'Extra/other doctrines"?

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’ve noticed, in many discussions, that Protestants often refer to the ‘extra/other’ doctrines of the Catholic Church, with ‘extra or other’ used to insinuate some doctrines are non-Biblical.

When scripture and verse are provided, they disregard that a teaching/doctrine discussed does come from scriptures and that it’s a case of not agreeing with an interpretation. This sometimes leads to an authority of interpretation discussion, which can also be discussed using scriptures to support a position.

I decided I would start a thread where I, and I’m sure other Catholics, would provide scriptures and explanations of Catholic interpretation to support those ‘extra or other’ doctrines we see brought up so often.

I realize it opens the threads to many discussions, or topics and only ask that we limit each post to one subject at a time, as opposed to providing ‘laundry lists’ to be responded too. One reason is the amount of scriptures supporting some teachings/doctrines are so many that they will not fit in one post, due to the character limitations of these forums.

 

[JonNC]

I’ve noticed, in many discussions, that Protestants often refer to the ‘extra/other’ doctrines of the Catholic Church, with ‘extra or other’ used to insinuate some doctrines are non-Biblical.

When scripture and verse are provided, they disregard that a teaching/doctrine discussed does come from scriptures and that it’s a case of not agreeing with an interpretation. This sometimes leads to an authority of interpretation discussion, which can also be discussed using scriptures to support a position.

I decided I would start a thread where I, and I’m sure other Catholics, would provide scriptures and explanations of Catholic interpretation to support those ‘extra or other’ doctrines we see brought up so often.

I realize it opens the threads to many discussions, or topics and only ask that we limit each post to one subject at a time, as opposed to providing ‘laundry lists’ to be responded too. One reason is the amount of scriptures supporting some teachings/doctrines are so many that they will not fit in one post, due to the character limitations of these forums.

Transubstantiation specifically, not the Real Presence as that is obviously scriptural.

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Transubstantiation specifically, not the Real Presence as that is obviously scriptural.

Jon

I’m not sure I understand your question or point. Transubstantiation is the change of bread and wine into the body and blood.

We both know the scriptures referencing the bread and wine that Christ said, ‘This is my body…this is my blood.’ If you’re looking for an argument of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, scriptures do not reflect that Christ told us, ‘This is my body, with the bread…this is by blood with the wine.’ Either way, I think we’d both have to agree with each other’s belief, in that it is from an interpretation of scriptures and not something that is ‘extra’ or non-Biblical.

 

[JonNC]

I’m not sure I understand your question or point. Transubstantiation is the change of bread and wine into the body and blood.

We both know the scriptures referencing the bread and wine that Christ said, ‘This is my body…this is my blood.’ If you’re looking for an argument of transubstantiation vs. consubstantiation, scriptures do not reflect that Christ told us, ‘This is my body, with the bread…this is by blood with the wine.’ Either way, I think we’d both have to agree with each other’s belief, in that it is from an interpretation of scriptures and not something that is ‘extra’ or non-Biblical.

It also doesn’t explain a change leaving behind simply the accidents. But you are spot on, our human expressions of His real presence - whether it be Transubstantiation, metabole, the Lutheran expression of Sacramental Union, or even those who express it as consubstantiation - ought not to divide us, if we indeed recognize His true, substantial presence, given and received.

There are others, but I’ll let other posters participate.
Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There are others, but I’ll let other posters participate.
Jon

As often as I’ve heard the objection about ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines, and 75 views, I thought surely someone would have posted a doctrine or two we could be discussing. I look forward to other posters participation.

 

[JonNC]

As often as I’ve heard the objection about ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines, and 75 views, I thought surely someone would have posted a doctrine or two we could be discussing. I look forward to other posters participation.

I’m a bit surprised myself, sowith your indulgence (no pun intended ) please take on probably the biggies: papal universal jurisdiction, and infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra).

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m a bit surprised myself, sowith your indulgence (no pun intended ) please take on probably the biggies: papal universal jurisdiction, and infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra).

Jon

Addressing jurisdiction and infallibility, I feel can be done with one passage telling us a teaching from Jesus.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Speaking to the multitudes and His disciples, He told them, ‘All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.’ This shows the Lord’s confidence that God can protect His truth through the ‘spoken’ word of those who sat upon the chair of Moses, even though those who sat upon the chair of Moses were also ‘sinful’ men.

The chair of Moses was the singular mortal position over the old covenant. We know that Christ established a Church and Catholics believe that Church was built upon Peter. The seat of Moses became the seat of Peter, with the new and everlasting covenant.

 

[JonNC]

Addressing jurisdiction and infallibility, I feel can be done with one passage telling us a teaching from Jesus.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Speaking to the multitudes and His disciples, He told them, ‘All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.’ This shows the Lord’s confidence that God can protect His truth through the ‘spoken’ word of those who sat upon the chair of Moses, even though those who sat upon the chair of Moses were also ‘sinful’ men.

The chair of Moses was the singular mortal position over the old covenant. We know that Christ established a Church and Catholics believe that Church was built upon Peter. The seat of Moses became the seat of Peter, with the new and everlasting covenant.

So, why then did the Council of Nice deem it necessary to designate the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be the Western Region of the Roman Empire. If this were clearly the teaching of scripture, then there would have been no need for the council to do this. Instead, the Bishop of Rome’s universal jurisdiction would have been understood.

Similarly, why was something as the pope’s infallibility on faith and moral when speaking ex cathedra not recognized by the ECF’s and the early councils? Why do the other sees not recognize it to this day?

Jon

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, why then did the Council of Nice deem it necessary to designate the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome to be the Western Region of the Roman Empire. If this were clearly the teaching of scripture, then there would have been no need for the council to do this. Instead, the Bishop of Rome’s universal jurisdiction would have been understood.

Similarly, why was something as the pope’s infallibility on faith and moral when speaking ex cathedra not recognized by the ECF’s and the early councils? Why do the other sees not recognize it to this day?

Jon

We have to understand the Church was still growing and going through a formation. There were beliefs that were widespread and for lack of a better phrase, taken for granted that all believed. When beliefs became endangered, through misinterpretation, etc., councils had to issue decrees to protect the written, and unwritten truths, received through scriptures, tradition, and more specifically the oral tradition.

Maybe, as with scriptures, the writings of the early Church fathers are subject to interpretational differences. Below are just two examples, from some of the earliest Church fathers, that I can see instruction to accept the teachings of faith and morals when spoken by the leader(s) of the Church.

**Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).**

Just as with scriptures, somethings are not specifically spoken about in terms as we use today. As time passed, those more ‘modern’ terms became used to explain things so that those of a particular generation could understand them.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I’ve noticed, in many discussions, that Protestants often refer to the ‘extra/other’ doctrines of the Catholic Church, with ‘extra or other’ used to insinuate some doctrines are non-Biblical.

When scripture and verse are provided, they disregard that a teaching/doctrine discussed does come from scriptures and that it’s a case of not agreeing with an interpretation. This sometimes leads to an authority of interpretation discussion, which can also be discussed using scriptures to support a position.

I decided I would start a thread where I, and I’m sure other Catholics, would provide scriptures and explanations of Catholic interpretation to support those ‘extra or other’ doctrines we see brought up so often.

I realize it opens the threads to many discussions, or topics and only ask that we limit each post to one subject at a time, as opposed to providing ‘laundry lists’ to be responded too. One reason is the amount of scriptures supporting some teachings/doctrines are so many that they will not fit in one post, due to the character limitations of these forums.

what would you like from us nonCatholics?

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

As often as I’ve heard the objection about ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines, and 75 views, I thought surely someone would have posted a doctrine or two we could be discussing. I look forward to other posters participation.

Are you inviting noncatholics to ask about catholic doctrine that we dont find in scripture? if that is what you want. the subject of purgatory has me confused.

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

I’m a bit surprised myself, sowith your indulgence (no pun intended ) please take on probably the biggies: papal universal jurisdiction, and infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra).

Jon

those are good ones!

 

[MyRdmrLvs]

Addressing jurisdiction and infallibility, I feel can be done with one passage telling us a teaching from Jesus.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Speaking to the multitudes and His disciples, He told them, ‘All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.’ This shows the Lord’s confidence that God can protect His truth through the ‘spoken’ word of those who sat upon the chair of Moses, even though those who sat upon the chair of Moses were also ‘sinful’ men.

The chair of Moses was the singular mortal position over the old covenant. We know that Christ established a Church and Catholics believe that Church was built upon Peter. The seat of Moses became the seat of Peter, with the new and everlasting covenant.

I find your first point to be very compelling, it does suggest that sinful men could be the holders of Gods ordinances. I wonder if he told them this because he didnt want them to follow the corrupted example OR Is it because He knew that the people were not going to want to follow them because of the lives they lived. though it does prove that sinful men can be right about Gods truths it doesnt prove that all sinful men claiming Gods truth are also correct.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Are you inviting noncatholics to ask about catholic doctrine that we dont find in scripture?

I want non-Catholics to ask about doctrines of the Catholic Church that they feel is non-scriptural. It is my hope that through scriptural explanations, one can see the doctrine does come from scriptures, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation.

if that is what you want. the subject of purgatory has me confused.

Purgatory is a good example, since the word ‘purgatory’ is not specifically used in scriptures.

Scriptures tell us one must be perfect to enter into heaven.

**Mat 5:48 Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.

Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men and holiness: without which no man shall see God.

Jas 3:2 For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man. He is able also with a bridle to lead about the whole body.

Rev 21:27 There shall not enter into it any thing defiled or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb. **

Scriptures give us examples of degree of sins. There are sins not to death and sins unto death.

1Jn 5:16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask: and life shall be given to him who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death. For that I say not that any man ask.
1Jn 5:17 All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.

The Old Testament gives us an example of sins being forgiven, yet a debt had to be paid.

**2Sa 12:13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die.
2Sa 12:14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die. **

Christ taught us, through parables, that every farthing had to be paid.

Mat 5:26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

Christ spoke of sins that could not be forgiven in this world, or the world to come.

Mat 12:32 And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world, nor in the world to come.

St. Paul gives us some insight of a man’s works burning, yet the man himself shall be saved, as by fire, the same as purging or purgation.

1Co 3:15 If any mans work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

St. Peter wrote about Christ preaching the Gospel to those spirits that were in prison. Where is that spirit prison that Christ enlivened in the spirit preached? Where is it that the Gospel was preached to the dead?

1Pe 3:18 Because Christ also died once for our sins, the just for the unjust: that he might offer us to God, being put to death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 In which also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison

**1Pe 4:6 For, for this cause was the gospel preached also to the dead: That they might be judged indeed according to men, in the flesh: but may live according to God, in the Spirit. **

**Clement of Alexandria

The believer through discipline divests himself of his passions and passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, passes to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance for the faults he may have committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more, not yet attaining what he sees others have acquired. The greatest torments are assigned to the believer, for God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness righteous, and though these punishments cease in the course of the expiation and purification of each one, “yet” etc. (Patres Groeci. IX, col. 332 [A.D. 150-215]).**

These are a few scriptural examples of where the teaching of purgatory comes from. There are more, and I invite other Catholics to help me fill in the ‘blanks’.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to say, the number of times I’ve seen the objection about ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines of the Catholic Church just doesn’t match up with the posts on this thread. Where are those objections, now that an opportunity to discuss them is being offered?

 

[brkn1]

I want non-Catholics to ask about doctrines of the Catholic Church that they feel is non-scriptural. It is my hope that through scriptural explanations, one can see the doctrine does come from scriptures, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation.

**2Sa 12:13 And David said to Nathan: I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said to David: The Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. **
**2Sa 12:14 Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die. **

Christ taught us, through parables, that every farthing had to be paid.

Mat 5:26 Amen I say to thee, thou shalt not go out from thence till thou repay the last farthing.

.

Nathan told David that the Lord took away David’s sin. David was told: “thou shalt not die.” This goes against the idea that David would pay the “last farthing” for his sin, even if his child was taken as a penalty for giving occassion for the Lord’s enemies to blapheme.

Christ is the One Who payed the last farthing for our sin when He died for our sin on the Cross.
Only a believer in what Christ accomplished for us by His death, burial, and resurrection will allow that believer to receive God’s gift of that full redemptive payment for our sin.
Like a child, we must first come to God recognizing that we can’t pay any of the required infinite price for our sin. We are forever infinite debtors to God for what Christ did to pay for our sin on the Cross.
To make any claim that our own suffering could cleanse any of our sin is to deny the completeness of what Christ did in His finished work on the Cross. Such denial makes our "faith"of no effect and no different than the Pharisees.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I have to say, the number of times I’ve seen the objection about ‘extra or other non-Biblical’ doctrines of the Catholic Church just doesn’t match up with the posts on this thread. Where are those objections, now that an opportunity to discuss them is being offered?

Hi Prodigal Son,

Of course I cannot know what is in the minds and hearts of those who saw your thread but declined to post. I can only speculate.

Many people have very firmly held beliefs, but these beliefs are not always based on evidence/reason/knowledge. One of the things I actually LOVE about our faith is that it makes sense and many others of our faith have told me the same thing. The fact that it makes sense “works” for me. But not everyone bases decisions on reason, many make decisions based on emotion. Such decisions are hard to change, even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And then there is the other problem. What if a long-held belief is explored and found to be false? Then something has to be done. As long as this sort of belief is left unexplored, nothing has to be done, nothing has to change. Many people fear to explore as a result.

Many people don’t like change. So they will cling to the familiar, even if they know that it may not be factual/correct simply because it is familiar. When you see no “takers” for your offer to explore various doctrines, that may be the reason. Of course, it also may not be. As long as there are no answers, you will not know. But at least now you might know some reasons why you don’t have a response. If someone learns the truth about something, they will no doubt feel forced to act on that. As long as they keep that truth away, the don’t have to change. Sad, but very human.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nathan told David that the Lord took away David’s sin. David was told: “thou shalt not die.” This goes against the idea that David would pay the “last farthing” for his sin, even if his child was taken as a penalty for giving occassion for the Lord’s enemies to blapheme.

Christ is the One Who payed the last farthing for our sin when He died for our sin on the Cross.
Only a believer in what Christ accomplished for us by His death, burial, and resurrection will allow that believer to receive God’s gift of that full redemptive payment for our sin.
Like a child, we must first come to God recognizing that we can’t pay any of the required infinite price for our sin. We are forever infinite debtors to God for what Christ did to pay for our sin on the Cross.
To make any claim that our own suffering could cleanse any of our sin is to deny the completeness of what Christ did in His finished work on the Cross. Such denial makes our "faith"of no effect and no different than the Pharisees.

I can understand your point, but question your decision to use the word ‘Pharisees’ to insinuate a comparison. Seems those type wordings are no more than an ad hominem type ‘jab’, intended to inflame or ‘bash’. I hope I am wrong and that this thread discussion can go without any ill wordings.

**Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

Rom 8:16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God.
Rom 8:17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us.

Php 1:28 And in nothing be ye terrified by the adversaries: which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God.
Php 1:29 For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him:

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord: neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him.
Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there whom the father doth not correct?

Heb 12:11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice.

1Pe 1:6 Wherein you shalt greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations:

1Pe 2:19 For this is thankworthy: if, for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully.
1Pe 2:20 For what glory is it, if, committing sin and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently: this is thankworthy before God.
1Pe 2:21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.**

2Co 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me.
2Co 12:8 For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me.
2Co 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.
2Co 12:10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Hi Prodigal Son,

Of course I cannot know what is in the minds and hearts of those who saw your thread but declined to post. I can only speculate.

Many people have very firmly held beliefs, but these beliefs are not always based on evidence/reason/knowledge. One of the things I actually LOVE about our faith is that it makes sense and many others of our faith have told me the same thing. The fact that it makes sense “works” for me. But not everyone bases decisions on reason, many make decisions based on emotion. Such decisions are hard to change, even with a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

And then there is the other problem. What if a long-held belief is explored and found to be false? Then something has to be done. As long as this sort of belief is left unexplored, nothing has to be done, nothing has to change. Many people fear to explore as a result.

Many people don’t like change. So they will cling to the familiar, even if they know that it may not be factual/correct simply because it is familiar. When you see no “takers” for your offer to explore various doctrines, that may be the reason. Of course, it also may not be. As long as there are no answers, you will not know. But at least now you might know some reasons why you don’t have a response. If someone learns the truth about something, they will no doubt feel forced to act on that. As long as they keep that truth away, the don’t have to change. Sad, but very human.

It’s like a friend of mine explained it once. We have to empty our cups of what we filled them up with and pray God fill them with that He wants in them. That’s what I had to do to convert in 1985.

The purpose of this thread was not to ‘evangelize’, but to try and show those with an open mind that Catholic teachings ARE scriptural, even if they disagree with the interpretation. It seems that pride won’t let some admit to that by the way they respond…

 

[brkn1]

I can understand your point, but question your decision to use the word ‘Pharisees’ to insinuate a comparison. Seems those type wordings are no more than an ad hominem type ‘jab’, intended to inflame or ‘bash’. I hope I am wrong and that this thread discussion can go without any ill wordings.

I apologize and I will try to be more careful in my future writings.

**

Mat 10:38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me.

**

**Rom 8:16 For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit that we are the sons of God. **
Rom 8:17 And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him.

**Rom 8:18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared with the glory to come that shall be revealed in us. **

**Php 1:28 And in nothing be ye terrified by the adversaries: which to them is a cause of perdition, but to you of salvation, and this from God. **
**Php 1:29 For unto you it is given for Christ, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him: **

Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:

**Heb 12:5 And you have forgotten the consolation which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord: neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him. **
**Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chastiseth: and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. **
**Heb 12:7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons. For what son is there whom the father doth not correct? **

**Heb 12:11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield to them that are exercised by it the most peaceable fruit of justice. **

**1Pe 1:6 Wherein you shalt greatly rejoice, if now you must be for a little time made sorrowful in divers temptations: **

**1Pe 2:19 For this is thankworthy: if, for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully. **
1Pe 2:20 For what glory is it, if, committing sin and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently: this is thankworthy before God.
1Pe 2:21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

**2Co 12:7 And lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh, an angel of Satan, to buffet me. **
**2Co 12:8 For which thing, thrice I besought the Lord that it might depart from me. **
**2Co 12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. **
2Co 12:10 For which cause I please myself in my infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ. For when I am weak, then am I powerful.

There does seem to be some doctrinal confusion on whether our own suffering can purge us from our sin.
I realize that God uses suffering to chastize us which is intended to lead us back to Him in repentance. I have been unable to find verses in the bible that prove such sufferings able to actually cleanse our sin.
It is only the shed blood of Christ that is said to cleanse us from our sin.

Suffering is used by God to test and strengthen our faith in Him. The verses you underlined are examples of this.

Suffering as God’s chastizement, testing and strengthening, or leading a person to repentance is done out of God’s love for that person.
Suffering resulting from God’s wrath is done out of judgement and anger. The eternal flame of torments will not cleanse those subjected to it.

I have found no verse in the bible that proves our own suffering to be able to directly cleanse (purge) our sin. Again, it is only the shed blood of Christ that can remit (cleanse) sin.