Purgatory and prayer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catfinger77
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jan10000 said:
I just said that the Bible is written by man, not God.
Click to expand...
It was not simply written by men. It was written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. All the religious truths therein needed for our salvation are there under the authority of God, not men.
 
jan10000 said:
This is not a factual statement backed by evidence, it is a faith-based one.
The claim is that a fire and torment Hell must exist simply because it appears in the Bible, and the Bible was written by God. Therefore that interpretation of Hell must exist.
That is clearly a false conclusion. Just because someone wrote something down doesn’t make it true.
Click to expand...
So I do not misunderstand where you are, are you a Catholic and do you believe/accept all the Church teachings. I ask this because some of your responses almost lead me to believe you are an atheist.
 
jan10000 said:
I don;t know how to describe myself. I’m a seeker of truth, and although I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist, the inconsistencies, falsehoods and political underpinnings put forth by modern Christianity frustrates me and turns me away from the religion. I still call myself Catholic, but I’m certainly at the end of the rope.

For the purposes of this discussion, I believe God would not create a place of eternal torment. A Hell used to punish souls is not consistent with a loving God. I subscribe to the modern theory that “Hell” is a state, not a place. No one suffers in Hell. Hell is just exclusion from God. This is not a radical viewpoint. It may even be the majority viewpoint.

My claim is that in such a viewpoint, Purgatory is inconsistent, unnecessary, and obsolete.
It may as well be dropped.

However, I have said from the beginning that if you believe in a traditional Hell (demons, devils, pitchforks, fire, ice, pain, suffering, anguish, etc), then Purgatory makes sense for you.
Click to expand...
Okay then so you are are a baptised Catholic but do not accept one or more of Church teachings. Am I correct in saying that because you do not accept the Church teaching on Hell.
 
jan10000 said:
Hell is just exclusion from God.

Purgatory is inconsistent, unnecessary, and obsolete.
Click to expand...
Exclusion from the Beatific Vision.

Purgatory is necessary for the disembodied state (the soul) to become unattached before reconstitution as the person in the resurrection of the body.
 
Do you eat out? Buy food from the store? How do you know what is in 100% in your food? Get a vaccination or take medication? Did it work? Was it good or bad for you? How do you know? Do you require evidence for everything you do in life? If you are a person that does require and do this, how do you trust the equipment that measures and produces said evidence? Are you trusting science? Science is on the same quest, meaning it does not have all the answers. I’ve read where human vision has blank spots in it that our brain just fills in… We put faith in so many things in our ordinary, daily lives (many without even being aware of it) that to just write Faith off as a way of knowing is just as absurd and disappointing to me, I suppose, as the reverse is for you.

I’m not sure what you are truly searching for here. Are the Church’s intentions pure? Is there any aspect of Catholicism that you can agree with? Does God exist? And if God does exist to you, how can a paradox (a loving God that seems to be doing a bad thing) brought up in debates hold more weight to you than the mystery of faith? Faith can be exercised and honed to an exquisite edge through prayer, meditation, contemplation, mercy, and most importantly love of God. To throw away a couple thousand years of Saintly observations on doctrine over modern debates seems a bit extreme to me, but no one ever said that we as Catholics are not allowed to ask questions. You are asking this question of the nature of our Lord, only He can answer it. I pray you have learned to listen as well as you question.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
Yes that is correct. But I would like to point out that my view of Hell is far from radical. From my discussions with Catholics, it may even be the majority viewpoint.
Click to expand...
The ONLY thing that counts is what the Church teaches.
 
jan10000 said:
There is nothing wrong with proposing change and discussion. Absolutism is the cry against the Church by atheists. Statements like the above are why Catholicism is compared to Totalitarianism by non-believers.
Click to expand...
Let me say again that the Catholic Church was established by Christ (God) and entrusted with the Deposit of Faith and given authority to teach in matters of faith and morals. ALL Church teachings are backed by the full authority of God.
Furthermore, Church doctrines NEVER change. They may be explained more clearly over time but they never change.
 
jan10000 said:
recently
Click to expand...
You are confusing doctrine with dogma.The latter of which is a divinely inspired truth and non changing.Doctrnes are beliefs re faith and morals
Church dogma is there is a heaven and hell. This will not change
The Trinity is a divinely in spired Truth. That is wasn’t a part of our faith in its nascent stages doesn’t diminish its Truth.They were working through all manner of beliefs even whether Christ was both Divine and fully human.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
This is just semantics. Priests could marry until the middle ages. The Holy Trinity didn’t even exist until the third century. Before 1818 only Catholic-Catholic marriages were valid. Pope Benedict (of all people) recently said even non-Catholics can be saved. Changing doctrine simply means the issue was never actually doctrine. Married priests, women priests, gay marriage, no Hell, no Purgatory, communion for the divorced - who knows what the Church will be like in 500 years.
Click to expand...
Clearly from your post you really do not understand what the Church actually teaches, what Pope Benedict meant, and nor do you understand the difference between doctrine and discipline (e.g. whether priests should be married or not is a discipline and not a doctrine).
 
jan10000 said:
The Holy Trinity didn’t even exist until the third century … Married priests, women priests, gay marriage, no Hell, no Purgatory, communion for the divorced …
Click to expand...
  • The Holy Trinity was revealed at the Baptism of the Lord.
  • Married Catholic priests still exist.
  • There were never women priests because Holy Orders are not valid for them.
  • The Church has always taught against homosexual acts: Leviticus 28, 22; Romans 1, 26-27.
  • Catholics are not excommunicated for divorce. A divorced and remarried Catholic could be excommunicated under certain circumstances. Communion is only possible for those that are justified (sanctifying grace).
  • Hell was covered before - an ancient dogma of faith.
  • Purgatory was covered before (defined in the Second Council of Lyon).
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
40.png
Vico:
The Holy Trinity was revealed at the Baptism of the Lord.
Click to expand...
This refers to the revelation of God the Father declaring that Jesus is is son by descending the Holy Spirit upon him at his baptism. Nothing in this passage says anything about all three beings being the same one God. It simply says there are three beings. It does not even claim that they are divine (the passage in question implies God adopted Jesus at his baptism - “TODAY you are my son”) The doctrine of the Trinity dates to 3rd century.
Click to expand...
Formalized in the fourth century – consubstantial. The early councils determined what Christology was revealed of the two, adoptionist or incarnationist, either of which can be implied from the Baptism of the Lord.
 
I don’t believe anyone has said only baptized Catholics go to Heaven.All Christian faith outside of the Sacrament hold a portion of the Truth.
You state you’re a cultural Catholic,what exactly does that mean? Are you sincerely seeing g answers here or merely attempting to validate your version of our faith?🤨
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
40.png
Vico:
The early councils determined what Christology was revealed of the two, adoptionist or incarnationist,
Click to expand...
There are actually four - an eternal divine Christology (the Logos - gospel of John, Jesus being an eternal spiritual being with the appearance of a man) and a possessed Jesus (Jesus was a man possessed by the Logos, which left him at crucifixion - “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me”).

The point I am making, and you seem to agree (correct me if I am wrong), is that the Christology of the Trinity is not revealed in the Gospels - it is ‘formalized’ by a council - a committee - in order resolve the viewpoint discrepancies and debates among early Christians. The Trinity is not a revealed doctrine, but rather an amalgamation of several early Christologies that attempts to compromise on one common worldview.
Click to expand...
Well, no, it is revealed, for the Holy Spirit protects the Church from errors in faith and morals.

For the Christology there were several points of clarification defined:
  • Not Arianism (325 A.D. Nicaea) Dogma: God alone can save us. Divine nature.
  • Not Apollinarism (381 A.D. Constantinople) Dogma: That not assumed is not healed. Human nature.
  • Not Nestorianism (431 A.D. Ephesus) Dogma: One person of Christ.
  • Not Eutychianism (451 A.D. Chalcedon) Dogma: Two natures without confusion, change, separation, or division.
  • Not Nestorianism (553 A.D. Constantinople) Dogma: One person in Christ (divine or human). More precision.
 
jan10000 said:
40.png
Vico:
Well, no, it is revealed , for the Holy Spirit protects the Church from errors in faith and morals.
Click to expand...
When I say it is not “revealed” in the Gospels, I mean it is not stated in the Gospels.
Saying it was “revealed” 300 years later by the Holy Spirit may be the position of the Church, but from the standpoint of history, the Trinity was formalized 300 years after Jesus died.
You can of course claim it was divinely inspired, but the more obvious determination is that it was a formulated compromise, by committee, attempting to resolve the many competing Christologies of the day.
Click to expand...
It is revealed in the Gospel. Gospel of John 8:58, Gospel of John 10:30, Gospel of John 14:9-10, Gospel of John 14:26-27, Gospel of John 15:26, Gospel of Luke 1:35.
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
40.png
Vico:
It is revealed in the Gospel. Gospel of John 8:58, Gospel of John 10:30, Gospel of John 14:9-10, Gospel of John 14:26-27, Gospel of John 15:26, Gospel of Luke 1:35.
Click to expand...
We are getting off-topic. However, please note there are just as many biblical quotes that contradict the Trinity as there are that support it. Examples include John 14:28, Luke 22:42, among many others. Also, some of the verses you quote are used AGAINST your position. for example, John 10:30, “I and the Father are one” is claimed to show that Jesus is NOT distinct from the Father.

The point of all this is that if you try to find truth of the Trinity in the Bible, you will not find it. It is too contradictory, written by multiple authors with different agendas across decades.

And, regardless, I am talking about the historicity of the Trinity, not the theological foundation of it. It is historical fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was not part of Christianity until 300 years after Jesus died, named and defined by a committee. Whether this group of men were divinely inspired is, I guess, subjective - but the historical truth is not in question. The truth is that no where in the Bible is the word, concept or doctrine of the Trinity ever stated directly, if even implied. This lack of direct evidence in the Bible is why Arianism arose. I am not advocating one view versus another here - but I am pointing out it is worthwhile to consider the history of the doctrine, and irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
The post was about the revelation not historicity. The indirect evidence exists. The quotes you provide are not about the Holy Trinity but about the two wills and natures in Jesus Christ. There were also Docetists in the second century that taught Jesus only appeared to have a body and was not truly incarnate in a human body.

In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott points out that:
I. The oldest authoritative doctrinal formulation of the Church’s belief in the Trinity is the Apostle’s Creed, which, in the form of the ancient Roman baptismal symbol, served as the basis of catechumenical instruction and as a baptismal confession of faith since the 2nd century. It is based on the trinitarian formula of Baptism. Mt. 28, 19.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jan10000 said:
Again, quoting from the Bible (in this case Mt 28:19) is meaningless because these quotes can be used both for AND against the Trinity doctrine. Not every Christian believes in the Trinity - and they will use the same quotes as evidence against your point. This has been discussed many times in detail on other threads, but it is simply true that the Trinity is neither directly stated nor inferred anywhere in the Bible. And historically, it was formulated 300 years after Jesus died in order to resolve the competing Christologies of the time. The vast majority of Christians (including Catholics of course) believe it to be true - but that doesn’t change the history of the doctrine.

The reason the Trinity even came up is because we were discussing how (my claim) one day the Church could claim Purgatory isn’t real. I made this claim because many Christians now say Hell is not real - a loving God would not torture souls for eternity - Hell is a state of being separate from God - so why not Purgatory? The response was that would never occur - Purgatory is dogma, so it won’t change. But all the Church needs to say is that Purgatory is no longer dogma. And I pointed out that the Trinity, for example, was never even a concept in Christianity until 300 years after Jesus died. I wasn’t arguing the validity of the Trinity (that is for another thread).
Click to expand...
Prior to 300 years the Holy Trinity certainly was a concept; refer to what I posted before.

The Holy Trinity is indirectly stated and also inferred, what you said and I agreed to is that the Holy Trinity is not directly stated in the Gospel.

Oxford Dictionaries.
inferred: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements
Click to expand...
It is not necessary that statements support a variety of concepts, for it is in the whole of many statements that the concept is demonstrated. So it is not necessary to be unambiguous in any one statement. Example: The Father is Creator (Gen 1:1; Is 44:24; Acts 17:24; Eph 3:9); Jesus Christ is Creator (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:8, 10); the Holy Spirit is Creator (Job 33:4).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top