Episcopal Church

[josie_L]

Sanctioned it? He leapt at the opportunity. Henry knew money when he saw it.

I wouldn’t want Henry in the same county as myself (nor Mary Tudor, either, for that matter. But, for all that, he started out with great promise. And the story of what happened is fascinating and complex. History is often like that.

GKC

Exactly, why I mentioned greed in the first place. As for Mary Tudor, at least her motives were pure (in that they were not motivated by greed or personal gain). I really believe she was fighting for Truth, and it’s quite unfair for History to label her “Bloody Mary”, when her father and her half sister were probably less tolerant than she. I believe at this time the majority of English were still very Catholic.

 

[elgar]

Sanctioned it? He leapt at the opportunity. Henry knew money when he saw it.

I wouldn’t want Henry in the same county as myself (nor Mary Tudor, either, for that matter. But, for all that, he started out with great promise. And the story of what happened is fascinating and complex. History is often like that.

GKC

Exactly. Fast forward to today. The Church of England with Queen Elizabeth II as head of the Church is in tatters. More Roman Catholics attend weekly church than Anglicans. Muslims are fast on their heals.

By all reports, Africa is on fire for Christ. And all brands: Catholic, Anglican and Evangelical. They are not interested in Unitarianism. Reasons are complex yet not. Christianity offers hope. Some here think we should apologize for colonization and missionary work. I beg to differ. Another example where good can come out of less than noble intentions. Yes, history is interesting.

 

[GKC]

Exactly, why I mentioned greed in the first place. As for Mary Tudor, at least her motives were pure (in that they were not motivated by greed or personal gain). I really believe she was fighting for Truth, and it’s quite unfair for History to label her “Bloody Mary”, when her father and her half sister were probably less tolerant than she. I believe at this time the majority of English were still very Catholic.

Do look into Scarisbrick.

And I think a book on Elizabeth would be in order. Lacey Baldwin Smith’s ELIZABETH TUDOR is good. None of the clan was particularly tolerant; it wasn’t the nature of the times. But Elizabeth was the most markedly so, in that she primarily sought a consensus polity. She was the most likely to compromise.

GKC

 

[VARC]

Varc, I believe that these scriptures may help in understanding why the Catholic Church has believed in purgatory for 2 millenia:

2 Maccabees 12:38-46
Matthew 5:21-26
Mathhew 12:32
Matthew 18:21-35
Luke 12:58
Luke 16:19-31
1 Corinthians 3:10-16
1 Peter 3:19; 4:6

This is just part of Matthew 5:21-26:

     "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking 
      you to court.  Do it while you are still with him on the way
      or he may hand you over to the Judge, and the Judge may  
      hand you over to the Officer, and you may be thrown into
      prison.  I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, YOU WILL NOT GET 
      OUT OF PRISON UNTIL YOU HAVE PAID OFF THE LAST
      PENNY."

The Catholic Church teaches that Purgatory is a temporary state of purification that takes place after death.

I will send you another post of the early Church Fathers professing that same belief (Sacred Traditions). God Bless.

Roman Catholics often times can’t see anything past their own religious teaching. So much so that they read their doctrines into scripture instead of from scripture. That is what they are taught to do by apologists. The citation from Matthew is not teaching that a place exists where one has to suffer a predetermined amount of pain or loss before one enters heaven. It is a parable that is told again in Matt 18:34

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Jesus is explaining the permenent punishment of the damned. As St Augustine and the Roman Catholic New American Bible explain the parable, the man owes ten thousands talents: an absolutely insurmountable debt. The phrase “until he should pat back all he owed” was an empty promise because the man will never be able to raise ten thousand talents. The teaching is that if you don’t forgive your brother his small debts (sins against you) God will not forgive you your enormous debt (sins against God and neighbor). But don’t take my word for it , read the notes from your own church’s Bible.

 

[VARC]

Varc, here are some ECF who wrote about Purgatory:

Tertullian
Cyprian of Carthage
Cyril of Jerusalem
Gregory Of Nyssa (Sermon of the Dead)
John Chrysostom
St. Augustine

“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he has inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire” (Sermon on the Dead [A.D. 382]).

I hope you get to read what they have to say. God Bless.

That is all good and well. I know that many Fathers believed in purgatory. But the Fathers belived a lot of diffrent things. Cyprian believed that heretics cannot baptize. Tertullian belived that the sacrament of confession could only be administered once. Jerome believed that there were only two degrees of holy orders. etc etc. Purgatory is at best a doctrinal opinion based on reason (not unlike limbo) because there is no clear biblical foundation, no basis in the teachings of the early ecumenical councils, and no mention of it in the creeds.

 

[josie_L]

Roman Catholics often times can’t see anything past their own religious teaching. So much so that they read their doctrines into scripture instead of from scripture. That is what they are taught to do by apologists. The citation from Matthew is not teaching that a place exists where one has to suffer a predetermined amount of pain or loss before one enters heaven. It is a parable that is told again in Matt 18:34

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents[g] was brought to him. 25Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

26"The servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ 27The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

28"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii.[h] He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

Jesus is explaining the permenent punishment of the damned. As St Augustine and the Roman Catholic New American Bible explain the parable, the man owes ten thousands talents: an absolutely insurmountable debt. The phrase “until he should pat back all he owed” was an empty promise because the man will never be able to raise ten thousand talents. The teaching is that if you don’t forgive your brother his small debts (sins against you) God will not forgive you your enormous debt (sins against God and neighbor). But don’t take my word for it , read the notes from your own church’s Bible.

Protestants often times can’t see past their own religious teachings. So much so that they read their doctrines into scripture instead of from scripture. That is what they are taught to do by apologists.

Then shouldn’t the parable have ended with “until all eternity” instead of “until he should pay back all he owed.” I do not believe that Jesus is explaining the permanent punishment of the damned, but rather purgatory. I do not question the rest of what you said just the end result.

What is your take on the scripture I quoted above?

God Bless you VARC!

 

[josie_L]

That is all good and well. I know that many Fathers believed in purgatory. But the Fathers belived a lot of diffrent things. Cyprian believed that heretics cannot baptize. Tertullian belived that the sacrament of confession could only be administered once. Jerome believed that there were only two degrees of holy orders. etc etc. Purgatory is at best a doctrinal opinion based on reason (not unlike limbo) because there is no clear biblical foundation, no basis in the teachings of the early ecumenical councils, and no mention of it in the creeds.

Who else apart from Cyprian believed that heretics cannot baptize? Who else other than Tertullian believed that the sacrament of Confession could only be administered once? Other than Jerome who else believed in only two holy orders? Taken individually, the EFC could have made errors but when you have no less than 6 EFC speak of Purgatory (there were also others mentioned which I did not post here) you cannot insist that Purgatory is at best a doctrinal opinion based on reason. There is nothing in scripture which contradicts Purgatory but it does indeed allude to it. Also, stating that there was no mention of it in the creed, is a rather weak argument. God Bless.

 

[josie_L]

Protestants often times can’t see past their own religious teachings. So much so that they read their doctrines into scripture instead of from scripture. That is what they are taught to do by apologists.

Then shouldn’t the parable have ended with “until all eternity” instead of “until he should pay back all he owed.” I do not believe that Jesus is explaining the permanent punishment of the damned, but rather purgatory. I do not question the rest of what you said just the end result.

What is your take on the scripture I quoted above?

God Bless you VARC!

Sorry VARC disregard the question, I got my answer. Thank you.

 

[Soler]

I hardly said that, and I was trying to be generous to you. If one were to address the issue of God, there is an equal chance of either side being right. That is what faith is, BELIEF not proof. I find the arguments for belief compelling, but I can in no way prove they are true. I continue to fail to understand the need on some people’s part to continually argue about every tiny thing as if this is some contest.

1. An EQUAL CHANCE? That sounds VERY agnostic.
2. Of course one connot prove with certainty that God exists. One cannot prove with certainty anything besides one’s own existence and that one is experiencing a particular thing at the present moment in time. Anything else could, in theory, be a deception of the mind. I have proven to myself beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists, and that the Church is infallible. Thus I will proclaim the infallible docrine of the Church as absolute truth.
3. Things that seem tiny to you might just actually be very important.

I have no doubt that the RCC has some good reasons for believing many of the things she teaches. And there are many things she teaches that I fully agree with. However, I know the differnce between what she teaches and what is objectively true. She teaches what she believes, and you believe what she teaches. The point it, you can preach what she teaches and say that you too believe that it is true, but you cannot preach it as THE truth, unless you can prove that truth objectively without reference to the the Church. It is alway permissible to state what one believes. When it crosses over to telling others that they are wrong, and something less than you are by virtual of the chruch they attend, you have strayed into opinion not fortified with fact other than the Church telling you that this is true and your acceptance of that. The attempt to paint other traditions as straying into that favorite of all places “moral relativism” answers nothing of course. It is the favorite phrase adopted by the right.

1. I believe what the Church teaches because I trust her. I trust her because of the historical evidence supporting her trustworthiness. There. Satisfied?
2. Similar to what I said in 2) above:
   I see it as true beyond all reasonable doubt. I challenge you to prove with certainty the existence of, say, water.
3. You tried to say I was rude, based on nothing but that I seemed rude to you, when I was merely putting forward the Truth. You seem relativistic to me, but being a Christian, of course you are not, as you follow what you believe to be the example of Christ. My point is to think before you type.

Again, you slap me. Poor me, I think I am doing God’s will, but of course I am not, because you know what is God will, because the RCC tells you that they do, and you believe what they tell you to, and there, that makes sense!

:yup: As I said before, I trust the Church because of the historical evidence in support of her.

Fraid not. I did not say that catholicism is against Christ, anywhere.

You implied that it was against Christ in some respects. You are entitled to believe that.

I am not a heretic and you are disgusting for saying such a thing. Who do you think you are after all? I think perhaps some people are more conservative than the church, and most certainly you are way beyond that pale now. Your church Sir would never say such a heinous thing about the Episcopal faith. I invite you to send your sentiments to your bishop and see if he thinks you are being a good representative of the faith. I don’t think this is what Timothy had in mind when he advised how to teach.

Now now, calm down…

Oh really? St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, on heresy:
Summa Theologica II-II:11:1 (Extract)

Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.

(emphasis added)

I would have you know that I am not offended in the slightest by the claim of the Mormon religion that I am an apostate (which is worse than a heretic). Perhaps you think heretic to be on a par with terms of racial hatred. I do not see it that way at all.

I just got a message from CAF stating I had won 5 MartyrPoints for being called “disgusting” by a liberal heretic!!! YAY! :extrahappy:

You remain a heretic, and I will not recant that until you recant your heresy.

—Soler.

 

[Holly3278]

I converted to the Catholic Church from the Episcopal church in my mid-twenties.

The doctrinal confusion of the EC pushed me out the door. As has been pointed out-- they are little more than Unitarian at this point. A plethora of conflicting beliefs all co-existing in one “communion”… it’s right out of Orwell (doublethink).

That is not the Church that Christ went to the cross for.

You are right in a sense. The Episcopal Church is quite liberal nowadays. However, I would not call it Unitarian. I don’t think it’s quite that liberal. Also, Christ died for the entire Church, not just the Catholic Church.

 

[Holly3278]

I am a former Catholic and current Episcopalian. I haven’t been fully received in to the Episcopal Church yet but I plan to be before too long. I love the Episcopal Church. It fits me so much better than the Catholic Church.

 

[mikew262]

1. An EQUAL CHANCE? That sounds VERY agnostic.
2. Of course one connot prove with certainty that God exists. One cannot prove with certainty anything besides one’s own existence and that one is experiencing a particular thing at the present moment in time. Anything else could, in theory, be a deception of the mind. I have proven to myself beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists, and that the Church is infallible. Thus I will proclaim the infallible docrine of the Church as absolute truth.
3. Things that seem tiny to you might just actually be very important.
4. I believe what the Church teaches because I trust her. I trust her because of the historical evidence supporting her trustworthiness. There. Satisfied?
5. Similar to what I said in 2) above:
   I see it as true beyond all reasonable doubt. I challenge you to prove with certainty the existence of, say, water.
6. You tried to say I was rude, based on nothing but that I seemed rude to you, when I was merely putting forward the Truth. You seem relativistic to me, but being a Christian, of course you are not, as you follow what you believe to be the example of Christ. My point is to think before you type.

:yup: As I said before, I trust the Church because of the historical evidence in support of her.

You implied that it was against Christ in some respects. You are entitled to believe that.

Now now, calm down…

Oh really? St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, on heresy:
Summa Theologica II-II:11:1 (Extract)

(emphasis added)

I would have you know that I am not offended in the slightest by the claim of the Mormon religion that I am an apostate (which is worse than a heretic). Perhaps you think heretic to be on a par with terms of racial hatred. I do not see it that way at all.

I just got a message from CAF stating I had won 5 MartyrPoints for being called “disgusting” by a liberal heretic!!! YAY! :extrahappy:

You remain a heretic, and I will not recant that until you recant your heresy.

—Soler.

Keep in mind, many non-catholic Christians think we (Catholics) are heretics as well. Who is really the heretic? I suppose God only truly knows, or does he really care? I sometimes wonder if God really is as concerned about the “details” as much as humans are. Perhaps all he is really looking for, from a Christian point of view, is that we worship him, keep the commandments, accept Jesus and love one another. All the rest is fluff that man has made up. The process on how we do it may not be all that important. Just speculating.

 

[VARC]

Who else apart from Cyprian believed that heretics cannot baptize? Who else other than Tertullian believed that the sacrament of Confession could only be administered once? Other than Jerome who else believed in only two holy orders?

The point is that the Fathers had varied opinions about different teachings. That is why we do not profess a teaching to be a dogma on the Fathers authoruty. The teaching has to be taught in scripture. (By the way Origen taught that confession could be administered only once as well. It is interesting that Terullian and Origen held that belief given that they were the earliest Fathers to write about that sacrament.)

Taken individually, the EFC could have made errors but when you have no less than 6 EFC speak of Purgatory (there were also others mentioned which I did not post here) you cannot insist that Purgatory is at best a doctrinal opinion based on reason.

Six men who are at least 300 years removed from the apostles is hardly convincing proof that the doctrine was revealed by Christ. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus describe a place to pay off your debt of sin before going to heaven. Paul, John, Peter, and James don’t mention it either. Nor do any of the Fathers of the second century. The first to vaguely mention the idea that I can find is Tertullian who is regarded by Rome as a heretic.

There is nothing in scripture which contradicts Purgatory but it does indeed allude to it.

There is also scripture that “alludes” to Jesus paying the price for sin once and for all time on the cross.

Also, stating that there was no mention of it in the creed, is a rather weak argument. God Bless.

No it is a rather good point. The Nicene Creed mentions eschatology including the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement of mankind but it is silent about purgatory. It was either unheard of or not important enough to mention in the creed. It is also interesting to note that the EO and the OO don’t have any clear dogmatic teaching on purgatory either which reinforces the idea that this is a purely Roman and not catholic doctrine

 

[josie_L]

The point is that the Fathers had varied opinions about different teachings. That is why we do not profess a teaching to be a dogma on the Fathers authoruty. The teaching has to be taught in scripture. (By the way Origen taught that confession could be administered only once as well. It is interesting that Terullian and Origen held that belief given that they were the earliest Fathers to write about that sacrament.)

Six men who are at least 300 years removed from the apostles is hardly convincing proof that the doctrine was revealed by Christ. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus describe a place to pay off your debt of sin before going to heaven. Paul, John, Peter, and James don’t mention it either. Nor do any of the Fathers of the second century. The first to vaguely mention the idea that I can find is Tertullian who is regarded by Rome as a heretic.

There is also scripture that “alludes” to Jesus paying the price for sin once and for all time on the cross.

No it is a rather good point. The Nicene Creed mentions eschatology including the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement of mankind but it is silent about purgatory. It was either unheard of or not important enough to mention in the creed. It is also interesting to note that the EO and the OO don’t have any clear dogmatic teaching on purgatory either which reinforces the idea that this is a purely Roman and not catholic doctrine

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It was in the first two lines you wrote (look at my first response to you), wherein you stated that some Catholics try to find fault with King Henry VIII as if no good reasons existed for thinking him flawed, very flawed. He was a man who stopped at nothing to get what he wanted, destroying countless lives in the process. I detest what he has done. I mean no disrespect to you but I could not be part of a church wherein he was once supreme head. This has nothing to do with the members of that church. Although I do not agree with the totality of your remarks concerning Truth. God Bless you.

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.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

1. An EQUAL CHANCE? That sounds VERY agnostic.
2. Of course one connot prove with certainty that God exists. One cannot prove with certainty anything besides one’s own existence and that one is experiencing a particular thing at the present moment in time. Anything else could, in theory, be a deception of the mind. I have proven to myself beyond all reasonable doubt that God exists, and that the Church is infallible. Thus I will proclaim the infallible docrine of the Church as absolute truth.
3. Things that seem tiny to you might just actually be very important.
4. I believe what the Church teaches because I trust her. I trust her because of the historical evidence supporting her trustworthiness. There. Satisfied?
5. Similar to what I said in 2) above:
   I see it as true beyond all reasonable doubt. I challenge you to prove with certainty the existence of, say, water.
6. You tried to say I was rude, based on nothing but that I seemed rude to you, when I was merely putting forward the Truth. You seem relativistic to me, but being a Christian, of course you are not, as you follow what you believe to be the example of Christ. My point is to think before you type.

:yup: As I said before, I trust the Church because of the historical evidence in support of her.

You implied that it was against Christ in some respects. You are entitled to believe that.

Now now, calm down…

Oh really? St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, on heresy:
Summa Theologica II-II:11:1 (Extract)

(emphasis added)

I would have you know that I am not offended in the slightest by the claim of the Mormon religion that I am an apostate (which is worse than a heretic). Perhaps you think heretic to be on a par with terms of racial hatred. I do not see it that way at all.

I just got a message from CAF stating I had won 5 MartyrPoints for being called “disgusting” by a liberal heretic!!! YAY! :extrahappy:

You remain a heretic, and I will not recant that until you recant your heresy.

—Soler.

Thanks for letting us know what many of us suspected.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I don’t know if the OP is still viewing this thread. If you are, I would like to recommend you research the theology of the RC church again, then look at TEC. The grass is not greener.

As it stands, TEC is actively heretical and persecutes those standing fast to Biblical truth. If you really find a valid reason to switch churches, check out one of the other Anglican churches. I would also recommend attending living as an Anglican for a year before formally leaving the RCC.

Peace.

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?

 

[josie_L]

josie_L:
=VARC;4843897]The point is that the Fathers had varied opinions about different teachings. That is why we do not profess a teaching to be a dogma on the Fathers authoruty. The teaching has to be taught in scripture. (By the way Origen taught that confession could be administered only once as well. It is interesting that Terullian and Origen held that belief given that they were the earliest Fathers to write about that sacrament.)

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

Six men who are at least 300 years removed from the apostles is hardly convincing proof that the doctrine was revealed by Christ. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus describe a place to pay off your debt of sin before going to heaven. Paul, John, Peter, and James don’t mention it either. Nor do any of the Fathers of the second century. The first to vaguely mention the idea that I can find is Tertullian who is regarded by Rome as a heretic.

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). 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? Also, Peter speaks of Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison, again what prison is he referring to? 1 Peter 3:19 There are other scriptures I gave concerning Purgatory, please read them. As for Tertullian, yes, eventually he did become a heretic but not because of his views on Purgatory.

There is also scripture that “alludes” to Jesus paying the price for sin once and for all time on the cross.

I never said that Jesus did not die for our sins for once and for all. I believe what you believe, I think what you need to ask yourself is if it should happen that you or I would die tomorrow would we be able to enter Heaven without being purified in some way of the last vestiges of sin that would have remained with or in us. Remember nothing unclean can enter Heaven. Purgatory is just a purification process, albeit, somewhat painful, in 1 Corinthians 3:10-16

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

No it is a rather good point. The Nicene Creed mentions eschatology including the resurrection of the dead and the final judgement of mankind but it is silent about purgatory. It was either unheard of or not important enough to mention in the creed. It is also interesting to note that the EO and the OO don’t have any clear dogmatic teaching on purgatory either which reinforces the idea that this is a purely Roman and not catholic doctrine

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

 

[Soler]

Thanks for letting us know what many of us suspected.

Being that…

(To be perfectly honest, I find you rather discourteous and rude.)

 

[Soler]

Keep in mind, many non-catholic Christians think we (Catholics) are heretics as well. Who is really the heretic? I suppose God only truly knows, or does he really care?

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.)

I sometimes wonder if God really is as concerned about the “details” as much as humans are. Perhaps all he is really looking for, from a Christian point of view, is that we worship him, keep the commandments, accept Jesus and love one another.

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

All the rest is fluff that man has made up. The process on how we do it may not be all that important. Just speculating.

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.