church isn't founded upon St. Chrysostom, but Christ. The Catholic Church does not use St. Chrysostom, or our reading of him, as the sole rule of faith.
No one ever suggested, implied, or asserted otherwise. Perhaps this was written out of some need to say something.
But what has been demonstrated is how you folks have an initial knee-jerk reaction to virtually anything that contradicts your predisposed mindset of how the ECFs are to be understood.
But I do appreciate the apology. In that respect you have shown yourself to be a notch above your fellow co-religionist.
As for that need for schooling you suggested, perhaps you might want to encourage your friend to seek some remedial reading assistance. He needs it.
Part I
"As we have seen, Eastern Orthodoxy does not normally use the word
‘purgatory’ because it seems to imply complete identity of views with Roman Catholicism on this topic. It is important to realize that Eastern Orthodoxy is anchored in the mind and vocabulary of the great Fathers of the third, fourth and fifth century, especially Basil and Chrysostom.
When it comes to the mysteries of ‘life after death,’ the Greek Orthodox tradition also retained their language: ‘hades,’ ‘paradise,’ ‘Abraham’s bosom,’ ‘a place of rest and refreshment.’ In the West, ‘hades’ ended up equated with ‘hell’ and ‘paradise’ became ‘heaven,’ a situation which tended to confuse the intermediate state with the age to come. At a popular level, the idea was (and still is) that when you die, you either go to ‘heaven’ or ‘hell,’ and since the majority do not seem to fit in either category, ‘purgatory’ seems to be a much-needed third option. In this system, the concept of resurrection becomes somewhat superfluous. In order to understand the magnitude of this confusion, let us see how hell can become almost indistinguishable
from heaven." (Page 350)
In the Hebrew/Greek perspective of death, the body went to the grave
and the soul/spirit went to scheol/hades. Hades was the common abode of the dead, but two conditions existed there. The lower hades was a place of darkness and torment marked by anxiety, separation from God, as well as
the inability to participate in His Presence. Upper hades was the abode of the righteous and it was called ‘paradise’ or ‘Abraham’s bosom.’ This popular geography of the underworld, explicitly endorsed in Luke 16 and 23:43, does not seem to leave much room for a purifying fire that would allow for a progression from lower paradise to upper paradise, since no crossing over was possible from the condition of the rich man to that of
Lazarus1. In this case, the imagery of fire is connected with torment, not purification.
According to the teachings of the early Fathers, hades was effectively
conquered by the resurrection of Christ, so that the state of the souls was transformed by participation in the light of the God-Man. This is alluded
to in Hebrews 11:40 and12:22:
Yet all these, though approved because of their faith, did not receive what had been promised. God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect… [Now], you have
approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect…
The Paschal exclamation “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling
down death by death and upon those in the tombs bestowing life” did not
mean that a universal resurrection of the bodies had taken place: the
message was that the sting and power of death had been abolished by the shattering descent of the Author of Life2.
The light of Christ was now
shining even in hades/paradise and the saints could enjoy the expectation of the glory to come.
But even after Christ, hades was still understood as
the common destiny of all:
Now we must speak of hades in which the souls of both the righteous and
the unrighteous are detained… But the righteous (who will obtain the
incorruptible and unfading kingdom) are indeed presently detained in
hades, but not in the same place as the unrighteous… they are brought to a locality full of light and they perpetually enjoy the contemplation of the
blessings that are in their view.1
In other words, the souls of the reposed do not go to heaven or hell (in the sense of a final destination), they go to lower-hades or paradise-hades, a temporary intermediate state where the fullness of blessedness is yet to come. (Page 351-352)
So in short, according to this Orthodox scholar we are all in an error of sorts here. I admit my error, and it seems that I cannot say that St. John was praying for the souls in purgatory, yet he was praying that the souls may be purified after their deaths in whatever state they were in, which seems to be Hades, in the definition as it was understood by the Greek Patristics.
Fr. Cleenwerck summarized their position on Hades,
"In other words, the souls of the reposed do not go to heaven or hell (in the sense of a final destination), they go to lower-hades or paradise-hades, a
temporary intermediate state where the fullness of blessedness is yet to come."
So in short, according to this Orthodox scholar we are all in an error of sorts here.
One scholar, of your picking, speaks and suddenly we're ALL wrong? This is rich. Now, it's not that I question and/or disagree with everything he says. I simply find it amusing given your whole behavior in this thread, which demonstrates that you were violently kicking up a bunch of verbal dust when you were the one who was clueless. But not being content with that, you have to characterize the exchange as though we were all just as clueless as you. I don't think so.
Pastor King,
though it was quite obvious, it needed to be put in here for the record:
"...Here's the pertinent portion...Notice, when the Romanist sees it, he'll move on to something else instead of apologizing for his blindness..."
Matthew, why don't you go ahead, bite the bullet and humble yourself?
Are you going to just let that one go by and not man up and repent?
Clearly these are the words for whom you claim "we just are not reading it right"?
St. John Chrysostom
"...For this cause they are quickly quenched, whereas if they spring from the fear of God, they always abide with us. Let us weep for these; let us assist them according to our power; let us think of some assistance for them, small though it be, yet still let us assist them. How and in what way? By praying and entreating others to make prayers for them, by continually giving to the poor on their behalf. NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Philippians, Homily 3.
Get off your high horse King. You have been condescending from the beginning of this exchange. The Orthodox scholar proves that you have much to learn about the Fathers as well.
natamllc says, "Matthew, why don't you go ahead, bite the bullet and humble yourself?
Are you going to just let that one go by and not man up and repent?"
What are you talking about? Can you not read what I wrote above? I said, "I admit my error, and it seems that I cannot say that St. John was praying for the souls in purgatory..."
What, do you think I should bend down and kiss your asses now? I don't think so. When I am wrong I will admit it plainly. Unfortunately your buddies will not do the same.
Get off your high horse King. You have been condescending from the beginning of this exchange...
I can't, I'm not the one on that horse. :)
This conversation seems to have come full circle. The apologies offered are accepted.
The thesis of the post, namely that Chrysostom didn't believe in Purgatory, and made statements inconsistent with Purgatory, seems to have been accepted and agreed-upon.
I'll relish this rare moment of ecumenical harmony.
Matthew,
"...What are you talking about? Can you not read what I wrote above? I said, "I admit my error, and it seems that I cannot say that St. John was praying for the souls in purgatory..."
What, do you think I should bend down and kiss your asses now? I don't think so. When I am wrong I will admit it plainly. Unfortunately your buddies will not do the same."
Let me apologizes for what does appear to be a bit of a rub.
There is a fair and reasonable explanation for this occurrence. Don't allow this to inflame you even more than you are. I do not post with 'war' in mind, rather, "Peace".
I have been fairly active today. It's summer time and my wife consented to let me bless her and take her out to a husband/wife lunch. We don't do that often enough. So I posted on the run and then went off. I have been following this blog on my Iphone though. I came back from a nice day with my wife and posted a response to both you and Pastor King. But just as I hit the publish button, my son called to be picked up as he needed my help. We are going to a wedding and he needed a suit and other things for it, "now". He is 16 and his perspective is bit different than mine. I am 56. He is a part of that wedding. So I posted my comment right after Pastor King's post "on the run again" and didn't even see your comments, and left. I then got back on my Iphone in the clothing store and saw those words of yours cited in this comment box to me. I am now back home and not in a rush so I am responding to it and not in a rush in doing so.
No, I appreciate that you have backed off a bit with your hostile manner toward some in here and that you accepted that you missed the full Chrysostom quotation Pastor King reiterated in his subsequent post to yours.
Now that I read through your three other posts more carefully and see in the last one, you are admitting your error, I can see why the sequence of posts seem like I might have been a bit hard on you.
It was not my intent and I am sorry that this is as things went and you justifiably took it as such.
I would, though like to post some relevant verses that I do believe all or most all those early Church Fathers certainly must have considered when dealing with the subject of dying in one's sins and the utter realization of theirs, that those that die in their sins spend eternity in God's horrible Presence of fiery judgment and not in Eternity in His Holy, Righteous, Pleasant Presence of Grace and Truth:
Ecc 3:11 He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end.
Ecc 3:12 I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live;
Ecc 3:13 also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man.
The Gospel is good news when you realize, as the Apostle Paul wrote and explained in some of his writings that, it came before the Law of Righteousness!
God preached the Gospel to Abraham and then through Moses established the Law!
The purpose of the Law is to bring us to Christ so that in the remaining days of our life we can experience what King Solomon wrote there cited above and by such an experience, realize that the afterlife for those dying in Christ is indeed going to be real Paradise and a fruitful Everlasting blessing!
That, to me, seems to be why you read such things as horrible as those words are that Pastor King wrote in rebuttal to your position that holds to the doctrine of purgatory.
Again, accept my apologies for any offense I caused by the sequence of posts above, which merely was a coincidence of timing in hitting the publish button.
Post a Comment