AnonymousApril 9, 2015 at 7:51 AM
Okay Bernardin, you are not a neo... Strange but this is what you say. But then again, why are you defending their practices and the blatant avoidance of sound church doctrines by the Neocatechumenal leaders, especially the teams, the catechists and the members? You seem to agree that the Apostles Creed is way too much primitive and inadequate to express the fullness of the deposits of the ancient Catholic faith. Then it is just consequential to draw the obvious conclusion: persistent avoidance of the Nicene Creed is a sure sign of flawed theology, even heresy!
So why do you think it has nothing to do with Arianism? Arianism is exactly the heresy that denies the preexistence of Christ. Catholic believers, including the followers of Arius, confessed the primitive creed at the time of Arius during the ancient history of the church. Arius had no problem with that... In contrast, the Nicene Creed, the full creed shook and reduced Arius to shambles by declaring the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence of Christ with no uncertain terms!
Let me say again: Arius was quite happy with the Apostles Creed because this creed has no concept of the Holy Trinity. Arianism could reconcile all its heretic teachings with this incomplete, primitive creed, because the Apostles Creed does not contradict them! The church was able reduce Arianism much later by and through the Nicene Creed only. Why? Because this is the full creed produced at the Council of Nicea. This is the creed that talks clearly about the preexistence of Christ before creation, the consubstantiality of the father and the Son and the Holy Trinity. This creed chased Arianism away just like holy water chases the devil away!
That is why it is not accidental at all that neos do not know and do not confess the Nicene Creed. They cannot even pronounce, even less understand, the world ‘consubstantial’ because they have never learned about its true meaning. I am not surprised that Catholic liberals like you, dear Bernardin, look with sympathy on these false practices. It is handy for liberals to push forward the neo as a wedge into the body of the church. Using them you advance your agenda of gradual destruction of the sound doctrines of the church.
So why do you think it has nothing to do with Arianism? Arianism is exactly the heresy that denies the preexistence of Christ. Catholic believers, including the followers of Arius, confessed the primitive creed at the time of Arius during the ancient history of the church. Arius had no problem with that... In contrast, the Nicene Creed, the full creed shook and reduced Arius to shambles by declaring the divinity of Jesus and the preexistence of Christ with no uncertain terms!
Let me say again: Arius was quite happy with the Apostles Creed because this creed has no concept of the Holy Trinity. Arianism could reconcile all its heretic teachings with this incomplete, primitive creed, because the Apostles Creed does not contradict them! The church was able reduce Arianism much later by and through the Nicene Creed only. Why? Because this is the full creed produced at the Council of Nicea. This is the creed that talks clearly about the preexistence of Christ before creation, the consubstantiality of the father and the Son and the Holy Trinity. This creed chased Arianism away just like holy water chases the devil away!
That is why it is not accidental at all that neos do not know and do not confess the Nicene Creed. They cannot even pronounce, even less understand, the world ‘consubstantial’ because they have never learned about its true meaning. I am not surprised that Catholic liberals like you, dear Bernardin, look with sympathy on these false practices. It is handy for liberals to push forward the neo as a wedge into the body of the church. Using them you advance your agenda of gradual destruction of the sound doctrines of the church.
This argument is flawed. The anonymous commenter above stated: " Arius was quite happy with the Apostles Creed because this creed has no concept of the Holy Trinity."
In the first place, the Nicene Creed was NOT created at that time, so ALL of Christianity used the Apostles Creed. ALL Christians used the Apostle Creed because that was the Creed they had. The Nicene Creed did NOT exist until AFTER the Council of Nicea. So, this argument is nothing but propaganda to discredit the NCW. To say that the Arians used the Apostles Creed because this creed had no concept of the Holy Trinity is absolutely false! Why?
In the first place, the Nicene Creed was NOT created at that time, so ALL of Christianity used the Apostles Creed. ALL Christians used the Apostle Creed because that was the Creed they had. The Nicene Creed did NOT exist until AFTER the Council of Nicea. So, this argument is nothing but propaganda to discredit the NCW. To say that the Arians used the Apostles Creed because this creed had no concept of the Holy Trinity is absolutely false! Why?
Because:
1) The Apostles Creed was the only creed that existed at that time, and all Christians used that creed INCLUDING the Catholic Church who disagreed with the followers of Arius.
2) Tradition says that it was the Apostles who wrote the Apostles Creed, and they certainly had a concept of the Holy Trinity because they were the ones who taught it to the Early Christians.
2) Tradition says that it was the Apostles who wrote the Apostles Creed, and they certainly had a concept of the Holy Trinity because they were the ones who taught it to the Early Christians.
This is the same kind of propaganda that one would also find in the jungle. Furthermore, I have heard the Nicene Creed recited during the Eucharistic celebration of the Way. Sometimes, we say the Apostles' Creed and sometimes we say the Nicene Creed. Both creeds belong to the Catholic Church, and both creeds can even be found in the Roman Missal.
See, I told you so, Diana. You could not bring up any single thing that has not already been written. "The church was able reduce Arianism much later by and through the Nicene Creed only. Why? Because this is the full creed produced at the Council of Nicea." This is exactly what I wrote. The Nicene Creed was created as an extension of the Apostles Creed in order to counter Arianism. Arius did not have any problem with the Apostles Creed, because he was
ReplyDelete1. against the trinitarian view,
2. against the divinity of Jesus and
3. against the preexistence of Christ.
The Apostles Creed contains no direct reference to any of these church doctrines. It is by no means accidental that the neos preference is also the Apostles Creed over the Nicene Creed. Do you agree with me on this as well, Diana?
Dear Anonymous at 4:01 pm,
DeleteAnd of course, you have nothing to say about the Catholic Church using the Apostles Creed. What creed did the Catholic Church used BEFORE the Nicene Creed was developed???? The Catholic Church also used the Apostles Creed, but the the Catholic Church never went astray as Arius did. Arius simply doubted the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Apostles Creed had nothing to do with it.
The Nicene Creed was developed to re-affirm what the Apostles taught in the Apostles Creed. After all, the Apostles Creed DOES mention God the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three Persons were mentioned in both the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed.
Anon. 4:01 pm, do you believe that the Apostles Creed is Catholic or not?
DeleteAnoin at 4.01 makes a fair point. The Nicene creed was promulgated in an effort to deal with the Arian heresy. An aversion to the Nicene creed suggests at least an implicit sympathy with this heresy.
DeleteFyi, the USCCB lists the Apostles Creed among Prayers of the Rosary:
Deletehttp://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/prayers-and-devotions/rosaries/prayers-of-the-rosary.cfm
However, when we talk about what we believe, it is the Nicene Creed:
http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/
I hope this helped.
very clever anonymous.....another attempt to further divide the Church.
DeleteJSB
Dear Anonymous at 8:18 pm,
DeleteAnonymous 4:01 made an UNFAIR point. He suggested that Arius used the Apostles Creed because he did not believe that Jesus is God. The entire Catholic Church was in fact using the Apostles Creed at the same time that Arius was using it; therefore, the suggestion is ridiculous. Furthermore, the NCW does not have an aversion to the Nicene Creed. As a matter of fact, we say the Nicene Creed in the Eucharistic celebration, and sometimes we say the Apostles Creed. This shows that we do not favor one or the other, but both. Why? Because both are Catholic creeds.
The issue of the Apostles Creed is related to the Beloved Disciple which is another name for St John of Patmos, one of the Twelve, the son of Zebedee and an Evangelist himself. He composed the Fourth Gospel from his own recollection of his time he spent directly in the company of Jesus. When he was expelled to Patmos, his visions came so vividly alive to him that he was compelled to write it down in the form of the Book of Revelations or Apocalypse, which became the last book of the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteThe Beloved Disciple had to pay a sour price for this time of detachment from the Church at Patmos. He was not invited when the other Ten composed the Apostles Creed. Thus, the Apostles Creed reflects the teaching of the apostles except John of Zebedee who was absent in exile at Patmos. Later on, although he remained the last Apostle alive, the primitive church completely forgot about him and did not acknowledge his Gospel. It took a long time after the Beloved Disciple deceased that his Gospel was eventually recognized God’s Word and included in the Canon.
This is similar someway as it goes with Kiko Arguello who is our Prophet of modern times. He worked out a presentation of the kerygma of Jesus Christ that is so powerful and efficient that people flock to his itinerary, the Neocatechumenal Way, by thousands and thousands around the globe. Still, Kiko our Beloved Teacher is still not acknowledged by many because he exiled himself for our sake into the communities. He works day and night to bring the kerygma of Jesus Christ into the hearts of millions. But his grand work will be recognized now or later, just like the Beloved Disciple's work was recognized after his death as part of the Canon, the great design of Catholic faith, not in conflict with any other teaching of the church.
I don't understand the part of the Apostles Creed that Jesus "descended to hell". As our Lord and Savior he could not have subjected himself to the power of the devil who owns the hell. So Jesus could not have descended to the place of torment which is what we call today the hell, perhaps only to the purgatory. It makes sense because those who waited to be released from "hell" in the Old Testament times, were gathered in the limbo or purgatory which is a place of constant waiting and hoping for release. Jesus was the redeemer who released them from the purgatory so they may face God eye to eye in heaven. If this is true then the Apostles Creed is another proof of the existence of the purgatory.
ReplyDeleteSo what I am puzzled about is if purgatory exists or not? Even though the Bible does not mention it, the Apostles Creed is an evidence. Then our Lord Jesus after his death must have descended into this place to release those bonded. But St Augustine says Jesus did not descend into hell in the physical sense, only symbolically. Even Pope Benedict 16 is said to question the usefulness of purgatory by theological reason. Now, if it is so, then what is the true meaning of the Apostles Creed in relation to hell?!
Dear Anonymous at 1:00 am,
DeleteThe Jewish people of the Old Testament believed in "Sheol." That is what is meant by "Hell." Sheol is the place of the dead, where ALL souls go to because the gates of Heaven was closed to mankind.
Diana, this is true, but would not solve the problem of hell. The ancient belief in Sheol, Hades, the Pit, etc. is not in agreement with what we believe about the hell and the purgatory. These places are much different and separated from each other by their function. I do not think Jesus released those who were already condemned to hell for eternity. He could only released those who were waiting for him in the purgatory. These people were the righteous of the Old Testament, like kings, prophets and true believers. So the question remains: is the Apostles Creed indeed the only evidence of the purgatory?
DeleteDear Anonymous at 9:49 am,
DeleteWe know that before Christ's death, all the souls did not go to Heaven. They were kept prisoners in some holding place, which the Jews call "Sheol" - the land of the dead. Wherever this place is, that was the place Christ went to liberate them as it says in Sacred Scripture:
1 Peter 3:18-19 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us [fn] to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
As for Hell, that is found in the New Testament. The Hell that Christ spoke of is in the Book of Revelations. It is the "Lake of Fire" where both death and Hades will be thrown into. What the Greeks called "Hades," the Jewish people called "Sheol." Christ rescued only the good and faithful souls who were held prisoners in Sheol.
Christ described "Hell" as "Gehenna" rather than as "Sheol" or the land of the dead. Gehenna is a place in Israel where the pagans used to sacrifice their children. Loud drums would be played during the sacrifice so that it would drown out the screams of the children while they were burning. Later, this place was used as a dumpsite. Jesus used this place "Gehenna" to as a symbol to describe "Hell" because the Jews were familiar with the history of Gehenna.
As for Purgatory, it is not mention in the Bible. The name simply means "purging of sins." However, the concept of Purgatory can be found in the Book of Maccabees.
People believed in the Sheol and Gehenna, etc. as final place of decay, the land of the devil, because they knew nothing of the resurrection! Abraham was desperate to sacrifice Isaac because he could not imagine anything like a resurrection by God... His faith was inadequate for that. Even the great prophet and recorder of the Law of God, Moses knew nothing about resurrection. At the time of Moses people were not yet ready to know the truth and Holy Spirit did not tell Moses about resurrection because the time was not ripe. The most faithful followers of Moses, the Sadducees challenged Jesus at His time because of Jesus' teaching of the resurrection.
DeleteThat is why you cannot understand heaven and hell until you believe that we will all be raised at the last day for final judgment by Christ and resurrection for eternal life! That is why Jesus had to free those who died in the Old Testament. Even Abraham and Moses were there in hell waiting for release to eternal life. This is why the Apostles Creed says Jesus descended into hell to bring liberty for those who suffer!
St. Augustine says there is no purgatory because it is just a symbol of hell where souls are waiting for salvation. It is a theological argument. But then how could Jesus descend to hell and subject himself to the power of lord of hell, the devil?! The Son of God can never be subjected to the devil unless he is a sinner as we all are. Regarding purgatory, the Council of Trent from 1545-63 sets up this mandatory confession of faith in the Tridentine Creed of Pope Pius 4th:
"I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated." Also: "I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people."
If the purgatory is not there then the Tridentine Creed makes a false claim. But the wage of sin and falsehood is death. Babies who die before baptism share the original sin making them "sinners". Their wage is death in hell and instant wailing and waiting for release by Christ. Then why does the Tridentine Creed talk about purgatory and indulgences? Indulgences can have no effect for release from hell. Only Christ can do that.
Dear Anonymous at 7:50 pm,
DeleteFirst of all, Abraham and Moses knew about the resurrection. They knew that God was able to raise the dead. According to the Holy Bible:
Hebrews 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense.
As you can see, from the Holy Bible, Abraham believed in the resurrection. He believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead even if he were to sacrifice him. You are correct that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, but the Pharisees believed in it.
You stated: " But then how could Jesus descend to hell and subject himself to the power of lord of hell, the devil?! The Son of God can never be subjected to the devil unless he is a sinner as we all are."
Why do you limit God's power??? God is all-powerful. He can do anything, and there is nothing He cannot do. Christ (who is God) CAN descend to Hell because He is God. His descent into Hell does not mean He is a sinner or that He is subject to the devil. He can descend to Hell if He wants to simply because He is the all-powerful God who can do anything.
As for indulgences, the following weblink explains it better:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
Diana, the Sadducees were Jews who followed the five books of Moses and not the Letter to the Hebrews. The Letter to the Hebrews is a Christian pastoral letter from the New Testament, part of the Bible. However, it has never been part of the books of Moses. Sadducees were the most literal followers of the five books of Moses. If the Sadducees tried to ridicule our Lord over the teaching of the resurrection, it was because Moses had no knowledge of resurrection in his books. The first reference to resurrection seems to be the story of the valley of dry bones getting flesh again in the book of the prophet Ezekiel who lived many centuries after Moses.
DeleteGod cannot be subjected to the power of the devil. The devil was an angel of God and he was subjected to God. But he rebelled and was thrown out of heaven to the earth. He can never have power over God, because he is still subjected to it. It is not limiting God's power to say that Jesus was not subjected to the devil, it is extending his power over the universe. The jungle says the neo rejects the concept that Jesus was free of sin. They say the neo teaches that Jesus had human desires even sexual thought towards Mary Magdalene. This must be wrong.
The purgatory is a difficult concept and I see now that the Apostles Creed cannot talk about purgatory when it says Jesus "descended into hell". Then what is purgatory? The Council of Trent invented it and formulated in the Tridentine Creed. This may have been a mistake if not a sinful act of the council. I completely understand the aversion against the Council of Trent. It was only the Second Vatican Council some 400 years later that could free the church from the damaging impact of Trent. We live in the age of Vatican 2.
Dear Anonymous at 4:00 pm,
DeleteAs I said, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, and it was the Pharisees who sat in the Chair of Moses. That is why Jesus told His disciples to listen to the Pharisees. Their beliefs is similar to Christ.
Where in my comment did I say that Christ subjected Himself to the devil? Christ can descend into Hell and still be master over the devil because He is the all-powerful God.
You stated: " The jungle says the neo rejects the concept that Jesus was free of sin. They say the neo teaches that Jesus had human desires even sexual thought towards Mary Magdalene."
Tim Rohr has never been to our catechesis or celebration so all the things he says about the Way are stories he invented. We teach that Jesus was born without Original Sin and that He did not commit any personal sins. We teach that Jesus can be tempted like He was tempted in the desert, but He never gave in to the temptations of the devil.
Lastly, Vatican II did not go against the rest of the previous councils.
Dear Diana, I am sorry you completely took it for wrong. I do not ask for the sake of confirmation or rejection. I don't really care about who said or taught what, when and why. We all know the official teaching from the books. I ask questions for the sake of discussion. No charges, no systematic studies in apologetic, no lecturing... only common thinking if possible.
DeleteFaith for me is something totally apart from books and official teaching. What you need is a good company where people have similar feeling and attitude about the big issues of the world around us. It is good to come together in the spirit of great figures of religion, like Jesus, Buddha or Mohammad. I mean finding common ground with moderate believers, not the bigots and the crooks.
The purgatory came up from discussing the Apostles Creed. It is a fine historically reliable document of faith from the apostles themselves. Even if the part about hell is most confusing. St. Augustine explained this part in a symbolical way. Someone says below hell is experienced in real time in our very lives!! Well, I like this symbolical speech, although the Council of Trent says something completely different. They talk about hell and purgatory in a very physical sense without much sense of humor.
This very same topic also came up with my friends. Some of them are Christian who just laugh at purgatory. I read some of Calvin who was very much against the idea of purgatory. So why do we need to stick to it forever if we consider the Council of Trent from 400 years ago as outdated? I fell Trent became a battle cry among Protestants against the Catholic Church, because the Tridentine teaching, especially the Tridentine Creed is rigid and way too much exclusive. It is like in war time we curl up and defend every little thing with tooth and nail. This is how Trent defended and conserved an outdated Middle Ages view of Catholic beliefs. But hey, there is was no more! We Christians should try to live in peace.
I for one consider friendship as important thting in my life. Jesus is also a friend, isn't He?! ;) There is nothing wrong to have friends from other Christians or other religion! For example, there is an interfaith group on island who organize common spiritual events of mutual understanding. Archbishop Apuron and Fr. Tom McGrath both participated in the past in the spirit of Vatican 2. Is this not a nice way to learn from each other? Well, I surely don't mind learning new things from people of other faith.
Dear Anonymous at 8:16 pm,
DeleteAs a Catholic, I accept all the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. We should not be "cafeteria" Catholic who only accept the teachings and doctrines they like and disregard the rest they do not like. I have friends who are from different Christian denominations. One of my friend was brought up Lutheran while the other is a Mormon. We also have friends who are Buddhists. The reason why we get along so well is because they do not imposet heir religious beliefs on me and I do not impose my beliefs on them. My Christian friend and I have spoken about politics and religion many times. She knows that I am Catholic and I know that she is Christian. Our conversations on religion has nothing to do with trying to convert the other, but a dialogue of understanding.
For example, at one time she asked me about the vows that Catholic priests and nuns take. I explained that one takes a vow of chastity to conquer the sins of the flesh. The vow of poverty is to conquer the lust for wealth. And the vow of obedience is to conquer the desire for power or the need to be first. She never said that this was wrong. Rather, she was impressed.
I enjoy learning different religions from other people, and I respect their right to believe. After all, we live in a country where one is free to choose what religion they want.....freedom of religion. However, it is one thing to learn Buddhism and another to accept it as truth. I do not accept the religion of Buddhism as truth because I do not believe in reincarnation. I call the Protestants "brothers and sisters" in Christ because like us they believe in Christ. Although they are not in communion with the Pope, they are part of the Body of Christ. Regardless of our different religious beliefs, we are all brothers and sisters because all mankind are made in the image and likeness of God.
Purgatory is really God's mercy rather than a prison or punishment. Purgatory means purging of sins. I have heard some Protestants say that God is a consuming fire and as a soul gets closer and closer to Heaven, God's consuming fire destroys whatever sins are in the person. This Protestant concept of "purging sins" as the soul gets closer to Heaven is a similar concept to Catholics who believe that in Purgatory, the souls are being cleansed of sins before they enter Heaven. The Catholic's belief of Purgatory is aligned with God's mercy and justice. God loves all sinners, but it is the sin He detests. So, He purifies the souls of all sins.
"As a Catholic, I accept all the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. We should not be "cafeteria" Catholic who only accept the teachings and doctrines they like and disregard the rest they do not like."
DeleteI agree, so why do you disregard the GIRM?
Dear Anonymous at 10:42 am,
DeleteWe do not disregard the GIRM.
The fact that you don't understand that Jesus went to hell is normal, however, you cannot say the he wouldn't go to hell because Jesus Christ has power over the devil and that includes hell. If you think otherwise it means that you going against all church tradition represented by the iconography of the Middle Ages in both the orthodox and Catholic Church.
DeleteAnd regarding the argument about the Sadducees, well what survive of Judaism was the rabbinical phareeseism which gathers not only the written tradition but the oral which is the one that precedes the scriptures. That is why the Sadducees can be compared to the Protestants and their sola scriptura.
Thanks!!!
ReplyDeleteDear Diana,
Re:delta forceApril 12, 2015 at 12:47 AM who states:
"This is similar someway as it goes with Kiko Arguello who is our Prophet of modern times. He worked out a presentation of the kerygma of Jesus Christ that is so powerful and efficient that people flock to his itinerary, the Neocatechumenal Way, by thousands and thousands around the globe. Still, Kiko our Beloved Teacher is still not acknowledged by many because he exiled himself for our sake into the communities. He works day and night to bring the kerygma of Jesus Christ into the hearts of millions. But his grand work will be recognized now or later, just like the Beloved Disciple's work was recognized after his death as part of the Canon, the great design of Catholic faith, not in conflict with any other teaching of the church."
Although, Kiko has many wonderful qualities, we should be careful not to "canonize" him without careful consideration and scrutiny to the red flags - most importantly the additions and deletions to the Sacrifice of the NCW Mass of which still no approval has been obtained.
I give you two examples of being deceived:
Sister Magdalena of the Cross, and, more currently Maria Divine Mercy. Both had a huge following. Both deceived.
Purgatory: invention of the church to bolster the need for indulgences.
ReplyDeleteIndulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.
Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.
Dear Anonymous at 6:19 am,
DeleteAre you a Catholic? If you are not a Catholic, then I can understand why would think that Purgatory was an invention of the Church. Purgatory means "purging of sins." A soul cannot enter Heaven with sin. So if a Christian dies with some sin, Catholic belief is that the soul enters Purgatory to be cleanse of those sins before entering Heaven. This is why when a person has sin, it is important that they confess and repent of their sins.
Last time i check, I am still Catholic, but purgatory. The point of confusion is between the Church’s teaching about what Purgatory is and theological speculation about how Purgatory will be experienced. In fact, some devotionals used to assign a specific number of years in Purgatory for each sin, and a certain number of years that could be taken off of our sentence in Purgatory for an act of indulgence.
ReplyDeleteThe vision of Purgatory as a waiting room or a jail cell has somewhat fallen out of favor among post-Vatican II theologians.
Dear Anonymous at 10:43 am,
DeletePurgatory is a teaching in the Catholic Church and was not a Church invention. In fact, Purgatory is mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Church has never specified how many years a soul would be in Purgatory. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire: ...........
Purgatory and hell exist today.....in people who are experiencing the condition in real time...real life.
DeleteOpen your eyes and see reality......life without Jesus Christ.
JSB
You see Diana, even JSB does not believe in Purgatory and Hell as mentioned by your articles. JSB believes it is in real time. Is he speaking metaphorically or is convinced that it is here?
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous at 9:54 am,
DeleteYour comment here does not make any sense. He says that he believes in Purgatory and Hell. It appears he is speaking metaphorically. A life without Christ is Hell. A person who does not have Love (God) in his/her life even if they are living on earth would be a Hell......wouldn't you agree?