Heaven and Leaven

I watched a video on YouTube this evening in which a Christian refuted a clearly heretical claim that God the Father and God the (female) Holy Spirit spiritually conceived the child Jesus and implanted Him in the womb of Mary.  This claim was supported by a tendentious and completely unorthodox reading of Luke 1:35, wherein the angel Gabriel says to Mary, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God."  The person advancing the unorthodox claim said that this verse speaks of two of the Persons of the Trinity — that "the Holy Spirit" is not "(the power of) the Most High."  Her analysis misses the use of "overshadow", a clear Old Testament reference to the shekinah cloud of glory. (cf. Ex. 40:34ff; Luke 9:34)

However, this Christian apologist, in the beginning of his refutation, quoted Matthew 13:33, the single-verse parable about the Kingdom of Heaven:  "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, till it was all leavened."  His matter-of-fact interpretation of this parable is that the three measures of leaven represent corruptions in doctrine, specifically in the Church's governance, her worship, and the Word of God.  Whence does he derive this interpretation?  Most likely the Scofield Commentary:

That interpretation of the parable of the Leaven (Mt 13:33) which makes (with variation as to details) the leaven to be the Gospel, introduced into the world ("three measures of meal") by the church, and working subtly until the world is converted ("till the whole was leavened") is open to fatal objection:

1. it does violence to the unvarying symbolical meaning of leaven, and especially to the meaning fixed by our Lord Himself. Mt 16:6-12 Mk 8:15 See "Leaven," Gen 19:3. See Scofield Note: "Mt 13:33".
2. The implication of a converted world in this age ("till the whole was leavened"), is explicitly contradicted by our Lord's interpretation of the parables of the Wheat and Tares, and of the Net. Our Lord presents a picture of a partly converted kingdom in an unconverted world; of good fish and bad in the very kingdom-net itself.
3. The method of the extension of the kingdom is given in the first parable. It is by sowing seed, not by mingling leaven. The symbols have, in Scripture, a meaning fixed by inspired usage. Leaven is the principle of corruption working subtly; is invariably used in a bad sense (see "Leaven," See Scofield Note: "Gen 19:3"), and is defined by our Lord as evil doctrine. Mt 16:11,12 Mk 8:15. Meal, on the contrary, was used in one of the sweet-savour offerings Lev 2:1-3. and was food for the priests Lev 6:15-17. A woman, in the bad ethical sense, always symbolizes something out of place, religiously, See Scofield Note: "Zech 5:6". In Thyatira it was a woman teaching (cf). Rev 2:20 17:1-6. Interpreting the parable by these familiar symbols, it constitutes a warning that the true doctrine, given for nourishment of the children of the kingdom Mt 4:4 1Tim 4:6 1Pet 2:2 would be mingled with corrupt and corrupting false doctrine, and that officially, by the apostate church itself 1Tim 4:1-3 2Tim 2:17,18 4:3,4 2Pet 2:1-3.

Leaven

1. Leaven, as a symbolic or typical substance, is always mentioned in the O.T. in an evil sense Gen 19:3, See Scofield Note: "Gen 19:3".
2. The use of the word in the N.T. explains its symbolic meaning. It is "malice and wickedness," as contrasted with "sincerity and truth" 1Cor 5:6-8, it is evil doctrine Mt 16:12 in its three-fold form of Pharisasism, Sadduceeism, Herodianism Mt 16:6 Mk 8:15. The leaven of the Pharisees was externalism in religion. Mt 23:14,16,23-28, of the Sadducees, scepticism as to the supernatural and as to the Scriptures Mt 22:23,29, of the Herodians, worldliness--a Herod party amongst the Jews Mt 22:16-21 Mk 3:6.
3. The use of the word in Mat 13.33 is congruous with its universal meaning.

Compare that with all the other (Protestant) commentaries found at bible.cc on Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:21.

I would point out, first, that leaven is not excluded universally from sacrifices in the Old Testament, as the apologist would have you believe:

• With the sacrifice of his peace offerings for thanksgiving he shall bring his offering with cakes of leavened bread. (Lev. 7:13)
• You shall bring from your dwellings two loaves of bread to be waved, made of two tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour, they shall be baked with leaven, as first fruits to the LORD. (Lev. 23:17)
• "Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened, and proclaim freewill offerings, publish them; for so you love to do, O people of Israel!" says the Lord GOD. (Amos 4:5)

In the New Testament, leaven is used almost exclusively in a negative sense, except for Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:21.  At least, that's why I'm intent on showing by means of Church Father commentaries.  I should begin by quoting the modern Catechism, paragraph 2660:

Prayer in the events of each day and each moment is one of the secrets of the kingdom revealed to "little children," to the servants of Christ, to the poor of the Beatitudes. It is right and good to pray so that the coming of the kingdom of justice and peace may influence the march of history, but it is just as important to bring the help of prayer into humble, everyday situations; all forms of prayer can be the leaven to which the Lord compares the kingdom. (cf. Lk. 13:20-21)

And now for the Church Fathers (and their contemporaries):

• When in other things examples or illustrations are used, the resemblance cannot hold in every particular, but only in some one point for which the illustration is employed. For instance, When it is said in the Gospel, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman hid in three measures of meal,” are we to imagine that the kingdom of heaven is in all respects like leaven, so that like leaven it is palpable and perishable so as to become sour and unfit for use? Obviously the illustration was employed simply for this object—to shew how, through the preaching of God’s word which seems so small a thing, men’s minds could be imbued with the leaven of faith. (Rufinus)
• And again the Gospel says that the Saviour spake to the apostles the word in a mystery. For prophecy says of Him: “He will open His mouth in parables, and will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”  And now, by the parable of the leaven, the Lord shows concealment; for He says, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”  For the tripartite soul [thus the "three measures"] is saved by obedience, through the spiritual power hidden in it by faith... (Clement of Alexandria)
• This, says he, is the kingdom of heaven that reposes within us as a treasure, as leaven hid in the three measures of meal. (Hippolytus)
• Therefore He brought forward the similitude of this herb, which has a very strong resemblance to the subject in hand; “Which indeed is the least,” He saith, “of all seeds, but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof.”  Thus He meant to set forth the most decisive sign of its greatness. “Even so then shall it be with respect to the gospel too,” saith He. Yea, for His disciples were weakest of all, and least of all; but nevertheless, because of the great power that was in them, It hath been unfolded in every part of the world.  After this He adds the leaven to this similitude, saying,“The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, until the whole was leavened.”  For as this converts the large quantity of meal into its own quality, even so shall ye convert the whole world. (Chrysostom)
• The conditions of the nascent church required this to be so that the grain of mustard seed might grow up little by little into a tree, and that the leaven of the gospel might gradually raise more and more the whole lump of the church. (Jerome)
• For on this account, as I have before said, God has suffered men to be with one another, and especially the wicked with the good, in order that they may bring them over to their own virtue. Hear at least what Christ saith to his disciples, “The Kingdom of heaven is like unto a woman who took leaven and hid it in three measures of meal.”  So that the righteous have the power of leaven, in order that they may transfer the wicked to their own manner of conduct. But the righteous are few, for the leaven is small. But the smallness in no way injures the lump, but that little quantity converts the whole of the meal to itself by means of the power inherent in it. (Chrysostom)
• For that one ought not to be useful to himself alone, but also to many others, Christ declared plainly, when He called us salt, and leaven, and light:  for these things are useful and profitable to others. ... And this is the reason why He called you leaven: for leaven also does not leaven itself, but, little though it is, it affects the whole lump however big it may be. So also do ye: although ye are few in number, yet be ye many and powerful in faith, and in zeal towards God. As then the leaven is not weak on account of its littleness, but prevails owing to its inherent heat, and the force of its natural quality, so ye also will be able to bring back a far larger number than yourselves, if you will, to the same degree of zeal as your own. (Chrysostom)
• But as there are many ways in which things show a likeness to each other, we are not to suppose there is any rule that what a thing signifies by similitude in one place it is to be taken to signify in all other places.  For our Lord used leaven both in a bad sense, as when He said, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees,” and in a good sense, as when He said, “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.” (Augustine)
• “The three measures of meal” of which the Lord spake, is the human race. Recollect the deluge; three only remained, from whom the rest were to be re-peopled. Noe had three sons, by them was repaired the human race. That holy “woman who hid the leaven,” is Wisdom. Lo, the whole world crieth out in the Church of God, “I know that the Lord is great.” (Augustine)
• Hence the Lord says, “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.”  What is this woman, but the flesh of the Lord? What is the leaven, but the gospel? (Augustine)

Finally, let me appeal to the words of our Savior Himself:  "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven..." (Matt. 13:33)  "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God?  It is like leaven..." (Luke 13:21)  Jesus did not say that the Kingdom of God is like bread in which leaven has been hid, but like leaven which is hidden in bread.

P.S. The apologist makes use of the "law of first mention" in assigning a negative (even evil) value to leaven.  The first use of the word "leaven(ed)" (as opposed to "unleaven(ed)") is Exodus 12:15, which states:  "Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread; on the first day you shall put away leaven out of your houses, for if any one eats what is leavened, from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel."

Now, it certainly is negative that one who eats leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread will be cut off from Israel, but let us consider the reason for this prohibition.  This is the feast of the Passover, when they are to flee Israel in haste:  "In this manner you shall eat it: your loins girded, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste." (Ex. 12:11)  The Israelites would not have the time to wait for the leaven to work in the dough!  Outside of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, it is permissible (and even normal) to eat leavened bread.  One might even go so far as to say that, since leavened bread may not be eaten "from the first day until the seventh day," it is on the eighth day that leavened bread may be eaten, and the eighth day has creation-centric and Christ-centric overtones to it.

Why do we eat the Body and Blood of our Lord?

This is an answer of mine from the Catholic Answers Forum.

---

What is the initial reason why we would want to consume the blood and body of our beloved Christ?

Hmm... what is the initial reason? I would say because the Lord Himself commanded it. (cf. John 6:29-58; Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-25)

Why did He command it? Or, more deeply, why was it under the signs of bread and wine that Jesus commanded us to receive His Body and Blood? Why would He have us consume His Body and Blood? Well, God knows... but He had been preparing Israel for it for centuries.

Melchizedek, king of Salem and priest of the Most High God (long before Israel existed and had priests), offered God a thanksgiving offering of bread and wine, and he blessed Abram. (cf. Gen 14:18-20) And the letter to the Hebrews tells us that Melchizedek was a foreshadowing of Christ. (cf. Heb 7) Melchizedek's name means "king of righteousness", and Salem (shalom) means "peace".

God later tested Abraham, asking him to offer his only beloved son as a holocaust on a mountain. As they went up the mountain -- Isaac carrying the wood for his own sacrificial death on his back -- he asked his father where the lamb for the sacrifice was, and Abraham replied that God would provide Himself the lamb. God did provide an animal for sacrifice in place of Isaac... but it was a ram, with its head caught in a thicket of thorns. (cf. Gen 22)

When God delivered Israel from captivity in Egypt, He instituted a ritual sacrificial meal for them, by which each family was to acquire a spotless, unblemished lamb, to kill it without breaking its bones and to spread its blood upon the doorposts of their homes; the angel of God's wrath, seeing the blood, would pass over them. The family was also to eat the flesh of the lamb. But this was not God's lamb... (cf. Exo 12-13)

In time, another ritual was instituted for Israel, the Yom Kippur ("day of atonement") ritual. Two lambs or goats were chosen, one to be slaughtered in sacrifice, and the other to have the sins of all of Israel placed upon its head and to be sent out into the wilderness to die. This was the "scapegoat", the one who receives the blame and punishment for the sins of others. (cf. Lev 16)

On the shores of the Jordan, John the Baptist called out to all who would hear him, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (John 1:29) He was speaking of Jesus, the only beloved Son of God. (cf. Matt 3:17) Pilate found Jesus to be without fault or blemish. (cf. John 18:38) At His crucifixion, our Lord was crowned with thorns and carried the wood for his own sacrificial death on his back. (cf. John 19:2, 17) His bones were not broken. (cf. John 19:31-36)

St. Paul says that "Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed." (1 Cor 5:7)  ["Paschal" means "Passover"]

St. Paul asks, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16)

St. Peter says that we "were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot." (1 Pet 1:18-19)

St. John saw in Heaven "a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain." (Rev 5:6)

The angels in Heaven say "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb." (Rev 19:9)

(And why do we drink His blood? Israel was forbidden to consume blood, since the life is in the blood. (cf. Gen 9:4; Lev 17:10-14) That was to prepare them for the only blood they should consume, the Blood of Him Who has eternal life.)

"Pontiff Calls for Complete Fidelity to Magisterium"

What a shock!  That was the ZENIT headline:  "Pontiff Calls for Complete Fidelity to Magisterium".

Benedict XVI is urging prelates to call Catholics to complete fidelity to the magisterium, presenting Church teaching as a message of hope rather than a series of prohibitions. [...] "If the Church's teaching is compromised, even slightly, in one such area, then it becomes hard to defend the fullness of Catholic doctrine in an integral manner," the Holy Father said.

"Pastors of the Church, therefore, must continually call the faithful to complete fidelity to the Church's magisterium," he said, "while at the same time upholding and defending the Church's right to live freely in society according to her beliefs. [...] All too often the Church's doctrine is perceived as a series of prohibitions and retrograde positions, whereas the reality, as we know, is that it is creative and life-giving, and it is directed towards the fullest possible realization of the great potential for good and for happiness that God has implanted within every one of us."

The Catholic Church and Closed Communion

(11/26 edit: I left out perhaps the most obvious meaning of "Communion", which I have now included below.)

The Catholic Church, unlike many other Christian communities, has a discipline known as "closed communion." This means that (other than very exceptional cases), only members of the Catholic Church may partake of Holy Communion (that is, receive the Holy Eucharist).  Some non-Catholics are very confused by this policy. They see it as exclusive: "Why aren't all invited to the table or the Lord? Did Jesus exclude anyone?" They see it as divisive between Christians: "We allow non-[XYZ]'s to receive the Lord's Supper, so why don't Catholics?" Some are deeply hurt by not being able to receive Communion.

To explain this discipline, we must describe accurately what the Eucharist is and what Holy Communion means to the Church.

Regardless of what a person thinks the Eucharist is, no matter what a person thinks he is eating when he receives Holy Communion in a Catholic church, he is receiving the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord and Savior. He is not receiving bread or wine, nor a "symbol". If this blessed gift is received unworthily, he adds sin (unworthy reception) to sin (which made his reception unworthy in the first place). Furthermore, this is not just a "meal" or "banquet." This is the Marriage Supper of the Lamb under the veil of a sacrament; this is the consumption of a sacrificial offering.

This Marriage Supper, this mystical wedding banquet, is for those who are "wedded" to Christ in His Church.  In other words, receiving Holy Communion means that you are in communion with Christ and His Church.  That naturally excludes those who are not Christian at all, the unbaptized.  Just as St. Paul wrote that the "fathers" of Israel "all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink" (1 Cor 10:2-4), so those who are baptized into Christ receive a supernatural food and drink.  It was only the Israelites (those of the older covenant) who partook of that supernatural food and drink; likewise, it is only the Church (those of the new covenant, not just one nation) who partake of this supernatural food and drink.

It also excludes those who are Christians but are separated (or "estranged," you could say) from the Bride of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, whether by mortal sin or by not holding the Catholic faith.  Faith is a matter of fidelity to God; the Church is faithful to her spouse, Christ, and so her members too must be faithful, believing that Catholic faith.

Catholic doctrine is that the Eucharist is a true sacrifice offered to God. (Numerically, it is the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the cross, with only the manner of the offering being different: the Eucharist is unbloody. Likewise, the Body which is received in the sacrament is numerically identical to that which was conceived in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and died on Calvary.)  Let me repeat: the Eucharist is a sacrifice; receiving Holy Communion is partaking in a sacrificial meal. As St. Paul asked, "Do you not know that those who are employed in the temple service get their food from the temple, and those who serve at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings?" (1 Cor 9:13) "Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?" (1 Cor 10:18)  You are partaking in a sacrificial offering at an altar.

If, as some Protestants believe, the Mass is a satanic and pagan corruption of true worship of God, and the Eucharist is a satanic and pagan sacrifice, then the Eucharist would be being offered "to demons and not to God" (1 Cor 10:20), and anyone who receives Holy Communion at Mass is partaking of the "table of demons." (1 Cor 10:21)  What did St. Paul say about that? "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." (1 Cor 10:21)

Regardless of whether the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist is true (and of course, I believe that it is), Catholics believe they are offering a sacrifice to God and are then partaking of that offering. If they are right, and you want to receive it too, why aren't you Catholic?! And if they are wrong, and it is a pagan offering and a fellowship with demons, why would you want to receive it?!

Trinity Sunday - The Athanasian Creed

Today is the Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity. One God, Three Persons. It's a tricky concept!

Athanasian Creed

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this:

That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.
The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.
The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.
The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.
And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.
As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.
So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.
And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;
So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.
The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.
The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.
The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.
And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.
But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.
So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;
Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;
He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;
From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;
and shall give account of their own works.
And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

A sister who "moved beyond Jesus"

Check out this frightening look at a possible future for women's religious life in the United States: [warning: the preceding link goes to an article at the National "Catholic" Reporter web site, which is a mouthpiece of dissent]

The dynamic option for Religious Life, which I am calling, Sojourning, is much more difficult to discuss, since it involves moving beyond the Church, even beyond Jesus. A sojourning congregation is no longer ecclesiastical. It has grown beyond the bounds of institutional religion. Its search for the Holy may have begun rooted in Jesus as the Christ, but deep reflection, study and prayer have opened it up to the spirit of the Holy in all of creation. Religious titles, institutional limitations, ecclesiastical authorities no longer fit this congregation, which in most respects is Post-Christian.

...

As one sister described it, “I was rooted in the story of Jesus, and it remains at my core, but I’ve also moved beyond Jesus.” The Jesus narrative is not the only or the most important narrative for these women. They still hold up and reverence the values of the Gospel, but they also recognize that these same values are not solely the property of Christianity. Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism, Islam and others hold similar tenets for right behavior within the community, right relationship with the earth and right relationship with the Divine. With these insights come a shattering or freeing realization—depending on where you stand. Jesus is not the only son of God. Salvation is not limited to Christians. Wisdom is found in the traditions of the Church as well as beyond it. (Source: PDF)

What does Scripture tell us about those who "move beyond Jesus"?

"Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22)

"Any one who goes ahead and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God; he who abides in the doctrine has both the Father and the Son." (2 John 1:9)

Purgatory since Vatican II

I facilitate The Great Adventure Bible Timeline study at my parish on Sunday afternoons. This past Sunday, we read and discussed 1 and 2 Maccabees. Part of the questions and discussion centered around 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, which records Judas Maccabeus and his compatriots praying for the deceased.

I was the youngest Catholic there, and I don't recall learning about Purgatory in CCD growing up, but I was the one answering the questions and explaining the Church's teaching about purification after death.

Purgatory (a state of purging or cleansing or purification of the soul, after death, from the effects of sin) can be supposed from just a single verse of Scripture: "Nothing unclean shall enter it [the Heavenly Jerusalem]" (Revelation 21:27). Are we utterly clean now in life? (That is, are we utterly devoid of imperfection and sin?) If we are to enter Heaven, we must be utterly clean. So unless the very act of death cleanses us (which is supported by neither Scripture nor Tradition), there must be some sort of post-death cleansing of our souls.

The Roman Catechism (warning: big file) published following the Council of Trent, mentions it briefly (since the Catechism was meant as a guide to priests for instruction, rather than for the laity for learning) in the following ways:

... the fire of purgatory, in which the souls of just men are cleansed by a temporary punishment, in order to be admitted into their eternal country, into which nothing defiled entereth (cf. Rev. 21:27). The truth of this doctrine, founded, as holy Councils declare, on Scripture, and confirmed by Apostolic tradition, demands exposition from the pastor, all the more diligent and frequent, because we live in times when men endure not sound doctrine.

Prayers for the dead, that they may be liberated from the fire of purgatory, are derived from Apostolic teaching.

We also beg of God ... that we be not sentenced to endure the fire of purgatory, from which we piously and devoutly implore that others may be liberated.

The Baltimore Catechism describes the purpose of Purgatory in questions 184 (Lesson 14) and 424 (Lesson 31), quoting 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 both times:

184. Who are punished in purgatory?

Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.

424. Where do we pay the debt of our temporal punishment?

We pay the debt of our temporal punishment either in this life or in purgatory.

The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X describes the purpose of Purgatory in question 118 on the Sacrament of Penance:

118 Q. Do those who die after having received absolution but before they have fully satisfied the justice of God, go straight to Heaven?

A. No, they go to Purgatory there to satisfy the justice of God and be perfectly purified.

The modern Catechism of the Catholic Church (technically addressed to bishops) mentions Purgatory, but perhaps too briefly (1030-1032 and 1471-1479,1498).

The Church has not forgotten about Purgatory, although many Catholics may have. I've compiled a few references from documents (Vatican II and later) that refer to Purgatory (whether by name or by the description of "purification after death"). The third one (Indulgentarium Doctrina) is an excellent source to help understand what the Church teaches about the effects of sin.

Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964), nn. 49, 51:

Until the Lord shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him and death being destroyed, all things are subject to Him, some of His disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are [being] purified, and others are in glory beholding "clearly God Himself triune and one, as He is"; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God. ... This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.

Pope Paul VI, Encyclical on the Holy Eucharist Mysterium Fidei (1965), n. 29:

Foreshadowed by Malachias, this new oblation of the New Testament has always been offered by the Church, in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord and the Apostles, "not only to atone for the sins and punishments and satisfactions of the living faithful and to appeal for their other needs, but also to help those who have died in Christ but have not yet been completely purified."

Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967), nn. 3, 5:

That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. ... For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated.

Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Letter on the Credo of the People of God (1968), nn. 28, 30:

We believe in the life eternal. We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ whether they must still be purified in purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies Jesus takes them to paradise as He did for the Good Thief are the People of God in the eternity beyond death, which will be finally conquered on the day of the Resurrection when these souls will be reunited with their bodies. ... We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are attaining their purification, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to Bishops on Communion Communionis Notio (1992), n. 6:

In its invisible elements, this communion exists not only among the members of the pilgrim Church on earth, but also between these and all who, having passed from this world in the grace of the Lord, belong to the heavenly Church or will be incorporated into it after having been fully purified.

Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical on Christian Hope Spe Salvi (2007), nn. 45-48:

The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. ... Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, [writes]: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). ... Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. ... His gaze, the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation “as through fire”. But it is a blessed pain, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God. ... [I]f “Purgatory” is simply purification through fire in the encounter with the Lord, Judge and Saviour, how can a third person intervene, even if he or she is particularly close to the other? When we ask such a question, we should recall that no man is an island, entire of itself. Our lives are involved with one another, through innumerable interactions they are linked together. ... So my prayer for another is not something extraneous to that person, something external, not even after death. In the interconnectedness of Being, my gratitude to the other—my prayer for him—can play a small part in his purification.

I also refer you to Nicholas Hardesty's massive compendium of links and resources on Purgatory at Phat Catholic.

Mary Immaculate, pray for us

Today is the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Mary Immaculate, pray for us!

What is the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? It pertains to Mary's being conceived without Original Sin, not to the virginal and miraculous conception of Jesus Christ in Mary's womb.

We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Declaramus, pronuntiamus et definimus doctrinam quae tenet beatissimam Virginem Mariam in primo instanti suae conceptionis fuisse singulari Omnipotentis Dei gratia et privilegio, intuitu meritorum Christi Jesu Salvatoris humani generis, ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem, esse a Deo revelatam, atque idcirco ab omnibus fidelibus firmiter constanterque credendam.

The dogma was explicitly and infallibly defined in 1854 by Pope Pius IX in the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus. That it was defined in 1854 does not mean that it is a new belief of the Church. If you read the Constitution, you will see that Pope Pius IX presents historical, liturgical, and theological evidence for the belief throughout the history of the Church. (The dogmas defined at the Council of Nicea didn't come into existence then, either, but the proper understanding and definition of the belief was then given.)

I would also suggest reading the document he issued prior to Ineffabilis Deus. In 1849, he wrote Ubi Primum, preparing the Church for the definition of the dogma. Here are some excerpts from the first few paragraphs:

1. ... there was in the entire Catholic world a most ardent and wondrous revival of the desire that the most holy Mother of God -- the beloved Mother of us all, the immaculate Virgin Mary -- be finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church to have been conceived without the stain of original sin.

2. Both to Our Predecessor and to Us this most devout desire was clearly and unmistakably made manifest by the petitions of illustrious bishops, esteemed canonical chapters, and religious congregations, among whom was the renowned Order of Preachers. These appeals vied with one another in the insistent request that official permission be granted for the word Immaculate to be publicly used and be added to the sacred liturgy, particularly in the Preface of the Mass of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. ...

3. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin. Nor do we lack today eminent theologians -- men of intellectual brilliance, of virtue, of holiness and sound doctrine -- who have so effectively explained this doctrine and so impressively expounded this proposition that many persons are now wondering why this honor has not already been accorded to the Blessed Virgin by the Church and the Apostolic See -- an honor which the widespread piety of the Christian people so fervently desires to have accorded to the Most Holy Virgin by a solemn decree and by the authority of the Church and the Holy See.

Here are a few helpful links for understanding, celebrating, and defending this important dogma of the faith:

• Catholic Answers: Immaculate Conception and Assumption
• PhatCatholic Apologetics: For the Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception
  
• Scripture Catholic: Immaculate Conception (Scripture & Church Fathers)
• Women for Faith and Family: Immaculate Conception
• Catechism of the Catholic Church: 491, 2853
  

Excellent Catholic Podcast

St. Michael's Media (endorsed by Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis) has a Catholic television program called The One True Faith hosted by Michael Voris. You can purchase the episodes on DVD, but you can also listen to the episodes at no charge via their podcast.

It's a refreshingly orthodox Catholic series! I urge you to give it a listen, and to make a donation if you can.

Diablog: On Doctrine and Salvation

This is my fifth post in a diablog with Weekend Fisher. She wrote:

Q. Which Lutheran denomination retains the proper doctrine?
A. The one(s) still holding to the original Tradition of the church, that handed down by Christ through the apostles.

Q. What is necessary for salvation?
A. Christ is necessary for salvation. Doctrine, in its best sense, is a full life-giving knowledge of God and his kingdom. Unfortunately, "doctrine" often becomes a set of propositions to be memorized whose content (in theory) could convey some knowledge of God and his kingdom if only people weren't so busy mistaking doctrine for salvation. It would be like mistaking the nutrition label on the can for a nourishing meal. (See, it says right there, "100% iron, 100% calcium ... and I already read the label so I'm set! I read it twice, so I'm more nourished than you!") What Christ said about Scriptures could easily be said about doctrine: You eagerly search them because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are they that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me and have life.

There are all kinds of things that are true (Lutheran doctrines, Roman Catholic doctrines, doctrines of all kinds of other groups too numerous to name) that are not "necessary for salvation". There are things that are true about God, but knowing them is not "necessary for salvation". If doctrine isn't necessary for salvation, then what is the purpose of doctrine? To bless us through knowledge of the Holy One. I have often asked myself, "Is there really any other blessing besides God?" To know God is to have peace and patience and perseverance. To know God is to have the fullness of love. To know God is to have complete freedom from fear. To know God is to have all wisdom. To know God is to be joyful. What good thing is outside of him? That is what doctrine is about: there is no higher blessing than God.

I'm going to ask (yes, in the face of the Catholic-Orthodox split) why there would be multiple Lutheran churches with the same "original Tradition of the church". What is it which divides them into multiple churches then? Issues not pertaining to salvation, if I read you correctly. But if that is the case, why must they divide? Why cannot they remain united as one church abiding by that famed motto of the Reformation coined by German Lutheran theologian Peter Meiderlin (or Rupertus Meldenius), "in necesariis Unitatem, in non-necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Charitatem"? AND are there any non-Lutheran churches which possess this same "original Tradition of the church"? If there are, why are they separate from the Lutheran church(es)? If there are not, then are there churches that contain enough of the "original Tradition" to still have hope for salvation?

I certainly agree that "Christ is necessary for salvation" and that through doctrines we are "bless[ed] through knowledge of the Holy One", who is God in Three Persons, one of Whom is Jesus Christ. But the Word is a living Word, and as such I also agree that mere knowledge of these doctrines will not suffice, any more than living among ten thousand Bibles will bring you salvation. These doctrines are to be known and lived by. As a Catholic, I don't hope to be saved because I believe Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven, but I have hope of my own salvation (and resurrection) because of what has been revealed about Mary. Likewise, I don't hope to be saved because I believe the bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, but I have hope for the continuing strength and perseverance in my life of faith because I am nourished by that same Eucharist I believe in.