Is there any problem with Sola Scriptura?

[onlyvoice]

The NT cannon was received by the Church. It was comprised of the books which the churches, from which the Bishops who made up the council, had already received and were treating as Scripture…

So, where did the bishops get the knowledge of what the NT canon was to contain? Mark Shea said that: “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition.” But Sacred Tradition, according to Trent, came from the Apostles themselves handed down to the church by word-of-mouth (unwritten). Notice, it says this “Tradition” did not originate from people that replaced the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit BUT from the Apostles themselves. So, was it from the Apostles that the CC bishops got this knowledge on what the NT canon would contain?

Once again, Mark Shea is declaring that the Gospel, the Scriptures, Tradition, the Papal Bulls, the Council Records, are all part of one revelation which has been part of a cohesive whole from the very beginning of the Church. The Fathers and the Bishops and Pope did not secret these things away…

God Bless

My question here was whether Mark Shea meant Tradition was not a PARALLEL revelation to written Scripture in his statement, “Sacred Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel revelation."

 

[po18guy]

So, where did the bishops get the knowledge of what the NT canon was to contain? Mark Shea said that: “We cannot know what the NT canon is apart from Sacred Tradition.” But Sacred Tradition, according to Trent, came from the Apostles themselves handed down to the church by word-of-mouth (unwritten). Notice, it says this “Tradition” did not originate from people that replaced the Apostles who were guided by the Holy Spirit BUT from the Apostles themselves. So, was it from the Apostles that the CC bishops got this knowledge on what the NT canon would contain?

Yes. And the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It was not a purely intellectual endeavor, but both spiritual and intellectual.

My question here was whether Mark Shea meant Tradition was not a PARALLEL revelation to written Scripture in his statement, “Sacred Tradition is not a separate, secret and parallel revelation."

I cannot speak for him, but his point is essentially that it is one and the same revelation. The written revelation is less complete, for reasons that John gives at the end of his Gospel.

The oral teaching came first - decades later some of it was reduced to writing. Why? They thought Jesus was returning right then - no need to write anything down. Then, as it became obvious that Jesus was not returning in their lifetimes, they decided to begin writing it down, as they were dying off by martyrdom and it had to be preserved in another form. Peter speaks of the delay in Jesus’ return in his second letter (third chapter) - that delay caused some to scoff at the Apostle’s teaching.

 

[inkaneer]

The NT cannon was received by the Church. It was comprised of the books which the churches, from which the Bishops who made up the council, had already received and were treating as Scripture, but this was no Fourth Century invention. Among the Early Church Fathers who spoke of a New Testament and a Canon were Justin Martyr who died in 165 AD, Irenaeus who died in 200AD, Clement of Alexandria who died 215AD, Tertullian who died 225AD and so an understanding of the Apostolic writings being Scripture equal to the OT was part of the very earliest Church Traditions.

In 367 Athanasius in his Festal Letter declared the 27 books we now accept as Canon to be Canon, and while there was some debate among the Early fathers it was nearly so much as modern day scholars would have us to believe. For example the “gnostic gospels” such as Timothy, James, Judas were never considered part of canon because they were fakes for one thing, that is the documents did not appear until the middle of the second century at the earliest and so the supposed authors could not possibly have written them, and two they contradicted the Apostolic witness. And the controversy over the Catholic Letters (Hebrews-Jude) and Revelation was not nearly so heated as we would be made to believe.

The Canon did grow out of tradition, but the Church always acknowledged that a New Testament Scripture did in fact exist, it was just not gathered into one document until the fourth century. But do not suppose that this was because someone challenged the Canon for the fist time because the earliest challenge to the New Testament Canon came from the Gnostics with their fake Gospels in the second century and from Marcion who produced a severely truncated “Bible” in 144 AD which excluded the OT and many of the Books of the NT as well, for which he was excommunicated.

So challenges to the Canon are not new, neither are the Gnostic books, and the Gospel, the Canon and Tradition have always walked hand in hand.

Once again, Mark Shea is declaring that the Gospel, the Scriptures, Tradition, the Papal Bulls, the Council Records, are all part of one revelation which has been part of a cohesive whole from the very beginning of the Church. The Fathers and the Bishops and Pope did not secret these things away. In fact the production of a Latin Bible and the writings of the Fathers all being in Greek and the later Fathers, such as Augustine and Thomas, being in Latin, were not to keep the laity from reading them, the laity couldn’t read their own language. But rather they did so to insure that the maximum number of scholars and teachers and students, who all spoke Latin and some spoke and read Greek, could have access to them. It does no good for Anselm in England to write in the common language a document he intends scholars in Spain and Germany and Italy to read, so he wrote it in Latin.

…

God Bless

Well you sound as if it were easy, some slam dunk affair. However, that was not the case. If it were so, then the canon would have been settled long before 348 AD. The fact is the early church operated very well, thank you, for over 300 years without the canon being defined. So what was it that made the church define the canon and what was the intent on having a canon? Well the impetus was Gnosticism with its false writings that claimed or was claimed by some to be inspired. Without a defined canon the local churches had no guidance in the matter and gnostic writings were being used in the celebration of the Mass. Gnosticism was widespread and thus we find different locales coming up with their lists of approved books. These “approved books” were those that the local church said could be used in the liturgy of the Mass. But again there was no uniformity. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the first to arrive at the canon all christians use today. He was followed by the local synods at Rome, Hippo and Carthage so that by the end of about 50 years the canon was agreed upon so that in 408 AD when a bishop in France [Gaul} writes to the Pope on the subject the Pope gives him the identical canon. Of course Jerome had already finished his Vulgate which put the scriptures into the common language of the people of the time {Latin]. Latin is derived from the Greek. It was at one time a sort of dialect but over time evolved into a separate language. The Roman empire of the first century spoke Greek not Latin. But by about 400 AD. The differences were such that Latin was a different language.

So Gnosticism was the impetus for having a canon. The intent was to define those writings that could be used in church liturgy. The intent was not to define those books that were inspired. But what was the test applied to determine whether a writing could be used in the liturgy of the Mass? The test was whether the writing supported the Oral Tradition on which the church had operated from day one. So there is nothing in the scriptures that contradicts or is at odds with anything in the Oral Tradition. Both are said to emanate from the same source, the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. mTherefore if you perceive a difference between the two it is not the Oral Tradion that is wrong, it is your interpretation of the scripture. The Scriptures are not a self study guide to christianity. That is a perversion of the scriptures by protestantism.

 

[exnihilo]

Notice Trent makes a clear distinction between the “written” and the “unwritten.” The “written” revelation is in “books,” clearly referring to Sacred Scripture, while the “unwritten” are traditions, or what the CC now calls “Sacred Tradition.”

So, here we see that Trent defines the church’s Deposit of Faith as being containI ed in 1) Sacred Scripture, the “written books,” and 2) Sacred Tradition, the “unwritten traditions.”

Now, Shea said, “Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture…" So, my question here was whether this does not contradict Trent since Shea is saying Tradition is contained in Scripture while Trent says Tradition is only in unwritten form, handed down orally.

I think you might be getting hung up on words. In one sense both Scripture and Sacred Tradition are Tradition. The Gospels are the historical recounting of life events and teachings of Jesus. The Epistles are letters giving teachings and practical instructions for how to live the Christian Faith and how to run the church.

These truths existed before they were committed to paper. From the moment Christ died until the books were actually penned all the Church had was unwritten Tradition which was memories in the minds of the disciples of Christ. Some of this Tradition was then committed to paper. Some of it was not committed to paper. Some of it might have been committed to paper but not in the books of the Bible. We are then presented with the issue of how to know what is true revelation. Of course all Christians accept the church to guide us in this, although some believe that God has rescinded that power at some point in the past.

 

[bogeydogg]

Well you sound as if it were easy, some slam dunk affair. However, that was not the case. If it were so, then the canon would have been settled long before 348 AD. The fact is the early church operated very well, thank you, for over 300 years without the canon being defined. So what was it that made the church define the canon and what was the intent on having a canon? Well the impetus was Gnosticism with its false writings that claimed or was claimed by some to be inspired. Without a defined canon the local churches had no guidance in the matter and gnostic writings were being used in the celebration of the Mass. Gnosticism was widespread and thus we find different locales coming up with their lists of approved books. These “approved books” were those that the local church said could be used in the liturgy of the Mass. But again there was no uniformity. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the first to arrive at the canon all christians use today. He was followed by the local synods at Rome, Hippo and Carthage so that by the end of about 50 years the canon was agreed upon so that in 408 AD when a bishop in France [Gaul} writes to the Pope on the subject the Pope gives him the identical canon. Of course Jerome had already finished his Vulgate which put the scriptures into the common language of the people of the time {Latin]. Latin is derived from the Greek. It was at one time a sort of dialect but over time evolved into a separate language. The Roman empire of the first century spoke Greek not Latin. But by about 400 AD. The differences were such that Latin was a different language.

So Gnosticism was the impetus for having a canon. The intent was to define those writings that could be used in church liturgy. The intent was not to define those books that were inspired. But what was the test applied to determine whether a writing could be used in the liturgy of the Mass? The test was whether the writing supported the Oral Tradition on which the church had operated from day one. So there is nothing in the scriptures that contradicts or is at odds with anything in the Oral Tradition. Both are said to emanate from the same source, the Apostles under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. mTherefore if you perceive a difference between the two it is not the Oral Tradion that is wrong, it is your interpretation of the scripture. The Scriptures are not a self study guide to christianity. That is a perversion of the scriptures by protestantism.

I stand by what I said. I don’t think I over simplified at all. I mentioned both the gnostics and Marcion.

I simply acknowledged what the Bishops acknowledged that they received the canon of Scripture. The Churches, under the guidance of the Bishops who were in the Apostolic tradition, were already treating the Apostolic writings as Scripture and so when a compiling of an “official” canon took place, there was already a long tradition in the Church about which books were Scripture and which ones were not.

Thus I am arguing for the position that Tradition and the Canon have always walked hand in hand. The Canon is part of Holy Tradition.

God Bless

 

[inkaneer]

I stand by what I said. I don’t think I over simplified at all. I mentioned both the gnostics and Marcion.

I simply acknowledged what the Bishops acknowledged that they received the canon of Scripture. The Churches, under the guidance of the Bishops who were in the Apostolic tradition, were already treating the Apostolic writings as Scripture and so when a compiling of an “official” canon took place, there was already a long tradition in the Church about which books were Scripture and which ones were not.

Thus I am arguing for the position that Tradition and the Canon have always walked hand in hand. The Canon is part of Holy Tradition.

God Bless

Well, no, that is not correct. There were several ‘canons’ in the 300 years before Athanasius so agreement on just what writings were suitable was not universal. Like the OT there was a proto canon as well as a deutero canon. Some examples of the proto canon were works that were generally accepted such as the four Gospels. Hebrews and Revelations were not generally accepted and were part of the deutero canon. Then there were other works that were rejected later on such as the Shepherd and the Protoevangelium of James. Even the great Doctor of the Church, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, did not count the book of Revelation as scripture. So this long tradition of which books were scripture and which were not really did not exist. While there was general agreement on some writings it was not universal,

 

[bogeydogg]

Well, no, that is not correct. There were several ‘canons’ in the 300 years before Athanasius so agreement on just what writings were suitable was not universal. Like the OT there was a proto canon as well as a deutero canon. Some examples of the proto canon were works that were generally accepted such as the four Gospels. Hebrews and Revelations were not generally accepted and were part of the deutero canon. Then there were other works that were rejected later on such as the Shepherd and the Protoevangelium of James. Even the great Doctor of the Church, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, did not count the book of Revelation as scripture. So this long tradition of which books were scripture and which were not really did not exist. While there was general agreement on some writings it was not universal,

I agree, and I did say that was disagreement about the Catholic letters and Revelation, but the four Gospel and the 13 (14 if you count Hebrews) Pauline Epistles make up 18/19 of the 27 books. That is 2/3 of the Canon about which, starting with Marcion and the Gnostics, there was very little debate. Churches across the Western and Eastern Church (which I know were not divided at the time I merely say this to encompass the degree of acceptance) used these books as part of the liturgy.

Yes there was disagreement about the other books but it is not as if there were no fathers who accepted them and that is why when the Bishops met in council, guided by the Holy Spirit, they were included. The reasons by being…

1. It was generally agreed they were of Apostolic origin
2. They were accepted as Scripture already by a great many of the Churches the Bishops represented.
3. They did not contradict the teachings of accepted Scripture.

Of course the entire process was guided by the Holy Spirit and of course it is not as though the Bishops gathered, had a show of hands, and ten minutes later were having a beer at the pub. I know the process was slow. What I was saying is the modern day critic makes it sound at though there were hundreds of books up for consideration and that is simply not true.

I also realize that the Shepherd, The Epistle of Clement, and the Didache were all considered as well, but fell aside because they all fell short of Apostolic qualification. But that makes the number of books being considered something like 30 and not 100 as some critics have claimed.

We are not at loggerheads here and I think a more careful reading of my original post would show that; as my contention has always been that Tradition and Scripture have always been hand in hand.

God Bless

 

[inkaneer]

I agree, and I did say that was disagreement about the Catholic letters and Revelation, but the four Gospel and the 13 (14 if you count Hebrews) Pauline Epistles make up 18/19 of the 27 books. That is 2/3 of the Canon about which, starting with Marcion and the Gnostics, there was very little debate. Churches across the Western and Eastern Church (which I know were not divided at the time I merely say this to encompass the degree of acceptance) used these books as part of the liturgy.

Yes there was disagreement about the other books but it is not as if there were no fathers who accepted them and that is why when the Bishops met in council, guided by the Holy Spirit, they were included. The reasons by being…

1. It was generally agreed they were of Apostolic origin
2. They were accepted as Scripture already by a great many of the Churches the Bishops represented.
3. They did not contradict the teachings of accepted Scripture.

Of course the entire process was guided by the Holy Spirit and of course it is not as though the Bishops gathered, had a show of hands, and ten minutes later were having a beer at the pub. I know the process was slow. What I was saying is the modern day critic makes it sound at though there were hundreds of books up for consideration and that is simply not true.

I also realize that the Shepherd, The Epistle of Clement, and the Didache were all considered as well, but fell aside because they all fell short of Apostolic qualification. But that makes the number of books being considered something like 30 and not 100 as some critics have claimed.

We are not at loggerheads here and I think a more careful reading of my original post would show that; as my contention has always been that Tradition and Scripture have always been hand in hand.

God Bless

But what of the other books, the ones that did not make it into the canon of the late fourth century? You did not mention them. You seemingly wish to paint a picture that selection kf the canon was relatively simple. It wasn’t. Even the four gospels were not universally accepted, only generally so. So locales held only three and some only two gospels. Gnosticism was a real bonafide threat to pervert the teaching of the church and its writings had crept into some of the local churches. The Gnostic threat is still not over. Turn n the History Channel or the Discovery channel and just about any given week you will find a program about the "Lost Books of the Bible". What are they? Gnostic writings. The Catholic Church preserved the written Tradition by rejecting the Gnostic writings and codifying the scriptures of the Old and New Covenants so that we can be assured that the 73 books that make up what we call the Written Tradition of the Church do indeed contain the Written Tradition.

 

[StevenFrancis]

The first problem, or course is that the concept itself isn’t supportable in scripture. It’s a philosophical conundrum. Scripture alone doesn’t say that scripture alone is the full deposit and authority of the Christian faith.

Then there’s the fact that the Church existed for quite some time before the New Testament scriptures were even written down, let alone collected, (along with the long standing Jewish scriptures), into the set of books which was canonized as the Holy Bible.

This canonization, and collection of books was itself done by the Catholic Church, which already had the teaching authority of Jesus Christ, and His Apostles, and was already actively living out sacramental life and liturgy. Martin Luther, who devised the sola scriptura heresy, was a member of the self-same Catholic Church.

St. John tells us that the world itself couldn’t contain all that Jesus said and did. The deposit of faith which is the Catholic Church, is the fullest representation of Jesus that we have. Certainly one small collection of books, divinely inspired as they are, cannot possibly hold the full truth. The fact of the matter is, that the bible was put together for liturgical use to begin with. That is, to be read in public by a deacon, priest or bishop when celebrating the sacraments. Not for the layman to co-opt and use as a tool to combat the Church from which it sprung.

Yes, it is a blessing that the printing press was invented, and that we all get the extraordinary privilege of having our own copies of the Holy Scriptures. But we are not the interpretive authority. The scriptures give us a glimpse into the mind of God. They describe the series of covenental relalationships with the creator that form our salvation history. They point to the Christ, and the divine liturgy in heaven. When we allow the Holy Spirit to guide us, they can teach us marvelous things about God, His Son, His Church, and even ourselves. It is our history. Our stories to tell our children, and pass down through the ages until the last day. But it is by no means the authority. Jesus didn’t leave a book. Jesus didn’t write books. Jesus left us a Church. The Church gave us a book to help us learn, grow, and remember. But the magisterium of the Church is the teaching authority. Not the scriptures. The scriptures are a vital source. The Church should do nothing, and has done nothing which violates the scriptures. But the Church teaches even more than we have in the scriptures. We have the Church Fathers, and the Doctors of the Church. Revelations given to the Saints. Traditions of the earliest Christians learned from Jesus and His apostles. Directly! The same Apostles, who, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, gave us the very books of we are presently discussing.

Just a couple thoughts. You’ll get a lot better answers here from many of our regular CA posters. I’m still have much to learn, and look forward to reading the other posts myself.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[bogeydogg]

The first problem, or course is that the concept itself isn’t supportable in scripture. It’s a philosophical conundrum. Scripture alone doesn’t say that scripture alone is the full deposit and authority of the Christian faith.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

Actually I still say the first problem with the doctrine is nobody actually believes it.

Go to a protestant Church, and I do mean one that is actually attempting to preach the Gospel and not some emergent or ecstatic church and neither one of the cult groups, but an actual protestant denomination that is trying to preach the Gospel, and you will hear them quote Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, or J I Packer or even Augustine or Anselm or Thomas to back up their teaching.

Well what is that if not using tradition beside the teaching of Scripture?

So there many high minded adherents of Sola Scriptura but they don’t actually believe they teach, and the proof is in how they teach.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

Actually I still say the first problem with the doctrine is nobody actually believes it.

Go to a protestant Church, and I do mean one that is actually attempting to preach the Gospel and not some emergent or ecstatic church and neither one of the cult groups, but an actual protestant denomination that is trying to preach the Gospel, and you will hear them quote Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, or J I Packer or even Augustine or Anselm or Thomas to back up their teaching.

Well what is that if not using tradition beside the teaching of Scripture?

So there many high minded adherents of Sola Scriptura but they don’t actually believe they teach, and the proof is in how they teach.

God Bless

Since scripture needs interpretation, any individual or organization that claims the bible as “supreme authority” is actually telling you that what they hold to be supreme is their opinion.

If sola scriptura was driven by the Holy Spirit, it would unite Christianity.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

 

[TraditonRules]

Hysterical…either you are saying an absurd lie or plain biblicaly ignorant.

There is nothing explicit in the bible in regards to purgatory. I know you can make clever implied interpretations but nothing explicit. You have tried many times with the same craziness. Even many Catholics agree with me on that issue. Time to relax and accept truth.

Sorry- I will pray for you.

Iknew you were biblicaly ignorant. I osted the reference to purgatory n My post #84 wherein I wrote:

“Those in purgatory are saved and do go to heaven. Scripture tells you this so I am somewhat surprised that you, being a sola scripturist, don’t know that. Of course, Purgatory is one of those things that did not fit early protestant ideas so they simply denied it and you are the recipient of their error. But scripture still attests to the saved man who on the day of judgement goes through a purification by fire. That is a pretty explicit depiction of purgatory. In fact, purgatory is more explicit in the Bible than the concept of the Trinity that Christians have. Christians understand the Trinity in terms of person and essence and substance. These are extra biblical concepts that come to us from Greek philosophy but were used by the Church to define the Godhead. Nowhere in scripture or even Jewish philosophical thought are these concepts found.”

Notice the part I emboldened. Now lets go to the scripture passage itself, shall we? It is found in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. Here it is in the RSV:

"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." And here in the KJV:

"11For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; **
13Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. 14If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. 15If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.**

Now you may say this is not speaking of purgatory or this is not explicit enough. BUT, if you do claim that then you tell us where in any protestant theology that a saved man goes through a fire. The only fire in protestant theology is hell fire and saved people do not experience it. But here a saved man goes through a fire where his works are tested and the ones that do not pass muster are burned away. The imagery is an exact description of purgatory.

So where is this in protestant theology where people who are saved go through a test of fire??? I have asked this of protestants time ands time again and no one has been able to give me an answer. Maybe you can???

 

[po18guy]

There is nothing explicit in the bible in regards to purgatory. I know you can make clever implied interpretations but nothing explicit. You have tried many times with the same craziness. Even many Catholics agree with me on that issue. Time to relax and accept truth. Sorry- I will pray for you.

“Explicit” is not biblical.

 

[bogeydogg]

Since scripture needs interpretation, any individual or organization that claims the bible as “supreme authority” is actually telling you that what they hold to be supreme is their opinion.

If sola scriptura was driven by the Holy Spirit, it would unite Christianity.

The Holy Spirit unites.
The demon divides.

I don’t know how many ways I have to say I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

God Bless

 

[po18guy]

I don’t know how many ways I have to say I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura.

God Bless

I was agreeing with you.

I see our friend has a new requirement for explicit description of everything. He must not be trinitarian.

 

[Abu]

TraditonRules #151
There is nothing explicit in the bible in regards to purgatory. I know you can make clever implied interpretations but nothing explicit.

The doctrine of Purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

But the Catholic Bible is replete with further evidence for Purgatory, here are a few:**

1. Mt 12:32:** Our Blessed Lord Himself: “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” “The age to come’ means life after death, so Our Lord is clear – there ARE other sins that can be pardoned after death. We see also that the Lord knew that His Jewish listeners knew what He meant by forgiveness I the next life.

2) Then follows Mt 12:36: “on the day of judgment, men will render account for every careless word they utter.” “Careless words” don’t merit Hell, but there will be a penalty which takes place in the Purgatory assigned for that.

3) Mt 5:21-6: Christ warns of the coming judgment, and in His parable emphaises “put in prison….you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” So paid here, or hereafter where the detention is temporary that can be neither heaven or hell – but Purgatory.

4) 2 Tim 1:16-18: St Paul prays for the house hold of his helper Onesiphorus, then for Onesiphorus himself: “may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day.”
Another example of purgatory in St Paul’s prayer for the dead.

Whatever the poster “feels” it cannot be equated with the facts and is certainly NOT that “Tradition Rules”, NOR that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum, 10].

 

[po18guy]

The doctrine of Purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

But the Catholic Bible is replete with further evidence for Purgatory, here are a few:**

1. Mt 12:32:** Our Blessed Lord Himself: “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” “The age to come’ means life after death, so Our Lord is clear – there ARE other sins that can be pardoned after death. We see also that the Lord knew that His Jewish listeners knew what He meant by forgiveness I the next life.

2) Then follows Mt 12:36: “on the day of judgment, men will render account for every careless word they utter.” “Careless words” don’t merit Hell, but there will be a penalty which takes place in the Purgatory assigned for that.

3) Mt 5:21-6: Christ warns of the coming judgment, and in His parable emphaises “put in prison….you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” So paid here, or hereafter where the detention is temporary that can be neither heaven or hell – but Purgatory.

4) 2 Tim 1:16-18: St Paul prays for the house hold of his helper Onesiphorus, then for Onesiphorus himself: “may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day.”
Another example of purgatory in St Paul’s prayer for the dead.

Whatever the poster “feels” it cannot be equated with the facts and is certainly NOT that “Tradition Rules”, NOR that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum

, 10]. Not good enough. It has to be explicit - you know, like the Holy Trinity. Well, strike that last one…

 

[EricFilmer]

TraditonRules,

I’m still waiting for you to address the questions I posed four days ago in Post #109.

God bless,
Eric

 

[bogeydogg]

I was agreeing with you.

I see our friend has a new requirement for explicit description of everything. He must not be trinitarian.

Oh OK I read your post again and now i see who you meant by private interpretation. Which clearly neither of us believe in.

God Bless

 

[TraditonRules]

I will always concede you can fabricate Purgatory in the bible with wild implied interpretions…Thx for proving that point and the bliss. But yet nothing explicit.

The doctrine of Purgatory is found in 2 Maccabees 12:46: “It is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins.”

But the Catholic Bible is replete with further evidence for Purgatory, here are a few:**

1. Mt 12:32:** Our Blessed Lord Himself: “whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” “The age to come’ means life after death, so Our Lord is clear – there ARE other sins that can be pardoned after death. We see also that the Lord knew that His Jewish listeners knew what He meant by forgiveness I the next life.

2) Then follows Mt 12:36: “on the day of judgment, men will render account for every careless word they utter.” “Careless words” don’t merit Hell, but there will be a penalty which takes place in the Purgatory assigned for that.

3) Mt 5:21-6: Christ warns of the coming judgment, and in His parable emphaises “put in prison….you will never get out till you have paid the last penny.” So paid here, or hereafter where the detention is temporary that can be neither heaven or hell – but Purgatory.

4) 2 Tim 1:16-18: St Paul prays for the house hold of his helper Onesiphorus, then for Onesiphorus himself: “may the Lord grant him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day.”
Another example of purgatory in St Paul’s prayer for the dead.

Whatever the poster “feels” it cannot be equated with the facts and is certainly NOT that “Tradition Rules”, NOR that “It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others.” [Vatican II, *Dei Verbum

, 10].