Matthew 12:31-32, how does this point to purgatory!?

[Mannyfit75]

I am sorry you are getting so frustrated, but I never even mentioned the Septuagint as it is not relevant at all to the point.

And why you would mention a canon that is rejected by the RCC as inspired Scripture is beyond me.

The CC did not reject the Septuagint. I don’t know where you came to that conclusion. It was the Protestant who remove the 7 Books of the OT.

It was brought up because you posted this:

Thanks for the link. I have perused the thread earlier.

The thread does not change the fact that the Catholic Church did not have a definitive canon until Trent.

A thread cannot change history.

The canon we are speaking of is the Septuagint / Deutrocanonical Books which the Protestants did not consider as inspired.

So indirectly you force this topic to get off the topic of purgatory

 

[Steadfast_love]

Atemi,

We’re way off topic, but let’s see how St. Hilary stands up to your charge that he added the word ‘alone’ to the same passage as Luther did to make it read ‘faith alone.’’ Here’s what you cited:
Hilary of Poitiers (c 315-67) on Matthew 9: This was forgiven by Christ through faith, because the Law could not yield, for faith alone justifies. Migne’s Latin: Et remissum est ab eo, quod lex laxare non poterat; fides enim sola justificat. Sancti Hilarii In Evangelium Matthaei Commentarius, PL 9:961.

Hillary *commented *on a gospel. I fail to see how that implicates him for *defacing *an epistle. :tsktsk:

*In loving jest:
Too bad Luther didn’t fixate on St. Hillary’s On the Trinity 4:9. Then Luther’s Bible would have said…:bible1: Romans 9:28
For we maintain that a man is justified by invisibility alone apart from observing the law.All our Lutheran troubles would have literaly disappeared!

(again, I joke in love)*

 

[mich2]

Josephus goes on to tell us those who get the punishments. I quoted the text before, but I will do so again here. Immediately following what Josephus wrote above, he continues…

"In this region there is a certain place set apart, as a lake of unquenchable fire, whereinto we suppose no one hath hitherto been cast; but it is prepared for a day afore-determined by God, … cut for brevity

Josephus records that there is no punishment whatsoever for those who are the righteous. Only the DAMNED are punished with temporary punishments…until they are cast into Gehenna forever.

Those being punished with temporary punishments will never be saved. They are forever lost.

No Purgatory here at all.

Actually, just the opposite.
​

To begin with, Atemi, Josephus speaks of the souls of both the Just and the unjust as going into Hadies. If the just means those who are not afflicted by their sins, then why can’t they enter Heaven? Why the need to go into Hadies at all?

In the first chapter, it reads :

This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, ill which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners.

.

The statement of

temporary pubishment agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners.

cannot be restricted to only the unjust, for noone is without sin.Therefore, the justs are those who have found favor in God but are not without sins, and so, will also receive temporal punishment, however, in a very different manner than those said unjust; for the unjust will be punished with an outlook of their futur destiny, which is** possibly** Gehenna ( I wrote possibly since the final judgement is left to God) , and the just will see their futur destiny, being Heaven, and will therefore rejoice in their sufferings.

In the book of Wisdom, it reads.

Wisdom 3:1-7
But the souls of the just are in God’s hand; no torment will touch them. in the eyes of the foolish they seemed to be dead; their departure was reckoned as defeat, and their going from us a disaster. But they are at peace, for though in the sight of men they may suffer punishment, they have a sure hope of immortality, and after a little chastisement they will receive great blessings, because God has tested them and found them worthy to be His. He put them to the proof like gold in a crucible, and found them acceptable like an offering burnt whole on the altar. In the hour of their judgement they will shine in glory and will sweep over the world like sparks through stubble.

Now,the desciption of Abraham’s bosom, according to Josephus
reads:

the just are guided to the right hand, and are led with hymns, sung by the angels appointed over that place, unto a region of light, in which the just have dwelt from the beginning of the world; not constrained by necessity, but ever enjoying the prospect of the good things they see, and rejoice in the expectation of those new enjoyments which will be peculiar to every one of them, and esteeming those things beyond what we have here; with whom there is no place of toil, no burning heat, no piercing cold, nor are any briers there; but the countenance of the and of the just, which they see, always smiles them, while they wait for that rest and eternal new life in heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

Notice that they are rejoicing at the **prospect
** and **expectations of things to come. Therefore, eventhough they might be suffering from temporal punishments, or, as the book of Wisdom reads, little chastisement ** they are not in torment.

Andre​

 

[guanophore]

** Because people were praying for their dead loved ones in his day**. This is common to many pagan and ancient beliefs. This is not new or unique to Catholicism.

It was also common among the Jews, God’s chosen people.

He says that praying for the damned will do no good. That’s it. We all already know this.

Really? How?

And he mentions nothing about praying for those in Abraham’s Bosom who are experiencing a foretaste of Heaven and many enjoyments that keep smiles on their faces.

That is not the picture Roman Catholicism paints for the righteous dead, or those dead in Christ. Except for a few, those that are sent to Purgatory are punished with great suffering that is literally out of this world (if we are to believe the Doctors, Popes, and Saints in this regard).

Please give us sources for these, so that we can be corrected on our thinking.

This place or state is totally UNKNOWN in ancient Judaism and even modern day Judaism.

Seems like you still have a lot of study to do in the area of historical theology.

Yet apologists for this doctrine call on a Jewish witness to it. This is horribly deceptive, IMV. It calls on false doctrine as "proof."

Sounds like you are calling the Catholic Apologists “deceptive”

 

[guanophore]

Col 1:26 “the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.”[/INDENT]

And if you listen carefully at Mass:

“From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name…”

You admit that there is truth in the Mass?!

Scripture was not edited by Luther…

!!! More study in historical theology. Put this one on your list, Atemi. Luther edited a lot of scripture, starting with taking out some of the books of the canon.

The Catholic Church did NOT have a definitive canon until Trent, so there was no definitive canon to remove anything from…

Trent affirmed what had been decided in the fourth century, Atemi. Go back further.

 Wrong.

Ancient Jews did not believe in Purgatory.

Well, they believed in some state of existence of the righteous who needed prayer. I am not sure what they called it.

Incorrect.

Are you angry because you were brought up to believe Purgatory, and have since found that this teaching is “deception”?

**There was no definitive canon for the Catholic Church until Trent.**

Please adjust your apologetic.

No, Atemi. the Apologetic will not be adjusted to accomodate your lack of historical theology.

There is nothing clearly about “Purgatory” in the text at all. The mere fact that the ancient Jews did not even believe in Purgatory says enough.

No, Atemi, I think not. In fact, Jesus taught a great number of things that cannot be found in the Jewish practices of the day, ideas that were completely contrary to common beliefs. The fact that the Jews did not know or practice something does attest to it’s validity.

 

[guanophore]

The poster said that Luther edited Scripture.

If you want to talk about the canon, that is a different story.

Yes, that should go in a different thread. But, it sounds like you already read it, and have rejected the ideas presented there.

Luther did not edit Scripture. All the Protestant bibles we have today can use all the early manuscripts without any editing from Luther.

This is not accurate. It is clear you are not aware that there are many “translations” that are not well done. But, of COURSE Luther edited scripture! How else could he get the plain truth across without contamination? All the bibles prior to his were Catholic!

The thread does not change the fact that the Catholic Church did not have a definitive canon until Trent. A thread cannot change history.

It sounds like facts will not change your mind either!

There was no definitive canon until Trent. That means there was no canon of Scripture for Catholics everywhere until over a millenia and a half after Christ.

I wonder why it is so important that you insist on this, contrary to any proofs otherwise? Is it because the book of Macabees implies purgatory, and this is your way of ruling it out?

Sigh.

Again I find myself wondering, why are you here? what is you goal in visiting the forum?

 

[guanophore]

I am sorry you are getting so frustrated, but I never even mentioned the Septuagint as it is not relevant at all to the point.

And why you would mention a canon that is rejected by the RCC as inspired Scripture is beyond me.

What canon do you think was rejected by the RCC?

 

[guanophore]

In any event, your remark doesn’t change the fact that the Apostolic era knew nothing of Purgatory. My interest is in what the actual reality was, not what other’s opinions are 2000 years after the fact.

They prayed for men supposedly in mortal sin and idolatry.

Maccabees mentions no Purgatory, inspired text or not.

I have been reading your posts, trying to figure out why you are here. In every thread you seem to have both guns blazing. Are you here to find out the history of the notion of Purgatory? Why did you come to the Catholic forum for that? If that is why you are here, I am curious to know why you are studying this?

 

[TheApologist]

I think Atemi is trying to shake the faith of the those who are strongest of faith. He’s trying to disprove the Catholic Church to us with weak and old and just plain wrong arguments. He’s trying to say that he, or his group, has more authority than the Catholic Church(founded 31-33). If he wants to shake our faith, he won’t get anywhere anytime soon. The full Truth cannot be shaken.

 

[guanophore]

I think Atemi is trying to shake the faith of the those who are strongest of faith. He’s trying to disprove the Catholic Church to us with weak and old and just plain wrong arguments. He’s trying to say that he, or his group, has more authority than the Catholic Church(founded 31-33). If he wants to shake our faith, he won’t get anywhere anytime soon. The full Truth cannot be shaken.

I think Atemi has been hurt by not being well catechized, and felt ripped off. Getting saved, and getting into scripture was a joy, but the old resentments against Catholicism are still there.

 

[Atemi]

I think Atemi has been hurt by not being well catechized, and felt ripped off. Getting saved, and getting into scripture was a joy, but the old resentments against Catholicism are still there.

Gossiping and discussing another poster isn’t the best etiquette, but whatever. I do not expect everyone here to be the most spiritually mature, as I do not at predominately non-Catholic forums. Anger at those that dare question what is assumed to be fact runs across all denominational lines.

I have no “old resentments.” I have stated that plainly before.

I am sure it sounds good when attacking my person, and ascribing to me all the vices you can muster, but it ain’t so.

Sorry to disappoint.

But if it helps to tear me down to make yourself feel superior, then knock yourself out. I am sorry that my presence alone may be an occasion of sin for any Catholics here. That is, sincerely, too bad.

…

 

[guanophore]

I think Atemi has been hurt by not being well catechized, and felt ripped off.  Getting saved, and getting into scripture was a joy, but the old resentments against Catholicism are still there.

Gossiping and discussing another poster isn’t the best etiquette, but whatever. I do not expect everyone here to be the most spiritually mature, as I do not at predominately non-Catholic forums. Anger at those that dare question what is assumed to be fact runs across all denominational lines.

Actually, Atemi, if I were gossiping, I would have sent a PM!
I thought this message was a little harsh:

I think Atemi is trying to shake the faith of the those who are strongest of faith. He’s trying to disprove the Catholic Church to us with weak and old and just plain wrong arguments. He’s trying to say that he, or his group, has more authority than the Catholic Church(founded 31-33). If he wants to shake our faith, he won’t get anywhere anytime soon. The full Truth cannot be shaken.

So I took the opportunity to stick up for you.

I have no “old resentments.” I have stated that plainly before.

You certainly seem to have a lot of resentments against Catholicism. I must have missed the plain statement. I am still trying to figure out why you are here? Is the Apologist correct, after all? Are you here trying to attack Catholicism with “weak old arguements”?

I am sure it sounds good when attacking my person, and ascribing to me all the vices you can muster, but it ain’t so.

Recognizing that someone has been hurt and wronged is not an attack on their person, Atemi. Furthermore, being disillusioned and wounded is not a “vice”. If anything, the sarcasm with which you perpetrate your hurt here on the forum may be considered as such,but I am not yet prepared to call it thus.

Sorry to disappoint.

But if it helps to tear me down to make yourself feel superior, then knock yourself out. I am sorry that my presence alone may be an occasion of sin for any Catholics here. That is, sincerely, too bad. …

I do not think it is a sin to be hurt, and I don’t think it is your fault you had a bad experience of Catholicism. Furthermore, it is sad for me, and not something to make me feel superior, especially since I share your experience.

 

[Eileen_T]

Sighhhhhh!!!

For the record, Atemi sets himself/herself up as an authority on Church teaching and history (seldom citing references for claims), yet almost consistently refers to the Catholic Church as the **RCC **which is fallacious, and a title imposed by non-Catholic Christians/Protestants.

Although I have to admit that some younger Catholics use the term, probably being unaware that it originated in the 16th or 17th century and was first used by theologians of the English Reformation.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Well for what it’s worth I really like Atemi. I think we’re kindred spirits along with Saul, Jacob and other rowdy-for-God types. When I was investigating the RCC I stepped on toes and hurt feelings too. But you know what? I’m not sorry! If you can’t be bothered to put on the whole armor of God that’s your own fault. Get your beauty rest on a nice peaceful rock, a rock against which the gates of hell are not trying to prevail. :tsktsk:

I only pray that I don’t have to tell the story of “Atemi and the disheartening thread” after St. Paul because 2 Corinthians 11:24-33 is a hard act to follow.

 

[Atemi]

Sighhhhhh!!!

For the record, Atemi sets himself/herself up as an authority on Church teaching and history (seldom citing references for claims), yet almost consistently refers to the Catholic Church as the **RCC **which is fallacious, and a title imposed by non-Catholic Christians/Protestants.

Uhhhh…many, many, many Catholics have no problem with using “RCC” or “Roman Catholic Church.”

This is utterly silly. I am responding because this charge is so silly, it had to be addressed.

It is funny that every time I talk to some modernist Roman Catholics they insist that I call their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to a Traditionalist, and they get offended because I have not called their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to my Eastern Orthodox friends and they get ticked off because I will not address their church as…you guessed it…"the Catholic Church."

And on and on it goes.

I have no interest in getting in the middle of that squabble. Just have all the “one, true churches” duke it out and the winner can get the title “the Catholic Church.”

It reminds me of how Prince changed his name to a symbol and insisted everyone must refer to him that way.

Silliness.

Maybe some will stop calling your church the RCC when you guys stop calling us Protestants.

Yah.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Uhhhh…many, many, many Catholics have no problem with using “RCC” or “Roman Catholic Church.”

This is utterly silly. I am responding because this charge is so silly, it had to be addressed.

It is funny that every time I talk to some modernist Roman Catholics they insist that I call their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to a Traditionalist, and they get offended because I have not called their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to my Eastern Orthodox friends and they get ticked off because I will not address their church as…you guessed it…"the Catholic Church."

And on and on it goes.

I have no interest in getting in the middle of that squabble. Just have all the “one, true churches” duke it out and the winner can get the title “the Catholic Church.”

It reminds me of how Prince changed his name to a symbol and insisted everyone must refer to him that way.

Silliness.

Maybe some will stop calling your church the RCC when you guys stop calling us Protestants.

Yah.

Are you not Protesting the Catholic Church teachings? Do you not practice Bible Alone and Faith Alone? Those are the pillars of Protestantism. You a Protestant Christian.

I don’t mind being called Roman Catholic but I rather not neglect the Eastern Rite Catholic Church who are not from the Latin Rite but Byzantine Rite.

That is why I prefer being call Catholic because I think Catholic is what describe the Church of Christ best.

 

[Atemi]

Are you not Protesting the Catholic Church teachings?

Nope.

No more than you protest non-Catholic Christian doctrines.

I guess that makes you a Protestant Christian too.

That is why I prefer being call Catholic because I think Catholic is what describe the Church of Christ best.

Then you will have to call me a Catholic too since I am in Christ’s Church as well.

Should I hold my breath?

 

[Eileen_T]

Nope.

No more than you protest non-Catholic Christian doctrines.

I guess that makes you a Protestant Christian too.

Then you will have to call me a Catholic too since I am in Christ’s Church as well.

Should I hold my breath?

Please do!

 

[guanophore]

Nope.

No more than you protest non-Catholic Christian doctrines.

I guess that makes you a Protestant Christian too.

It might if the sequence were reversed. Since there were nothing but catholics the first 1500 years, and the other churches developed initially through “protesting” her teachings (significantly, the same ones you now protest) then it could be. However, since this term is grounded in historical events, we attach that meaning to it.

Then you will have to call me a Catholic too since I am in Christ’s Church as well.

As was stated in the other thread, all Christians are considered part of the Body of Christ (mystical). And, since Christ came to found only one church, then they must also, by definition, be catholic. However those not in submission to the Magesterium are not considered to be in Communion with the successors of the Apostles.

Should I hold my breath?

Wont that interfere with the vigorous protest you are making?

We are way, way off topic!

 

[TheApologist]

It is funny that every time I talk to some modernist Roman Catholics they insist that I call their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to a Traditionalist, and they get offended because I have not called their church “the Catholic Church.”

I then talk to my Eastern Orthodox friends and they get ticked off because I will not address their church as…you guessed it…"the Catholic Church."

Yet there are only so many who follow the pope. All those who follow the pope and the Magisterium are…you guessed it…in the Catholic Church.

I have no interest in getting in the middle of that squabble. Just have all the “one, true churches” duke it out and the winner can get the title “the Catholic Church.”

Just to let you know…not one particular rite of the Catholic Church deserves the name Catholic Church over the others. All the rites are of the Catholic Church.

Maybe some will stop calling your church the RCC when you guys stop calling us Protestants.

All the non-Roman rites of the Catholic Church are just as Catholic as the Roman rite. There is no reason for you to call us the Roman Catholic Church unless you have to distinguish us from the other rites. There is absolutely no purpose here.
You are Protestants…the only other name we can use is your denomination, and you don’t seem to have one.