Protestants spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics

[JonNC]

From the infallible Cantate Domino:

[The Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but you will not find any Prot in Purgatory.

First, I believe the term “Prot” is not permitted by the rules of the forum.

Secondly, the CCC

817
In fact, “in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church—for **which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.”**269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body—here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270—do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers. 271

818
"However, **one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers **. . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

All highlights mine.
Jon

 

[sola_scriptura]

Now wait just a cotton picken minute. Martin Luther was not excommunicated because he “stood up to the corruption.” The man added, literally added the word alone to his German translation of the Sacred text and he was excommunicated for that act (an act of heresy) at the point he refused to make it right.

Let us remember that the Church was, in fact, charged by Christ Himself, with the chore of feeding His lambs and tending His Sheep. At that time in history, being excummunicated for acts of heresy against the Church was as common as being executed for acts of treason against the state or the common wealth or whatever…

Nothing of what happened 500 years ago negates what Jesus Christ did 2000 years ago. He made certain promises toward the Church he said he would build and those promises, including the powers he gave it along with His own authority, remain intact.

In fairness, let’s give “equal time” to Luther. Here’s his response to his critics regarding this issue:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the Catholics] did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.” (I changed a more offensive word to “Catholics” in the interest of forum guidelines).

I personally do not like “idea” translations. I do not trust them because inherently the idea’s of its author will become conflated with the text. However, in this case it is a defensible rendering of the text. More from Luther:

*“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, **namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law

. . .***.

*“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).*

The passage at issue:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

If man is justified by faith and NOT works (“apart from works of the law”) then what else is there? In other words the idea presented here IS “faith alone” … unless someone would like to offer an alternative rendering? However, again I don’t like idea translations (nor would Calvin – since to deny his doctrines one would have to change the real words of scripture).

Notwithstanding my feeling that the translation may have been defensible – IMO “idea” translations should “never” be used. That being said I’ve seen allegations of inconsistencies between the Vulgate and a proper word for word rendering of the Koine Greek (which is why I generally do not rely on the KJV either – although the NKJV may not rely on the Vulgate as heavily).

The NASB is hands down the best Bible out there.

 

[JonNC]

QUOTE=MIZER;4094863]Now wait just a cotton picken minute. Martin Luther was not excommunicated because he “stood up to the corruption.” The man added, literally added the word alone to his German translation of the Sacred text and he was excommunicated for that act (an act of heresy) at the point he refused to make it right.

Just a timeline correction. Luther was excommunicated in January 1521. He didn’t start his translation of the NT until after that, while he was in hiding at Wartburg. He didn’t finish his translation of the entire Bible until 1534.

Jon

 

[Bonarges]

**

First, I believe the term “Prot” is not permitted by the rules of the forum.

Secondly, the CCC

All highlights mine.
Jon

Your selective quotes have nothing to do with Purgatory. The first quote is completely irrelevant. The second could mean virtually anything. And the third means what? The infallible Cantate Domino is not explained nor interpreted by the Catholic Catechism. In the order of authority, Cantate Domino stands alone and is not subject to the CCC. *Sola catechisma *seems to reign supreme on this site.

 

[JonNC]

**

Your selective quotes have nothing to do with Purgatory. The first quote is completely irrelevant. The second could mean virtually anything. And the third means what? The infallible Cantate Domino is not explained nor interpreted by the Catholic Catechism. In the order of authority, Cantate Domino stands alone and is not subject to the CCC. *Sola catechisma *seems to reign supreme on this site.

Hi Jim,
I kind of got the impression that when you said that “you will not find any Prot in Purgatory”, you were implying that no Protestants will find salvation and, therefore, no need for Purgatory. If true, I believe my “selective” quotes were, 817 - quite relevant, 818 - clearer than meaning"virtually anything", and 819 - certainly indicating that the Catholic Church believes that "Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation".

Perhaps you prefer Lumen Gentium:

1. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter.14* For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Savior.15* They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.16* They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end.17* Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.

Maybe I’m wrong about this, but it seems that when one says the Cantate Domino stands alone, that is using “selective quotes”. You position doesn’t seem to be that of the OP and other Catholics here, but I’ll let her and others speak for themselves.

Jon

 

[qui_est_ce]

I was listening to Scott Hahn on EWTN a couple night ago discuss purgatory & I found his observations did the same thing I see charged here, he cherry picked one or two verses, spun them way out of context, failed to understand the proper typology for those verses, and used them to bolster the idea of purgatory?

Scott Hahn is a scholar of Theology and ancient languages. He was educated and received his doctorate as a Protestant who was virulently anti-Catholic. It was when he began reading the Early Church Fathers in the original Latin and Greek, that he began questioning some tenets of Presbyteriansim.

I have heard the discussion to which you refer, and he was not cherry picking. He used certain verses (protestant style) to support the doctrine of Purgatory, and then relates the verses to the whole meaning of the Word.

I wouldn’t begin to have the scholarly insight he and the Church Fathers have. And that’s where faith comes in.

There are many mysteries in our faith, the Trinity, the Real Presence. Our puny human brains cannot begin to fathom the mind of God. Scholars try to use human words, but they often inadequaate.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Scott Hahn is a scholar of Theology and ancient languages. He was educated and received his doctorate as a Protestant who was virulently anti-Catholic. It was when he began reading the Early Church Fathers in the original Latin and Greek, that he began questioning some tenets of Presbyteriansim.

I have heard the discussion to which you refer, and he was not cherry picking. He used certain verses (protestant style) to support the doctrine of Purgatory, and then relates the verses to the whole meaning of the Word.

I wouldn’t begin to have the scholarly insight he and the Church Fathers have. And that’s where faith comes in.

There are many mysteries in our faith, the Trinity, the Real Presence. Our puny human brains cannot begin to fathom the mind of God. Scholars try to use human words, but they often inadequaate.

Hahn relies on the premise that the early fathers must have been closer to the truth than we are because they were less attenuated (in time) from Jesus. However, the earliest Christians (who were alive during the ministry of the Apostles) had a much more simplistic view of things. They did not develop theology to the extent the later church (both Catholic & Protestant) did.

Certainly the earliest fathers like Polycarp and Clement were actually taught by the Apostles (John and Paul). However, very soon after these men departed from the stage, beginning with men like Irenaeus, theology began to expand far beyond what the Apostles actually taught (for example in areas like Mariology & the idea of apostolic succession as enumerated by Irenaeus).

So I think Hahn over relies on early church leaders – especially given that the RCC has held clearly erroneous interpretations of scripture (such as the earth is at the center of the universe), which were official positions of the church. So for him to now agree that the church is infallible IMO does harm to his credibility as a scholar and theologian (not to mention his faulty explanation of purgatory). Even if, as you say, he was arguing on behalf of the concept “protestant style” he still erroneously interpreted the verses he relied on. Moreover, he did cherry pick – which is the same thing we’re always accused of (which frankly isn’t true – in fact Calvin would accuse others, including other reformers of “cherry picking” – he relied on the overwhelming preponderance of scripture when he wrote about divine providence and the sovereignty of God, as an example).

The funny thing is with Hahn, before he became Catholic he would have been just another protestant heretic. Now that he’s Catholic he’s a “scholar” (and making a bunch of money selling books).

 

[qui_est_ce]

Hahn relies on the premise that the early fathers must have been closer to the truth than we are because they were less attenuated (in time) from Jesus.

The Catholic Church has always relied on the ECF’s because the early Church of the Apostle IS the Catholic Church.

However, the earliest Christians (who were alive during the ministry of the Apostles) had a much more simplistic view of things. They did not develop theology to the extent the later church (both Catholic & Protestant) did.

On the contrary, by the 2nd century AD, quite a lot of theology had developed. Tead what Ignatius of Antioch (b50 AD)wrote regarding the hierarchy of the Church, the Trinity, the Real Presence, the Blessed Virgn Mary.

Certainly the earliest fathers like Polycarp and Clement were actually taught by the Apostles (John and Paul). However, very soon after these men departed from the stage, beginning with men like Irenaeus, theology began to expand far beyond what the Apostles actually taught (for example in areas like Mariology & the idea of apostolic succession as enumerated by Irenaeus).

Does not the acorn become an Oak? The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which is the tiniest of seeds, yet when full grown is the largest of plant…

So I think Hahn over relies on early church leaders – especially given that the RCC has held clearly erroneous interpretations of scripture (such as the earth is at the center of the universe), which were official positions of the church.

It was the offical position of everybody at the time. It is true that the Church at one time took a literal interpretation of the verse. The Church’s understanding of the Divine developed and grew in over 2,000 years. She is still growing. The discovery of Hebrew texts at Qumran greatly increased our knowledge of the the Age in which Jesus lived. It’s the mustard seed again.

So for him to now agree that the church is infallible IMO does harm to his credibility as a scholar and theologian

When did the Church proclaim as dogma that the earth was the center of the universe?

(not to mention his faulty explanation of purgatory). Even if, as you say, he was arguing on behalf of the concept “protestant style” he still erroneously interpreted the verses he relied on.

And your interpretations are infallible? Are you saying your scholarly research exceeds that of Scott Hahn and the Catholic Church?

Moreover, he did cherry pick –

Cherry picking is basing beliefs on verses quoted out of context. This is not what was done on that program. Every verse was put in context with the whole teachings of the Word.

Calvin would accuse others, including other reformers of “cherry picking” – he relied on the overwhelming preponderance of scripture when he wrote about divine providence and the sovereignty of God, as an example).

So Christians spent1,500 years misinterpreting Scripure until Calvin came along. Calvin and Martin Luther disagree on salvation and sacrament. Who is right? Somehow Jesus left us orphans, even though he promised to send his advocate.

The funny thing is with Hahn, before he became Catholic he would have been just another protestant heretic. Now that he’s Catholic he’s a “scholar” ).

Protestants aren’t heretics. Hahn was always a scholar. Our NAB bible is the work of Catholic and Protestant scholars, of which Hahn is a fine example. Catholics do not deny the scholarship of Protestant theologians.

(and making a bunch of money selling books

Do you not work for a living? Do you have a problem with people making money selling books? Or are you implying he converted so he could sell book? If his books are bringing many Catholics and nonCatholics closer to Jesus and the Truth, I say

 

[sola_scriptura]

The Catholic Church has always relied on the ECF’s because the early Church of the Apostle IS the Catholic Church. On the contrary, by the 2nd century AD, quite a lot of theology had developed. Tead what Ignatius of Antioch (b50 AD)wrote regarding the hierarchy of the Church, the Trinity, the Real Presence, the Blessed Virgn Mary.

These are the expressions of faith that have been with us since the beginning (with the exception of Mariology, which Ignatius did not write extensively on as you infer, except to say what is universally agreed upon by all Christians). “Catholic” Mariology didn’t begin to develop until Irenaeus.

What I was pointing to were more complex matters (such as on predestination and grace addressed by Augustine).

Does not the acorn become an Oak? The kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which is the tiniest of seeds, yet when full grown is the largest of plant…
It was the offical position of everybody at the time. It is true that the Church at one time took a literal interpretation of the verse. The Church’s understanding of the Divine developed and grew in over 2,000 years. She is still growing. The discovery of Hebrew texts at Qumran greatly increased our knowledge of the the Age in which Jesus lived. It’s the mustard seed again.

My point exactly – thank you!

When did the Church proclaim as dogma that the earth was the center of the universe?

Through its actions (and the university of its understanding that Scripture revealed an earth at the center of the universe), which may form the basis of “ordinary and universal” Sacred Magisterium.

And your interpretations are infallible?

Never inferred such a thing.

Are you saying your scholarly research exceeds that of Scott Hahn and the Catholic Church?

In the case of purgatory, I’m saying they’re wrong & the protestant view right. It’s not a case of research, the verses they rely on are interpreted wrong (and its proper typology ignored).

Cherry picking is basing beliefs on verses quoted out of context. This is not what was done on that program. Every verse was put in context with the whole teachings of the Word.

I disagree.

So Christians spent1,500 years misinterpreting Scripure until Calvin came along.

Only with regard to a few (but important) issues. Frankly we’ll agree on perhaps 80% of core Christian doctrine.

Calvin and Martin Luther disagree on salvation and sacrament. Who is right?

You will say that the “real” flesh and blood of Christ are actually present in the bread. I will say no it’s still bread – we break bread in “remembrance of Jesus” and that Jesus is present – but we’re not actually eating flesh or drinking blood.

The earliest Christians (during the time of Paul) celebrated the Lord’s supper by sharing a meal. Albeit some of them even abused this practice (the wealthy members of the congregation would consume the good food before the poor members arrived). Paul never chastised the methodology of this practice, rather he only chastised the rich reserving the good food for themselves (which IMO is decisive on this matter).

It wasn’t until Ignatius that this remembrance meal started shaping into what we see today.

Somehow Jesus left us orphans, even though he promised to send his advocate.

Not at all – there are many with an excellent understanding of right Christian doctrine.

Protestants aren’t heretics.

Not all Catholics would agree – but thanks for not being one of them.

Hahn was always a scholar. Our NAB bible is the work of Catholic and Protestant scholars, of which Hahn is a fine example. Catholics do not deny the scholarship of Protestant theologians.

Again – it depends on the Catholic?

Do you not work for a living? Do you have a problem with people making money selling books? Or are you implying he converted so he could sell book? If his books are bringing many Catholics and nonCatholics closer to Jesus and the Truth, I say

I always have a problem with men becoming multi-millionaires because of religion (Protestants included & there are many). That being said I don’t have a problem with a theologian making a living from his literary works; it just depends on how lavished his lifestyle is, how much he gives to charity, and so on. Frankly my comment on Hahn was just to note that fact (beyond that I don’t know if Hahn is living in a multi-million dollar house bought with proceeds from his theological writings, how much he tithes or gives to charity, etc.).

I know of some religious leaders who give 90% of their money to charity (but then spoil it by telling everyone they do this).

Not a big deal, and you’re right, this has nothing to do with whether they’re right or wrong on doctrine (just a personal pet peeve of mine).

 

[qui_est_ce]

These are the expressions of faith that have been with us since the beginning (with the exception of Mariology, which Ignatius did not write extensively on as you infer, except to say what is universally agreed upon by all Christians). “Catholic” Mariology didn’t begin to develop until Irenaeus.

What I was pointing to were more complex matters (such as on predestination and grace addressed by Augustine).

I’m an amateur, that’s topic for another thread!

Through its actions (and the university of its understanding that Scripture revealed an earth at the center of the universe), which may form the basis of “ordinary and universal” Sacred Magisterium.

Your opinion not fact.

In the case of purgatory**, I’m saying they’re wrong & the protestant view right.** It’s not a case of research, the verses they rely on are interpreted wrong (and its proper typology ignored).

Why should I agree with your interpretation? You don’t accept Maccabees as Divinely inspired. Jesus did.

Only with regard to a few (but important) issues. Frankly we’ll agree on perhaps 80% of core Christian doctrine.

You are probably right, but Scripture and Tradition proves the Catholic Church has it 100% right in FAITH and MORALS. (not bragging, just a humble acknowledgement).

You will say that the “real” flesh and blood of Christ are actually present in the bread. I will say no it’s still bread – we break bread in “remembrance of Jesus” and that Jesus is present – but we’re not actually eating flesh or drinking blood.

just don’t understand why you believe this.

The earliest Christians (during the time of Paul) celebrated the Lord’s supper by sharing a meal. Albeit some of them even abused this practice (the wealthy members of the congregation would consume the good food before the poor members arrived). Paul never chastised the methodology of this practice, rather he only chastised the rich reserving the good food for themselves (which IMO is decisive on this matter).

.

It wasn’t until Ignatius that this remembrance meal started shaping into what we see today.

If Ignatius was a student of John and Paul, why would he have it wrong? Why did it take 1,500 years to figure out this was wrong? Luther had it wrong, but Calvin had it right?

Not all Catholics would agree – but thanks for not being one of them.

Again – it depends on the Catholic?

We Catholics should do a better job of catechizing. I am stating Catholic Teaching.

I always have a problem with men becoming multi-millionaires because of religion (Protestants included & there are many). That being said I don’t have a problem with a theologian making a living from his literary works; it just depends on how lavished his lifestyle is, how much he gives to charity, and so on. Frankly my comment on Hahn was just to note that fact (beyond that I don’t know if Hahn is living in a multi-million dollar house bought with proceeds from his theological writings, how much he tithes or gives to charity, etc.).

I know of some religious leaders who give 90% of their money to charity (but then spoil it by telling everyone they do this).

Not a big deal, and you’re right, this has nothing to do with whether they’re right or wrong on doctrine (just a personal pet peeve of mine).

I agree about the Prosperity Gospel. I don’t like Scott Hahn bashing. He is a humble, sincere and intelligent man. I don’t know much about his lifestyle, but if he were a millionaire, why would he continue teaching at Steubenville? He could be at a much more prestigious University, like Notre Dame or “Catholic” University. (They probably wouldn’t have him)

I’m willing to bet much of his travels and talks are at his own expense. They home school their kids. I believe they have six children.

 

[TriuneUnity]

I’m an amateur, that’s topic for another thread!

Aren’t we all

Your opinion not fact.

We could say that about anything, unfortunately. Sola is right about purgatory because of proper biblical exegesis. You can, of course, say that Rome has always taught it, but it is true that the Orthodox reject it as well…that and Protestantism is a sizeable chunk of Christianity.

Why should I agree with your interpretation? You don’t accept Maccabees as Divinely inspired. Jesus did.

How do you know this? I am not disputing the canonicity of I or II Maccabees. Besides that, Maccabees, even if it is inspired, doesn’t prove purgatory.

You are probably right, but Scripture and Tradition proves the Catholic Church has it 100% right in FAITH and MORALS. (not bragging, just a humble acknowledgement).

Maybe on morals. I can’t really dispute any of their moral teachings. However, the Church is not right because it says it’s right. That is circular.

If Ignatius was a student of John and Paul, why would he have it wrong? Why did it take 1,500 years to figure out this was wrong? Luther had it wrong, but Calvin had it right?

Amen. Reformation…not reinvention.

He could be at a much more prestigious University, like Notre Dame or “Catholic” University. (They probably wouldn’t have him)

haha…you’re probably right about that. He is far too Catholic to teach at Notre Dame.

 

[distracted]

Then just do what I did when I sought information regarding this – look in the history books. Fortunately with regard to the reformation the events were well recorded. That the RCC might deny the truth and its culpability is no surprise to me.

then just do what i did whe i sought information regarding this… look at Catholic history books… That the Protestants get Church history (and every other kind wrong) is no surprise to me.

 

[qui_est_ce]

How do you know this? I am not disputing the canonicity of I or II Maccabees. Besides that, Maccabees, even if it is inspired, doesn’t prove purgatory.

Because you’re Lutheran?

II Mac 12:42-46
42
7 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.
43
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. **In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; ****44
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. **45
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
46
**Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin. **
Where were the dead? They died in sin. I’ll admit there is much more support in the NT. But that has already been pointed out.

Amen. Reformation…not reinvention.

INVENTION, not reinvention, not Reform (sorry, I know where you are coming from, my dad was LCMS, son of a German Evangelical Lutheran Pastor. Christ calls us to be as one, and all this splintering and factions is just plain WRONG. This especially is aimed at fellow Catholics who think they can pick and choose. I’m willing to bet if you talked to Dr. Hahn, you would change your opinion. Someone on this forum has personally talked to him. Can’t remember who.

haha…you’re probably right about that. He is far too Catholic to teach at Notre Dame.

Sadly, he is far too Catholic for many Catholics.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Because you’re Lutheran?

No, because Judas’ action neither receives instruction from God nor does it receive any approval from the Lord. Nor does it show that these souls were enduring any form of purification for past sins. Additionally, Catholics teach that idolatry is a mortal sin. These soldiers were idolaters and would not have gone to purgatory, but to Hell.

INVENTION, not reinvention, not Reform (sorry, I know where you are coming from, my dad was LCMS, son of a German Evangelical Lutheran Pastor.

Yeah, I saw in your profile that you were baptized in Germany. That almost makes you a canonized saint! lol

Which invention are you referring to, the Calvinist view of the Supper?

Christ calls us to be as one, and all this splintering and factions is just plain WRONG.

Christ also calls us to separate from false teaching. Since we believe Rome teaches false doctrine on any number of points, we must separate.

 

[sola_scriptura]

then just do what i did whe i sought information regarding this… look at Catholic history books… That the Protestants get Church history (and every other kind wrong) is no surprise to me.

do you think there is an anti-Catholic bias among secular historians?

 

[MIZER]

Sola Scriptura posted:

In fairness, let’s give “equal time” to Luther.

Why should we give equal time to Luther? WHY? Does the Bible somewhere state that we are to give equal time to anyone who picks up a Bible and interprets support for their personal agenda from within it’s pages? I don’t think so. I think Christ very specifically appointed our teacher(s) for us.

Why do you and other non-catholics insist on following the teachings of men, who have (had) no authority to teach? Whatever the timeline was, Luther was excommincated for heresy. He was a heretic. His own ideas fluctuated massively during the course of his life.

Here’s his response to his critics regarding this issue:

“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the Catholics] did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there.

By what authority did he add it to the text? You protestants are always accusing the CC of “adding” to the word of God. Here your “teacher” admits to the act and you wish to defend him. In fact you follow him. And you don’t see this as the very definition of hypocrisy.

And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text –

By what authority does Luther have the power to teach all nations the sense of the text, when all the while he is opposing the established teaching of the One Church Christ himself commissioned to teach?

if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there.

Why should we believe and follow this man, when it means forsaking the voice of the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” given by God to HIS Son’s True Church?

I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

(I changed a more offensive word to “Catholics” in the interest of forum guidelines).

How pragmatic of you. We have all heard the words. We are all called those words on a regular basis. Those who use those words, offend not Catholics, but our Lord.

I personally do not like “idea” translations. I do not trust them because inherently the idea’s of its author will become conflated with the text. However, in this case it is a defensible rendering of the text.

A pretty weak defense. If a Catholic (in good standing) today did this you would flip flop in a heart beat and say it was proof that the true church was not.

More from Luther:

I think I may be sick.

 

[sola_scriptura]

Why should we give equal time to Luther? WHY? Does the Bible somewhere state that we are to give equal time to anyone who picks up a Bible and interprets support for their personal agenda from within it’s pages? I don’t think so. I think Christ very specifically appointed our teacher(s) for us.

Why do you and other non-catholics insist on following the teachings of men, who have (had) no authority to teach? Whatever the timeline was, Luther was excommincated for heresy. He was a heretic. His own ideas fluctuated massively during the course of his life.

By what authority did he add it to the text? You protestants are always accusing the CC of “adding” to the word of God. Here your “teacher” admits to the act and you wish to defend him. In fact you follow him. And you don’t see this as the very definition of hypocrisy.

By what authority does Luther have the power to teach all nations the sense of the text, when all the while he is opposing the established teaching of the One Church Christ himself commissioned to teach?

Why should we believe and follow this man, when it means forsaking the voice of the Holy Spirit, the “Spirit of truth” given by God to HIS Son’s True Church?

How pragmatic of you. We have all heard the words. We are all called those words on a regular basis. Those who use those words, offend not Catholics, but our Lord.

A pretty weak defense. If a Catholic (in good standing) today did this you would flip flop in a heart beat and say it was proof that the true church was not.

I think I may be sick.

Oh please? Frankly I’m sick of defending Martin Luther against these hypocritical attacks; or getting baited into the tit for tat (whose clergy or church leaders are more lacking in character, etc. etc.) — I’m not even Lutheran. I don’t need Luther to know the RCC is wrong about dozens of things. When I here brothers really means cousin, or we no longer only have “one” mediator as scripture states, but two or perhaps thousands (if you include the saints) I absolutely know what is right. The Holy Spirit guided the Bible authors & God Himself has ensured His word remained in tact. The Bible says what means and means what it says. The Holy Spirit is perfectly capable of ensuring the bible authors used the proper words when they wrote. So “one” means “one” and “brothers” means “brothers” … that’s all the proof I need. So have a nice day.

If you need someone else to help you read simple text then that’s not my problem.

 

[Mickey]

When I hear brothers really means cousin

It could also mean half-brother.

or we no longer only have “one” mediator as scripture states, but two or perhaps thousands (if you include the saints)

Jesus is our mediator. But the saints pray for us. They are not dead. They are alive in Christ!

 

[Mickey]

Hahn relies on the premise that the early fathers must have been closer to the truth than we are because they were less attenuated (in time) from Jesus. However, the earliest Christians (who were alive during the ministry of the Apostles) had a much more simplistic view of things. They did not develop theology to the extent the later church (both Catholic & Protestant) did.

I am not a huge fan of Hahn, but I would say that there is much to be gleaned by the early Church Fathers. There is something to be said for being taught by the Apostles (or disciples of the Apostles). Certainly I would put much more stock in the writngs and interpretations of these early Church Fathers than someone–say–like Calvin–who came along 1500 years later and re-interprets many things.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Certainly I would put much more stock in the writngs and interpretations of these early Church Fathers than someone–say–like Calvin–who came along 1500 years later and re-interprets many things.

The deepest wells have the clearest water.

I like that expression!