Eucharist is a "Death Cookie"?

Speaking of sniping and whatnot, ever hear what Catholics say about Mormons?

“God is eternal, to be sure, but does that mean that time is infinite, that it is forever ongoing?
Now, if we are to accept either Genesis or the Big Bang Theory, time definitely had a beginning, so the past is finite.
Science cannot answer the question of the future, but scripture is quite clear that there will be an end of the world at some point. That is, that the future is finite as well, that, at some point, time itself will come to an end.” -Bender.

I’ve never heard otherwise. You mean our souls will die some day? I’ve always assumed it was eternal heaven and eternal hell.

Look I know this universal salvation is somewhat odd. It’s no surprise it comes out of a mystical experience, at least with Julian. I can see how the Church doesn’t embrace it. From a pasturing point of view, it becomes difficult to administer. If all souls will eventually get to heaven, then why not be sinful? Perhaps the Church will leave salvation where you delineated it. But that has a problem too. If non-Christians can get to heaven, then you’ve eliminated justification by faith. My argument is that faith can be obtained in the hereafter. I can’t help but feel that God’s love is infinite and will go to all lengths to draw someone in. Now that may be a mystical approach. So be it. I can compartmentalize my mystical leanings with church doctrine.

Let me leave you with the other quote from John that supports universalism, chapter 12:
28 Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it and will glorify it again.”
29 The crowd there heard it and said it was thunder; but others said, “An angel has spoken to him.”
30 Jesus answered and said, “This voice did not come for my sake but for yours.
31 Now is the time of judgment on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out.
32 And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw everyone to myself.”

“I will draw everyone to myself.” He doesn’t say only Christians, or only the good, or even only believers. He says everyone.

Thank you for the explanations. I tend to agree more with Bender than with Manny, but not completely.

I find the idea of purgatory very hard to accept. I can’t do anything to redeem myself. It has to be done by the blood of Jesus, and by accepting that fact and the fact of His birth, death and resurrection, along with believing He is the only begotten Son of the only God, and asking Him to forgive my sins, they are forgiven.

He became sin on the cross. That was every sin committed to that point, sins being committed at that time and sins to be committed in the future.

He told the thief he would be with Him in paradise that day. He didn’t speak of going someplace to purge his soul, or of getting a second chance to accept Him as God to the thief who didn’t ask for salvation.

I guess just as what I believe is hard for Catholics to believe and accept, some of what you believe is hard for me to accept and believe.

I do know, however, there will be people of all denominations and faiths in heaven. Not just Catholics or Baptists but all.

In the Apostles’ Creed, the word “Catholic” does not refer to Roman Catholicism, but means united. God is not any religion. He’s God and one day we will not be any religion, but be in Heaven with the One Who died for us.

No more arguments and mocking of faiths. We will all be members of the true faith and of one accord.

Jeanette – You certainly have the purest of Evangelical positions.

“We are not free to pick and choose which is the true faith.” -Bender’s Cheerleader

Quite right. I am a Catholic and I accept Catholic doctrine. But given that none of us really know what the afterlife is like, consider this a thought excursion.

Anchoress,

I am a pentecostal evangelical with perhaps a more favorable view of Catholicism than I do of Pentecostal Evangelicalism. This is partly your fault, and partly Chesterton’s. Keep blogging!

1. Jeanette, just to be clear, purgatory is not for redeeming or forgiving sins. Everyone in purgatory is saved; purgatory is about their making ready to meet God face to face (a terrifying prospect for most of us in our current condition). If you want to separate the concepts of justification and sanctification as some denominations do, purgatory is strictly about completing what sanctification we don’t complete in this life. And even though Catholics refer to “time” in purgatory, it is more correct to say that it occurs outside time and thus is not quantifiable.

2. Manny, as appealing as universalism is at first glance, it is ultimately problematic because it cancels out the idea of free will. God tolerates hell because he means to give us freedom including even the freedom to separate from Him. Our modern culture has a debased notion of freedom; we instinctively think sinners more “liberated” than saints, when in fact there are infinitely many ways to live a saintly life and very few variations of sinfulness (cf. “the banality of evil”). The New Testament makes clear that sin enslaves and prevents us from being able to choose the good, which is why we need a Redeemer at all. And it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for the gospels to have recorded Jesus Christ speaking so extensively about hell, if there were no ultimate danger of anyone’s ending up there.

Well, Anchoress, I guess it’s time to tell you. Sister Toldjah is just the type of person to believe what’s in these tracts and spread the misinformation.

I haven’t visited that site since I read a proudly anti-Catholic screed a couple of years ago.

I wonder if before they hacked the Christians of central Nigeria to death with machetes this past weekend, the Muslims asked them, “So hey, which of you are Baptist and which of you are Catholic?” No indeed. Being equal opportunity haters of “infidels”, they just kept shooting and hacking and now 200+ Christians know for sure if there is a purgatory or not.

But just keep debating how many angels are dancing on the head of that pin and pay no attention to that jihadi behind the curtain.

20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,

21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. (Luke 16:20-31)

Manny, this is a story Jesus told and not a parable. It actually happened or He would have called it a parable.

Notice verse 26 states there is a gulf between heaven and hell and it cannot be bridged. One cannot go from one side to the other.

If one is in hell, hell is where (s)he will stay for eternity. Yet the soul is still alive and will experience torments. Not just one torment, but multiple torments.

Hell was made for Satan and his band of fallen angels. They will go there with no reprieve. Man has the chance to avoid hell while he is alive, but from reading this, after he dies there is no more hope for his soul.

This is why I take death so hard. I am not sure of many people I love as to where they will end up for eternity. Once in hell there is no hope of ever getting out. The greatest regret is to not be able to have fellowship with our Creator God. And they will know for certain it is their own pride and trying to “out-think” God as many professed academics do.

One has to have the faith of a mustard seed. Not a very large seed and not much faith, but enough to be redeemed by the King of Kings.

It’s pleasant to think we may go to hell and get out of it, but it is not realistic. Why do you think Jesus told us to go into the world and preach the gospel if people could get out of Hell without His sacrifice on the Cross?

Universalists are in a world of their own and are, unfortunately, leading people away from Christ rather than to Him. This itself is a sin. They represent the church of feel good now.

Possibly they make up part of the Church of Laodecia, neither hot nor cold, and Jesus will spit them out of His mouth.

I’m afraid a lot of the modern Church (body of believers) is in that state now. Yes, we see devout Christians on this blog and others, but how many are there of us in the entire world or even in this country? Far less than when we started out or even 50 years ago. This is so sad and so urgent that we reach out for the souls that are lost now before it’s too late for them.

[Jeanette- Catholics do not believe that "we may go to hell, but then get out." Purgatory is not hell, which is the place for those who do not want God's mercy, have not sought it; have rejected it. Hell is hell; once you're there, you're there. Heaven is for those souls who are ready to stand before the Almighty, who is perfect and perfectly holy. Actually, you might take death less hard if you were a Catholic, because we figure most of us are going to be in purgatory for a while, before Heaven, because most folks mean well but screw up a lot. Purgatory is an assurance of eventual heaven.

I think some of this comes down to a simple difference of understanding of Baptism, and what being "saved" means. I've often wondered about that. Let's say you're Baptized and you've "accepted Jesus as your personal savior" (that's usually how I'm asked if' I've been "saved"). Then you still honky tonk every Friday night, and do all the usual, and get lukewarm about faith, as people do, and so forth. Once in a while you feel like you should do better; you try, you screw up again...you know, real life for most of us and the Christians we know. You BELIEVE in everything in the Apostles Creed; you've been baptized. You've had intense moments in your life, where you've desired to know and love God better...but you've also fallen a lot. You've tried to pray and study scripture, and so forth; you've tried the best you can, and hope for God's mercy. Then you die. What do you do about all the post-baptismal sins on your soul? Do you go to heaven, even with your soul in a rather messy, chipped and stained condition -looking like a spiritual ragamuffin- and present yourself to Christ for judgment, and decide "hey, I got saved and baptized; I get in, right?" Or would you stand before Christ and the Throne, the angels, martyrs, saints, and so forth and think...."ummm...I am not in fit state to be seen, just now. I want to be perfect before I stand before the Throne, and the Lamb. Do you have a place I can just, you know, get cleaned up a little?" I mean, if you were going to meet a King on earth, you'd want to present yourself at your best. This is essentially the same thing. Catholics cannot abide the idea that we die, in all of our venial (human, petty, annoying, thoughtless, impatient, faulty, broken, etc) sins and then simply go to heaven without the purging -the side trip to clean ourselves- so that we might wear the robes of white. It is imperative to note, though, that there is nothing we "do" by ourselves at this point. It is already by God's mercy that we are not in hell, and are assured heaven, but our souls are not in a "fit state" so to speak.

I think some of this back-and-and forth has to do with differing understandings of baptism and salvation. I think one Protestant understanding (among several) holds that no one is ever totally free of sin, but that the Christian puts on an outer "cloak" of Christ's righteousness in order to enter heaven in a "spotless" manner. Correct me if I am wrong, Jeanette, but this is because the blood of Jesus is thought to "cover" our sins, but does not really cleanse our entire spiritual being? This is what I believe Martin Luther meant when he said Christians were like "dunghills covered with snow?"

We believe that our justification in Christ means that through Baptism in Christ we are cleansed wholly - spiritually and corporeally - from all of those sins committed up to that moment of baptism (Acts 2:38) and are thus "new creations." (2 Cor 5:17) Not merely covered but "new." Adopted sons and daughters of God, brothers and sisters of Christ. And then, of course, in that new creation we still encounter our humanity and sinfulness; we are new creations in Christ but "none are without sin save Christ" and this is why we take Jesus at his word that Peter has "the keys to the kingdom; what you hold bound is bound in heaven; what you loose is loosed in heaven" and that the apostolic priesthood established by Christ in that moment is charged with hearing our confessions and "loosing or holding bound" based on our sincerity of heart, and our resolve to -with God's grace- sin no more. This is why Chesterton says that after baring his soul to this Christ-instituted tool of cleansing, even if one is bent over with age one emerges from confession "five minutes old."

To put all of this into a larger context, let's consider the issue of divorce. Now, I know that protestants -for the most part- take a much more casual view of divorce than Catholics do (not that Catholics don't get divorced; the world and its lures and understandings, and the "easier way" have all served to make Christ's teaching, and the church's upholding of his teaching, to be thought rather "intolerant" and passe, and too many Catholics are in trouble because of it, but that's for another thread). Christ was very clear: a man and woman cleave together and they become one flesh; what God has joined, man must not part. If a protestant divorces, what happens? Do they simply say, "well, Jesus, I know I made that vow; sorry I broke it, but I know you forgive me in your mercy" and then just move on, marrying again, and then when they die, assuming they've lived an average life of faith, they're in heaven?

The Catholic Church teaches Christ's teaching there. If you're married, and you've vowed that marriage before God, then you are one flesh and this does not change, regardless of what "man" does in civil courts and with paperwork. This is why if a Catholic divorces, he or she may not marry again. In the eyes of God -by Jesus' own instruction- that man and woman are still each other's husband and wife. To marry again is to then place oneself in a state of adultery. (To be divorced, without remarrying, is different. A divorced Catholic who lives chastely and does not remarry commits no sin.)

So, how does a Catholic ever get to heaven, if there has been a divorce/remarriage? Well, that's where the notion of annulment comes in, and -for all that annulment is derided and called "Catholic divorce"- it is a very important and (like everything in Catholicism) thoroughly reasoned issue. What an annulment does is look at a marriage and say: taking Jesus at his word, that a man and a woman, vowed before God, are one flesh, let us look at this marriage and see if, fundamentally, marriage was in fact, "sacramental," meaning "instituted by Christ." Since there are no negatives in Christ, if there are "negatives" in existence at the time of the vows, those negatives suggest that the marriage could not be "sacramental." One example of this is something that happened to an acquaintance whose marriage ended badly, with his wife screaming at him that she'd never loved him, but she'd married him because she thought he'd take care of him. That's a pretty big negative! They got divorced, which was painful for him (not so much for her, turned out she was not quite as sincere in her faith as she'd pretended) and she eventually went along with getting an annulment so he could be free to date and pursue marriage, again. In her testimony, she admitted that she had never loved him and had gone into the marriage falsely. It was rather an open-and-shut case, at that point.

If an annulment investigation reasons that yes, a marriage seems to have been "what God has brought together" then there is no annulment. If the investigation reasons that no, this could not have been a joining made in Christ (and that can be so for many reasons, from either party lying about being willing to accept children, to a groom being drunk or hungover as he spoke his vows, or a bride who has schemed her way into marriage; someone marrying who does not actually love the partner, avarice, or immaturity, among other reasons -and immaturity is a legitimate issue at this point) then there is an annulment; the annulment says "this marriage happened, but it was not sacramental." The two parties are both then free to remarry in the Church -although once one has gone through an annulment, a good priest or parish "marriage" team will counsel great caution that a bride who has, perhaps, gotten herself out of one abusive marriage, is not repeating a pattern with the second marriage. This is actually one of the beautiful offshoots of annulment; the parties involved are more or less forced to do a bit of introspection -see mistakes they have made and ought to work hard against making again. It's very much a pastoral tool of counseling, admonishment, cleansing and growth.

Does the Church have the "right" to do all this? Well, yes. The church was instituted for the care and well-being of souls. Christ said, "what you loose is loosed, what you bind is bound." It is of a piece with the notion that -as with confession- the human being's soul is presented with many, many opportunities to "get right," in a lifelong journey to Heaven.

So, here we have a situation where Christ has said something important; he has warned of a grave sin brought about by divorce. The Catholics have a means by which the soul may be brought into alignment with Christ and made "right" before God. Upon death, that's ONE issue a soul does not have to haul before Christ for judgment, because his Church -his representative body (one might say his bureaucratic i-dotter and t-crosser on earth) has helped bring that matter to a close. That doesn't mean that person is going to get into heaven. Who knows what he/she has done since the last confession? There is still stuff to review and answer for! The soul says "I'm not worthy; let me be purged of all of my impurities."

But what happens to the rest of the divorced-and-remarried Christian world? Do non-Catholic Christians get off with a private "sorry Lord" about their vows made before God, but broken, and still get to heaven? Or -taking Jesus at his word- have they spent a part of their life living in unapologetic adultery? What if they were really "good people," the sort who went to church every week, donated time and money to charities, brought food to the sick, etc, etc, etc, but they'd you know...gotten divorced and remarried, in complete opposition to what Christ taught? Heaven or hell for them? Adultery is a grave sin...it's breaking one of the commandments, so it's not something to be dismissed lightly. Does a Christian (Catholic or non) who has been a "really good person" in all other ways still go to hell, because of a divorce and remarriage? That doesn't seem "just" does it? And yet, it also does not seem "just" that someone -no matter how "good"- who has been living in an adulterous relationship should simply enter heaven, and the perfection of Almighty God, despite Jesus' own words.

Suddenly, purgatory makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Geez....I am not an apologetics blog, and I must run to noon mass. Perhaps I will put this up as a new post when I get back -admin]

Manny, the son had to return home for the father to welcome him. Had he not returned home, the reconciliation would not have occurred; had he died before he made it home, the reconciliation would not have occurred. The father might have forgiven his son, but that wouldn’t have been enough to bring him back.

We all need to trust and hope in God’s mercy; but as others have already said so well, there is a limit to how far God will impose Himself onto our free will. We do have the freedom to reject Him.

I don’t think anyone believes you a heretic, but you are clearly looking for something more.

A-My last post was in response to Manny’s statement that

Hell is still there, it’s just not eternal.

I was attempting to show him hell is eternal.

I can’t speak for all protestant denominations, but I can tell you we in my denomination believe we are washed by the blood of Jesus, and yet we still have our sinful nature. Yes, I sin every day. And every day I have to humbly ask Jesus to forgive those sins by name.

As for divorce, we believe there is only one valid excuse for divorce and that is adultery. The person who has been sinned against is then free to marry in that case.

Otherwise, both parties should remain single and chaste. Now, does everyone do that? Although I personally know a few who have not married, I also know many more who have married again.

A pastor worth his salt would not perform the ceremony and they would have to go to a very liberal congregation or be married in a civil ceremony.

I read the posts by Bender and others about purgatory and feel I have a better understanding of it now. That’s what I was looking for when I posed the question, and I was not looking for any kind of argument or trying to offend anyone about his or her faith.

Manny, I don’t think you are a heretic and if I gave you that impression I ask for yours and God’s forgiveness for the misunderstanding. I was just trying to show you why I believe hell is as eternal as heaven is.

A-I didn’t mean to upset you. I grew up as a minority protestant around a majority of Catholics. I know what it’s like to be taunted because of my religion.

I do believe it is as simple and as easy (but hard to do) as accepting Jesus as our personal savior and asking Him to come into my heart, soul and spirit.

I’m still going to sin, and I confess my sins daily to Him. I am prayed up to date and confessed up to date as of now.

I will be judged by my works as a Christian after I was saved. How many times did I have the opportunity to tell someone else the Good News of the Gospel but I passed on it? What kind of example was I after I got saved? Because my sins before I got saved were forgiven and my name was written in the Book of Life in indelible ink. The only thing that can send me to hell now would be if I blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and I believe God would take me before He allowed that to happen to me or to any other believing Christian.

My beliefs are just as strong as yours, and yet I am curious about the sacraments and other parts of your faith in an effort to understand it.

If not for the Catholic Church we would not have had a Bible put together.

I do not criticize your Church or faith, and I actually admire you and the others for your devoutness. I hope you do the same with me, and I believe you do.

I’ll know when I die if there is purgatory or not, as all of us will unless we go directly to Hell and do not pass go.

Please believe my motives have been pure and not trying to stir a religious war. Everyone has been very gracious to me and I thank Bender and Manny for their responses, especially when Manny clarified certain things were not Catholic doctrine.

May God continue to bless you all. You know I love you like a sister and look forward to meeting you in heaven.

[J - you NEVER upset me. I hope I did not give the impression that I was upset with you - if I have, please forgive me. I was just trying to expand on the whole answer and help out Manny re the purgatory question, too! -admin]

“Manny, the son had to return home for the father to welcome him. Had he not returned home, the reconciliation would not have occurred; had he died before he made it home, the reconciliation would not have occurred. The father might have forgiven his son, but that wouldn’t have been enough to bring him back.” -B’s cheerleader

Good point. I’m only speculating that the journey home back to the Father can happen in the afterlife. I guess a braoder question could be, is there any choice or will in the afterlife, or is that strictly reserved for the life of the flesh and blood? I couldn’t tell you and i don’t think anyone can. Is there free will in the afterlife? What is the nature of the afterlife?

“Manny, I don’t think you are a heretic and if I gave you that impression I ask for yours and God’s forgiveness for the misunderstanding.”
-Jeanette

Not at all Jeanette, I was just being tongue-in-cheek.

Just to let people know, I’m not one of those wishy-washy super liberal Christians that practically takes divinity out of Christ. On most matters, I’m fairly conservative Catholic. But I do speculate and do occaisionally go off on my own. The nature of the afterlife is not well defined to say the least.

I didn’t have time to reply to everything earlier today. Let me try now.

“Please believe my motives have been pure and not trying to stir a religious war.” –Jeanette

Never doubted them for an instant. And let me say the same as well. I am not trying to cause any friction. This conversation has been very entertaining for me (hey I get to pontificate!) but if anyone is infuriated by anything I’ve said or any of my rebuttals, I will be glad to end this now. I hope no one senses I’m being snippy in my rebuttals. Sometimes without visual cues one can incorrectly think the person on the other end is angered or some other emotion.

“Mercy is always gratuitous. You make it sound as if we owe mercy to offenders, i.e., as if it were immoral not to extend mercy. But when something is owed, it is a matter of justice to provide it, not a matter of mercy.” –Craig

“Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.” (Mat 5:7). But really there are so many examples of mercy in the Gospels. What is it to turn the other cheek? Unfortunately I can’t turn the other cheek, but Christ can and does in the Passion narrative. And later in the Beatitudes: “But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.” (Mat 5:44-45) “On the just and the unjust.” That is heavenly mercy. What is it that Pontius Pilate and the Jewish leaders fail to do during the Passion? They fail at giving mercy. I support capital punishment. But frankly I’m glad the Catholic Church advocates against it. (And yes they say it is justice but they also advocate against it.) If you read the Gospels looking for every connotation of mercy, you might conclude that mercy is the central core of Christ’s ministry. Mercy is in effect love for humanity.

“So, taking this to its conclusion, you’re really arguing that God is unjust to leave anyone in hell.”

I believe God is merciful. I believe at some point the sacred heart of Jesus (to which I pray to) will find that justice has been done.

“But if someone rejects God as he steps outside of time and into eternity, his choice ceases to be temporal: he becomes a being eternally rejecting God. At that point, what he deserves and what he craves are the same thing: separation from God, which is hell.”

Now how do you know that? How do you know that once one steps into the afterlife all choices cease? As far as I can tell, my assumption is as equally valid as yours.