Praying for the dead is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. The souls in Purgatory have a great need of our prayers. Once they are purified and behold the Beatific Vision, I’m sure they won’t forget their prayerful benefactors who remembered their soul when no one else would and truly pray for us in earnest as well in gratitude.
I’m fond of this Fulton Sheen quote: “As we enter heaven, we will see them, so many of them coming towards us and thanking us. We will ask who they are, and they will say—‘A poor soul you prayed for in purgatory.’”
OK...I'll bite and I mean no disrespect because I believe you to be an honest broker and quite frankly of what I have seen of you, I admire....what is preventing you from converting? I am friendly with a Catholic priest who started off as a Lutheran...who became an Anglican ...only to wind up a Catholic. And this guy has the most wattage that I know. Just curious as I see you as a similar individual. Pax
Read the story of the 'Thief on the Cross' and ask yourself how he was saved. The thief was obviously a convicted criminal yet Jesus told him "TODAY you will be with me in paradise". Surely a convicted criminal would have to spend weeks, months or even years in purgatory! But that's not what the Bibles says. Also Jesus' death and resurrection pays 100% for your salvation. Your works, baptism, mass, church membership, purgatory etc etc it is as "filthy rags". It is ZERO%. Only Jesus' sacrifice can make a full and complete payment for your soul. Nothing else will do.
If the dead in Christ who are to be raised at Jesus' 2nd coming can hear our prayers then they can hear millions of people, praying in different languages, from different time zones all around the planet, they can understand these millions of prayers and they know how to respond, then they are gods!!! They are all-hearing, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present. By your argument you're treating them as gods. God cannot be bribed because someone 'important' puts in an extra special word for us. Thee Creator God of the universe does not need 'help'. Treating God as if He needs intermediaries is blasphemous and a mockery of His Word.
I'm not saying these things without love. These issues are massively important. For the sake of your soul don't get this wrong just because you feel a particular religion is more comfortable or a better fit for your identity. Pray directly to Jesus and ask Him to show you the way. Relying on Jesus 100% is the only way to live and the only way to die. God Bless.
Dear Al, you said it best, The "Thief on the Cross" is the most perfect example of salvation. If we or anybody else has to "do" something , those are works and we are saved by grace and not by works and that means Jesus did not suffer enough or do enough for our sins to be forgiven. The epistles of Paul: Romans thru Philemon need to be read and studied more. Amen
I'm with you 100% until the last paragraph. I cannot believe that one would be denied entry to Heaven for honest belief if that belief is centred on Love. I don't mean this to sound hippyish. That's not where I'm going with this. Not an Operah Winfrey style "you get to go to Heaven, and you! And you...!". I mean in a genuine worship of The Lord with a pure heart kind of way.
The road to Hell is lined with good intentions. It's a cliché but true. I do not believe though, that the road to Hell is lined with good hearts. God can read us like a book. He knows. He decides. Not Church. Not Pope. Not Catholic. Not Protestant. Not 43 year old Anglican currently masquerading as Lutheran because he's posted to Germany.
As an Anglo-Catholic, I find the defense of Purgatory puzzling, as it stands contrary to both Scripture and the witness of the early Church. The 39 Articles explicitly reject the doctrine, rightly stating that it is "vainly invented" and "repugnant to the Word of God." This aligns with the broader Catholic faith, which does not affirm Purgatory as the Roman Church does. The Orthodox, the Coptics, the Ethiopians, and other ancient branches of the Church all reject it, and it is notably absent from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and even Augustine.
While I understand the Roman Catholic perspective of Purgatory as a penitential process of purification, it cannot be considered a truly universal doctrine of the Church when it lacks firm scriptural and patristic foundation and is held solely within the Roman tradition. However, I fully affirm the practice of praying for the dead and to the saints. God, who is not bound by time or the constraints of creation, hears our prayers as part of His eternal nature. These prayers are an expression of love, and God’s response to them transcends our temporal understanding.
It is our rejection of such "Romish" doctrines, including Purgatory as it is defined, that affirms our place as members of the broader Catholic Church in the Anglican tradition. We uphold the faith of the undivided Church, grounded in Scripture and the Creeds, without the later innovations of the Latin West.
I worry that embracing Purgatory signals a drift toward Rome, rather than remaining steadfast in the Anglo-Catholic understanding of the Church as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. As a High Churchman, I see great beauty in our Anglican identity, holding to the ancient traditions while rejecting what is unsupported by the earliest witness of the Church. This balance allows us to remain truly Catholic, without being Roman.
Hebrews 7:27 He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered himself: which means Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. How that must hurt the Lord to know that His children don't believe that "IT IS FINISHED" which He said on the cross. Amen
Mary lou, where, if anywhere, does repentance for sin fit into the picture for you? A Protestant friend of mine assumes that all Christians enter heaven upon death, regardless of the sins they have committed and without need for repentance, because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
Christine. My ten cents worth, if you're interested. I think scripture has a lot of work to do. It has to speak to people of the future and all the way back to the Bronze Age. God is outside of time. He has experienced time through his Son. He understands our human frailties. He had to suffer as we suffer, or there could be no empathy. How can a God empathise with man? And how can one forgive without empathy?
When we die, we are our no longer "in time". We are no longer subject to the earthly laws of entropy. I don't believe a soul will be damned if the person had lived the best life but had just sinned before dying. As I said in a comment above. The road to Hell may be lined with good intentions. But I do not believe it is lined with good hearts.
I honestly believe grace leads to works and deeds. If you truly love Jesus, you will do the work. If you don't do the work, you are not really for Jesus. It's one of those brilliant contradictions in the Bible that aren't really contradictions at all but two opposing things that unite to make a perfect whole. Grace alone will save you, but grace without works is not really grace. Scripture never stops giving. I truly love these discussions.
Dave, thank you for your "ten cents worth", which is beautifully expressed and resonates with many of my own thoughts. Since it is by God's grace that I even have existence, how can it be other than my soul's very oxygen? -- my beginning, my end, and my in-between, whatever heights I may climb or mis-steps I may make along the way. I love these discussions too, but after engaging in them many times over the years, I find it best to take them in small doses. After encountering the cacophony of clashing opinions and perspectives that invariably result from such invitations as Father Robinson issued, lol, a non-Christian might well recoil from the prospect of looking further. It seems to me that it is in quietude that we come to our Savior, however noisy our environment may be. What a wonderful thing that is.
Hi Christine, I was raised Catholic, 25 years ago, opened the Bible and with non Catholic great Bible teachers learned that Eph 2:6 and 9 and all of Paul's Epistles starting from Romans thru Philemon that I learned it is "By grace we are saved, through faith, and once we truly truly believe what a gift God has given us and it is nothing that we could ever ever do, trust me we will repent, oh yes repentance has a lot to do with it, but it's only after we understand and believe what Jesus has done. I know this will sound corny to the Catholics, but you can't believe all of scripture and all of the Pope's rules and regulations at the same time, they are incongruent . Sorry, I don't want to go on and on. And yes, unlike the Catholics who never really know if they are going to make it or not to heaven, We are assured of eternal life. God Bless You my Sister in Christ
This is so good again so uplifting and wonderful your sermon and explaining everything so well I’ve often tried to explain to Christians that we ask each other on earth to pray 🙏 for someone suffering etc and how much more so those in heaven But they didn’t understand So I’m going to print this out and give it to them to read as you have written it so clearly I really hope and pray 🙏 they will understand and quoting the old and New Testament which I’m not good at and have a poor memory now so remember the message of what Jesus says and the basics of the gospels and Saint Paul and saint Peter epistle not word for word completely So thank you 🙏 very very much Also as a practicing tradional Catholic I accept praying 🙏 for the holy souls in purgatory and it’s also as a human being when one loses a dear member of the family or friend to be able to pray 🙏 for them as one did on earth when they were alive Jesus is so consoling in every way for us following Him as God our Creator and our final end as in every step of our lives He guides us teaching through both the old and New Testament and with you father Calvin Robinson hope for each other on earth and also for those who have recently passed into the next life so As you said We are still connected through Jesus and His Mother Mary and the Saints in heaven and those penitent on their way to heaven while we still struggle hopefully 🙏 happily on earth A big Christian family of God Thank you 🙏 very very much for your wonderful email sermon
This perfectly explains the Catholic idea of prayer. Though it suggests that Purgatory may be longer for those poor souls who have nobody to pray for them (whether they were leading a hermetic life, deeply unpopular or forgotten by family and friends). We should all pray for these people.
It does no good to pray for dead , unfortunately . The Catholic church established that doctrine on 593 by Pope Gregory. Rome collects millions of dollars each year from grieving individuals who willingly pay to alleviate the agonies of those in purgatory. This concept of purgatorial sufferings after death challenges the very work of Christ on our behalf.
Hi Calvin, I appreciate you providing a space for thoughtful and honest dialogue. The life of a Christian is one of joy, but also repentance. The Good News, so to speak, was that Christ offered Himself, ONCE for all, as the perfect Paschal Lamb. He lived the life of a perfect Jew under the Law. He died as the only perfect sacrifice for our sin debt, that we were unable to pay. Hades could not hold Him, because He was without sin. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus appears with Elijah and Moses… who represent the Law and the Prophets… the disciples are told to listen the HIM, because He is the fulfillment of both. Yes, He is the God of the living. Jesus is described as our Great High Priest having made intercession for us…and continues to do so. If He is sufficient, and we pray in sincere repentance when we have transgressed even after we have been saved, would His 'cleansing us from all unrighteousness’ not therefore be sufficient? What further price do we need to pay, if He has made us clean? The testing of our works seem to be what remains, and this appears to be about our rewards in Heaven. "Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.” -John 6:28-29 A life in Christ is a changed life, one that seeks to please Him. We are not saved by our works, but saved to do good works. It is the natural outflowing of the Christian life.
It is my understanding that the bowl of incense with the prayers of the people, were about those who had been martyred for their faith… “How long oh, LORD?”, the first instance of this answer appears to have been the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Is it cyclical, perhaps? Maybe. Jesus tells us to pray to our Father in Heaven, in His name. He did not say ‘Oh, the Saints in Heaven are closer, pray to them'. They may, however, be praying for us… I do not actually know. The ‘age’ referred to seems to point to the ‘Temple Age’ (Old Covenant) and the Age to Come the 'Church Age’ (New Covenant, in His Blood). The Mother of Christ, Mary, 'the Virgin'… spoken of, I believe was ‘special’ (and Protestants make too little of her, on the whole). She was God’s chosen instrument, but I do not believe she was sinless, because we ALL need a Savior, she did as well. "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” As to her ascension, I cannot say with confidence, and I mean no disrespect in that. Jesus is Redeemer. (Abraham was counted as righteous for believing God, but that did not infer ‘sinless’.) Our Trinitarian understanding is the sufficiency of God, is it not? I know there is much tradition within the Roman church, but that is not the same as being divinely inspired. God alone is the ONE preserved without error. We mortals are prone to error and misunderstanding. I believe there are good things we can learn through the lives of the faithful, including Mary, but further than this… I am hesitant to go. Peace in Christ.
“keys of the kingdom”: klei:daV th:V BasileivaV. Peter, through the bestowal of the keys from Jesus, obtains primacy over the church. The precedent for this transfer of power stems from the account in Isaiah 22:22 in which Eliakim receives the key of the house of David from king Hezekiah. In Is 36:3 Eliakim is designated tybh-le (al habayith), which literally means “over the house.” The “house” refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king’s palace. In other words, Eliakim was next to Hezekiah in power regarding personnel and events within the domain of the palace. He was the master of the palace. His position is similar to the chief of staff of the White House, or the prime minister or vice-regents of various foreign countries. Eliakim’s position as tybh-le (al habayith) is mentioned five other times in the OT (e.g., 2Kg 18:18,37; 19:2; Is 36:22;
37:2), and thus it was a very prominent post. The origin of the office is indicated in Is 22:22’s phrase “house of David.” The office of “master of the house” administrator began in the reign of David and was continued throughout Israel’s history. The first evidence of the office is noted in 1Kg 4:6 under king Solomon, the king immediately following David. In this instance, Ahishar is given the same title as Eliakim, namely, tybh-le (al habayith) of Solomon. Other instances include 1Kg 16:9 in which Arza is “over the house” of King Elah, or in 1Kg 18:3 in which Obadiah is “over the house” of King Ahab. In 2Kg 10:5 mention is made of an unnamed individual under King Joram, son of Ahab. A final instance occurs in 2Kg 15:5 as Jotham, the king’s son, is designated as both “over the house” and as having “judged the people of the land.” In this instance we see the extension of authority associated with the position of palace administrator.
With each succession of reign among the kings, there would be a succession of the office of al habayith. The relationship between the master of the palace and the king he served parallels the relationship between Peter and his successors with Christ. Christ, the eternal king of the Church, possesses a succession of men who are “masters of the church,” ruling within it on behalf of the king. Moreover, as the OT masters were given the keys to lock or unlock the doors for anyone who wished to see the king, so Peter and his successors who reign over the church are given the keys to “bind” or “loose” those seeking access to Christ the King. Coinciding with the historical precedent from the OT, the Greek grammar of Mt 16:18-19 confirms Peter is singled out from the other eleven apostles for the role of “master of the house,” and hence, he is given the primacy over them. The word “you” in the clauses: “And I will give to you the keys (dwvsw soi; ta;V klei:V), and whatever you shall bind (o} eja;n dhvsh/V)...and whatever you shall loose” (o} eja;n luvsh/V) is a Greek singular, which can only refer to one person, namely, Peter. This means Peter is given the ultimate authority of binding and loosing due to Jesus giving singular control of the keys to him (Mt 18:18).
The singling out of Peter is an extension of the initial conversation between Jesus and Peter that began in Mt 16:13-17. Peter is singled out from the other apostles because the Father in heaven “revealed” (ajpekavluyevn) to him Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus thus recognizes the Father’s intervention into the life of Peter and concludes he is the man God has chosen to lead the church, resulting in giving the keys to him alone. Hence the primacy is given to Peter based on his faith, but a faith that comes supernaturally from a revelation given to him by the Father. Although all the apostles had a measure of faith, none but Peter participated in such direct intervention from God regarding Jesus’ identity and mission. Two key elements exist in Mt 16:19 which show the extent of Peter’s power to bind and loose. The first is the reciprocity between heaven and earth in determining the force and veracity of Peter’s decisions. The future perfect tense of both e[stai dedemevnon (“shall having been bound”) and e[stai lelumevnon (“shall having been loosed”) shows heaven is issuing a binding or loosing along with Peter’s binding or loosing. The Greek passive voice of the verbs shows heaven is receiving the binding or loosing from earth. As heaven reciprocates, it confirms Peter’s action. Since heaven, which according to Mt 16:17 is occupied by the Father, cannot confirm falsehoods (cf. Ti 1:2; Hb 6:18), then it cannot confirm any decision from Peter which is false. Moreover since Jesus commits heaven to binding or loosing Peter’s decisions, then heaven must provide the mechanism by which Peter’s decisions are without falsehood. The origin and nature of the mechanism was established in the context, that is, the Father provided Peter with “revelation” (Mt 16:17). As that divine “revealing” was imperceptible yet effectual, so would the process by which Peter is protected from error in his bindings or loosings (cf. Jn 14:16; 16:13; Ac 1:20-21; 5:3-5; 15:7-12). NB:
This is not to say Peter’s protection from error comes by the process of inspired revelation, but only that through the Father’s mysterious working Peter will be protected from error. The second key element is the word “whatever” (o} eja;n) in the phrases “whatever you bind...whatever you loose.” “Whatever” indicates Jesus gives Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. Guided by the Father as he was in Mt 19:13, Peter will also determine precisely what decisions fit the criteria of “whatever.” The church has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loo
this rock”: ejpi; tauvth/ th:/ petra/, in which Jesus is declaring Peter is the rock and the human foundation, backed by heaven, upon which the church will rest. Opponents argue PevtroV (petros) is a Greek masculine noun and pevtra (petra) is a Greek feminine noun, thus, since Greek requires words to match in gender when identified with one another, then Peter cannot be the rock. Although it is true Greek requires words to match in gender this rule does not apply to proper nouns, and PevtroV is a proper noun. It only applies to nouns, pronouns, articles, and adjectives. Evidence for this in the NT is quite clear. For example, in 1Co 10:4 Paul identifies the masculine proper noun cristovV (“Christ”) with the feminine noun pevtra (“rock”), which followed the Israelites in the desert. Such mixing of genders is common with Greek proper nouns. Another example occurs in Mk 3:17 in which Jesus identifies Iavkwbon (“James”) and Iwavnnhn (“John”), both Greek masculine proper nouns, as uiJoiv Bronth:V (“Sons of Thunder”), yet “thunder” is a Greek feminine noun. In this case, even the masculine noun uijoiv (“sons”) is associated with the feminine “thunder.” Obviously, then, designating Peter as the rock of Mt 16:18 does not do any violation to Greek grammar rules. A second argument advanced to deny Peter is the rock of Mt 16:18 concerns the meanings of PevtroV and pevtra, respectively. It is claimed PevtroV (“Peter”) refers to a small stone or pebble, while pevtra (“rock”) refers to a huge immovable rock, or rocky cliff. Because of the disparity in size, it is concluded Peter cannot be identified with the rock of Mt 16:18. This can be answered in two ways. First, meanings assigned to proper names are incidental. Proper names, in reality, do not have meaning.
If there is any meaning or content assigned to a proper name it is only by way of custom. Second, pevtra (“rock”) does not refer either exclusively or preponderantly to an immovable rock or rocky cliff. This can be proven by the NT usage of the word. For example, in Rm 9:33 and 1Pt 2:8 the Greek word livqoV (“stone”) is coupled with the Greek word pevtra (“rock”). Both passages are quoting Is 8:13-15, concerning the “stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel…And very many of them shall stumble and fall, and shall be broken in pieces, and shall be snared, and taken.” Obviously, the imagery portrayed here is not one of a huge boulder appearing in front of a man who is walking, or of a boulder coming down from the sky and crushing him with its weight. Rather, the imagery is of a man walking and eventually stumbling over a stone or small rock which, because he loses his balance, makes him fall to the ground. Since in all the above passages only the man’s “stumbling” is understood, then viewing the pevtra (petra) as a huge boulder is eliminated, since one cannot stumble over such an enormous structure. Consequently, pevtra cannot be distinguished from PevtroV, even if a meaning were granted to Peter’s name. In light of the above argument, it is also significant Jesus addresses Peter with the specific statement, “upon this rock” (ejpi; tauvth/ th:/ pevtra/). If Jesus had used more ambiguous phrasing, such as “upon the rock” (ejpi; th:/ pevtra/) or “upon a rock” (ejpi; pevtra) the wording could very well refer to someone other than Peter. As it stands, the demonstrative adjective “this” (tauvth/) needs a referent in the text to complete the connection engendered by use of a demonstrative part of speech. The demonstrative force is readily apparent when “this” is used without an accompanying noun. For example, if the passage read: “you are Peter and upon this I will build my church,” the demonstrative pronoun “this” would naturally refer back to the nearest referent, that is, Peter. Hence, the addition of “rock” to create the phrase “this rock” serves to reinforce that “this,” performing now as a demonstrative adjective, is denoting the connection between “Peter” and “rock.” In fact, in some bible versions, the Greek dative phrase tauvth/ th:/ is understood as being so emphatic in its demonstrative aspect it is translated as “this same” or “this very” (cf. KJV in 1Co 7:20; 2Co 8:6; 9:4,5; Ac 13:33;
NAS, NIV, NEB in Mt 26:34; Lk 12:20; Ac 27:23). This means tauvth/ is translated as “this” and th:/, since it is an emphatic Greek article, is translated as “the very,” giving us, “You are Peter and upon this the very rock I will build my church.” Another argument brought forth by opponents is that since Peter is addressed in the second person but rock is referred to in the third person, then the two cannot be connected. But this is based on a misconception that nouns (such as “rock”) are distinguished by the grammatical part of speech known as person. Nouns have number and gender, but not person. Only pronouns have person (e.g., “I,” “you,” “he, she, it” are first, second and third person, respectively). Although one may argue that nouns possess an inherent third person, still, this would not prohibit the association of “Peter” with “rock,” since in Mt 16:18 such reasoning would also prohibit Jesus (“I” = first person) from being the builder of his “church” which is in the “inherent” third person.
“keys of the kingdom”: klei:daV th:V BasileivaV. Peter, through the bestowal of the keys from Jesus, obtains primacy over the church. The precedent for this transfer of power stems from the account in Isaiah 22:22 in which Eliakim receives the key of the house of David from king Hezekiah. In Is 36:3 Eliakim is designated tybh-le (al habayith), which literally means “over the house.” The “house” refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king’s palace. In other words, Eliakim was next to Hezekiah in power regarding personnel and events within the domain of the palace. He was the master of the palace. His position is similar to the chief of staff of the White House, or the prime minister or vice-regents of various foreign countries. Eliakim’s position as tybh-le (al habayith) is mentioned five other times in the OT (e.g., 2Kg 18:18,37; 19:2; Is 36:22;
37:2), and thus it was a very prominent post. The origin of the office is indicated in Is 22:22’s phrase “house of David.” The office of “master of the house” administrator began in the reign of David and was continued throughout Israel’s history. The first evidence of the office is noted in 1Kg 4:6 under king Solomon, the king immediately following David. In this instance, Ahishar is given the same title as Eliakim, namely, tybh-le (al habayith) of Solomon. Other instances include 1Kg 16:9 in which Arza is “over the house” of King Elah, or in 1Kg 18:3 in which Obadiah is “over the house” of King Ahab. In 2Kg 10:5 mention is made of an unnamed individual under King Joram, son of Ahab. A final instance occurs in 2Kg 15:5 as Jotham, the king’s son, is designated as both “over the house” and as having “judged the people of the land.” In this instance we see the extension of authority associated with the position of palace administrator.
With each succession of reign among the kings, there would be a succession of the office of al habayith. The relationship between the master of the palace and the king he served parallels the relationship between Peter and his successors with Christ. Christ, the eternal king of the Church, possesses a succession of men who are “masters of the church,” ruling within it on behalf of the king. Moreover, as the OT masters were given the keys to lock or unlock the doors for anyone who wished to see the king, so Peter and his successors who reign over the church are given the keys to “bind” or “loose” those seeking access to Christ the King. Coinciding with the historical precedent from the OT, the Greek grammar of Mt 16:18-19 confirms Peter is singled out from the other eleven apostles for the role of “master of the house,” and hence, he is given the primacy over them. The word “you” in the clauses: “And I will give to you the keys (dwvsw soi; ta;V klei:V), and whatever you shall bind (o} eja;n dhvsh/V)...and whatever you shall loose” (o} eja;n luvsh/V) is a Greek singular, which can only refer to one person, namely, Peter. This means Peter is given the ultimate authority of binding and loosing due to Jesus giving singular control of the keys to him (Mt 18:18).
The singling out of Peter is an extension of the initial conversation between Jesus and Peter that began in Mt 16:13-17. Peter is singled out from the other apostles because the Father in heaven “revealed” (ajpekavluyevn) to him Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus thus recognizes the Father’s intervention into the life of Peter and concludes he is the man God has chosen to lead the church, resulting in giving the keys to him alone. Hence the primacy is given to Peter based on his faith, but a faith that comes supernaturally from a revelation given to him by the Father. Although all the apostles had a measure of faith, none but Peter participated in such direct intervention from God regarding Jesus’ identity and mission. Two key elements exist in Mt 16:19 which show the extent of Peter’s power to bind and loose. The first is the reciprocity between heaven and earth in determining the force and veracity of Peter’s decisions. The future perfect tense of both e[stai dedemevnon (“shall having been bound”) and e[stai lelumevnon (“shall having been loosed”) shows heaven is issuing a binding or loosing along with Peter’s binding or loosing. The Greek passive voice of the verbs shows heaven is receiving the binding or loosing from earth. As heaven reciprocates, it confirms Peter’s action. Since heaven, which according to Mt 16:17 is occupied by the Father, cannot confirm falsehoods (cf. Ti 1:2; Hb 6:18), then it cannot confirm any decision from Peter which is false. Moreover since Jesus commits heaven to binding or loosing Peter’s decisions, then heaven must provide the mechanism by which Peter’s decisions are without falsehood. The origin and nature of the mechanism was established in the context, that is, the Father provided Peter with “revelation” (Mt 16:17). As that divine “revealing” was imperceptible yet effectual, so would the process by which Peter is protected from error in his bindings or loosings (cf. Jn 14:16; 16:13; Ac 1:20-21; 5:3-5; 15:7-12). NB:
This is not to say Peter’s protection from error comes by the process of inspired revelation, but only that through the Father’s mysterious working Peter will be protected from error. The second key element is the word “whatever” (o} eja;n) in the phrases “whatever you bind...whatever you loose.” “Whatever” indicates Jesus gives Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. Guided by the Father as he was in Mt 19:13, Peter will also determine precisely what decisions fit the criteria of “whatever.” The church has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loosing to be in matters of Faith and Morals.
So many in this thread are either walking in utter ignorance concerning the sate of pergation, or they are typically picking fly poop out of the pepper. It is very difficult to read so many of the comments without cringing.
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord! We become "born again" here now on earth (John 3:3,7 (the words of Jesus, God himself in the flesh) and 1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God). Now, right now, we have the resurrected Lord living in these bodily temples, see Galatians 2:20. And when we pass on, we are immediately with the Lord Jesus in heaven. Where is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? The question is - are your Catholic friends "born again"? Do Catholics have a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ which saves them now? I could go on and on. And remember what Mary the mother of Jesus said in John 2:5 - "His mother said unto the servants, whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." Mary is simply the mother of Jesus - she is not God and she points to Him to obey. What Bible are the Catholics reading from to get their theology?
It is so cringe-y to hear some Protestants belittle Mary: "Mary is simply the mother of Jesus". You might as well say "Jesus is simply God Incarnate, it's not like that's something that might make you pause and think or anything." 😂. And I recently saw a comment that said Catholics shouldn't "try to make her [Mary] into some kind of saint". Imo that commenter might as well have been saying that the Incarnation wasn't some kind of big deal. The Incarnation _was_ a big deal -- arguably the biggest deal ever -- and that makes Mary a big deal. Whether you like it or not. Sorry not sorry 😊.
Love the Father Son Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary taught that prayer for the living and dead beautiful thing to do on behalf of the souls to get home/heaven. Look at nature for it also teaches love of the animals trees birds fungi flowers to fresh water to salt water can bring us knowledge even for praying for the living and even decaying materials the cycle of life heaven on earth. There are some people whom love money over a living human life or those negative energy we may pray for them leave them in Father hands for we cannot do any more for them.
Dear Fr Calvin, Thank you for providing a safe place to discuss these doctrines on line. Most clergy would not tolerate it. I surmise that none of our minds nor spirits will be changed but I for one very much appreciate you allowing us to state our beliefs. John 17: 21-23 Jesus desires that we all be one; I do hope and pray that some day this will be true. Thank You Fr Calvin for your care and love for all people. You have a lot of patience.
Yes - Brother Calvin is a great man of God who we greatly respect and admire. He is directed by The Holy Spirit and God Almighty will redirect his theology. May the Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless and keep him in His love. Stanton R. Herpick
I enjoy you and your work online, but in reference to purgatory, there's no biblical doctrine that supports it. Christ's death and resurrection were/are a done deal. His work on the Cross was 💯 sufficient to, not only cover, but eliminate our sin. If we say the Cross+ anything else then we are denying His complete and eternal work. He is God and there's nothing we can add or negate from His plan, prophetic Word, and fulfillment of redemption. When we pass, Scripture is clear that,
"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," 2 Corinthians 5:8.
And, to the criminal on the cross, "Jesus answered him, “'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise,'" Luke 23:43. There was no in-between for him or for us. When we pass, we are immediately in God's Presence.
The real debate is not about purgatory, but whether X years of church teaching can IN PRINCIPLE be wrong about anything. If you say it cannot, then that settles it -- but you then have to define which church, and how large X must be. And pinning that down necessarily excludes large bodies of professing Christians from the body of Christ. If you say it can be wrong, then the scriptures are the only remaining court of appeal, and you become a Protestant.
Now the premise of infallible church teaching certainly cannot be derived from the scriptures without taking gigantic interpretive leaps. All the Catholic arguments for it that I hear boil down to this: "The infallibility premise is necessary for our theological system to hold. Therefore the premise is true. Therefore our theological system holds." Calvin, if you can offer a better defence than this, I'd love to read it.
Why would we bother asking a courtier for help when we have direct access to the King? Calvin, it's a worry that you refer to St Anthony as Him (uppercase H) and to the Lord as "the big guy".
Praying for the dead is part of the Communion of the Saints that is spoken of in the Apostles Creed. It is a rather wonderful aspect of our faith that we continue to be in communion with those who are now with Jesus and can thus pray for us but also those who are spending a period of time being prepared to enter his presence, a sort of spiritual retreat in a way, where we encourage their advancement. It may not be so much they are prohibited from doing so as they feel unworthy and knowing that they are still loved by those they left behind on earth must be a comfort and reassurance. It is just another of the many ways that Jesus has provided in which we can show mutual love for one another. I hope that makes sense.
I so very much enjoyed reading this, and it feels exactly right; we are all one, and it is lovely to get to know a little about the Saints. It seems to me that it is as in this life - some people are sociable and chatty, others are more intense and singleminded.
I hope you will expand at other times on the Saints 💖
Praying for the dead is a Spiritual Work of Mercy. The souls in Purgatory have a great need of our prayers. Once they are purified and behold the Beatific Vision, I’m sure they won’t forget their prayerful benefactors who remembered their soul when no one else would and truly pray for us in earnest as well in gratitude.
I’m fond of this Fulton Sheen quote: “As we enter heaven, we will see them, so many of them coming towards us and thanking us. We will ask who they are, and they will say—‘A poor soul you prayed for in purgatory.’”
Words of wisdom. 🙌
OK...I'll bite and I mean no disrespect because I believe you to be an honest broker and quite frankly of what I have seen of you, I admire....what is preventing you from converting? I am friendly with a Catholic priest who started off as a Lutheran...who became an Anglican ...only to wind up a Catholic. And this guy has the most wattage that I know. Just curious as I see you as a similar individual. Pax
Read the story of the 'Thief on the Cross' and ask yourself how he was saved. The thief was obviously a convicted criminal yet Jesus told him "TODAY you will be with me in paradise". Surely a convicted criminal would have to spend weeks, months or even years in purgatory! But that's not what the Bibles says. Also Jesus' death and resurrection pays 100% for your salvation. Your works, baptism, mass, church membership, purgatory etc etc it is as "filthy rags". It is ZERO%. Only Jesus' sacrifice can make a full and complete payment for your soul. Nothing else will do.
If the dead in Christ who are to be raised at Jesus' 2nd coming can hear our prayers then they can hear millions of people, praying in different languages, from different time zones all around the planet, they can understand these millions of prayers and they know how to respond, then they are gods!!! They are all-hearing, all-knowing, all-powerful and all-present. By your argument you're treating them as gods. God cannot be bribed because someone 'important' puts in an extra special word for us. Thee Creator God of the universe does not need 'help'. Treating God as if He needs intermediaries is blasphemous and a mockery of His Word.
I'm not saying these things without love. These issues are massively important. For the sake of your soul don't get this wrong just because you feel a particular religion is more comfortable or a better fit for your identity. Pray directly to Jesus and ask Him to show you the way. Relying on Jesus 100% is the only way to live and the only way to die. God Bless.
Dear Al, you said it best, The "Thief on the Cross" is the most perfect example of salvation. If we or anybody else has to "do" something , those are works and we are saved by grace and not by works and that means Jesus did not suffer enough or do enough for our sins to be forgiven. The epistles of Paul: Romans thru Philemon need to be read and studied more. Amen
I'm with you 100% until the last paragraph. I cannot believe that one would be denied entry to Heaven for honest belief if that belief is centred on Love. I don't mean this to sound hippyish. That's not where I'm going with this. Not an Operah Winfrey style "you get to go to Heaven, and you! And you...!". I mean in a genuine worship of The Lord with a pure heart kind of way.
The road to Hell is lined with good intentions. It's a cliché but true. I do not believe though, that the road to Hell is lined with good hearts. God can read us like a book. He knows. He decides. Not Church. Not Pope. Not Catholic. Not Protestant. Not 43 year old Anglican currently masquerading as Lutheran because he's posted to Germany.
As an Anglo-Catholic, I find the defense of Purgatory puzzling, as it stands contrary to both Scripture and the witness of the early Church. The 39 Articles explicitly reject the doctrine, rightly stating that it is "vainly invented" and "repugnant to the Word of God." This aligns with the broader Catholic faith, which does not affirm Purgatory as the Roman Church does. The Orthodox, the Coptics, the Ethiopians, and other ancient branches of the Church all reject it, and it is notably absent from the writings of Clement, Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, and even Augustine.
While I understand the Roman Catholic perspective of Purgatory as a penitential process of purification, it cannot be considered a truly universal doctrine of the Church when it lacks firm scriptural and patristic foundation and is held solely within the Roman tradition. However, I fully affirm the practice of praying for the dead and to the saints. God, who is not bound by time or the constraints of creation, hears our prayers as part of His eternal nature. These prayers are an expression of love, and God’s response to them transcends our temporal understanding.
It is our rejection of such "Romish" doctrines, including Purgatory as it is defined, that affirms our place as members of the broader Catholic Church in the Anglican tradition. We uphold the faith of the undivided Church, grounded in Scripture and the Creeds, without the later innovations of the Latin West.
I worry that embracing Purgatory signals a drift toward Rome, rather than remaining steadfast in the Anglo-Catholic understanding of the Church as part of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic faith. As a High Churchman, I see great beauty in our Anglican identity, holding to the ancient traditions while rejecting what is unsupported by the earliest witness of the Church. This balance allows us to remain truly Catholic, without being Roman.
Hebrews 7:27 He sacrificed for their sins ONCE for all when He offered himself: which means Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient to atone for the sins of the world. How that must hurt the Lord to know that His children don't believe that "IT IS FINISHED" which He said on the cross. Amen
Mary lou, where, if anywhere, does repentance for sin fit into the picture for you? A Protestant friend of mine assumes that all Christians enter heaven upon death, regardless of the sins they have committed and without need for repentance, because of Jesus's sacrifice on the cross.
Christine. My ten cents worth, if you're interested. I think scripture has a lot of work to do. It has to speak to people of the future and all the way back to the Bronze Age. God is outside of time. He has experienced time through his Son. He understands our human frailties. He had to suffer as we suffer, or there could be no empathy. How can a God empathise with man? And how can one forgive without empathy?
When we die, we are our no longer "in time". We are no longer subject to the earthly laws of entropy. I don't believe a soul will be damned if the person had lived the best life but had just sinned before dying. As I said in a comment above. The road to Hell may be lined with good intentions. But I do not believe it is lined with good hearts.
I honestly believe grace leads to works and deeds. If you truly love Jesus, you will do the work. If you don't do the work, you are not really for Jesus. It's one of those brilliant contradictions in the Bible that aren't really contradictions at all but two opposing things that unite to make a perfect whole. Grace alone will save you, but grace without works is not really grace. Scripture never stops giving. I truly love these discussions.
Dave, thank you for your "ten cents worth", which is beautifully expressed and resonates with many of my own thoughts. Since it is by God's grace that I even have existence, how can it be other than my soul's very oxygen? -- my beginning, my end, and my in-between, whatever heights I may climb or mis-steps I may make along the way. I love these discussions too, but after engaging in them many times over the years, I find it best to take them in small doses. After encountering the cacophony of clashing opinions and perspectives that invariably result from such invitations as Father Robinson issued, lol, a non-Christian might well recoil from the prospect of looking further. It seems to me that it is in quietude that we come to our Savior, however noisy our environment may be. What a wonderful thing that is.
I too can only take small doses of such talk so all I will say is thank you and God bless you.
Hi Christine, I was raised Catholic, 25 years ago, opened the Bible and with non Catholic great Bible teachers learned that Eph 2:6 and 9 and all of Paul's Epistles starting from Romans thru Philemon that I learned it is "By grace we are saved, through faith, and once we truly truly believe what a gift God has given us and it is nothing that we could ever ever do, trust me we will repent, oh yes repentance has a lot to do with it, but it's only after we understand and believe what Jesus has done. I know this will sound corny to the Catholics, but you can't believe all of scripture and all of the Pope's rules and regulations at the same time, they are incongruent . Sorry, I don't want to go on and on. And yes, unlike the Catholics who never really know if they are going to make it or not to heaven, We are assured of eternal life. God Bless You my Sister in Christ
Thank you, Mary lou; it is lovely to be treated like a sister and friend. God bless you too.
This is so good again so uplifting and wonderful your sermon and explaining everything so well I’ve often tried to explain to Christians that we ask each other on earth to pray 🙏 for someone suffering etc and how much more so those in heaven But they didn’t understand So I’m going to print this out and give it to them to read as you have written it so clearly I really hope and pray 🙏 they will understand and quoting the old and New Testament which I’m not good at and have a poor memory now so remember the message of what Jesus says and the basics of the gospels and Saint Paul and saint Peter epistle not word for word completely So thank you 🙏 very very much Also as a practicing tradional Catholic I accept praying 🙏 for the holy souls in purgatory and it’s also as a human being when one loses a dear member of the family or friend to be able to pray 🙏 for them as one did on earth when they were alive Jesus is so consoling in every way for us following Him as God our Creator and our final end as in every step of our lives He guides us teaching through both the old and New Testament and with you father Calvin Robinson hope for each other on earth and also for those who have recently passed into the next life so As you said We are still connected through Jesus and His Mother Mary and the Saints in heaven and those penitent on their way to heaven while we still struggle hopefully 🙏 happily on earth A big Christian family of God Thank you 🙏 very very much for your wonderful email sermon
God bless you, Celia. 🙏
This perfectly explains the Catholic idea of prayer. Though it suggests that Purgatory may be longer for those poor souls who have nobody to pray for them (whether they were leading a hermetic life, deeply unpopular or forgotten by family and friends). We should all pray for these people.
Good point. We should always try to pray for those who have no one praying for them. 🙏
It does no good to pray for dead , unfortunately . The Catholic church established that doctrine on 593 by Pope Gregory. Rome collects millions of dollars each year from grieving individuals who willingly pay to alleviate the agonies of those in purgatory. This concept of purgatorial sufferings after death challenges the very work of Christ on our behalf.
Hi Calvin, I appreciate you providing a space for thoughtful and honest dialogue. The life of a Christian is one of joy, but also repentance. The Good News, so to speak, was that Christ offered Himself, ONCE for all, as the perfect Paschal Lamb. He lived the life of a perfect Jew under the Law. He died as the only perfect sacrifice for our sin debt, that we were unable to pay. Hades could not hold Him, because He was without sin. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Jesus appears with Elijah and Moses… who represent the Law and the Prophets… the disciples are told to listen the HIM, because He is the fulfillment of both. Yes, He is the God of the living. Jesus is described as our Great High Priest having made intercession for us…and continues to do so. If He is sufficient, and we pray in sincere repentance when we have transgressed even after we have been saved, would His 'cleansing us from all unrighteousness’ not therefore be sufficient? What further price do we need to pay, if He has made us clean? The testing of our works seem to be what remains, and this appears to be about our rewards in Heaven. "Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.” -John 6:28-29 A life in Christ is a changed life, one that seeks to please Him. We are not saved by our works, but saved to do good works. It is the natural outflowing of the Christian life.
It is my understanding that the bowl of incense with the prayers of the people, were about those who had been martyred for their faith… “How long oh, LORD?”, the first instance of this answer appears to have been the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Is it cyclical, perhaps? Maybe. Jesus tells us to pray to our Father in Heaven, in His name. He did not say ‘Oh, the Saints in Heaven are closer, pray to them'. They may, however, be praying for us… I do not actually know. The ‘age’ referred to seems to point to the ‘Temple Age’ (Old Covenant) and the Age to Come the 'Church Age’ (New Covenant, in His Blood). The Mother of Christ, Mary, 'the Virgin'… spoken of, I believe was ‘special’ (and Protestants make too little of her, on the whole). She was God’s chosen instrument, but I do not believe she was sinless, because we ALL need a Savior, she did as well. "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.” As to her ascension, I cannot say with confidence, and I mean no disrespect in that. Jesus is Redeemer. (Abraham was counted as righteous for believing God, but that did not infer ‘sinless’.) Our Trinitarian understanding is the sufficiency of God, is it not? I know there is much tradition within the Roman church, but that is not the same as being divinely inspired. God alone is the ONE preserved without error. We mortals are prone to error and misunderstanding. I believe there are good things we can learn through the lives of the faithful, including Mary, but further than this… I am hesitant to go. Peace in Christ.
Just come to Rome already ;)
I would not go to Rome because Rome operates from a Hermeneutics of Authority, not the Hermeneutics of Catholicity.
Ok what "denomination" are you pray tell?
“keys of the kingdom”: klei:daV th:V BasileivaV. Peter, through the bestowal of the keys from Jesus, obtains primacy over the church. The precedent for this transfer of power stems from the account in Isaiah 22:22 in which Eliakim receives the key of the house of David from king Hezekiah. In Is 36:3 Eliakim is designated tybh-le (al habayith), which literally means “over the house.” The “house” refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king’s palace. In other words, Eliakim was next to Hezekiah in power regarding personnel and events within the domain of the palace. He was the master of the palace. His position is similar to the chief of staff of the White House, or the prime minister or vice-regents of various foreign countries. Eliakim’s position as tybh-le (al habayith) is mentioned five other times in the OT (e.g., 2Kg 18:18,37; 19:2; Is 36:22;
37:2), and thus it was a very prominent post. The origin of the office is indicated in Is 22:22’s phrase “house of David.” The office of “master of the house” administrator began in the reign of David and was continued throughout Israel’s history. The first evidence of the office is noted in 1Kg 4:6 under king Solomon, the king immediately following David. In this instance, Ahishar is given the same title as Eliakim, namely, tybh-le (al habayith) of Solomon. Other instances include 1Kg 16:9 in which Arza is “over the house” of King Elah, or in 1Kg 18:3 in which Obadiah is “over the house” of King Ahab. In 2Kg 10:5 mention is made of an unnamed individual under King Joram, son of Ahab. A final instance occurs in 2Kg 15:5 as Jotham, the king’s son, is designated as both “over the house” and as having “judged the people of the land.” In this instance we see the extension of authority associated with the position of palace administrator.
With each succession of reign among the kings, there would be a succession of the office of al habayith. The relationship between the master of the palace and the king he served parallels the relationship between Peter and his successors with Christ. Christ, the eternal king of the Church, possesses a succession of men who are “masters of the church,” ruling within it on behalf of the king. Moreover, as the OT masters were given the keys to lock or unlock the doors for anyone who wished to see the king, so Peter and his successors who reign over the church are given the keys to “bind” or “loose” those seeking access to Christ the King. Coinciding with the historical precedent from the OT, the Greek grammar of Mt 16:18-19 confirms Peter is singled out from the other eleven apostles for the role of “master of the house,” and hence, he is given the primacy over them. The word “you” in the clauses: “And I will give to you the keys (dwvsw soi; ta;V klei:V), and whatever you shall bind (o} eja;n dhvsh/V)...and whatever you shall loose” (o} eja;n luvsh/V) is a Greek singular, which can only refer to one person, namely, Peter. This means Peter is given the ultimate authority of binding and loosing due to Jesus giving singular control of the keys to him (Mt 18:18).
The singling out of Peter is an extension of the initial conversation between Jesus and Peter that began in Mt 16:13-17. Peter is singled out from the other apostles because the Father in heaven “revealed” (ajpekavluyevn) to him Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus thus recognizes the Father’s intervention into the life of Peter and concludes he is the man God has chosen to lead the church, resulting in giving the keys to him alone. Hence the primacy is given to Peter based on his faith, but a faith that comes supernaturally from a revelation given to him by the Father. Although all the apostles had a measure of faith, none but Peter participated in such direct intervention from God regarding Jesus’ identity and mission. Two key elements exist in Mt 16:19 which show the extent of Peter’s power to bind and loose. The first is the reciprocity between heaven and earth in determining the force and veracity of Peter’s decisions. The future perfect tense of both e[stai dedemevnon (“shall having been bound”) and e[stai lelumevnon (“shall having been loosed”) shows heaven is issuing a binding or loosing along with Peter’s binding or loosing. The Greek passive voice of the verbs shows heaven is receiving the binding or loosing from earth. As heaven reciprocates, it confirms Peter’s action. Since heaven, which according to Mt 16:17 is occupied by the Father, cannot confirm falsehoods (cf. Ti 1:2; Hb 6:18), then it cannot confirm any decision from Peter which is false. Moreover since Jesus commits heaven to binding or loosing Peter’s decisions, then heaven must provide the mechanism by which Peter’s decisions are without falsehood. The origin and nature of the mechanism was established in the context, that is, the Father provided Peter with “revelation” (Mt 16:17). As that divine “revealing” was imperceptible yet effectual, so would the process by which Peter is protected from error in his bindings or loosings (cf. Jn 14:16; 16:13; Ac 1:20-21; 5:3-5; 15:7-12). NB:
This is not to say Peter’s protection from error comes by the process of inspired revelation, but only that through the Father’s mysterious working Peter will be protected from error. The second key element is the word “whatever” (o} eja;n) in the phrases “whatever you bind...whatever you loose.” “Whatever” indicates Jesus gives Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. Guided by the Father as he was in Mt 19:13, Peter will also determine precisely what decisions fit the criteria of “whatever.” The church has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loo
this rock”: ejpi; tauvth/ th:/ petra/, in which Jesus is declaring Peter is the rock and the human foundation, backed by heaven, upon which the church will rest. Opponents argue PevtroV (petros) is a Greek masculine noun and pevtra (petra) is a Greek feminine noun, thus, since Greek requires words to match in gender when identified with one another, then Peter cannot be the rock. Although it is true Greek requires words to match in gender this rule does not apply to proper nouns, and PevtroV is a proper noun. It only applies to nouns, pronouns, articles, and adjectives. Evidence for this in the NT is quite clear. For example, in 1Co 10:4 Paul identifies the masculine proper noun cristovV (“Christ”) with the feminine noun pevtra (“rock”), which followed the Israelites in the desert. Such mixing of genders is common with Greek proper nouns. Another example occurs in Mk 3:17 in which Jesus identifies Iavkwbon (“James”) and Iwavnnhn (“John”), both Greek masculine proper nouns, as uiJoiv Bronth:V (“Sons of Thunder”), yet “thunder” is a Greek feminine noun. In this case, even the masculine noun uijoiv (“sons”) is associated with the feminine “thunder.” Obviously, then, designating Peter as the rock of Mt 16:18 does not do any violation to Greek grammar rules. A second argument advanced to deny Peter is the rock of Mt 16:18 concerns the meanings of PevtroV and pevtra, respectively. It is claimed PevtroV (“Peter”) refers to a small stone or pebble, while pevtra (“rock”) refers to a huge immovable rock, or rocky cliff. Because of the disparity in size, it is concluded Peter cannot be identified with the rock of Mt 16:18. This can be answered in two ways. First, meanings assigned to proper names are incidental. Proper names, in reality, do not have meaning.
If there is any meaning or content assigned to a proper name it is only by way of custom. Second, pevtra (“rock”) does not refer either exclusively or preponderantly to an immovable rock or rocky cliff. This can be proven by the NT usage of the word. For example, in Rm 9:33 and 1Pt 2:8 the Greek word livqoV (“stone”) is coupled with the Greek word pevtra (“rock”). Both passages are quoting Is 8:13-15, concerning the “stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to the two houses of Israel…And very many of them shall stumble and fall, and shall be broken in pieces, and shall be snared, and taken.” Obviously, the imagery portrayed here is not one of a huge boulder appearing in front of a man who is walking, or of a boulder coming down from the sky and crushing him with its weight. Rather, the imagery is of a man walking and eventually stumbling over a stone or small rock which, because he loses his balance, makes him fall to the ground. Since in all the above passages only the man’s “stumbling” is understood, then viewing the pevtra (petra) as a huge boulder is eliminated, since one cannot stumble over such an enormous structure. Consequently, pevtra cannot be distinguished from PevtroV, even if a meaning were granted to Peter’s name. In light of the above argument, it is also significant Jesus addresses Peter with the specific statement, “upon this rock” (ejpi; tauvth/ th:/ pevtra/). If Jesus had used more ambiguous phrasing, such as “upon the rock” (ejpi; th:/ pevtra/) or “upon a rock” (ejpi; pevtra) the wording could very well refer to someone other than Peter. As it stands, the demonstrative adjective “this” (tauvth/) needs a referent in the text to complete the connection engendered by use of a demonstrative part of speech. The demonstrative force is readily apparent when “this” is used without an accompanying noun. For example, if the passage read: “you are Peter and upon this I will build my church,” the demonstrative pronoun “this” would naturally refer back to the nearest referent, that is, Peter. Hence, the addition of “rock” to create the phrase “this rock” serves to reinforce that “this,” performing now as a demonstrative adjective, is denoting the connection between “Peter” and “rock.” In fact, in some bible versions, the Greek dative phrase tauvth/ th:/ is understood as being so emphatic in its demonstrative aspect it is translated as “this same” or “this very” (cf. KJV in 1Co 7:20; 2Co 8:6; 9:4,5; Ac 13:33;
NAS, NIV, NEB in Mt 26:34; Lk 12:20; Ac 27:23). This means tauvth/ is translated as “this” and th:/, since it is an emphatic Greek article, is translated as “the very,” giving us, “You are Peter and upon this the very rock I will build my church.” Another argument brought forth by opponents is that since Peter is addressed in the second person but rock is referred to in the third person, then the two cannot be connected. But this is based on a misconception that nouns (such as “rock”) are distinguished by the grammatical part of speech known as person. Nouns have number and gender, but not person. Only pronouns have person (e.g., “I,” “you,” “he, she, it” are first, second and third person, respectively). Although one may argue that nouns possess an inherent third person, still, this would not prohibit the association of “Peter” with “rock,” since in Mt 16:18 such reasoning would also prohibit Jesus (“I” = first person) from being the builder of his “church” which is in the “inherent” third person.
I’ll avoid the heresy, thanks.
“keys of the kingdom”: klei:daV th:V BasileivaV. Peter, through the bestowal of the keys from Jesus, obtains primacy over the church. The precedent for this transfer of power stems from the account in Isaiah 22:22 in which Eliakim receives the key of the house of David from king Hezekiah. In Is 36:3 Eliakim is designated tybh-le (al habayith), which literally means “over the house.” The “house” refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king’s palace. In other words, Eliakim was next to Hezekiah in power regarding personnel and events within the domain of the palace. He was the master of the palace. His position is similar to the chief of staff of the White House, or the prime minister or vice-regents of various foreign countries. Eliakim’s position as tybh-le (al habayith) is mentioned five other times in the OT (e.g., 2Kg 18:18,37; 19:2; Is 36:22;
37:2), and thus it was a very prominent post. The origin of the office is indicated in Is 22:22’s phrase “house of David.” The office of “master of the house” administrator began in the reign of David and was continued throughout Israel’s history. The first evidence of the office is noted in 1Kg 4:6 under king Solomon, the king immediately following David. In this instance, Ahishar is given the same title as Eliakim, namely, tybh-le (al habayith) of Solomon. Other instances include 1Kg 16:9 in which Arza is “over the house” of King Elah, or in 1Kg 18:3 in which Obadiah is “over the house” of King Ahab. In 2Kg 10:5 mention is made of an unnamed individual under King Joram, son of Ahab. A final instance occurs in 2Kg 15:5 as Jotham, the king’s son, is designated as both “over the house” and as having “judged the people of the land.” In this instance we see the extension of authority associated with the position of palace administrator.
With each succession of reign among the kings, there would be a succession of the office of al habayith. The relationship between the master of the palace and the king he served parallels the relationship between Peter and his successors with Christ. Christ, the eternal king of the Church, possesses a succession of men who are “masters of the church,” ruling within it on behalf of the king. Moreover, as the OT masters were given the keys to lock or unlock the doors for anyone who wished to see the king, so Peter and his successors who reign over the church are given the keys to “bind” or “loose” those seeking access to Christ the King. Coinciding with the historical precedent from the OT, the Greek grammar of Mt 16:18-19 confirms Peter is singled out from the other eleven apostles for the role of “master of the house,” and hence, he is given the primacy over them. The word “you” in the clauses: “And I will give to you the keys (dwvsw soi; ta;V klei:V), and whatever you shall bind (o} eja;n dhvsh/V)...and whatever you shall loose” (o} eja;n luvsh/V) is a Greek singular, which can only refer to one person, namely, Peter. This means Peter is given the ultimate authority of binding and loosing due to Jesus giving singular control of the keys to him (Mt 18:18).
The singling out of Peter is an extension of the initial conversation between Jesus and Peter that began in Mt 16:13-17. Peter is singled out from the other apostles because the Father in heaven “revealed” (ajpekavluyevn) to him Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. Jesus thus recognizes the Father’s intervention into the life of Peter and concludes he is the man God has chosen to lead the church, resulting in giving the keys to him alone. Hence the primacy is given to Peter based on his faith, but a faith that comes supernaturally from a revelation given to him by the Father. Although all the apostles had a measure of faith, none but Peter participated in such direct intervention from God regarding Jesus’ identity and mission. Two key elements exist in Mt 16:19 which show the extent of Peter’s power to bind and loose. The first is the reciprocity between heaven and earth in determining the force and veracity of Peter’s decisions. The future perfect tense of both e[stai dedemevnon (“shall having been bound”) and e[stai lelumevnon (“shall having been loosed”) shows heaven is issuing a binding or loosing along with Peter’s binding or loosing. The Greek passive voice of the verbs shows heaven is receiving the binding or loosing from earth. As heaven reciprocates, it confirms Peter’s action. Since heaven, which according to Mt 16:17 is occupied by the Father, cannot confirm falsehoods (cf. Ti 1:2; Hb 6:18), then it cannot confirm any decision from Peter which is false. Moreover since Jesus commits heaven to binding or loosing Peter’s decisions, then heaven must provide the mechanism by which Peter’s decisions are without falsehood. The origin and nature of the mechanism was established in the context, that is, the Father provided Peter with “revelation” (Mt 16:17). As that divine “revealing” was imperceptible yet effectual, so would the process by which Peter is protected from error in his bindings or loosings (cf. Jn 14:16; 16:13; Ac 1:20-21; 5:3-5; 15:7-12). NB:
This is not to say Peter’s protection from error comes by the process of inspired revelation, but only that through the Father’s mysterious working Peter will be protected from error. The second key element is the word “whatever” (o} eja;n) in the phrases “whatever you bind...whatever you loose.” “Whatever” indicates Jesus gives Peter the authority to decide the extent and limitations of his role to bind and loose. Guided by the Father as he was in Mt 19:13, Peter will also determine precisely what decisions fit the criteria of “whatever.” The church has traditionally understood the parameters of binding and loosing to be in matters of Faith and Morals.
So many in this thread are either walking in utter ignorance concerning the sate of pergation, or they are typically picking fly poop out of the pepper. It is very difficult to read so many of the comments without cringing.
Love this. Thank God for the Magisterium so we don't go around "picking fly poop out of the pepper" !☺️
To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord! We become "born again" here now on earth (John 3:3,7 (the words of Jesus, God himself in the flesh) and 1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God). Now, right now, we have the resurrected Lord living in these bodily temples, see Galatians 2:20. And when we pass on, we are immediately with the Lord Jesus in heaven. Where is purgatory mentioned in the Bible? The question is - are your Catholic friends "born again"? Do Catholics have a "personal relationship" with Jesus Christ which saves them now? I could go on and on. And remember what Mary the mother of Jesus said in John 2:5 - "His mother said unto the servants, whatsoever he saith unto you, do it." Mary is simply the mother of Jesus - she is not God and she points to Him to obey. What Bible are the Catholics reading from to get their theology?
Stanton R. Herpick - herpickstanton@verizon.net
It is so cringe-y to hear some Protestants belittle Mary: "Mary is simply the mother of Jesus". You might as well say "Jesus is simply God Incarnate, it's not like that's something that might make you pause and think or anything." 😂. And I recently saw a comment that said Catholics shouldn't "try to make her [Mary] into some kind of saint". Imo that commenter might as well have been saying that the Incarnation wasn't some kind of big deal. The Incarnation _was_ a big deal -- arguably the biggest deal ever -- and that makes Mary a big deal. Whether you like it or not. Sorry not sorry 😊.
Love the Father Son Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary taught that prayer for the living and dead beautiful thing to do on behalf of the souls to get home/heaven. Look at nature for it also teaches love of the animals trees birds fungi flowers to fresh water to salt water can bring us knowledge even for praying for the living and even decaying materials the cycle of life heaven on earth. There are some people whom love money over a living human life or those negative energy we may pray for them leave them in Father hands for we cannot do any more for them.
Dear Fr Calvin, Thank you for providing a safe place to discuss these doctrines on line. Most clergy would not tolerate it. I surmise that none of our minds nor spirits will be changed but I for one very much appreciate you allowing us to state our beliefs. John 17: 21-23 Jesus desires that we all be one; I do hope and pray that some day this will be true. Thank You Fr Calvin for your care and love for all people. You have a lot of patience.
God bless you, Mary Lou 🙏
Yes - Brother Calvin is a great man of God who we greatly respect and admire. He is directed by The Holy Spirit and God Almighty will redirect his theology. May the Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless and keep him in His love. Stanton R. Herpick
I enjoy you and your work online, but in reference to purgatory, there's no biblical doctrine that supports it. Christ's death and resurrection were/are a done deal. His work on the Cross was 💯 sufficient to, not only cover, but eliminate our sin. If we say the Cross+ anything else then we are denying His complete and eternal work. He is God and there's nothing we can add or negate from His plan, prophetic Word, and fulfillment of redemption. When we pass, Scripture is clear that,
"To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord," 2 Corinthians 5:8.
And, to the criminal on the cross, "Jesus answered him, “'Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise,'" Luke 23:43. There was no in-between for him or for us. When we pass, we are immediately in God's Presence.
This article may help further.
https://versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/refuting-purgatory
Take care,
Melissa
The real debate is not about purgatory, but whether X years of church teaching can IN PRINCIPLE be wrong about anything. If you say it cannot, then that settles it -- but you then have to define which church, and how large X must be. And pinning that down necessarily excludes large bodies of professing Christians from the body of Christ. If you say it can be wrong, then the scriptures are the only remaining court of appeal, and you become a Protestant.
Now the premise of infallible church teaching certainly cannot be derived from the scriptures without taking gigantic interpretive leaps. All the Catholic arguments for it that I hear boil down to this: "The infallibility premise is necessary for our theological system to hold. Therefore the premise is true. Therefore our theological system holds." Calvin, if you can offer a better defence than this, I'd love to read it.
Why would we bother asking a courtier for help when we have direct access to the King? Calvin, it's a worry that you refer to St Anthony as Him (uppercase H) and to the Lord as "the big guy".
Praying for the dead is part of the Communion of the Saints that is spoken of in the Apostles Creed. It is a rather wonderful aspect of our faith that we continue to be in communion with those who are now with Jesus and can thus pray for us but also those who are spending a period of time being prepared to enter his presence, a sort of spiritual retreat in a way, where we encourage their advancement. It may not be so much they are prohibited from doing so as they feel unworthy and knowing that they are still loved by those they left behind on earth must be a comfort and reassurance. It is just another of the many ways that Jesus has provided in which we can show mutual love for one another. I hope that makes sense.
I so very much enjoyed reading this, and it feels exactly right; we are all one, and it is lovely to get to know a little about the Saints. It seems to me that it is as in this life - some people are sociable and chatty, others are more intense and singleminded.
I hope you will expand at other times on the Saints 💖
🙏🙏