English Catholicism and the See of Rome

[phattonez]

I just said it ... you see peope do sins ... thats a sin measured empirically ... and you can know what sin is from the bible.

Is there anything objectively that I can tell about a person who is engaged in sin? Or let's put it another way. Is there any empirical difference that can be established between a man that has his sins forgiven and another who does not?

 

[RGacky3]

Is there anything objectively that I can tell about a person who is engaged in sin? Or let's put it another way. Is there any empirical difference that can be established between a man that has his sins forgiven and another who does not?

That Depends on Your soteriology ....

In Your soteriology I Guess if that person has gone to mass ... or confession ...

It's also empirically accounted for post judgement day.

 

[RGacky3]

Okay, time to get technical. Jewish animal sacrifices could only atone for sin, like covering it up. In no way could they totally forgive sin. So yes, the Jews still needed the sacrifice of Jesus, because only through Jesus can we have the complete forgiveness of our sins. Animal sacrifices only looked forward to the sacrifice of Christ, but they could not match the efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ.

So no, the Passover was much more than a recalling of the events of the flight from Egypt. Leviticus is quite clear about what the sacrifice is for:

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life.

And Hebrews speaks much the same way:

Hebrews 9:6 These preparations having thus been made, the priests go continually into the outer tent, performing their ritual duties; 7 but into the second only the high priest goes, and he but once a year, and not without taking blood which he offers for himself and for the errors of the people.

And it also explains why the blood of Christ is different:

Hebrews 9:13 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

And makes it excruciatingly clear:

Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices which are continually offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near. 2 Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered? If the worshipers had once been cleansed, they would no longer have any consciousness of sin. 3 But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin year after year. 4 For it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.

And the point is thus: the Jews had to continually offer sacrifices of atonement because they were flawed. Only the sacrifice of Christ can forgive sins totally, and since the sacrifice was perfect, it was needed to only be completed once. We have total forgiveness of our sins through the one sacrifice of Christ.

So then what are we to do today? The author of Hebrews goes on to say:

Hebrews 12:28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe

And then makes an odd allusion:

Hebrews 13:10 We have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat.

We need to read this a little more closely.



NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Habemus altare! - We have an Altar!

Where else is an altar mentioned? In 1 Corinthians 10?

Therefore, my beloved, shun the worship of idols. 15 I speak as to sensible men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation[e] in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation[f] in the body of Christ? 17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. 18 Consider the practice of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 19 What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.[g] 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

Those who eat the sacrifice are partners in the altar. What do we do at the altar? We drink from the cup of blessing, we participate in the Blood of Christ. We eat the one bread, we participate in the Body of Christ. We have an altar, and from the altar we consume our sacrifice, which is Christ, offered for our behalf. Look at what St. Paul is saying. The Jews and even the pagans consume their sacrifices. Christ, the most perfect sacrifice, is also to be consumed. We have an altar, and upon that altar we recall the sacrifice of Christ offered once for all.

First of all, I'm not attacking, these are honest questions about Catholic soteriology.

1. Difference between atonement and forgiveness ... I mean Jesus atoned for Our sins ... So after the animal sacrifice ... were the Isrealites culpible for their sins?

2. I get that the sacrifice in the temple was not Perfect, and Jesus' was, but if the sacrifice in the temple REALLY atoned (and not just gave God a symbol of obedience and recognition of sin), then I don't understand how one could be Perfect and one could be imperfect, either the sins are atoned for or they arn't.

I understand the Catholic view of mass and the sacrifice of Christ ... what I don't get is the position on the temple sacrifices ... if they REALLY atoned, even if imperfectly, so they atoned for past sins, and future sins had to be atoned for, lets say an Isrealite died after an atonement sacrifice ... was he dead in a state of Grace? Since his sins were atoned for?

also the difference between atonement and forgivness is important I think.

 

[phattonez]

That Depends on Your soteriology ....

In Your soteriology I Guess if that person has gone to mass ... or confession ...

It's also empirically accounted for post judgement day.

But you can see what I'm getting at, right? What we're talking about here is a property of a being that is without any apparent sensible effects and is immaterial in basis.

 

[phattonez]

First of all, I'm not attacking, these are honest questions about Catholic soteriology.

1. Difference between atonement and forgiveness ... I mean Jesus atoned for Our sins ... So after the animal sacrifice ... were the Isrealites culpible for their sins?

2. I get that the sacrifice in the temple was not Perfect, and Jesus' was, but if the sacrifice in the temple REALLY atoned (and not just gave God a symbol of obedience and recognition of sin), then I don't understand how one could be Perfect and one could be imperfect, either the sins are atoned for or they arn't.

I understand the Catholic view of mass and the sacrifice of Christ ... what I don't get is the position on the temple sacrifices ... if they REALLY atoned, even if imperfectly, so they atoned for past sins, and future sins had to be atoned for, lets say an Isrealite died after an atonement sacrifice ... was he dead in a state of Grace? Since his sins were atoned for?

also the difference between atonement and forgivness is important I think.

Yes, the difference is between atonement and forgiveness. There is a short tract by Catholic Answers that explains this point:

By his death and Resurrection, Jesus opened heaven (CCC 1026). Prior to that time all who died went to "hell"; however, the just went to a place in hell referred to as "the Bosom of Abraham," where they would be comforted. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) seems to indicate that there were two parts of hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man died and went to hell, but Lazarus was comforted in the bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in a place of torment. A great chasm separated the two parts.

The Catechism explains,

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell"— Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham’s bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. (CCC 633)

Did all the people who died prior to Jesus go to hell? | Catholic Answers

And this is why we have this interesting line in the Apostles' Creed, "descendit ad inferos", or "he descended into Hell."

 

[RGacky3]

But you can see what I'm getting at, right? What we're talking about here is a property of a being that is without any apparent sensible effects and is immaterial in basis.

But I don't think that's true .... I see Your point , I just dissagree With it, sin IS empirical, you can see when someone commits sin, you can see People die, which is the effect of sin .... everything about it is empirical, and the definition of sin is in the pages of the bible.

I mean we can get metaphysical about it, but it most certainly is empirical, or at least empirically measurable and With empirical effects.

Quote Originally Posted by Tim Staples

By his death and Resurrection, Jesus opened heaven (CCC 1026). Prior to that time all who died went to "hell"; however, the just went to a place in hell referred to as "the Bosom of Abraham," where they would be comforted. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) seems to indicate that there were two parts of hell. Both Lazarus and the rich man died and went to hell, but Lazarus was comforted in the bosom of Abraham while the rich man was in a place of torment. A great chasm separated the two parts.

The Catechism explains,

Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell"— Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek—because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God. Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham’s bosom": "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell." Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him. (CCC 633)
Did all the people who died prior to Jesus go to hell? | Catholic Answers

And this is why we have this interesting line in the Apostles' Creed, "descendit ad inferos", or "he descended into Hell."

I appreciate that, I don't agree With the Catholic exegesis, but thanks for clearing it up for me, I learned something New today.

But is there anything you can say about the actual difference between forgiveness and atonement in Catholic theology?

 

[RAMOSS]

But I don't think that's true .... I see Your point , I just dissagree With it, sin IS empirical, you can see when someone commits sin, you can see People die, which is the effect of sin .... everything about it is empirical, and the definition of sin is in the pages of the bible.

I mean we can get metaphysical about it, but it most certainly is empirical, or at least empirically measurable and With empirical effects.



I appreciate that, I don't agree With the Catholic exegesis, but thanks for clearing it up for me, I learned something New today.

But is there anything you can say about the actual difference between forgiveness and atonement in Catholic theology?

So, living is a sin, because that causes death??

 

[phattonez]

But I don't think that's true .... I see Your point , I just dissagree With it, sin IS empirical, you can see when someone commits sin, you can see People die, which is the effect of sin .... everything about it is empirical, and the definition of sin is in the pages of the bible.

I mean we can get metaphysical about it, but it most certainly is empirical, or at least empirically measurable and With empirical effects.

If that is the definition of empirical then we can use the Bible to the same end. Christ told us that we would eat His body, and at the Last Supper said this IS my body. We can also see the effects of the Eucharist on those who receive it worthily, how they are freed from a life of sin and enter a state of grace.

If that is the definition of empirical, then the Real Presence is every bit as empirical as sin.

I appreciate that, I don't agree With the Catholic exegesis, but thanks for clearing it up for me, I learned something New today.

But is there anything you can say about the actual difference between forgiveness and atonement in Catholic theology?

It is based on this. Because previous sacrifice only atoned for sin, or covered it up, the sin ultimately remained. Thus, those who died with their sins atoned and not in a state of mortal sin ended up in the Bosom of Abraham. Why could they not go to Heaven? Because only those who are perfect can be admitted into Heaven.

CCC 1024: This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

Only after the sacrifice of Jesus were we able to receive total forgiveness of our sins. It is as if the sin was never committed, and the eternal punishment is forever blotted out by that forgiveness. Thus, now only with the sacrifice of Christ are we able to receive forgiveness for our sins and enter Heaven. The sacrifices of the Jews allowed them to wait in the Bosom of Abraham, but by the sacrifice of Christ we can, by God's grace, attain the beatific vision and reach Heaven.

 

[RGacky3]

So, living is a sin, because that causes death??

Nope, living doesn't cause Death.

 

[RGacky3]

If that is the definition of empirical then we can use the Bible to the same end. Christ told us that we would eat His body, and at the Last Supper said this IS my body. We can also see the effects of the Eucharist on those who receive it worthily, how they are freed from a life of sin and enter a state of grace.

If that is the definition of empirical, then the Real Presence is every bit as empirical as sin.

No, I'm not talking about the effects of sin, I'm takling about the sin it self, when it happens, you SEE it happen. When someone commits adultary, it's an act that can be sensed and measured and seen, even thinking about sin, you cna measure brain Activity.

Wine changing into blood, With no empirical change ... is not really change.

It is based on this. Because previous sacrifice only atoned for sin, or covered it up, the sin ultimately remained. Thus, those who died with their sins atoned and not in a state of mortal sin ended up in the Bosom of Abraham. Why could they not go to Heaven? Because only those who are perfect can be admitted into Heaven.

CCC 1024: This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called "heaven." Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

Only after the sacrifice of Jesus were we able to receive total forgiveness of our sins. It is as if the sin was never committed, and the eternal punishment is forever blotted out by that forgiveness. Thus, now only with the sacrifice of Christ are we able to receive forgiveness for our sins and enter Heaven. The sacrifices of the Jews allowed them to wait in the Bosom of Abraham, but by the sacrifice of Christ we can, by God's grace, attain the beatific vision and reach Heaven.

So only before JEsus only Isrealites will be in heaven, and only those who completed the temple rituals?

 

[joG]

No, I'm not talking about the effects of sin, I'm takling about the sin it self, when it happens, you SEE it happen. When someone commits adultary, it's an act that can be sensed and measured and seen, even thinking about sin, you cna measure brain Activity.

Wine changing into blood, With no empirical change ... is not really change.

So only before JEsus only Isrealites will be in heaven, and only those who completed the temple rituals?

I think maybe one could interpret these thing less than totally literally.

 

[RAMOSS]

Nope, living doesn't cause Death.

Then, can you actually show what does, and don't say 'sin', because thing that are not aware, and therefore not able to sin die too.

 

[RGacky3]

Then, can you actually show what does, and don't say 'sin', because thing that are not aware, and therefore not able to sin die too.

I don't understand why "sin" is not a acceptable answer,

we are all born in sin, I mean if you don't believe that that's fine, but this thread is about a theological issue, and we're presuming origional sin theology.

 

[phattonez]

No, I'm not talking about the effects of sin, I'm takling about the sin it self, when it happens, you SEE it happen. When someone commits adultary, it's an act that can be sensed and measured and seen, even thinking about sin, you cna measure brain Activity.

Wine changing into blood, With no empirical change ... is not really change.

When I see a sin happening all that I see is that an action is happening. I have no reason to differentiate between a sinful act and a good act empirically. The same holds for many ideas like beauty, truth, etc.

So only before JEsus only Isrealites will be in heaven, and only those who completed the temple rituals?

Is God limited by the sacraments? Clearly not. The moral law is imprinted on all of our hearts, and we will be judged based on our adherence to that law.

 

[RGacky3]

When I see a sin happening all that I see is that an action is happening. I have no reason to differentiate between a sinful act and a good act empirically. The same holds for many ideas like beauty, truth, etc.

Yes you do ... scripture ....

As far as beauty you have the empirical effect on Your mind.

As far as truth you have reason and revelation.

Is God limited by the sacraments? Clearly not. The moral law is imprinted on all of our hearts, and we will be judged based on our adherence to that law.

Ic ... so is one's salvation dependant on knowledge, and when you have knowledge of sacraments it is then dependant on them?

 

[phattonez]

Yes you do ... scripture ....

As far as beauty you have the empirical effect on Your mind.

As far as truth you have reason and revelation.

You're really stretching the concept of empirical here, especially with that definition of beauty. Is there no objective beauty?

Ic ... so is one's salvation dependant on knowledge, and when you have knowledge of sacraments it is then dependant on them?

It's hard to say, but explicit denial of the truth wouldn't seem to win you any favors. Culpability, though, can only be determined by God.

 

[RGacky3]

You're really stretching the concept of empirical here, especially with that definition of beauty. Is there no objective beauty?

No I'm not ... it IS empirical ... if you can measure it With the senses it's empirical.

About whether or not there is objective beauty? I don't know, but it's still measured empirically.

 

[phattonez]

No I'm not ... it IS empirical ... if you can measure it With the senses it's empirical.

About whether or not there is objective beauty? I don't know, but it's still measured empirically.

How can something that is not objective be measured?

 

[RAMOSS]

How can something that is not objective be measured?

One way it to examine the characteristics of things that are considered 'beautiful' to see if there is a thread of continuity between them. For example, the proportions of the face, and symmetry can be measure.

 

[phattonez]

One way it to examine the characteristics of things that are considered 'beautiful' to see if there is a thread of continuity between them. For example, the proportions of the face, and symmetry can be measure.

Though that is still based ultimately on subjective opinion.

 

[RAMOSS]

Though that is still based ultimately on subjective opinion.

However, , it can be shown that the opinion is based on brain configuration, cultural influences, and biology. For example, the proportions of a woman that is considered 'beautiful' is the same no matter what culture. And asymetrical features are considered 'plain' or 'ugly' universally. It is subjective, but predictable.

 

[RGacky3]

How can something that is not objective be measured?

Things can be subjectively measured ... I can measure whether or not something is to my right or left, doesn't mean it is objectively right or left.

 

[phattonez]

Things can be subjectively measured ... I can measure whether or not something is to my right or left, doesn't mean it is objectively right or left.

The fact that an object is to your right is an objective measurement.

 

[RGacky3]

The fact that an object is to your right is an objective measurement.

I think you get my point though. It's also objective that YOU think something is beautiful, but that doesn't make it objectively beuatiful.

 

[phattonez]

I think you get my point though. It's also objective that YOU think something is beautiful, but that doesn't make it objectively beuatiful.

But would we agree that there is objective beauty? I think we would both find pornography as shameful and indecent, and would both call it sinful and testify that it is objectively shameful, but what can I point to using the methods of empiricism to state that it is undoubtedly shameful?