If we're justfully punished in Purgatory, then why was Jesus punished?

[patg]

Fidelis:

It is often explained like this. If you break a window with a rock, you should go and ask forgiveness of the window owner. The window owner may forgive you for your sin. However, there is still the damage done: the window is still broken and must be fixed.

I don’t think much of this analogy. In most sins spoken of here, there is no “broken glass”. If I skip mass a few times, there is no harm to anyone, no one to atone to, no glass to pay for or repair. You may say that I have harmed myself but I’ve already missed the benfits I would have obtained from the mass. Is God so vengeful that some indeterminant period of torture is required for the innumerable personal sins we are able to accumulate?

Is this the sort of parental image you have? Family dinners were a big deal in my home. If I skipped out for whatever reason, there may have been a mild scolding but I did not accumulate black marks in some book that would eventually have to be repaid with a torture totally unrelated to the event.

 

[Fidelis]

John Colean:

Much of what has been said about purgatory is conjecture and hypothesis, with very little evidence of its actual existence from Sacred Scripture. If purgatory actually exists and I am not sure one way or another, and if purgatory is as important as many of these threads seem to indicate, then it would appear logical to me that Paul would have made some direct references to it in his letters.

It would not be necessarily for Paul (or any other NT writer) to make a direct reference to Purgatory in his letters for it to have been believed by the first Christians.

a) Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. The Bible is not a Catechism that contains everything that Christians need to believe.

b) Most of the NT was written to address certain problems that had arisen in the Church. The fact that a pointed teaching on Purgatory does not appear indicates that at the time there was no dispute about it.Notice there is no direct teaching about the Trinity. It apparently was not an issue at the time.

I do not believe it is a good idea to construct a system of beliefs without substantial evidence. I know that some will say that we accept purgatory based upon tradition; however, I find it difficult to “tradition” something into existence. As a cradle Catholic, I can recall a great deal of discussion 50+ years ago about unbaptised babies going to a place called limbo, but that notion has apparently lost its appeal over the years. Could it be, could it possibly be that the notion purgatory will likewise fall by the wayside.

The big difference of course is that while the theological speculation of “limbo” has never been an official teaching of the Church, Purgatory has been since very early times (and can be attested to in Scripture, as has been pointed out) and still is. Speculation changes, eternal truths do not. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

**
THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY **

1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:

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.

1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: “Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.” From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:

Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.

 

[John_Colean]

martino:

Good point, here is your reference from Paul:

1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul cannot be talking about heaven because there is no suffering in heaven, likewise he cannot be talking about hell because nobody in hell is saved! The only logical explanation for this purging process that Paul speaks of of the doctrine of Purgatory.

Remember God’s love is an all consuming fire, the love of God burns away all remnants of sin so that the poor soul may enter heaven. Purgatory is not really a punishment, it is a gift, for without Purgatory those of us that die in an imperfect state would not be allowed into heaven. Praise God!

 

[John_Colean]

martino:

Good point, here is your reference from Paul:

1 Cor 3:11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

Paul cannot be talking about heaven because there is no suffering in heaven, likewise he cannot be talking about hell because nobody in hell is saved! The only logical explanation for this purging process that Paul speaks of of the doctrine of Purgatory.

Remember God’s love is an all consuming fire, the love of God burns away all remnants of sin so that the poor soul may enter heaven. Purgatory is not really a punishment, it is a gift, for without Purgatory those of us that die in an imperfect state would not be allowed into heaven. Praise God!

Martino, Good to hear from a fellow Georgian.
I have reviewed the references that you provided and do not believe they will lead you to a purgatory conclusion. These references seem to be referring to quality of a man’s work on earth and that work will be tested with fire. If the work was based upon the foundation (Jesus Christ) and can stand the test of fire, then the man will receive his just reward; however, if his work is not basis upon the foundation, then there is no reward. I don’t see that there is any sin involved here, which requires any atonement.

Blessings & Regards

 

[John_Colean]

Fidelis:

It would not be necessarily for Paul (or any other NT writer) to make a direct reference to Purgatory in his letters for it to have been believed by the first Christians.

a) Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. The Bible is not a Catechism that contains everything that Christians need to believe.

b) Most of the NT was written to address certain problems that had arisen in the Church. The fact that a pointed teaching on Purgatory does not appear indicates that at the time there was no dispute about it.Notice there is no direct teaching about the Trinity. It apparently was not an issue at the time.

The big difference of course is that while the theological speculation of “limbo” has never been an official teaching of the Church, Purgatory has been since very early times (and can be attested to in Scripture, as has been pointed out) and still is. Speculation changes, eternal truths do not. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Fidelis,

The point I am making is that since purgatory is such a biggie, even here is has consummed countless postings and comments, then you would think that it should have deserved some mention in Sacred Scripture. I never advocated the notion of sola scriptura; however, the writings contained in Sacred Scripture have been much more closely guarded and protected than the writing about traditions. As a result, I believe we should tred cautiously on developing beliefs based solely on tradition without some Scriptural evidence of their authenticity.
At the Crucifiction, Christ told the one thief that “I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with Me.” Even though this was an admitted thief who no doubt had countless sins to his credit, Christ did NOT say “You will be with me after you go to purgatory.”

BTW, there is Scripture evidence for the Trinity.

Blessings,

John

 

[martino]

John Colean:

Martino, Good to hear from a fellow Georgian.
I have reviewed the references that you provided and do not believe they will lead you to a purgatory conclusion. These references seem to be referring to quality of a man’s work on earth and that work will be tested with fire. If the work was based upon the foundation (Jesus Christ) and can stand the test of fire, then the man will receive his just reward; however, if his work is not basis upon the foundation, then there is no reward. I don’t see that there is any sin involved here, which requires any atonement.

Blessings & Regards

The conclusion that I draw is that the reward recieved is entrance into heaven since we are talking about Judgement Day.
If good works are found to be lacking (wood, hay, straw) then there is some form of suffering that takes place. Also note that the suffering is associated with fire which is a form of purification. The good works (gold, silver, precious stone) are already pure and so there is nothing to burn away (no suffering) and they recieve their reward accordingly. But Paul also tells us that even though some will suffer loss as through fire, they are still saved, which means that once they are purged and perfected they will also enter the gates of heaven.

1. show me where i am going wrong, and…
2. give me your interpretation of this buring, purging, perfecting process Paul speaks of.

 

[TobyLue]

This is to all Catholics on this thread who have some doubts about purgatory.

FROM THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH

The existence of Purgatory is defined as a dogma of the Church by both the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Thus it is obligatory for all Catholics who wish to remain in communion with the Church to accept and believe in the existence of Purgatory. The Council of Trent further defined that the souls detained in Purgatory are able to be assisted by the faithful on earth especially by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - see Council of Trent Session XXV.

Levels of Teaching of the Catholic Church

saint-mike.org

**Level 1 Teaching** is that which has been Divine Revealed in the Word of God, written or handed down, and that which has been solemnly judged as divinely revealed truths. **They are divinely revealed dogmas.**

The judgment is made by:

1. ex cathedra proclamations of the Roman Pontiff
   2) College of Bishops gathered in council
2. infallibly proposed by the ordinary Magisterium

This level of teaching must be believed by all the Faithful with theological faith on the authority of God revealing (de fide credenda). Anyone who denies these teachings, OR who obstinately doubts these teachings is in heresy and thereby automatically excommunicated.

<>Canon 750 <>*
All that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and also proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium, must be believed with divine and catholic faith;* it is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore, all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatever which are contrary to these truths.
Canon 751
Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Whether we agree with the dogma of Purgatory or not we must be obedient if we want to remain good Catholics. We may question it but only to understand it more fully. Remember, what was defined as scripture by the CC, **had **to agree with what was taught by the early church before the Bible was ever compiled. The dogmas of the Church have nothing to do with conjecture or hypothesis. It was something that was actually passed down from the Apostles and was taught by the Church. The Bible was not compiled by a bunch of dolts who didnt know what they were canonizing. Regretably many make that mistake that the CC has twisted scripture. If it didnt agree with what was taught, it was rejected. All of scripture agrees with what was taught by the Early Church. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand. Purgatory was a belief held by the ECF. Examples
Clement of Alexandria AD 150-215
Origen AD 185-232
Tertulian AD 210
Cyprian AD 235 and on and on.

 

[Fidelis]

John Colean:

Fidelis,

The point I am making is that since purgatory is such a biggie, even here is has consummed countless postings and comments, then you would think that it should have deserved some mention in Sacred Scripture.

Again, non-problems were not addressed in the New Testament.

At the Crucifiction, Christ told the one thief that “I promise you that today you will be in Paradise with Me.” Even though this was an admitted thief who no doubt had countless sins to his credit, Christ did NOT say “You will be with me after you go to purgatory.”

And we know that Jesus did not immediately go to heaven after his death. In fact, he was in the grave for three days (preaching to the “spirits in prison” as 1 Peter 3:19 says) and THEN he walked the earth for 40 days after that before he ascended. Whatever he meant when he told the Good Thief that he would be with him “that day” in Paradise, it didn’t mean they would be meeting there within the next 24 hours.

BTW, there is Scripture evidence for the Trinity.

You bet there is, but it is not explicit. As was pointed out by another poster, there is also scriptural evidence for Purgatory which is equally non-explicit.

See the Catholic Answers Tract:

catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

 

[Sherlock]

Hey, Fidelis,

Sorry to have “pinched” your analogy. Actually, it’s an old one and I have heard it used in sermons, on Catholic Answers radio show, etc.

patg,

You wrote: “If I skip mass a few times, there is no harm to anyone, no one to atone to, no glass to pay for or repair.”

You are minimizing the effects of sin. Sin has ripple effects, and it “disses” God to boot. In the case you give of skipping Mass, you are disobeying the third commandment by refusing to render to God an “outward, visible, public, and regular worship” (CCC 2176). It’s your analogy that fails: if you dissed your Dad repeatedly, he would expect you to make amends. At least, a good parent that is interested in raising responsible kids would have expectations of kids making amends for what they have done.

 

[justinmatter]

since purgatory is such a biggie, even here is has consummed countless postings and comments, then you would think that it should have deserved some mention in Sacred Scripture. I never advocated the notion of sola scriptura; however, the writings contained in Sacred Scripture have been much more closely guarded and protected than the writing about traditions. As a result, I believe we should tred cautiously on developing beliefs based solely on tradition without some Scriptural evidence of their authenticity.

John

perhaps it needs to be pointed out that tradition existed before new testament scripture. in fact, one of the criteria of selcting the new testament canon was whether the writing agreed with the “tradition” handed down from the time of the apostles
it is good also to remember that in the catholic church neither tradition nor scripture is considered greater than the other. both are equal and complementary
while it is true that scriptural support for purgatory is thin, that in itself does not mean the doctrine should not be

 

[steve_b]

John Colean:

Martino, Good to hear from a fellow Georgian.
I have reviewed the references that you provided and do not believe they will lead you to a purgatory conclusion. These references seem to be referring to quality of a man’s work on earth and that work will be tested with fire. If the work was based upon the foundation (Jesus Christ) and can stand the test of fire, then the man will receive his just reward; however, if his work is not basis upon the foundation, then there is no reward. I don’t see that there is any sin involved here, which requires any atonement.

Blessings & Regards

Here is the reference again

*1 Cor 3:11 *
“For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.”

1. “DAY” is capitalized in all the translations I’m familiar with. Therefore, it’s talking about after death but before entering heaven. Paul says on that DAY there will be a purification by fire for each person .
2. If they’ve done wrong, they will suffer loss, even though they will be saved. ***But they will go through fire during the process. ***

Notice that Paul doesn’t say Jesus did this in our place, so we won’t have to go through it ourselves.

Purification, purgation, cleansing, purgatory, one can call it what they want. But the doctrine of purgatory is there in the bible even if the word purgatory isn’t there… Also, it isn;t a process for the damned. It’s only for those who die in friendship with God.

 

[John_Colean]

justinmatter:

perhaps it needs to be pointed out that tradition existed before new testament scripture. in fact, one of the criteria of selcting the new testament canon was whether the writing agreed with the “tradition” handed down from the time of the apostles
it is good also to remember that in the catholic church neither tradition nor scripture is considered greater than the other. both are equal and complementary
while it is true that scriptural support for purgatory is thin, that in itself does not mean the doctrine should not be

Your point is well taken with regard to the New Testament canon being supported by the Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles. However, once the NT canon was codified it appears to take on a life of its own. We have always been taught that Sacred Scripture was the inspired word of God and that the NT was written by and under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Traditions do not appears to enjoy this same level of inspiration and have not to my knowledge been codified on the same level as Sacred Scripture. If this be the case, then it does not appear to be reasonable to make the two (Scripture and Tradition) co-equals. My concern would be that since Traditions have not been codified, it would be an easy matter for spurious traditions or traditions having little or no value to become part of our lexicon.
Your thoughts please.

Blessings,

John

 

[John_Colean]

steve b:

Here is the reference again

1 Cor 3:11
"For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire."

1. “DAY” is capitalized in all the translations I’m familiar with. Therefore, it’s talking about after death but before entering heaven. Paul says on that DAY there will be a purification by fire for each person .
2. If they’ve done wrong, they will suffer loss, even though they will be saved. ***But they will go through fire during the process. ***

Notice that Paul doesn’t say Jesus did this in our place, so we won’t have to go through it ourselves.

Purification, purgation, cleansing, purgatory, one can call it what they want. But the doctrine of purgatory is there in the bible even if the word purgatory isn’t there… Also, it isn;t a process for the damned. It’s only for those who die in friendship with God.

In the Greek, the term “Day” used in this passage is referring to an age as in the end times. In fact, when you see the term “Day of the Lord” or “Day of Christ” as used in the Jerome translation of this passage, it is generally referring to the end-times. Therefore, since the term “day” is referring to a specific meaning, it is capitalized. In several other translation that I looked at, including the Jerusaslem Bible, it only refers to the day and does not capitalize it.

The fire referred to in these passages is being applied to the “works” that a man has done and not to the man himself. Look at your verse 13 again. “Each man’s WORK will be manifest . . . and the FIRE will test what sort of WORK each one has done.”

These verses do not lead you to a purgatory conclusion but to something much different.

Although I have a general belief and understanding of a purgatorial process, I do not believe that purgatory removes our sins, but rather deals with the scars that are inflicted upon our spirit when we do sin. The illustration I like to use is to hammar a nail into a piece of fine wood, one nail for each of our sins. The Blood of Christ removes the nails, but even after we remove the nails from the wood, the scars still remain. Our spirit knows that it cannot entire into the presence of the Father is a scarred condition.

Blessings,

John

 

[John_Colean]

TobyLue:

This is to all Catholics on this thread who have some doubts about purgatory.

Whether we agree with the dogma of Purgatory or not we must be obedient if we want to remain good Catholics. We may question it but only to understand it more fully. Remember, what was defined as scripture by the CC, **had **to agree with what was taught by the early church before the Bible was ever compiled. The dogmas of the Church have nothing to do with conjecture or hypothesis. It was something that was actually passed down from the Apostles and was taught by the Church. The Bible was not compiled by a bunch of dolts who didnt know what they were canonizing. Regretably many make that mistake that the CC has twisted scripture. If it didnt agree with what was taught, it was rejected. All of scripture agrees with what was taught by the Early Church. Scripture and Tradition go hand in hand. Purgatory was a belief held by the ECF. Examples
Clement of Alexandria AD 150-215
Origen AD 185-232
Tertulian AD 210
Cyprian AD 235 and on and on.

Tobylue,

I read your response and the excerpts from canon law that you so ably provided and my suggest that you get a life for yourself and stop standing behind someone’s rules and proclamations. Christ did not hammar the Jewish leadership because they failed to follow the rule, they were good at following the rule and were also good a making rules. But with all of these rules, they did not recognize the Christ and in fact he tells them that they do not know Him because they do not know the Father. Our first responsibility and goal is to know the Father and the rules will take care of themselves.
Pardon a rather direct and harsh reply, but your response really put me on edge.

Blessing,

John

 

[Fidelis]

John Colean:

Your point is well taken with regard to the New Testament canon being supported by the Traditions handed down from the time of the Apostles. However, once the NT canon was codified it appears to take on a life of its own. We have always been taught that Sacred Scripture was the inspired word of God and that the NT was written by and under the direction and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, Traditions do not appears to enjoy this same level of inspiration and have not to my knowledge been codified on the same level as Sacred Scripture. If this be the case, then it does not appear to be reasonable to make the two (Scripture and Tradition) co-equals.

Calling Scripture and Sacred Tradition “equal” is probably not the best way to put it, but as Catholics we do regard them as equally authoritative. This is what the Catechism says:

**THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE **

**One common source. . . **

80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

**. . . two distinct modes of transmission **

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

My concern would be that since Traditions have not been codified, it would be an easy matter for spurious traditions or traditions having little or no value to become part of our lexicon.

That is true only if one fails to make the distinction between Sacred Tradition and other kinds of traditions:

**Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions **

83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.

Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.

 

[patg]

Sherlock:

You wrote: “If I skip mass a few times, there is no harm to anyone, no one to atone to, no glass to pay for or repair.”

You are minimizing the effects of sin. Sin has ripple effects, and it “disses” God to boot. In the case you give of skipping Mass, you are disobeying the third commandment by refusing to render to God an “outward, visible, public, and regular worship” (CCC 2176).

I fail to see “mass” mentioned in the third commandment, I see no ripple effects, and I don’t see God saying that eternal damnation is the automatic penalty.

It’s your analogy that fails: if you dissed your Dad repeatedly, he would expect you to make amends. At least, a good parent that is interested in raising responsible kids would have expectations of kids making amends for what they have done.

Ah, but no matter how many dinners I missed and no matter how important they were MY father would not deny me his love or submit me to temporary or eternal torture.

 

[Sherlock]

Patg,

You wrote: “I fail to see “mass” mentioned in the third commandment, I see no ripple effects, and I don’t see God saying that eternal damnation is the automatic penalty.”

Gosh, where to start…I take it that you are not Catholic? If you aren’t, then obviously you don’t accept that the Church has any interpretative and teaching authority, and this thread is probably not the place to discuss what is really a much more fundamental difference, that of authority. If you are Catholic, then please inform yourself and read the Catechism and the Bible, because you have a very un-Catholic idea of sin and its effects (I would suggest reading Romans 14:7, as well as CCC 953), and the obligations of Christians (read CCC 2175-2183). I find it odd that you can’t see God saying that eternal damnation is the result of disregarding His commandments in Scripture: certainly following them is expressly stated by Christ as a requirement for eternal life. Christ refers to eternal damnation many times—were you aware of that? As for the term “automatic”, I never used the term in my post—that would imply certain knowledge of God’s will in all cases, and we don’t have that degree of certainty—we’re not God.

You wrote: “Ah, but no matter how many dinners I missed and no matter how important they were MY father would not deny me his love or submit me to temporary or eternal torture.”

So, are you saying that no matter what you do, your father never expects you to repent and make amends? Then your father is a lousy parent. Parents who have no expectations of their kids, who do not hold them to any standards, who do not expect them to be responsible, end up with socially malformed brats.

 

[TobyLue]

John
Thank you so much for your kind reply and I’m sorry if my reply put you and edge and got you all bent out of shape. Thats what happens when we decide to follow our own feelings and beliefs.

Yes I have a life and that life is in Jesus Christ. Some of the things He would say got people all bent out of shape too because they followed their own rules. A Dogma is nothing to be laugh at and is not something that we can discard like a banna peel if we don’t like it. A Dogma is revealed Truth. Jesus Christ founded His Church and He said that those who listen to His Church listen to Him.
Do you think that the Catholic Church, of which I presume you are a member, just makes whimsical laws to get people all riled up? Canon laws are there for a purpose and all faithful Catholics are bound by Canon Law.
You quoted

Our first responsibility and goal is to know the Father and the rules will take care of themselves.

Yes, we should know the Father, and the Father sent His son and all authority was given to the Son and He passed that authority to His Church. If we listen to His Church, we listen to the Son and thus we listen to the Father. Who am I to tell the Father, that I will listen only to Him and not to the Church that His Son founded. How arrogant that would be? And how will rules take care of themselves if we do not obey them?

That is another problem now adays, that people think they know more than the Church and the Pope and think they are free to follow their own rules, beliefs, and practices. We all have a free will and can do as we want, but don’t expect for the Father to pat you on the back and say “Good show”.

You made a suggestion to me, now I make one to you. I suggest you go talk to your priest and see what he tells you in regard to whether or not we can dismiss Canon Law and make up our own laws and believe whatever we want. If we want to be faithful to the Father, then we must be faithful to the Church that His Son founded.

 

[John_Colean]

Fidelis:

Calling Scripture and Sacred Tradition “equal” is probably not the best way to put it, but as Catholics we do regard them as equally authoritative. This is what the Catechism says:

What you seem to be saying is that Scripture and tradition are kinda sorta equal, but not really. Not sure where we stand of this.
What do you think of the tradition which says that we should only receive the Eucharist in bare feet, which is along the lines of God telling Moses to remove his shoes when he approach the burning bush?

Blessings,
John

 

[hlgomez]

PMV,

Praise be to God.

Jesus suffered for our sins and wins us back what was lost because of our sins. It would have been death for eternity had not Jesus the Lord paid it on our behalf. Jesus paid the penalty of sin which is (eternal) death/damnation thru His suffering. The Lord opened the gates of heaven once again for us because of His death and resurrection.
Pio