|
Author
|
Topic: purgatory and forgivness??
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1, 24); "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ;...If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (1 Cor. 12, 12-26).
Clearly a more logical and reasonable interpretation is from the following -
There is nothing there about Paul suffering for salvation, or participating in the redemption for us or anyone. Rather he is speaking of his suffering for the sake of righteousness in the course of his ministry. When Christians - Christ's body on earth, suffer, the Lord in heaven shares in that suffering (Acts 9:4, 1 Cor. 12:26). It is in this sense that the church should not be confused with redemptive suffering and death of Christ for our sins on the cross. (Note 326 The Gospel According to Rome, James McCarthy)
The problem as I see it was that purgatory and its associated sub-doctrines of indulgences and treasury of merit, were concepts that developed long after the time of the Apostles and eventually became a source of great corruption in the Roman Catholic Church. Let's face it, if it weren't for those kinds of things, most likely there would not have been any necessity of the Reformation.
James White ("The Roman Catholic Controversy")comments that "We do not find in Scripture or in the writings of the early Fathers any mention of a belief in indulgences. Indeed, the Scriptures and the writings of the early Fathers give us no indication of the concept of the treasury of merit or of indulgences."
He goes on to state that the only verse that the Roman Church uses in support of that concept is Colossians 1:24, mentioned and commented on above. Using only one verse to create a doctrine can be very difficult. Those that believe in handling snakes do that.
Key doctrines of the Christian faith should be explicit in Scripture and elaborated upon by the early church. Such Roman Catholic doctrines as purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, the Marian doctrines, papal infallibility, etc. have little or no support either in Scripture or early church history. It is upon that assertion that such should be rejected and declared invalid for the Christian church.
It is, in my opinion, just too easy to see that these concepts were invented by the spiritually blind and then used by the miscreants in the Roman Church hierarchy as a means to exploit people of their material wealth. I think that even secular historians can support that.
I do not believe that it would be of much benefit to anyone else on this forum to trash out the differences between Biblical Christianity and Roman Catholicism. If you would prefer further discussion, I can recommend several good books on apologetics that would cover the arguments presented. As I have studied both sides of the arguments, I found the Roman Catholic positions more untenable. RioLion@msn.com
Perhaps we can benefit each other by focusing more on those things that we hold in common - like social issues of abortion, prayer in the schools, euthanasia, etc..
IP: Logged | 
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
It is my understanding that indulgences may remove the need for someone to be cleansed in Purgatory prior to entering Heaven but in any event it would lessen the duration for those who require it.
The total idea of indulgences being something that could remove the need for someone to be cleansed simply removes the necessity of purgatory in the first place. If one has a need to be perfected before entering heaven, and then to have that need nullified by the actions of others simply is ludicrous.
The use of indulgences to reduce the duration of Purgatory does make sense. This is better understood in terms of what St. Paul stated:
"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1, 24); "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ;...If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (1 Cor. 12, 12-26).
This is more in terms of degrees and not absolutes, let me express this in terms of a simple equation.
Heaven [H], Purgatory [P], Indulgences [I]
The scenario you speak of RioLion is this:
H = P - I, if the amount of indulgences applied to you equals your time in Purgatory I suppose you would go straight to Heaven.
I still believe that it originated as a scheme to control and extort money from people; at least that is more logical and can be defended historically.
What are you referring to ... the selling of indulgences? That is not permitted by the Church, this was a problem prior to the Protestant break because certain individuals were not following the teachings of the Church.
If you are referring to saying Masses for individuals who have passed away, how much do you think the Church makes on this? ... a pittance, there are many better ways for the Church to collect money.
Our time can be better well-spent on doctrines other than Purgatory for we do not see eye to eye [nor will we ever nor did I ever expect we would] on this issue but that is okay for my only goal here was to try and clarify misconceptions about it and I hope I have. Purgatory really is nothing we should fear or focus on and I dare say that many non-Catholics subconsciencely would believe in a similar reality and that is this:
In this lifetime, we have the tendancy to sin, we are all sinnners [Rom 3:23, 1 Jn 1:8]. In Heaven however that tendancy towards sin will have been removed, this is fact, for nothing unclean shall enter into Heaven [Rev 21:27]. So whether you like to label this reality as Catholics do calling it "Purgatory" or rather think of it as some unnamed internal process that results when we go to Heaven, the fact remains that there is a transition that takes place in our souls where our sinful tendency is removed. That is all that Purgatory is and I think I have said enough about it.
There are so many other things we can discuss, we could start a new thread, what do you believe about the Holy Eucharist, do you believe in the Real Presence of JESUS CHRIST in the Eucharist?
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
It is my understanding that indulgences may remove the need for someone to be cleansed in Purgatory prior to entering Heaven but in any event it would lessen the duration for those who require it.
The total idea of indulgences being something that could remove the need for someone to be cleansed simply removes the necessity of purgatory in the first place. If one has a need to be perfected before entering heaven, and then to have that need nullified by the actions of others simply is ludicrous.
I still believe that it originated as a scheme to control and extort money from people; at least that is more logical and can be defended historically.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
If it was necessary for a saved person to enter a place called purgatory to pay final debts for sins, then what value was there in Christ having already suffered for ones sins? Did Jesus purchase only a certain percent of the sinner's salvation, or all of it? Did He die for all the sinner's salvation, or only 75 % of it, the remainder being exacted from the sinner's hide in purgatory?
Because, we could not be there in the first place had not JESUS CHRIST exacted our salvation by His death on the cross. Anyone sanctified in Purgatory is guaranteed the glories of Heaven … Purgatory is the “mud room” into Heaven. The existence of Purgatory does not imply that JESUS did not or could not secure our salvation 100% … I am not sure where the disconnect is between Catholics and Protestants on this issue?
It is easy to see why the Roman Church doctrine of purgatory is not found in the NT. It simply is not needed. If the belief that Christ died for my sins is taken literally, then the need for such a place is eliminated. either Jesus suffered for my sins, or I will - it can't be both.
True, Purgatory is NOT needed [it is however found in scripture, both OT and NT], many things are NOT needed but it does not mean that because they are not needed they do not exist. This is a weak argument as to why something cannot exist. GOD is all-powerful, in his mercy He secured the possibility of our salvation if we choose to follow Him … if He chooses it so then it is done, based on this same reasoning, there was no need [not necessary] for Him to come in the flesh and suffer and die for our sins so therefore He did not come? Certainly not! GOD chose to involve many unnecessary things in our salvation, it is His will, His choice.
The Roman Church teaches that the death of Christ was payment for only my eternal punishment. The temporal punishment due sin must be borne by the sinner even if he is eventually heading for heaven. But the problem encountered, is that there is nothing in Scripture to distinguish between eternal and temporary punishment. Man is either saved or lost, and those who are saved were saved from the wrath of God, with no distinction being made between His eternal or temporal wrath.
RioLion, now I understand your confusion please follow this link for some good scriptural incites into Purgatory ~ http://www.scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html
"It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishment inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth thru the sorrows, miseries, and calamities of this life and above all thru death, or else in the life beyond thru fire and torments or purifying punishments ... these punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purifications of souls. ... In purgatory, if 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" - Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul IV, 1967.
While reading such a statement, I can not help but see the subtle denial of the completeness and sufficiency of Christ's sacrificial atonement. Biblical verses such as Romans 8:1 – “there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus ...” sort of become meaningless.
There is no denial, there is no condemnation, those being sanctified [cleansed] in Purgatory are SAVED … that is not condemnation. I hope that link will clear this up.
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after these days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I recall no more" Hebr. 10:16-17
But in the Roman doctrine of purgatory, sins will be remembered and payment for them exacted. Could a more full denial be made of the redeeming value of Christ's death?
If you look at this passage and its cross references [Jer 31:34, Heb 8:12] you will see that GOD “no longer remembers our sins” in the sense that He forgives us our sins … much in the same way we use the saying “forgive and forget”, these two acts are synonymous with each other. No, according to GOD’s plan, if JESUS CHRIST had not come in the flesh and died on the cross there would no salvation for the human race. The existence of Purgatory is inconsequential really, for there are only two final states, Heaven and hell, where Purgatory if necessary will be the cleansing prior to entering Heaven [nothing clean shall enter Heaven]. No denial here.
The bastard child of the Roman church doctrine of purgatory is that of Indulgences - a theory developed to reduce time in purgatory. "The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven insofar as their guilt is concerned has been called specifically 'indulgences'" One wonders why sins already forgiven demand punishment!! In any case, to continue old Paul IV, "... the church making use of its powers as minister of the redemption of Christ, not only prays but by an authoritative intervention dispenses to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishments". In some sense, this concept would decease the cleansing needed for those in purgatory.
This doctrine is also from scripture. It is my understanding that indulgences may remove the need for someone to be cleansed in Purgatory prior to entering Heaven but in any event it would lessen the duration for those who require it.
"I am now rejoicing in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am completing what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" (Col. 1, 24); "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ;...If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it" (1 Cor. 12, 12-26).
Again, like it mother doctrine of purgatory, one is very hard pressed to find anything in scripture indicating that Christ or the saints "won satisfaction" and that this satisfaction is now stored in a treasury for which the church can tap into to dispense for the faithful. The argument often given is that Christ said or taught things not contained in Scripture is really an argument from silence. I doubt again that the Holy Spirit would have left such an important doctrine out of Holy Writ. Even old St. Augustine made the statement that 'from among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life'. - and similar statements have been made by some of the other church fathers. I think that it best we keep it that way – i.e., stick to the word of God for doctrine otherwise we find ourselves with the religious philosophy of man.
Exactly, we should stick to the Word, I agree. The problem is that we understand the Word differently so as St. Augustine and the other Church fathers understood, these doctrines were stated clearly in scripture.
Punishment for sin is evidence of God's wrath. God must punish sin if He is to remain just. But the central teaching of the Christian faith is that Christ has already taken the punishment of the sinner who believes.
”the central teaching of the Christian faith”, maybe for fundamentalists, but you must be aware that other Christians [not just Catholic but other Protestants] hold different beliefs, over two-thirds of all Christians are Catholic [over 1 billion worldwide]. According to the Bible I read, CHRIST did not exempt us from suffering, He expects us to follow Him and suffer just as He suffered on this earth. He did guarantee however that He would be with us through our suffering. This seems to be a different message than what you are expressing? I can provide the scripture passages if you like.
Scripture states "Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath thru Him" (Romans 5:9) But what individual in purgatory can say he has been spared the wrath of God? And what kind of justification demands that you be punished as if you were still guilty?
I am sure Romans 5:9 is referring to eternal damnation in hell when it speaks of being “saved from wrath”. How can you compare the cleansing required to make you clean upon entering heaven to that of the flames of the eternal lake of fire in hell? Those being cleansed in Purgatory know they are going to Heaven, and I would assume that much of their pain is associated with them not already being with the Lord in Heaven.
I see the Roman Church doctrine of purgatory not only unscriptural but demeaning the value of Christ's redemption. "Now if we be dead with Christ ..." (Romans 6:8), dead men cannot be punished, as they have already been punished and executed in the person of Another. Or should we punish a man twice for the same crime? There is always problem with doctrines that are not derived from Scripture.
I am not sure what translation you are using for this passage [could you please provide the translation?] but it is unnecessarily vague … the translations I looked at ~ KJV, RSV, NASB all seem to be pretty clear.
Romans 6:8-9 (KJV)
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
In the scripture you quote, “punishment” pertains to our death. Your passage does seem to confuse things, the clear meaning of this passage is that CHRIST, by His death on the cross and resurrection, conquered death for us so those who die in CHRIST so too will have been spared death because of His sacrifice, and will live for eternity in His presence. I am not sure why this passage bothers you? Peace and GOD Bless!
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
If it was necessary for a saved person to enter a place called purgatory to pay final debts for sins, then what value was there in Christ having already suffered for ones sins? Did Jesus purchase only a certain percent of the sinner's salvation, or all of it? Did He die for all the sinner's salvation, or only 75 % of it, the remainder being exacted from the sinner's hide in purgatory?
It is easy to see why the Roman Church doctrine of purgatory is not found in the NT. It simply is not needed. If the belief that Christ died for my sins is taken literally, then the need for such a place is eliminated. either Jesus suffered for my sins, or I will - it can't be both.
The Roman Church teaches that the death of Christ was payment for only my eternal punishment. The temporal punishment due sin must be borne by the sinner even if he is eventually heading for heaven. But the problem encountered, is that there is nothing in Scripture to distinguish between eternal and temporary punishment. Man is either saved or lost, and those who are saved were saved from the wrath of God, with no distinction being made between His eternal or temporal wrath.
"It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishment inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth thru the sorrows, miseries, and calamities of this life and above all thru death, or else in the life beyond thru fire and torments or purifying punishments ... these punishments are imposed by the just and merciful judgment of God for the purifications of souls. ... In purgatory, if 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" - Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences, Pope Paul IV, 1967.
While reading such a statement, I can not help but see the subtle denial of the completeness and sufficiency of Christ's sacrificial atonement. Biblical verses such as Romans 8:1 – “there is therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus ...” sort of become meaningless.
"This is the covenant that I will make with them after these days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts and in their minds will I write them; and their sins and iniquities will I recall no more" Hebr. 10:16-17 But in the Roman doctrine of purgatory, sins will be remembered and payment for them exacted. Could a more full denial be made of the redeeming value of Christ's death?
The bastard child of the Roman church doctrine of purgatory is that of Indulgences - a theory developed to reduce time in purgatory. "The remission of the temporal punishment due for sins already forgiven insofar as their guilt is concerned has been called specifically 'indulgences'" One wonders why sins already forgiven demand punishment!! In any case, to continue old Paul IV, "... the church making use of its powers as minister of the redemption of Christ, not only prays but by an authoritative intervention dispenses to the faithful suitably disposed the treasury of satisfaction which Christ and the saints won for the remission of temporal punishments". In some sense, this concept would decease the cleansing needed for those in purgatory.
Again, like it mother doctrine of purgatory, one is very hard pressed to find anything in scripture indicating that Christ or the saints "won satisfaction" and that this satisfaction is now stored in a treasury for which the church can tap into to dispense for the faithful. The argument often given is that Christ said or taught things not contained in Scripture is really an argument from silence. I doubt again that the Holy Spirit would have left such an important doctrine out of Holy Writ. Even old St. Augustine made the statement that 'from among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life'. - and similar statements have been made by some of the other church fathers. I think that it best we keep it that way – i.e., stick to the word of God for doctrine otherwise we find ourselves with the religious philosophy of man.
Punishment for sin is evidence of God's wrath. God must punish sin if He is to remain just. But the central teaching of the Christian faith is that Christ has already taken the punishment of the sinner who believes. Scripture states "Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath thru Him" (Romans 5:9) But what individual in purgatory can say he has been spared the wrath of God? And what kind of justification demands that you be punished as if you were still guilty? I see the Roman Church doctrine of purgatory not only unscriptural but demeaning the value of Christ's redemption. "Now if we be dead with Christ ..." (Romans 6:8), dead men cannot be punished, as they have already been punished and executed in the person of Another. Or should we punish a man twice for the same crime? There is always problem with doctrines that are not derived from Scripture.
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
I have no misunderstanding of what Paul is saying, he is saying very clearly to be absent from this body of flesh is to be in Yahweh’s presents.
2COR 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of [this] tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2COR 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:
2COR 5:3 If so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked.
2COR 5:4 For we that are in [this] tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life.
2COR 5:5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing [is] God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
2COR 5:6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
2COR 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:)
2COR 5:8 We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
2COR 5:9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
2COR 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.
And again in Paul says……..
PHIL 1:21 For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain.
PHIL 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
PHIL 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
PHIL 1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you.
All Scripture has to be take in context………
1PET 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
1PET 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
1PET 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. ...
1PET 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
These passages of Scripture referrers only to when Yashua fulfilled the prophecies concerning Jonah being 3 days in the belly of the whale as related to Himself ,…………
EPH 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
EPH 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Amen to this Scripture……..
REV 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither [whatsoever] worketh abomination, or [maketh] a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Your name can be on the Book’s of the “Roman Catholic”, Baptist, Methodist, Holiness, Pentecost, Amish, Mennonite, Church of England, Presbyterian, Anglican, Church of God, Church of Christ and any other Church you can think of but if it is not written in the” Lamb’s Book of Life” you will not enter.
Mt 5:11-12 (NAB)
11 Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me.
12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.
Amen to all of Yahweh’s Word in HIS WORD only will you find Truth to set you free from the religious bondage of men. HIS WORD alone will set us free.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by becauseHElives:
Paul's teachings on this subject is quite full. He anticipated no purgatory, but said that to depart was to "be with Christ, and that it would be "very far better" (Philippians 1:23). While we are "at home in the body" we are "absent from the Lord", but to be "absent from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8).
becauseHelives,
No no no, this is a very common misreading of 2 Cor 5:8, lets re-read this passage.
2 Corinthians 5:8 (RSV)
8: We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.
St. Paul is clearly speaking of a personal desire here, not what is to come after we pass away. He desires that he should pass away and be with our Lord, this does not mean that there is nothing that comes between the two but rather scripture states otherwise.
Lk 12:58-59; 1 Cor 3:15; Mt 5:25-26 ... temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 ... God's painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 ... no forgiveness ... nor in the age to come.
1 Pet 3:18-20 ... might be purgatory (limbo?).
1 Pet 4:6 ... preached to the dead.
Rev 21:27 ... nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 ... souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:13-14 ... "extra" suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 ... sacrifice for the dead. (not in Protestant Bibles)
2 Tim 1:15-18 ... prayer for Onesiphorus for "that Day."
1 Jn 5:14-17 ... mortal/venial sins
This is certainly not "to be absent is to be with the Lord" ... definitely not!
This analogy might serve to better illustrate the deficiency here. It is Friday and I am at work now. I would rather be away from work and at home eating dinner. Does this mean "to be away from work is to be eating dinner"? Certainly not! It is understood that there are some things not mentioned that will have to come between these two events ... like driving home and preparing the meal before I can eat it.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
RioLion,
No offense taken, I would appreciate it if you could address my questions to you. I would like to better understand your perspective? I takes a lot to upset me so do not worry about that ... I seek unity, not divide. Thanks!
IP: Logged |
|
|
becauseHElives
Advanced Member
Member # 87
|
posted
Paul's teachings on this subject is quite full. He anticipated no purgatory, but said that to depart was to "be with Christ, and that it would be "very far better" (Philippians 1:23). While we are "at home in the body" we are "absent from the Lord", but to be "absent from the body" is to be "at home with the Lord" (2 Corinthians 5:8). To the Philippians he wrote: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (1:21). In answer to the question "What must I do to be saved? he gives the straightforward answer: "Trust in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved" (Acts 16:31).
Purgatory unscriptural: Hebrews 1:1-3, Hebrews 9:14, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Titus 3:5-6, 1 John 1:7
THERE IS NO PURGATORY, JESUS PURGED OUR SINS ALREADY
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; - HEBREWS 1:1-3
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? - HEBREWS 9:14
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. - 1 CORINTHIANS 6:9-11
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; - TITUS 3:5-6
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. - 1 JOHN 1:7
Indulgences unscriptural: 1 Peter 1:18-19, Matthew 19:23-24, Acts 8:20
MONEY CANNOT PAY FOR A WAY TO HEAVEN, GOD IS NOT BRIBED
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: - 1 PETER 1:18-19
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. - MATTHEW 19:23-24
But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. - ACTS 8:20
They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) That he should still live for ever, and not see corruption. - PSALMS 49:6-9
QUESTION:
Is there such a place a Purgatory?
ANSWER:
The Catholic church has declared the existence of "Purgatory" in the Decree of Union drawn at the Council of Florence in A.D. 1439 and also at the Council of Trent. The Decree is a follows:
"The Catholic church, instructed by the Holy Spirit, has
from sacred Scriptures and the ancient traditions of the
fathers taught in sacred councils and very recently in
the ecumenical synod, that there is a purgatory, and
that the souls therein detained are helped by the
suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable
sacrifice of the alter."
The Catholic church teaches that believers can become involved in two types of sins and only one of the two will consign the soul to purgatory:
1. Mortal sins are those for which the soul will be damned.
2. Venial sins are those for which the soul will be consigned
to purgatory.
Thus, all souls who die in "Venial sins", sins for which they have not paid any punishment, will atone for these sins in purgatory. The Catholic church also believes that the faithful, the Saints in Heaven, and all souls in purgatory are united in prayer. According to Catholic doctrine, purgatory is a place where souls who have died in a condition of grace, but with some element of sin in their life, suffer for a time before they are admitted to Heaven. During the souls' stay in purgatory they become cleansed of their venial sins and converted to a state of worthiness whereby they may be admitted into the glories of Heaven.
The Bible teaches us exactly nothing about the doctrine of "Purgatory". In Hebrews 10:19-22, Apostle Paul states, "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say the flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." All believers, by accepting the blood of Yeshua, have complete citizenship in Heaven when God calls them home to glory.
According to Catholic doctrine, prayer for the dead cannot be completely effective without the priests acting as intermediaries, and no priestly function can be administered without special payment. Thus, Yeshua said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation" (Matthew 23:14).
Regarding prayer for the dead, Apostle Paul wrote, "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead" (I Corinthians 15:29)? There are four basic reasons why prayer and baptism for the dead are unscriptural:
1. The Corinthians were involved in many erroneous religious
practices such as in I Corinthians 11:19.
2. Baptism in water does not save a living soul who repents and
meets the gospel conditions of salvation (Matthew 3:11).
Thus, it will not save a dead soul who did not meet the conditions
of salvation (Luke 13:1-5; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians 2:8-9;
I John 1:9).
3. Salvation is a personal matter and cannot be achieved or
purchased by proxy of another (Mark 16:16; Luke 13:1-5;
John 3:16-20; Acts 3:19; Romans 1:16, 10:9-10; Ephesians
2:8-9; Revelation 22:17).
4. Paul was simply showing the inconsistency of false teachers
at Corinth in denying the doctrine of the resurrection of Yeshua.
The Catholic church doctrine of purgatory is pagan and has zero Scriptural support. It merely becomes a way for a corrupt religious system to utilize its religious cloak of deceit, as an instrument for extorting money from unsuspecting and grieving individuals, who have experienced the death of a loved one. The Bible teaches, "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" (I John 5:12). Furthermore, "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment;" (Hebrews 9:27).
If a man or woman leaves this life without having accepted the way of eternal life (blood of Yeshua) they will unquestionably face eternal damnation. Make no mistake, eternal life cannot be purchased with money by anyone, but is a free gift from God, to all those who by faith believe that God sent His only begotten Son to suffer and die on a cross for our sins.
--------------------
Strive to enter in at the strait gate:for many, I say unto you will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. ( Luke 13:24 )
Posts: 4578 | From: Southeast Texas | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
I think that in debating non-biblical based beliefs of other religions, I create enemies instead of friends. So, I am going to sit back and let others go forward on this subject. Sorry to have offended you and your beliefs.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/Kiss.gif)
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
RioLion,
Enough with the divine institution of the papacy, nothing you stated in your previous post debunks this truth.
Now back to the doctrine of Purgatory, I would like to understand what you believe about Purgatory or what you believe the Catholic Church teaches about it? Why do you make the definitive claim that it is unscriptural? Why is this idea harmful to Christians in your opinion? Thanks.
Here is a quote from scripture related to Purgatory that might shed some light on the subject for you.
2 Maccabees 12:39-45 (RSV-CE)
39: On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers.
40: Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen.
41: So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden;
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.
44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.
45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.
Although Catholics consider this Book to be inspired, Martin Luther was successful in stripping this Book from the Protestant Bible. Nevertheless, it can be agreed upon by both sides that this Book illustrates the religious practices of the Jews 100 years before CHRIST and during His life. JESUS and the Apostles grew up with this practice of "praying for the dead" in Judaism and carried it over into Christianity where its practice is still preserved today 2000 years later in Judaism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
RioLion, what do you think about this passage in scripture?
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
RioLion,
I am picking this passage out of your last reply:
Rome for one in the early days of that church did indeed concern itself with purity of doctrine. Howbeit, they did have one of its leading bishops found guilty of betraying the church. "By contrast, in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifices to gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him". page 14 Saints & Sinners, Eamon Duffy. That account sort of shots the infallibility theory to hell!
This begs the question ... how does this event shoot to hell the idea of infallibility?
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
I would agree that the Lord has appointed or called elders and deacons in the church to perform its various functions. The Christian Church has authority over its members but that authority has been given no guarantees of truly representing Christ.
"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." Eph. 4:11-16
Those that are the Church represent Christ, and those in leadership position, should speak for Him. Howbeit, any cursory reading of Scripture will teach one that the church has been given no immunity from error; either doctrinally or otherwise. In fact, Paul warned the Ephesian elders to "take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves." Acts 20:28-30
Paul, obviously, predicted accurately what would happen. Any cursory reading of history will reveal that the church has failed miserably in representing Christ; particularly after it was recognized as the state religion.
Rome for one in the early days of that church did indeed concern itself with purity of doctrine. Howbeit, they did have one of its leading bishops found guilty of betraying the church. "By contrast, in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifices to gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him". page 14 Saints & Sinners, Eamon Duffy. That account sort of shots the infallibility theory to hell!
Concerning Ignatius, Duffy states "A key figure in this development was Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop from Asia Minor arrested and brought to Rome to be executed around the year 107. En route he wrote a series of letters to other churches, largely consisting of appeals to them to unite round their bishops. His letter to the Roman church, however, says nothing about bishops, a strong indication that the office had not yet emerged at Rome." page 7. We conclude logically that there was no single or primary leader over the the church at this time in Rome to support the view there there was always a 'pope'.
Again, we are off the subject of purgatory - a belief that is unscripturally and has been destructive to the christian church.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
From a historical standpoint, Ignatius certainly did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as we read "of a church, not of the Church, for Christian organisation in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. ...
In his Epistle to the Romans as I posted above, he does speak of the authority of the Church of Rome in that she "holds the presidency", he also states his desire that her "instructions may remain in force". This indicates an authority that was already there in the very, very early Church.
To begin with, indeed, there was no 'pope' no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or bishop.
The early Church fathers tell us that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome serving for 25 years until his martyrdom by emperor Nero. He chose Linus [his name appears in scripture] as his successor to the office. Clement also listed in scripture served as the 4th Pope.
By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by a college of elders. This development was at least in part a response to the wildfire spread of false teaching - heresy." Saints & Sinners - a History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic historian), pages 6-7.
An acorn does not grow into a strong tree overnight but rather this outgrowth occurs over many, many years.
Another thought, even if the church of the first 3 centuries was 'catholic', it certainly was not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is simply another denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent as it was at that Council that its beliefs were first formalized.
Up until the Great Schism of 1054, the Catholic Church was composed of the Western and Eastern Churches. At that point the Eastern Churches broke from the Catholic Church forming the Orthodox Churches, some of those Churches have since came back into union with Rome, thus making them Eastern Catholic Churches. The Roman Catholic Church as you describe it is merely the Western/Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, centered in Rome. The term "Roman Catholic Church" was first coined by the Church of England in the 1700s in its desire to retain its ties to the Catholic Church and yet at the same time keep its distance by differentiating itself as "English Catholics" also known as Anglo-Catholics. The Catholic Church is that same Church CHRIST established upon the rock, St. Peter.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
You are correct in that we should stick to the topic of purgatory here and not stray onto other topics.
I would agree that the subject goes back to the authority question as clearly there is little or no support for the concept of purgatory within Scripture.
I really think the concept of Purgatory gets blown way out of proportion ... the CCC references Purgatory only four times.
Again, I would doubt that any important doctrine of the Christian church would be hidden deep within the Scripture but would be explicit in detail.
There are many Christian truths that were not explicitly spelled out in scripture, a couple of examples upon which we should agree is the existence of the Trinity and the two natures [divine and human] in one person of JESUS CHRIST our Lord and Savior.
There were early heresies in the Church that attacked these positions, namely Sabellianism and Nestorianism & Monophysitism, respectively.
Certainly, one that we do not agree on "sola scriptura" is not found explicitly in scripture.
That would leave the Roman Church with its authority argument to create whatever doctrine they please and impose it as mandatory upon its members.
If it was JESUS will to found one Church without division that has authority being able to bind/loose here on earth as in heaven, serving as final arbitrator [so that truth is absolute, not subjective], why would you stray from it?
To us that are non-Romans, the authority is the Word of God otherwise what else is left is simply the word of man.
JESUS promised that after He departed he would not leave the Church abandoned by sending the Holy Spirit to guide her to all truth and protect her from error. This is not the word of man, but rather the Word of GOD.
There has never been any criteria in which one can recognize anything outside of scripture as the word of God. And that is the main problem with recognizing the docrines of the Roman Church.
The Bible itself was compiled and defined by the Catholic Church. If the Church has no authority as you suggest, the Books it compiled to make up the Bible must also lack authority. That would still leave you with no authority. In fact, Protestantism without any final interpreter is left without authority, the 33xxx denominations is the offspring of this reality because Christian truth has become subjective. I wholeheartedly wish that there once again would be unity in the Body of Christ. This bickering amoungst Christians is fruitless.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
... getting us back on topic. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Here are the four occurrences of the word Purgatory in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in case you were interested.
http://198.62.75.12/www2/kerygma/ccc/searchcat.html
1-4 records returned of 4 matching PURGATORY .
1031. "The Church gives the name PURGATORY to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] 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:[Cf. 1 Cor 3:15 ; 1 Pet 1:7 .] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come. [St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31 .] "
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/art12.html#FINAL
1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called PURGATORY. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]"
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#INDULGENCES
1475. "In the communion of saints, 'a perennial link of charity 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. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.'[Indulgentiarum doctrina, 5.] In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin."
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#INDULGENCES
1498. "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in PURGATORY. "
To view the context, please visit http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/healing.html#CELEBRATION
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
QUOTES FROM ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH JUST AFTER THE DEATH OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]
-- Do nothing without the bishop. This is the first time in writing that the Church JESUS CHRIST established was referred to as the Catholic Church [107 A.D.]. If you look at the context of the passage where it is stated, you are aware that he did not just coin the phrase and that it had been used for some time,
maybe back to the Apostles themselves.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 110 A.D.]
-- These are pretty strong words from one of the disciples and auditors of St. John the Evangelist [St. Polycarp was another one] in regards to looking upon the bishop as CHRIST Himself.
"Ignatius ... to the church also which holds the precedency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father ... You [the church in Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force." [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 110 A.D.]
-- His statement of teaching churches, and being worthy of sanctification appears to speak to the primacy in action that Rome held at this early date.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by RioLion:
In your comments on the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.] was the word 'catholic' capitalized? If not, then it simply referred to the universal church.
RioLion, in that Epistle to the Smyraeans by St. Ignatius of Antioch, the passage was as I quoted it and indeed the words "Catholic Church" were capitalized.
He wrote some other things you might find interesting ... I can post them for you.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
In your comments on the Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.] was the word 'catholic' capitalized? If not, then it simply referred to the universal church.
From a historical standpoint, Ignatius certainly did not refer to the Roman Catholic Church as we read "of a church, not of the Church, for Christian organisation in Rome reflected that of the Jewish community out of which it had grown. ... To begin with, indeed, there was no 'pope' no bishop as such, for the church in Rome was slow to develop the office of chief presbyter, or bishop. By the end of the first century the loose pattern of Christian authority of the first generation of believers was giving way in many places to the more organised rule of a single bishop for each city, supported by a college of elders. This development was at least in part a response to the wildfire spread of false teaching - heresy." Saints & Sinners - a History of the Popes by Eamon Duffy (Roman Catholic historian), pages 6-7.
Another thought, even if the church of the first 3 centuries was 'catholic', it certainly was not Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism is simply another denomination with its birth at the Council of Trent as it was at that Council that its beliefs were first formalized.
In any account, this is again a departure from the subject of purgatory.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
You are correct in that we should stick to the topic of purgatory here and not stray onto other topics.
I would agree that the subject goes back to the authority question as clearly there is little or no support for the concept of purgatory within Scripture.
Again, I would doubt that any important doctrine of the Christian church would be hidden deep within the Scripture but would be explicit in detail. That would leave the Roman Church with its authority argument to create whatever doctrine they please and impose it as mandatory upon its members.
To us that are non-Romans, the authority is the Word of God otherwise what else is left is simply the word of man. There has never been any criteria in which one can recognize anything outside of scripture as the word of God. And that is the main problem with recognizing the docrines of the Roman Church.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Hey RioLion,
I thought we were talking about Purgatory here? I guess the topic somehow got off track. All doctrinal disputes always seem to lead back to one question ... where is your authority?
I believe scripture tells us that JESUS established ONE visible Church, not many, certainly not what we are seeing today in Protestantism with its perpetual splintering. I believe it is the Oxford Encyclopedia that states there are now over 33xxx Protestant denominations in existance.
This would be fine in name if they all believed the same doctrine, but they do not. In addition to the beliefs being different, they often CONTRADICT one another! This cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit, GOD is the author of absolute truth, not confusion. That is what this creates ... confusion. Truth is truth because it is absolute, not subjective.
Where is your final authority? If you say it is scripture, then it better lead everyone to the same conclusion ... and sadly enough it does not.
My Bible says the final authority is the Church.
Here is an excerpt from an early Church writing by St. Ignatius, disciple and auditor of the beloved Apostle, St. John the Evangelist [he learned the faith DIRECTLY from John].
QUOTES FROM ST. IGNATIUS OF ANTIOCH ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH JUST AFTER THE DEATH OF ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. [The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyraeans, 107 A.D.]
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
Do nothing without the bishop. This is the first time in writing that the Church JESUS CHRIST established was referred to as the Catholic Church [107 A.D.]. If you look at the context of the passage where it is stated, you are aware that he did not just coin the phrase and that it had been used for some time, probably back to the Apostles themselves. History clearly shows that this is the same Catholic Church that prevails today, 2000 years strong. I hope these incites might be of use to someone reading.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
The reason that I would prefer the definition of the church as the body of Christ more than as a visible entity, even thro it is that also, is simply the fact that such can be better defended from Scripture and I would add from history as there is much difficulty in defending the view that Christ specifically established the Roman Church as the primary conveyance for His work on earth.
I give you the following defination of church for you to mediate on -
Derived probably from the Greek kuriakon (i.e., “the Lord’s house”), which was used by ancient authors for the place of worship.
In the New Testament it is the translation of the Greek word ecclesia, which is synonymous with the Hebrew kahal of the Old Testament, both words meaning simply an assembly, the character of which can only be known from the connection in which the word is found. There is no clear instance of its being used for a place of meeting or of worship, although in post-apostolic times it early received this meaning. Nor is this word ever used to denote the inhabitants of a country united in the same profession, as when we say the “Church of England,” the “Church of Scotland,” etc.
We find the word ecclesia used in the following senses in the New Testament:
(1.) It is translated “assembly” in the ordinary classical sense (Acts 19:32, 39, 41).
(2.) It denotes the whole body of the redeemed, all those whom the Father has given to Christ, the invisible Catholic Church (Eph. 5:23, 25, 27, 29; Heb. 12:23).
(3.) A few Christians associated together in observing the ordinances of the gospel are an eccesia (Rom. 16:5; Col. 4:15).
(4.) All the Christians in a particular city, whether they assembled together in one place or in several places for religious worship, were an ecclesia. Thus all the disciples in Antioch, forming several congregations, were one church (Acts 13:1); so also we read of the “church of God at Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2), “the church at Jerusalem” (Acts 8:1), “the church of Ephesus” (Rev. 2:1), etc.
(5.) The whole body of professing Christians throughout the world (1 Cor. 15:9; Gal. 1:13; Matt. 16:18) are the church of Christ.
The church visible “consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, together with their children.” It is called “visible” because its members are known and its assemblies are public. Here there is a mixture of “wheat and chaff,” of saints and sinners. “God has commanded his people to organize themselves into distinct visible ecclesiastical communities, with constitutions, laws, and officers, badges, ordinances, and discipline, for the great purpose of giving visibility to his kingdom, of making known the gospel of that kingdom, and of gathering in all its elect subjects. Each one of these distinct organized communities which is faithful to the great King is an integral part of the visible church, and all together constitute the catholic or universal visible church.” A credible profession of the true religion constitutes a person a member of this church. This is “the kingdom of heaven,” whose character and progress are set forth in the parables recorded in Matt. 13.
The children of all who thus profess the true religion are members of the visible church along with their parents. Children are included in every covenant God ever made with man. They go along with their parents (Gen. 9:9-17; 12:1-3; 17:7; Ex. 20:5; Deut. 29:10-13). Peter, on the day of Pentecost, at the beginning of the New Testament dispensation, announces the same great principle. “The promise [just as to Abraham and his seed the promises were made] is unto you, and to your children” (Acts 2:38, 39). The children of believing parents are “holy”, i.e., are “saints”, a title which designates the members of the Christian church (1 Cor. 7:14). (See BAPTISM.)
The church invisible “consists of the whole number of the elect that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ, the head thereof.” This is a pure society, the church in which Christ dwells. It is the body of Christ. It is called “invisible” because the greater part of those who constitute it are already in heaven or are yet unborn, and also because its members still on earth cannot certainly be distinguished. The qualifications of membership in it are internal and are hidden. It is unseen except by Him who “searches the heart.” “The Lord knoweth them that are his” (2 Tim. 2:19).
The church, to which the attributes, prerogatives, and promises appertaining to Christ’s kingdom belong, is a spiritual body consisting of all true believers, i.e., the church invisible.
(1.) Its unity. God has ever had only one church on earth. We sometimes speak of the Old Testament Church and of the New Testament church, but they are one and the same. The Old Testament church was not to be changed but enlarged (Isa. 49:13-23; 60:1-14). When the Jews are at length restored, they will not enter a new church, but will be grafted again into “their own olive tree” (Rom. 11:18-24; compare Eph. 2:11-22). The apostles did not set up a new organization. Under their ministry disciples were “added” to the “church” already existing (Acts 2:47).
(2.) Its universality. It is the “catholic” church; not confined to any particular country or outward organization, but comprehending all believers throughout the whole world.
(3.) Its perpetuity. It will continue through all ages to the end of the world. It can never be destroyed. It is an “everlasting kingdom.”
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
I downloaded the article you mentioned on the historical roots of purgatory. Then I examined the Scriptural references given in support of this theory. "The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.".
The problem as I, and I would suspect most Biblical expositors, would have is that these verses lend little if any support for the purgatory concept. The first - 1 Cor. 3:11-15 deals with only a judgment of ones works as a means of determining eternal rewards, the second - Matthew 5:25-26 - with trying to settle disputes with ones adversary before being thrown into prison. And the last deals with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the lack of forgiveness therein.
I provided some links that would address these issues you have, try the Scott Hahn link Answering Common Objections [3 1-hour shows are devoted to Purgatory] so this may help you.
While it is true that the concept of purgatory in some aspects can be gathered from non-scriptural literature not only from Jewish sources (i.e. the Apocrypha), but also from Greek, the Christian church has always disputed these records advocating that they not be used for doctrinal purposes.
Excuse me? The Deuterocanonical Books [called "Apocrypha" by Protestants] have been used since the very inception of the Church and were announced as canonical [along with the other books of the OT and the NT] in the listings of the Books of the Bible in the early Church Councils. These Books were found in the Greek Septuagint used and quoted by JESUS CHRIST and the Apostles. Over 2/3 of all OT quotes found in the NT reference the Greek Septuagint. If these Books were good enough for our Lord and the Apostles, they are definitely [without a doubt!] good enough for me. These Books were not disputed until Martin Luther threw them out because many of them taught uniquely Catholic doctrine. Keep in mind Luther also wanted to throw out Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation [and maybe more] so looking back is that okay too?
If purgatory was truly a Christian doctrine for the church, then Scripture would not be so vague on such an important doctrine. It is too difficult to base any doctrine of the Christian church upon things that are totally implicit if it is there at all. One would have to conclude that the Holy Spirit really did a piss poor job at authorship of Scripture to support that kind of doctrine of its ancillary doctrines of indulgences, treasury of merit, etc.
Many things are implicitly stated in scripture and as a result took many centuries in the Church for these ideas to be understood and then formally defined into doctrines ... you believe in the Trinity [three persons in one God ... Father, Son and Holy Spirit] do you not? Tell me where the word "Trinity" is explicitly stated in scripture. It is not, the Church defined this reality for us and that is why you use the term today, if you want to be consistent it is extra-biblical.
It is reasonably that the Roman Church cannot use Scripture as the 'regula fidei' - rule of faith - since too many of their important doctrines can only be adequately supported by the traditions - things dreamed up by various church theologians over the centuries - the word of man; not the word of God.
Not true, all Catholic doctrine is supported in scripture either explicitly or implicitly. St. Paul tells us that Christian Tradition is passed down to us through word of mouth or written epistle [2 Thess 2:15].
Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
If you feel that scripture alone is inadequate for christain doctrine, then I would like to know why and in what sense. ![[Wink]](wink.gif) [/QB][/QUOTE]
Simple, because it has always been done that way, for 2000 years. Ask yourself, what did those early Christians do [most if not all except for scholars were illiterate] before the 4th century when the Catholic Church defined the Bible? If you were placed back in that situation, what would you do [you would not have your Bible]? A Bible took a monk a lifetime to transcribe since they were handwritten. In fact, even up to the Reformation with the advent of the printing press were Bible still widely unavailable with very few literate to read them. For the first 1500+ years of Christianity, if the masses were to be taught it had to be done through oral tradition.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
I would much better prefer defining the church as that body composed of all those that are in Christ regardless of denominational afflication.
RioLion,
It does not matter how you "prefer" to define the Church, that is up to GOD. Scripture tells us [in JESUS words] that He came to establish a visible Church [not "churches"], one that we could go to definiatively settle disputes. Truth is NOT subjective, it is absolute.
The church being that body of all those that are in Christ is the bride of Christ. To say that only that the Roman Church is the bride of Christ, then from a review of its history, one can only conclude that she is truly an ugly looking bitch in view of the fact that those in the hierarchy have been murderers, thiefs, lover of money, whoremongers, sorcercers, sodomists, idolaters, and other despicable types.
The Church is Holy, not all of its individual members. Scripture tells us that the Church will be composed of both saints and sinners [sinners are in the greatest need of the divine physician]and this is truly a testament to the divine institution of the Church in that it has stood for 2000 years dispite times of corruption in the Church [... and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it]. Actually there has only been a few bad Popes out of 264 whereas 1 out of the 12 Apostles was bad.
Fortunately those that are Christians in the Roman Church generally do not care much for their church's doctrine - this is indicated by the Gallup surveys as well as others.
There exist compacent and ignorant members of all faiths. Please elaborate on these surveys. As far as I know in regards to them, poor results when seen are the result of poor catechisus [teaching] and knowledge. There are over 1 billion Catholics, that is 1/6 of the human race and over 2/3 of all Christians ... so there are bound to be some bad apples there or some who "call" themselves Catholic but do not practice their faith.
Most born-again Roman Catholics have a testimony of accepting Christ into their lives and thus recognizing His lordship. They pray, sometimes read the bible, and try to live a moral life using their conscience as the major guide. When talking to them, they will tell you that there is the Church laws and then there is God's law and that they really favor following the latter.
Not sure where you got this information? Catholics in general do not do the born-again thing as you know it, we know that we were born again at Baptism as scripture tells us. JESUS CHRIST truly is the source and summit of our Catholic Christian life ... we truly have Him Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament, the Holy Eucharist. How could I ever leave Him knowing this awesome reality? A good Catholic accepts all of CHRIST's teachings as personified in Holy Scripture and in the Church, for it is the Body of CHRIST. If indeed you spoke to such a person claiming to be "Catholic", they were merely ignorant of the faith.
Interestingly in Maryland where I used to live, many people in the congregation at the Bible churches where I attended either were Roman Catholics or from Roman Catholic backgrounds.
Not surprising, considering there are over 1 billion Catholics worldwide as I stated earlier. The reality is that those who leave the Church do so with much less investigation than those who enter it because of the myths and misconceptions. There is a great renewal going on within the Church, many prominent Protestant converts are entering the Church.
They, like sheep, sought spiritual food from those churches that were Biblically oriented instead of those that depend heavily upon worthless rituals that all too often resembled the magick from the Harry Potter books.
The Catholic Church is the original Bible Church for she gave us the Bible. And leaving the Church where you can truly receive JESUS in the Eucharist is the opposite of finding spiritual food because you could not have gotten closer to Him than that here on earth!
The unbiblical doctrine of indulgences really contradicts the overall purpose of purgatory in that purgatory was invented to explain how one that has sinned can stand before a holy God. If the stay one must have in purgatory is short-cut by the purchased merits of others, then that person would not be purified to stand before a holy God. The simple answer is that both purgatory and its companion doctrine of indulgences are simply an invention designed to exploit people that do not understand the Scripture in that Spirit of God has the capability to glorify one before facing God Almighty; and that is only done to those that look upon Christ as their Lord and Savior as it is only Christ that can save one to the utmost - Hebrews 7:25 ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
JESUS exacted our eternal salvation, if we sin and repent we still must pay restitution for the damage we caused and that is through temporal punishment as scripture tells us. It is much like the child who throws the ball throw the neighbors window. Even though he may apologize and be truly sorry, the fact is that the window is still broken so he has to pay restitution [pay back] that neighbor some how by maybe cutting their lawn or washing their car, etc.
I hope this has helped to clear up some misconceptions about the Church.
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Some people believe that suffering is a means to atone for ones sins. Howbeit, the Scripture seems to indicate that only the suffering of Christ has atoned for sins. We see much suffering in the world today and it has nothing to do with paying the penalty for sins; in fact, most of the suffering is simply the result of sinfulness either on our behalf or someone else.
Fire to some is suppose to be something that will purify us before we are to face our Heavenly Father. As fire purifies base metals, there are other things that can purify the soul of a man. But where are the Scripture for that belief? I understand that the blood of Christ did that for us.
For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? {spot: or, fault} Hebrews 9:13-14
IP: Logged |
|
|
Homebound
Advanced Member
Member # 1699
|
posted
quote:
Colossians 1:24 (RSV)
24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
Is Paul speaking blasphemy here?
FYI: The John MacArthur Study Bible has a good commentary on this passage. It says, "In spite of His death on the cross, Christ's enemies had not gotten their fill of inflicting injury on Him. So they turned their hatred on those who preached the gospel (cf. John 15:18, 24; 16:1-3). It was in that sense that Paul filled up what was lacking in Christ's afflictions (see notes on 2 Cor. 1:5; Gal. 6:17)."
With this analogy in mind, it's like Paul was saying, "if they weren't satisfied with killing Christ and still have a need to inflict punishment on me as well as His follower, than I'll gladly suffer."
I still don't quite see how this passage relates to the purgatory, though, or if was meant to.
Posts: 40 | From: Michigan | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Colossians 1:24 (RSV)
24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church
Is Paul speaking blasphemy here?
Not really, my literature informs me that "it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ. The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in successive individuals and successive generations. They continue the work in which Christ began. They bear their part in the suffering of Christ (2 Cor. 1:7 ...Phil. 3:10 ...) but Paul would have been the last to say that they bear their part in the atoning sacrifice of Christ. This being so, Paul does not mean to say that his own sufferings filled up all the afflictions of Christ but only that they went toward filling them up."
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
I downloaded the article you mentioned on the historical roots of purgatory. Then I examined the Scriptural references given in support of this theory. "The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.".
The problem as I, and I would suspect most Biblical expositors, would have is that these verses lend little if any support for the purgatory concept. The first - 1 Cor. 3:11-15 deals with only a judgment of ones works as a means of determining eternal rewards, the second - Matthew 5:25-26 - with trying to settle disputes with ones adversary before being thrown into prison. And the last deals with blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the lack of forgiveness therein.
While it is true that the concept of purgatory in some aspects can be gathered from non-scriptural literature not only from Jewish sources (i.e. the Apocrypha), but also from Greek, the Christian church has always disputed these records advocating that they not be used for doctrinal purposes.
If purgatory was truly a Christian doctrine for the church, then Scripture would not be so vague on such an important doctrine. It is too difficult to base any doctrine of the Christian church upon things that are totally implicit if it is there at all. One would have to conclude that the Holy Spirit really did a piss poor job at authorship of Scripture to support that kind of doctrine of its ancillary doctrines of indulgences, treasury of merit, etc.
It is reasonably that the Roman Church cannot use Scripture as the 'regula fidei' - rule of faith - since too many of their important doctrines can only be adequately supported by the traditions - things dreamed up by various church theologians over the centuries - the word of man; not the word of God.
Romans 15:4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.
If you feel that scripture alone is inadequate for christain doctrine, then I would like to know why and in what sense.
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
Simply put, those that believe in purgatory believe that Christ simply did not do enough on the Cross to atone for our sins.
RioLion, oh not true. Where does the Catholic Church teach that JESUS CHRIST our Lord and Savior did not pay the price in full for us? He opened the door to our eternal salvation, but that is only available to us if we choose to walk through it by following Him.
Those who follow CHRIST still have the tendency towards sin ["all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of GOD" - a normative statement] and as such between the time of their bodily death and their entrance in heaven this tendency will have to be removed for tendency towards sin is not cleanliness and as scripture states ["nothing unclean shall enter heaven"]. If there is no santification upon entering heaven, how do you rectify the scriptural passages stating otherwise?
It does not matter how, when or where it is done. According to scripture it will happen and your works will be tested. If you refer to the CCC you will notice that their are only three paragraphs pertaining to the doctrine of Purgatory, none of which describe it as a place or something that takes time any certain amount of time. If individuals have taught other than that in the past they were ignorant of the faith and in error. This would of course not be surprising since individual nuns, priests and bishops are not infallible.
If I am "in Christ", I am purified in Him. He is my holiness, my sanctification, my all (1 Cor. 1:30-31). I am a new creature in Him (2 Cor. 5:17), and my sins have been taken away by His all-sufficient atonement (Col. 2:13-15; 1 Peter 2:24).
Certainly, Catholics would agree with you here. From your point of view though, this passage from St. Paul may be disturbing.
Colossians 1:24 (RSV)
24: Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church
Is Paul speaking blasphemy here?
Also those that believe in purgatory have to believe that their church has the power to determine ones stay in purgatory.
Where do you get this idea? The Church officially teaches very little about Purgatory as is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
In that, the Roman church invented the so-called Treasury of Merit in which the goodness of others could be transferred to the account of those that lacked sufficient graces to merit remission from purgatory.
Here is a good OT - NT parallel that addresses this charge [Hebrews 11:35 <--> 2 Maccabees 6:18-7:42].
I do hope this helps, peace to you all.
later.....
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
I would much better prefer defining the church as that body composed of all those that are in Christ regardless of denominational afflication.
The church being that body of all those that are in Christ is the bride of Christ. To say that only that the Roman Church is the bride of Christ, then from a review of its history, one can only conclude that she is truly an ugly looking bitch in view of the fact that those in the hierarchy have been murderers, thiefs, lover of money, whoremongers, sorcercers, sodomists, idolaters, and other despicable types.
Fortunately those that are Christians in the Roman Church generally do not care much for their church's doctrine - this is indicated by the Gallup surveys as well as others. Most born-again Roman Catholics have a testimony of accepting Christ into their lives and thus recognizing His lordship. They pray, sometimes read the bible, and try to live a moral life using their conscience as the major guide. When talking to them, they will tell you that there is the Church laws and then there is God's law and that they really favor following the latter.
Interestingly in Maryland where I used to live, many people in the congregation at the Bible churches where I attended either were Roman Catholics or from Roman Catholic backgrounds. They, like sheep, sought spiritual food from those churches that were Biblically oriented instead of those that depend heavily upon worthless rituals that all too often resembled the magick from the Harry Potter books.
The unbiblical doctrine of indulgences really contradicts the overall purpose of purgatory in that purgatory was invented to explain how one that has sinned can stand before a holy God. If the stay one must have in purgatory is short-cut by the purchased merits of others, then that person would not be purified to stand before a holy God. The simple answer is that both purgatory and its companion doctrine of indulgences are simply an invention designed to exploit people that do not understand the Scripture in that Spirit of God has the capability to glorify one before facing God Almighty; and that is only done to those that look upon Christ as their Lord and Savior as it is only Christ that can save one to the utmost - Hebrews 7:25
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
Simply put, those that believe in purgatory believe that Christ simply did not do enough on the Cross to atone for our sins. If I am "in Christ", I am purified in Him. He is my holiness, my sanctification, my all (1 Cor. 1:30-31). I am a new creature in Him (2 Cor. 5:17), and my sins have been taken away by His all-sufficient atonement (Col. 2:13-15; 1 Peter 2:24).
Also those that believe in purgatory have to believe that their church has the power to determine ones stay in purgatory.In that, the Roman church invented the so-called Treasury of Merit in which the goodness of others could be transferred to the account of those that lacked sufficient graces to merit remission from purgatory.
later.....
IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
drixane,
I will send you a personal message about this when I get some time. GOD Bless!
IP: Logged |
|
|
drixane
Community Member
Member # 1783
|
posted
INRI -
Forgive this question, but I ask it in all serious naitivity...
Obviously the Catholic Church wasn't around prior to Christ... and at least from the limited research I have been able to look at, wasn't around immediately after his ascension. You are more then welcome to correct on this point as I have yet to find a viable website that gives an accurate _history_ of the RCC. (If you know of one, please add a link here because I am loving all of the research I am getting my hands on!)
Now my naive question - actually a two parter:
Assuming that the church wasn't around until several hundred years after Christ, where does the RCC get it's origins to determine what it believes is the interpretation of the bible versus how another denomination has the right to interpret it.
I'm also kind of confused why the RCC would make it seem that the blood of Christ is not enough for eternal salvation - could you explain this?
Please respect that I am asking these questions without looking to raise any arguments but to get some knowledge as to your extremely strong convictions.
To everyone: I have no desire to make this a shouting match. Please do not make it one.
I attended a Polish National Catholic Church for 18 years of my life (forced to attend - Baptised & Confirmed) because it was asked of me. I never questioned anything regarding the Catholic Church in general because personally I couldn't care less about it. (Not just the Catholic Church, but just the whole idea in general.)
I'm now on a constant search for answers, and since the subject was raised, I'd like to inquire a little deeper.
Thanks for your time IRNI.
--Steve
Posts: 14 | From: Lewisville, TX | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
Originally posted by RioLion:
It is true that most Roman Catholics - and other
Catholic groups - do not know much about the subject of purgatory as most Catholics do not concern themselves with such theology prefering to simply believe in God and a simple common morality of life.
I would say that there is a good number of people who claim to be Catholic Christians that do not know their faith very well, including the doctrine of Purgatory. There are over 1 billion Catholics accounting for over 2/3 of all Christians worldwide, so you are bound to have some who do not know or practice their faith. I personally would not call those who do not know or practice their Catholic faith, "Catholic". This is no different from any Christian denomination where those ignorant/compacent of the faith can be found.
The concept of purgatory was created as an answer to how one that is not perfect can stand before a righteous and holy God. The problem of this concept is that there is neither support for it in the writings of the Early Fathers - first 3 centuries - nor in Scripture.
I am sorry but what you state here is incorrect [first 3 centuries - nor in Scripture]. The doctrine of Purgatory can already be found in 2nd century writings and definitely 3rd century by writers like Tertullian and Cyprian of Carthage. Please follow the link you responded to:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp
Please refer to the following link for scriptural references:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp
And we can see from church history that the concept of purgatory was a convenience tool for exploitation of the church by corrupt church leadership finally resulting in the Reformation.
It is not Purgatory that lead to corruption but rather the misuse of indulgences. The Church is Holy because she is the Body of CHRIST, not her individual members. Her members consist of both saints and sinners so it does not surprise me and it should not you that a member of the Church could make mistakes. It does not mean that the Church itself is corrupt and you should therefore break from it.
For instance, it was upon Papal authority that one - Tetzel, sold indulgences in order for one to be released from purgatory, that lead Martin Luther to challenge him.
"When a coin in the coffer rings,
a soul from purgatory springs!"
Rotten seed or doctrine often brings forth corruption in the Church.
At this time, I do not have time to confirm whether or not this is true. I will get back to you on this. What do you mean by Papal authority?
I recall the story of a priest who wanted more money for a Mass to be given in behalf of a parishoner that died. He told the family that the deceased is all out of purgatory except his feet and that one more Mass for the dead was needed. The family told him that the deceased could pull himself the rest of the way out of purgatory if he was that far out. No more Masses were requested by the family.
A priest is not infallible so it does not surprise me that one could make a mistake. This person was merely interjecting his personal beliefs/opinions upon Purgatory. If you check the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will find that the Church does not say all that much about Purgatory, just three paragraphs. If the teaching does not line up with the Catechism, then it is not Catholic.
There are many who claim to know and teach the Catholic faith but the only way to know is to refer to the official Church teachings. My words here are certainly not infallible and may be prone to error so I defer you to the Catechism.
http://198.62.75.12/www2/kerygma/ccc/searchcat.html
Purgatory, like many other non-scriptural doctrines of the Roman Church, has always been a problem for defending by RC apologists as their basis lies in the religious philosophy of man rather than in the Word of God.
I disagree with you here, the Catholic Church is the the true Bible Church for she is the body that defined the Bible for us. Purgatory is definitely found in scripture as can be found in the link listed above.
May the Lord infuse you with His saving grace!
IP: Logged |
|
|
RioLion
unregistered
|
posted
It is true that most Roman Catholics - and other
Catholic groups - do not know much about the subject of purgatory as most Catholics do not concern themselves with such theology prefering to simply believe in God and a simple common morality of life.
The concept of purgatory was created as an answer to how one that is not perfect can stand before a righteous and holy God. The problem of this concept is that there is neither support for it in the writings of the Early Fathers - first 3 centuries - nor in Scripture. And we can see from church history that the concept of purgatory was a convenience tool for exploitation of the church by corrupt church leadership finally resulting in the Reformation. For instance, it was upon Papal authority that one - Tetzel, sold indulgences in order for one to be released from purgatory, that lead Martin Luther to challenge him.
"When a coin in the coffer rings,
a soul from purgatory springs!"
Rotten seed or doctrine often brings forth corruption in the Church.
I recall the story of a priest who wanted more money for a Mass to be given in behalf of a parishoner that died. He told the family that the deceased is all out of purgatory except his feet and that one more Mass for the dead was needed. The family told him that the deceased could pull himself the rest of the way out of purgatory if he was that far out. No more Masses were requested by the family.
Purgatory, like many other non-scriptural doctrines of the Roman Church, has always been a problem for defending by RC apologists as their basis lies in the religious philosophy of man rather than in the Word of God.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
INRI
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by 58 JOY 85:
ok, well my friend grew up in a catholic church(but he hasn't been going lately) but he doesn't really know anything about what catholics believe. i, not being catholic, wasn't sure how to answer his questions. he asked what purgatory is , but i don't really know, i *think it is like where you go after you die but before heaven to pay for the sins you committed on earth. but i told him i wasn't sure b/c i don't believe in purgatory because i am saved and believe that jesus died to take away my sins, so when i ask for forgivness and repent God indeed forgives me and then forgets it. but he(my friend) thinks that that is hipocritical, that you could kill a guy ,and then after your saved ask for forgivness and turn from that sin, that God forgives you and it is forgotten and you don't have to pay for it.i don't really know how to expalin it to him, or what i am really explaining. so if you understood a word of what i am asking please help me out. thanx for reading
-rebecca
Rebecca,
If your friend is ill-informed of his Catholic faith, the best thing he could do is run down to any bookstore, even secular ones like Borders and pick himself up a $8.99 paperback copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This will explain what the Church teaches about Purgatory [and many other oftenly confused issues] straight from the horse's mouth, with all their associated scriptural passages referenced.
Do not follow the Fat Pastor links unless you wish only to obtain attacks on the doctine of Purgatory.
Here are some good links about Purgatory:
http://www.catholic.com/library/last_things.asp
http://www.jamesakin.com/ -- click on The Last Things in section What Catholics Believe About and click on How should one explain purgatory to Protestants?
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/file_index.asp?SeriesId=54&pgnu=1 -- click on the three realplayer shows on Purgatory for free listen/download from esteemed biblical scholar Dr. Scott Hahn, Presbyterian minister convert to Catholicism.
Hope this helps you out.
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
|
1
Advanced Member
Member # 901
|
posted
Hi,
If you want to know what some Roman Catholics think is a defense of the existance of purgatory this link will provide you with lots of verses that are used to try to make that doctrine work.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/purgatory.htm
Also the Catachism is available online. Here is just one source of it:
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
No, I am not Roman Catholic, and no, I do not believe in the existance of purgatory.
I do think it is of value to know what the church that advocates it's existance has to say, in order to be prepared to examine it and defeat the notion should it be warranted.
May you have fun defending the faith, and may it's message of the Gospel of the cross become apparant to your friend.
neighbor
Posts: 42 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
58 JOY 85
Community Member
Member # 130
|
posted
ok, well my friend grew up in a catholic church(but he hasn't been going lately) but he doesn't really know anything about what catholics believe. i, not being catholic, wasn't sure how to answer his questions. he asked what purgatory is , but i don't really know, i *think it is like where you go after you die but before heaven to pay for the sins you committed on earth. but i told him i wasn't sure b/c i don't believe in purgatory because i am saved and believe that jesus died to take away my sins, so when i ask for forgivness and repent God indeed forgives me and then forgets it. but he(my friend) thinks that that is hipocritical, that you could kill a guy ,and then after your saved ask for forgivness and turn from that sin, that God forgives you and it is forgotten and you don't have to pay for it.i don't really know how to expalin it to him, or what i am really explaining. so if you understood a word of what i am asking please help me out. thanx for reading
-rebecca
--------------------
thats what i think
Posts: 20 | From: alabama | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
