Episcopal Church

[VARC]

The point I was trying to make in that one remark is that there were several ECF who believed and spoke of Purgatory, taken individually they could have erred on other issues. The Church has always held to Scripture as well as Tradition, those traditions were passed on to the ECF.

Christian doctrine is founded on the teachings of Christ and the apostles. There is no clearly ellaborated record of the doctrine of purgatory in the Gospels or epistles of the new testament. Furthermore, there is no mention of it by the Fathers of the second century or the first ecumenical councils of the church. Passages from the writings of six bishops, hundreads of years removed from Christ, is not enough is to demand assent to a theological opinion.

Let’s just be honest about this. You don’t believe in purgatory because there is overwheming scriptural evidence of its existence, you believe in purgatory because the pope tells you to.

Please can you write a list of ECF who didn’t believe in Purgatory

I don’t have to. I’m not asserting that some Fathers didn’t believe it, I’m asserting that the doctrine is not in scripture. As a Roman Catholic I know that you really could care less whether it is or not because you’ll believe whatever Rome says with or witout scriptural support.

As opposed to the reformers who were at least 1500 years removed from the apostles. Remember, until the Reformation Christians believed in Purgatory (including the Orthodox).

That’s a little dishonest of you to assert that the Orthodox subscribe to purgatory. They tolerate it as theological speculation but it is a dogma that can freely be denied

And yes, the Gospels as well as other scriptures do allude to a place other than Hell or Heaven. What is Sheol? And it is not Hell because the hebrew word for Hell is Gehanna. This is the underworld or as I would like to call it Purgatory. In the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, what is the setting, that is, where is this story taking place? They are obviously not in Heaven for Jesus had not yet died on the cross, nor could they be in Hell For Lazarus was embraced by Abraham, so where in the heck were they?

Before the Lord’s death opened the gates of heaven to the people of God, nobody could enter heaven. Everybody went to Sheol, the place of the dead, including Abraham and Lazarus. The righteous patiently waited for the redemption of the messiah while the wicked were already being punished. Again, this teaching is explained in your church’s own New American Bible. I suggest you read it sometime.

Also, Peter speaks of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, again what prison is he referring to? 1 Peter 3:19

Hardly proof of purgatory. Your own New American Bible gives this note for the passage.

The spirits in prison: it is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ (cf 1 Peter 3:22; Genesis 6:4; Enoch 6-36, especially 1 Peter 3:21:6; 2 Enoch 7:1-5).

Perhaps you can read the commentary of your own church’s biblical experts before asserting something they are unwilling to concede.

   ". . .If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be
    saved, but only as one escaping throught the flames"

This is probably the closest thing you will find to scriptural support for purgatory and it is pretty vague. St Paul doesn’t ellaborate any further so one can only speculate as to what exactly he means by this passage. Your own New American Bible concedes as much. So I object to demanding assent to the doctrine based only on this vague verse that can mean a lot things. Especially because there is also much more scriptural support that claims that no amount of merit/suffering makes one pure enough to enter heaven: Only grace can do that. At best, I tolerate it as a theological opinion worthy of belief but absolutely not a required dogma.

Actually in the Nicene Creed it does mention that Jesus rose from the Dead on the third day, what was he doing in that time that he was “dead”. According to Peter he was preaching to the spirits in Prison.

God Bless

And as I already explained, those spirits are not necessarily in purgatory. They could be wicked flood victims or evil spirits according to your church biblical experts.

 

[elgar]

Your opinion that Anglicans are heretical is your own, one that the Roman Church does not share. Can you enlighten us in the ways that the Anglican Church is persecuting the Roman Church? And what form does this “persecution” take?

SteveLy said specifically it is TEC doing the persecuting, not the Anglican Church. I can’t answer for Steve, but I think he was referring to all the numerous lawsuits brought on by Mrs. Schori and her legal advisers against the Episcopalians wanting out. So Christian. Again, she reminds me a lot of Henry VIII. It’s all about power and money.

 

[VARC]

They are wrong, as the Church’s 1) ordinary and universal Magisterium, and 2) her extraordinary Magisterium are both infallible.

That’s pretty funny. We are right because we can’t be wrong.
C I R C U L A R R E A S O N I N G :hypno:

 

[Soler]

That’s pretty funny. We are right because we can’t be wrong.
C I R C U L A R R E A S O N I N G :hypno:

Well, you did remove my statement from its context. Of course one must first establish that the Church is infallible. Which is why I immediately followed that with:

(You will find the proofs of the infallibility of the Church on other threads in this forum and elsewhere on the Internet.)

—Soler.

 

[josie_L]

Christian doctrine is founded on the teachings of Christ and the apostles. There is no clearly ellaborated record of the doctrine of purgatory in the Gospels or epistles of the new testament. Furthermore, there is no mention of it by the Fathers of the second century or the first ecumenical councils of the church. Passages from the writings of six bishops, hundreads of years removed from Christ, is not enough is to demand assent to a theological opinion.

I stand by what I previously said there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the idea of Purgatory and there is much that alludes to it. Add Tradition and the ECF into the argument and the idea of Purgatory doesn’t sound so crazy.
Let’s just be honest about this. You don’t believe in purgatory because there is overwheming scriptural evidence of its existence, you believe in purgatory because the pope tells you to.

Let’s be honest, YOU don’t Know ME. And I never said I believe in Purgatory because of “overwhelming” scriptural evidence, I believe in it because of the oral Traditions AND Scriptural evidence. As for the Pope (You should be capitalizing the P in Pope by the way), he too believes what the Church has believed for two millenia.

I don’t have to. I’m not asserting that some Fathers didn’t believe it, I’m asserting that the doctrine is not in scripture. As a Roman Catholic I know that you really could care less whether it is or not because you’ll believe whatever Rome says with or witout scriptural support.

Oh, dear I’m starting to see a pattern.

That’s a little dishonest of you to assert that the Orthodox subscribe to purgatory. They tolerate it as theological speculation but it is a dogma that can freely be denied

So what is it a theological speculation or a dogma?

Before the Lord’s death opened the gates of heaven to the people of God, nobody could enter heaven. Everybody went to Sheol, the place of the dead, including Abraham and Lazarus. The righteous patiently waited for the redemption of the messiah while the wicked were already being punished. Again, this teaching is explained in your church’s own New American Bible. I suggest you read it sometime.

Does Sheol still exist?

Hardly proof of purgatory. Your own New American Bible gives this note for the passage.

The spirits in prison: it is not clear just who these spirits are. They may be the spirits of the sinners who died in the flood, or angelic powers, hostile to God, who have been overcome by Christ (cf 1 Peter 3:22; Genesis 6:4; Enoch 6-36, especially 1 Peter 3:21:6; 2 Enoch 7:1-5).

Perhaps you can read the commentary of your own church’s biblical experts before asserting something they are unwilling to concede.

Who are these church biblical experts?

This is probably the closest thing you will find to scriptural support for purgatory and it is pretty vague. St Paul doesn’t ellaborate any further so one can only speculate as to what exactly he means by this passage. Your own New American Bible concedes as much. So I object to demanding assent to the doctrine based only on this vague verse that can mean a lot things. Especially because there is also much more scriptural support that claims that no amount of merit/suffering makes one pure enough to enter heaven: Only grace can do that. At best, I tolerate it as a theological opinion worthy of belief but absolutely not a required dogma.

Yes, it is Grace and I try to live by that Grace every day, but I make mistakes sometimes.
So are you saying the Catholic Church may be right that such a place exists?

And as I already explained, those spirits are not necessarily in purgatory. They could be wicked flood victims or evil spirits according to your church biblical experts.

Who are these church biblical experts?

God Bless Varc!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

SteveLy said specifically it is TEC doing the persecuting, not the Anglican Church. I can’t answer for Steve, but I think he was referring to all the numerous lawsuits brought on by Mrs. Schori and her legal advisers against the Episcopalians wanting out. So Christian. Again, she reminds me a lot of Henry VIII. It’s all about power and money.

I see. None of that hardly refers to persecution of the Roman church however. The issue with churches breaking with the TEC is complicated, and is not part of this thread and so I will not speak to it. Unless you understand all the ins and outs of it, perhaps it would be better to refrain. I assume your position is that if a RCC church decides to break with Rome it is entitled to retain the RCC property as it’s own?

 

[LUISV]

God Bless!

Cute

 

[mikew262]

They are wrong, as the Church’s 1) ordinary and universal Magisterium, and 2) her extraordinary Magisterium are both infallible. Only the Church determines correctly what is heresy, and by extension, who is a heretic.

(You will find the proofs of the infallibility of the Church on other threads in this forum and elsewhere on the Internet.)

Does it really seem probable that God doesn’t care how near we are to the Truth, as long as we “have the basics”?

Protestants and other heretics have, believing themselves to be closer to the Truth, “made up fluff”. The Catholic Church, however, has defined doctrine under the protection of the Holy Spirit to lead souls closer to Truth and thereby closer to God.

I fervently hope that you stay with the Church and come to fully accept her dogma. God bless.

—Soler.

I’m well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on these issues.

Keep in mind that to a non-catholic, the RCC’s position on various topics is just an opinion and doesn’t necessarily hold any water with them. A non-Catholic feels the RCC is just as much in error on certain topics, as the RCC feels a non-catholic denomination is. To a non-catholic, the RCC’s infallibility claim is nonsense.

As far as me staying with the RCC, I am leaning that way, but I probably always will have problems with some of the RCC’s doctrine.

Again, I feel we place a lot more emphasis on the “micro”, whereby God is content if we just get the “macro” right.

 

[josie_L]

.

Mike if you have some doubts, the best thing to do is pray about those issues which bother you. It helped me, I learned to lean on God’s understanding rather than my own. Although a cradle Catholic I wasn’t versed or brought up to understand all the ins and outs of Catholic Christianity. I always believed that being Catholic felt right but never really understood the whys and hows of it. Truth is something to be discovered, sometimes it can knock us over the head and at other times it can move as slow as molasses in winter. But it does come, it just takes time and diligence. I say this with conviction not arrogance. God Bless.

 

[VARC]

Who are these church biblical experts?

God Bless Varc!

The Roman Catholic biblical experts who translated and commented in the New American Bible: the only translation authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why don’t you read the notes and commentary of the only official Bible in your own church? It will tell you that none of those aforementioned verses are talking about purgatory.

 

[preV2tradcath]

Don’t forget the DouayRheims.

 

[VARC]

I stand by what I previously said there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the idea of Purgatory and there is much that alludes to it. Add Tradition and the ECF into the argument and the idea of Purgatory doesn’t sound so crazy.
!

You are arguing way past me. I began by asserting that purgatory is an extrabiblical doctrine. You opined by citing scripture that was clearly out of context according to the biblical experts of your own church.

I never said the idea sounds “crazy”. I said it wasn’t taught in scripture. There is a lot of things the scripture “alludes” to. But I object to demanding assent to a doctrine that scripture vaguely “alludes” to and that is not clearly taught by anyone until 300 years after the fact.

Let’s be honest, YOU don’t Know ME. And I never said I believe in Purgatory because of “overwhelming” scriptural evidence, I believe in it because of the oral Traditions AND Scriptural evidence.

Yes but unfortunately the “oral traditions” and the “scritural evidence” have to be authenticated by the pope. You have made only one independant decision and came to one conclusion all by yourself: that the pope is infallible.

So what is it a theological speculation or a dogma?

A theological speculation is a religious teaching that is reasonable and worthy of belief but not a requirement of the faith. An example in Roman Catholicism woulod be limbo.

A dogma is a religious teaching that requires assent of faith under the pain of sin. Ex. the Trinity

Does Sheol still exist?

Yes, the damned await there until the last day. Christ led all the righteous from Sheol to heaven after the cruxifiction.

So are you saying the Catholic Church may be right that such a place exists?

While I believe some of the caricatures of purgatory are medieval superstitions, I do believe the idea of purgatory is reasonable and worthy of belief. But I strenuously object to making that belief a mandatory condition of communion. There is no clear biblical foundation.

 

[Soler]

I’m well aware of the Catholic Church’s position on these issues.

Keep in mind that to a non-catholic, the RCC’s position on various topics is just an opinion and doesn’t necessarily hold any water with them. A non-Catholic feels the RCC is just as much in error on certain topics, as the RCC feels a non-catholic denomination is. To a non-catholic, the RCC’s infallibility claim is nonsense.

Yes, but the historical claim of the Catholic Church to be a continuation of the Church of the Apostles holds a great deal of water. The Protestant (including Anglican) claim holds no water, and the Eastern Orthodox claim only a small amount. If the Church is a continuation of the Church of the Apostles, surely one ought to trust her when she says that she is infallible.

As far as me staying with the RCC, I am leaning that way, but I probably always will have problems with some of the RCC’s doctrine.

You can “have problems” with doctrine, but you still must accept same doctrine. I “have problems” with Church doctrine concerning free will and concerning animals, but I don’t reject it because it doesn’t suit me or I can’t understand it. All will be revealed in the next life, so why bother worrying about not being able to understand Church doctine? Trust the Church founded by Christ!

God is content if we just get the “macro” right.

But… WHY???

Schismatics and heretics can of course reach heaven, but why not get the “micro” right? Besides, who are you to determine what’s “important” and what isn’t? That might seem a bit harsh, but remember, we are fallible human beings. To paraphrase a SCOTUS judgement, it is emphatically the province and duty of the Catholic Church to say what the truth is.

God Bless.

—Soler.

 

[josie_L]

The Roman Catholic biblical experts who translated and commented in the New American Bible: the only translation authorized by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Why don’t you read the notes and commentary of the only official Bible in your own church? It will tell you that none of those aforementioned verses are talking about purgatory.

I am sorry, maybe I should have mentioned earlier that I am not American. So I’m not sure how essential it is to me as a Canadian Catholic to read the New American Bible: although my mom may have one (we have a lot of Catholic American cousins). As one poster stated there is also the douay rheims. I 'd like to know what these experts had to say about 1 Corinthians 3:10-16 and 2 Maccabees 12: 38-46. I read your profile Varc you are an Anglican, does not the Anglican Church believe in Faith, Tradition, and Reason has a means to interpret the Bible. You sound more like a Sola Scriptura guy.

Also, you never answered my question concerning the scenario I gave you. What if you or I should die tomorrow having some remaining vestiges of sin within us, would we be able to enter Heaven without somehow being purified in order to gain entrance.
Where would this purification process happen since no unclean thing can enter Heaven?

I am asking you to use faith, tradition and reason in your response. Thanks. God Bless.

 

[josie_L]

You are arguing way past me. I began by asserting that purgatory is an extrabiblical doctrine. You opined by citing scripture that was clearly out of context according to the biblical experts of your own church.

Please refer to the above post for my response

I never saiId the idea sounds “crazy”. I said it wasn’t taught in scripture. There is a lot of things the scripture “alludes” to. But I object to demanding assent to a doctrine that scripture vaguely “alludes” to and that is not clearly taught by anyone until 300 years after the fact.

I never meant to literally imply that you said it was crazy. I used such a word only to suggest that the Catholic Church through tradition as well as through scripture (and one could also say reason) is well-grounded in stating that there is a place which is neither Heaven nor Hell where after death we are purified. I do not believe that Purgatory is extra-biblical. Why do you state it was not taught until 300 years after the fact? Did I not mention Tertullian and other EFC that I did not mention in my list of people who SPOKE of Purgatory. I am not sure if the right word is taught so much as it was mentioned (and sometimes elaborated upon) by the EFC - that means that this doctrine could have been around far earlier than you suggest.

Yes but unfortunately the “oral traditions” and the “scritural evidence” have to be authenticated by the pope. You have made only one independant decision and came to one conclusion all by yourself: that the pope is infallible.

The Pope (you should be capitalizing the P) as well as the other Bishops. Do you deny that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles and of those Apostles did he not hand the keys of the kingdom to Peter? And please stop insulting my intelligence I am not brainwashed. Please read my post I sent to Mike (It is right above yours).

A theological speculation is a religious teaching that is reasonable and worthy of belief but not a requirement of the faith. An example in Roman Catholicism woulod be limbo.

A dogma is a religious teaching that requires assent of faith under the pain of sin. Ex. the Trinity

I did not mean to ask for a definition, I meant from your response whether you were suggesting that the Orthodox Church viewed Purgatory as a theological speculation and a dogma, and my question was which is it, because it cannot both be speculation and dogma at the same time. Sorry for that, it’s hard to convey the right meaning when you are writing.

Yes, the damned await there until the last day. Christ led all the righteous from Sheol to heaven after the cruxifiction.

But if they are the damned are they not already in Hell? I stated before that Sheol is not Gehanna which is Hell. Sheol is another place altogether, there were good and not so good spirits in this place, but never the damned.

While I believe some of the caricatures of purgatory are medieval superstitions, I do believe the idea of purgatory is reasonable and worthy of belief. But I strenuously object to making that belief a mandatory condition of communion. There is no clear biblical foundation.

You did not answer my question, can the Catholic church be correct in stating there is a place like Purgatory? There can only be a yes or no to this response. Either Purgatory exists or it does not? I don’t believe the Catholic Church has ever withheld communion to any Catholic who did not believe in Purgatory. In fact my sister is not so sure of Purgatory herself (although I am working on that) and she is still Catholic (no excommunication and still receives communion).

Oh Varc, I meant to write Scripture, Tradition and Reason in my above post. Sorry!

 

[josie_L]

And I mean no disrespect to you either. My point is not that henry was not flawed. Of that hardly anyone would dispute, however it hardly adds to the conversation to rehash the failures of a man long dead. There are popes long dead who were far less than helpful to your church as well. We chalk that down to the usual sinfulness that we all share in. A bad man does not mean that the church is bad. I’m sure you agree.

I recognize that we can all have pet persons whom we take a deeper dislike for. I find myself in that position as regards Luther often.

If you feel that somehow Henry’s brief tenure as “titular” head of the Anglican faith somehow taints it so dramatically by his very life, that you cannot be a part of it, then, of course you should look elsewhere. I myself tend to look more at beliefs, liturgy, practices, mission, ministries and things like that when making such a decision. We all, I hope end up where we are most suited to be, and in that I think we can trust God’s guiding hand.

Sorry Spirit Meadow, I missed your post, I think what I’m trying to say politely is that I would never be part of a church that began or came into existence as a result of a King’s selfish and warped nature (even though it may have held similar doctrines to the Catholic Church). Yes, there have been bad Popes but my Church began with Jesus Christ.

Remember Spiritmeadow, we should not end up in a church just because it fits our worldview, we must know and follow Truth wherever it leads. This may just well be a pit stop in your journey towards Truth (being in the TEC). I hope like every Christian including myself that we all learn to lean on God’s understanding instead of our own. We all however have freewill.

 

[elgar]

Sorry Spirit Meadow, I missed your post, I think what I’m trying to say politely is that I would never be part of a church that began or came into existence as a result of a King’s selfish and warped nature (even though it may have held similar doctrines to the Catholic Church). Yes, there have been bad Popes but my Church began with Jesus Christ.

Remember Spiritmeadow, we should not end up in a church just because it fits our worldview, we must know and follow Truth wherever it leads. This may just well be a pit stop in your journey towards Truth (being in the TEC). I hope like every Christian including myself that we all learn to lean on God’s understanding instead of our own. We all however have freewill.

If one were to base a decision to join a reformed church by its founders, I would think Luther or the Wesleys would be a more obvious choice. Those men at least had very good intentions. Luther wanted to reform the church from within and John and Charles Wesley were very sincere fellows from what I’ve read. Henry on the other hand had different motives.

We all want to follow the “truth”. Problem being folks here can’t agree on a universal definition. What is “true” for me is a reflection on a relativistic mindset so prevalent today.

 

[masuwerte]

FWIW, John and Charles Wesley have a feast day on the calendar of the Episcopal Church. That’s as close to cannonization as TEC goes .

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Sorry Spirit Meadow, I missed your post, I think what I’m trying to say politely is that I would never be part of a church that began or came into existence as a result of a King’s selfish and warped nature (even though it may have held similar doctrines to the Catholic Church). Yes, there have been bad Popes but my Church began with Jesus Christ.

Remember Spiritmeadow, we should not end up in a church just because it fits our worldview, we must know and follow Truth wherever it leads. This may just well be a pit stop in your journey towards Truth (being in the TEC). I hope like every Christian including myself that we all learn to lean on God’s understanding instead of our own. We all however have freewill.

I know exactly how you feel. Christ is the head of my church too! In fact, he is the head of Christianity in all its splendor. I can understand that you don’t like Henry. I’ve been appalled in my years in the RCC with a Pope or too I can tell ya. But I trust that we survive those bad folks and move on.

And I totally agree that we should never choose a church because it suits are social agenda. We should be sure that we feel we are on firm theological and exegetical ground and are following Jesus’ teachings. Our church choice should reflect that.
It could be that I will come to a fuller understand and that will lead me elsewhere, since it never dawned on me that I would leave the RCC after wanting to be in it for so long. But one’s conscientious belief in following the truth should be paramount. I hope that you remember that too! That would be the soft quiet voice of God within

 

[josie_L]

If one were to base a decision to join a reformed church by its founders, I would think Luther or the Wesleys would be a more obvious choice. Those men at least had very good intentions. Luther wanted to reform the church from within and John and Charles Wesley were very sincere fellows from what I’ve read. Henry on the other hand had different motives.

We all want to follow the “truth”. Problem being folks here can’t agree on a universal definition. What is “true” for me is a reflection on a relativistic mindset so prevalent today.

Actually, I’m not a fan of Martin Luther either, no offense to Lutherans:shrug: . I think his demonizing remarks about the Catholic Church (Pope is the anti-christ and the CC is the whore of Babylon) is why we see so much ant-catholicism in quite a few Protestant denominations today (not to mention the past few centuries of persecution we have suffered for being Catholic). I’m not sure how we’ll ever be unified as Christians when many Protestants (and cults) think that 1 billion plus Catholics are following the anti-christ. I have read so much garbage since I started researching the theology of my faith, it hurts to hear such things being said by other Christians.

I agree with you in that “truth” is defined differently by everyone, but rationally speaking we know there can only be one TRUTH (that is a TRUTH completely free of error in all areas of morality and faith). I believe if we seek with sincere hearts and lean not on our own understanding (pray a lot) we will find it.