Purgatory for Protestants?

[guanophore]

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining. Not so for division. People just read right over that sin as if it is no big deal, OR no big deal for THEM. When in fact Those who are guilty of this sin, absolutely need to be consumed with fixing it within themselves.

The Greek above, describes “division, dissension, standing apart, divisions which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions”.

That is ALL of Protestantism and therefore those in it, regardless of name they use for their particular division/sect.

I think you make a good point. So many times “doctrinal distinctives” are valued rather than considered problematic.

But I think what you are describing here are sins of grave matter. They are not necessarily “mortal” unless they are committed with full knowledge and consent. While I agree that all Protestantism is, by definition, divisive, the reasons are far from pointless or groundless. They are divided from Catholicism for reasons they consider to be quite grounded. And “therefore those in it” assumes that all Protestants have full knowledge and consent to the issues that divide us, and most of them do not.

For that matter, most Catholics don’t understand what divides, and think there is nothing wrong with other denominations (indifferentism).

Purgatory is NOT for those in mortal sin.

Yes, but you certainly seem to be quick to evaluate whose soul is in this state!

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining. Not so for division. People just read right over that sin as if it is no big deal, OR no big deal for THEM. When in fact Those who are guilty of this sin, absolutely need to be consumed with fixing it within themselves.

The Greek above, describes “division, dissension, standing apart, divisions which wrongly separate people into pointless (groundless) factions”.

That is ALL of Protestantism and therefore those in it, regardless of name they use for their particular division/sect.

I think you make a good point. So many times “doctrinal distinctives” are valued rather than considered problematic.

But I think what you are describing here are sins of grave matter. They are not necessarily “mortal” unless they are committed with full knowledge and consent.

Mentally challenged people have a problem here. NOT the average person.

guanophore:

While I agree that all Protestantism is, by definition, divisive, the reasons are far from pointless or groundless. They are divided from Catholicism for reasons they consider to be quite grounded.

When Paul saw a divisive person heretic in his day He warned a heretic twice, after twice he was done with them if they didn’t change. To him, they were sinful and self condemned.

guanophore:

And “therefore those in it” assumes that all Protestants have full knowledge and consent to the issues that divide us, and most of them do not.
John Henry Newman while he was still a Protestant, knew with just a modicum of study, that to be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant.

So If a Protestant doesn’t know the truth, and I stress “IF”, and let’s say a Catholic would rather make excuses for the Protestant where they are rather than educate them, then whose fault is it, that the Protestant remains in the dark?

guanophore:

For that matter, most Catholics don’t understand what divides, and think there is nothing wrong with other denominations (indifferentism).

I agree that there is indifferentism and other errors among the left. They are behind ecumenism that has run amok, fake ecumenism so to speak, and have really muddied the water.

Purgatory is NOT for those in mortal sin.

guanophore:

Yes, but you certainly seem to be quick to evaluate whose soul is in this state!

And You seem to be quick to dismiss evaluation of guilt. John had no such problem,

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Do you see, “any one” can assess mortal sin in another?

 

[JonNC]

Division I’m speaking of is the divisions brought about by the E Orthodox, AND later, Protestantism regardless of stripe, from the successor to St Peter (the pope), AND those in union with him, the Catholic Church.

And those Catholics in communion with the pope **from the Eastern Orthodox and later other western Christian communions. **

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

For those who die without mortal sin on their soul, that’s true.

Perhaps, but I am more familiar with the distinction of believers /non believers or those who blaspheme H.G.

Have you not seen all the mortal sins mentioned in scripture that keep one from heaven if one dies with any of them on their soul? By definition they are mortal sins.

Here’s an example

sins of the flesh sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ) factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

I bring up dissension for a reason. Depending on one’s translation, that word might be any number of words. The Greek there is important. Open the link. It narrows down the meaning.

Note: Think of who it is also identifying 1500 years after Paul writes this letter.

Steve, you have made this point over and over to the point where it begins to look like you are consumed with it.

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining.

I am choosing to believe you are sincere and speaking from a heart of love and genuine concern. If all other mortal sins mentioned in Scripture do not need explaining why does it appear that the CC is very busy explaining, justifying and seemingly redefining so many of them listed in Scripture? Maybe your analysis of what needs defining is a little different than your Churchs.

 

[guanophore]

When Paul saw a divisive person heretic in his day He warned a heretic twice, after twice he was done with them if they didn’t change. To him, they were sinful and self condemned.

True! But most Protestants cannot qualify for the status of “heretic”, since they never embraced the Apostolic doctrine in the beginning. They hold heretical positions but most of them do so in good faith. They are more like Apollos.

24 Now a Jew named Apol′los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18

Fervent and gifted, but not having the whole story. It is a sad fact that Many Protestants do more with less, and Catholics who have the “fullness of faith” live carnal lives.

and let’s say a Catholic would rather make excuses for the Protestant where they are rather than educate them, then whose fault is it, that the Protestant remains in the dark?

I was not attempting to place blame, as I have not found it to have any life giving qualities. But I do agree that all of us have the same responsibility of Priscilla and Aquila to expound the word of God more accurately.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Do you see, “any one” can assess mortal sin in another?

No, I do not see it that way. When one is in close community with others, one is more likely to be able to evaluate their level of knowledge and consent, but I do not think this applies to “brothers” with whom we are not so familiar. Only God knows a persons’ heart, how much knowledge they have, and whether they are willfully defiant or just choosing wrongly because they believe what they chose is right (like Apollos).

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Division I’m speaking of is the divisions brought about by the E Orthodox, AND later, Protestantism regardless of stripe, from the successor to St Peter (the pope), AND those in union with him, the Catholic Church.

And those Catholics in communion with the pope **from the Eastern Orthodox and later other western Christian communions. **

Jon,

could you be more specific about those in communion with the pope.

Who are you specifically talking about when you say

1. Eastern Orthodox,
2. western Christian communions

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

When Paul saw a divisive person heretic in his day He warned a heretic twice, after twice he was done with them if they didn’t change. To him, they were sinful and self condemned.

True! But most Protestants cannot qualify for the status of "heretic", since they never embraced the Apostolic doctrine in the beginning. They hold heretical positions but most of them do so in good faith. They are more like Apollos.

the definition of a heretic from the CCC
2089 “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”

If a Protestant is baptized, and they have been instructed on the truth, they qualify .

guanophore:

24 Now a Jew named Apol′los, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, well versed in the scriptures. 25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue; but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him and expounded to him the way of God more accurately." Acts 18

Apollos was corrected as needed
If a baptized person is corrected and they won’t change THEN they are guilty of heresy.

guanophore:

Fervent and gifted, but not having the whole story.

That’s why we are to pass the truth onto the whole world.

guanophore:

It is a sad fact that Many Protestants do more with less, and Catholics who have the “fullness of faith” live carnal lives.

people on all sides who won’t learn and live the faith, are legion in numbers.

guanophore:

I was not attempting to place blame, as I have not found it to have any life giving qualities. But I do agree that all of us have the same responsibility of Priscilla and Aquila to expound the word of God more accurately.

“blame is to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong”.

John has no problem in what follows, with assigning blame and degree of one’s sin.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

“any one” can assess mortal or non mortal sin in another

guanophore:

No, I do not see it that way. Only God knows a persons’ heart,…

John instructed us in assessing another brother’s sin, being mortal or non mortal. If we know that distinction, they know it as well. Protestants are brothers in faith. Therefore, they get taught the same truth from us as brothers… No double standard in truth, otherwise there is no truth

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

For those who die without mortal sin on their soul, that’s true.

Perhaps, but I am more familiar with the distinction of believers /non believers or those who blaspheme H.G.

Have you not seen all the mortal sins mentioned in scripture that keep one from heaven if one dies with any of them on their soul? By definition they are mortal sins.

Here’s an example

sins of the flesh sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ) factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

I bring up dissension for a reason. Depending on one’s translation, that word might be any number of words. The Greek there is important. Open the link. It narrows down the meaning.

Note: Think of who it is also identifying 1500 years after Paul writes this letter.

Steve, you have made this point over and over to the point where it begins to look like you are consumed with it.

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining.

I am choosing to believe you are sincere and speaking from a heart of love and genuine concern. If all other mortal sins mentioned in Scripture do not need explaining why does it appear that the CC is very busy explaining, justifying and seemingly redefining so many of them listed in Scripture? Maybe your analysis of what needs defining is a little different than your Churchs.

Do you have an example of where the Church has been justifying and redefining those sins mentioned

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

For those who die without mortal sin on their soul, that’s true.

Perhaps, but I am more familiar with the distinction of believers /non believers or those who blaspheme H.G.

Have you not seen all the mortal sins mentioned in scripture that keep one from heaven if one dies with any of them on their soul? By definition they are mortal sins.

Here’s an example

sins of the flesh sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ) factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

I bring up dissension for a reason. Depending on one’s translation, that word might be any number of words. The Greek there is important. Open the link. It narrows down the meaning.

Note: Think of who it is also identifying 1500 years after Paul writes this letter.

Steve, you have made this point over and over to the point where it begins to look like you are consumed with it.

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining.

I am choosing to believe you are sincere and speaking from a heart of love and genuine concern. If all other mortal sins mentioned in Scripture do not need explaining why does it appear that the CC is very busy explaining, justifying and seemingly redefining so many of them listed in Scripture? Maybe your analysis of what needs defining is a little different than your Churchs.

Do you have an example of where the Church has been justifying and redefining those sins mentioned

I only know what I read in various articles and see in documentaries. I do read the Catholic Edition of Lifesite News.

 

[JonNC]

[quote="steve-b, post:188, topic:479853, full:

Jon,

could you be more specific about those in communion with the pope.

Who are you specifically talking about when you say

1. Eastern Orthodox,
2. western Christian communions
   [/quote]

Why the question, Steve?

 

[guanophore]

the definition of a heretic from the CCC

2089 “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”

If a Protestant is baptized, and they have been instructed on the truth, they qualify .

I am mystified how this can be applied to a person who may not have divine and catholic faith.

In addition, “obstinate” here seems to apply to Catholics who were either supposed to be raised in the faith, or agreed to the doctrines of the faith before submitting to baptism. Since Protestants are baptized outside (and sometimes in contradiction to) Catholic faith, it is not so much a situation of being “obstinate” as it is being misled by being soaked in heresies.

I understand that you believe your “instruction” is sufficient to pass judgment upon them as heretics if they don’t accept what you have to say.

If a baptized person is corrected and they won’t change THEN they are guilty of heresy.

I believe you feel called to this ministry of correction, and assignment if guilt. Perhaps you are a modern Saint Stanislaus?

That’s why we are to pass the truth onto the whole world.

I don’t see how anyone can find you remiss in passing your truth on to the whole world!

people on all sides who won’t learn and live the faith, are legion in numbers.

Yes, but it seems your apostolate is to Protestants.

“blame is to assign responsibility for a fault or wrong”.

Yes. As I said, I have not found it a life giving practice.

John has no problem in what follows, with assigning blame and degree of one’s sin.

Actually, I don’t see that he does either of those things in this passage. No one is being blamed here.

John instructed us in assessing another brother’s sin, being mortal or non mortal. If we know that distinction, they know it as well. Protestants are brothers in faith. Therefore, they get taught the same truth from us as brothers… No double standard in truth, otherwise there is no truth

You are doing a fine job, Saint Stanislaus !

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

For those who die without mortal sin on their soul, that’s true.

Perhaps, but I am more familiar with the distinction of believers /non believers or those who blaspheme H.G.

Have you not seen all the mortal sins mentioned in scripture that keep one from heaven if one dies with any of them on their soul? By definition they are mortal sins.

Here’s an example

sins of the flesh sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ) factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

I bring up dissension for a reason. Depending on one’s translation, that word might be any number of words. The Greek there is important. Open the link. It narrows down the meaning.

Note: Think of who it is also identifying 1500 years after Paul writes this letter.

Steve, you have made this point over and over to the point where it begins to look like you are consumed with it.

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining.

I am choosing to believe you are sincere and speaking from a heart of love and genuine concern. If all other mortal sins mentioned in Scripture do not need explaining why does it appear that the CC is very busy explaining, justifying and seemingly redefining so many of them listed in Scripture? Maybe your analysis of what needs defining is a little different than your Churchs.

Do you have an example of where the Church has been justifying and redefining those sins mentioned

I only know what I read in various articles and see in documentaries. I do read the Catholic Edition of Lifesite News.

With all due respect, that’s not answering my question.

 

[steve-b]

[quote="steve-b, post:188, topic:479853, full:

Jon,

could you be more specific about those in communion with the pope.

Who are you specifically talking about when you say

1. Eastern Orthodox,
2. western Christian communions

Why the question, Steve?
[/quote]

You know why

 

[guanophore]

With all due respect, that’s not answering my question.

I am eagerly awaiting an answer as well!

 

[steve-b]

the definition of a heretic from the CCC

2089 “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same”

If a Protestant is baptized, and they have been instructed on the truth, they qualify .

guanophore:

I am mystified how this can be applied to a person who may not have divine and catholic faith.

I’m mystified you can’t apply the definition.

guanophore:

Since Protestants are baptized outside (and sometimes in contradiction to) Catholic faith, it is not so much a situation of being “obstinate” as it is being misled by being soaked in heresies.

If baptism took place with water and the Trinitarian formula, it’s valid. They are a new creation. Open to the supernatural truths of the Catholic faith.

guanophore:

I understand that you believe your “instruction” is sufficient to pass judgment upon them as heretics if they don’t accept what you have to say.

Did I quote myself? No

If a baptized person is corrected and they won’t change THEN they are guilty of heresy.

guanophore:

I believe you feel called to this ministry of correction, and assignment if guilt. Perhaps you are a modern Saint Stanislaus?

my answer was from the CCC.

guanophore:

I don’t see how anyone can find you remiss in passing your truth on to the whole world!

steve-b:

My truth? I gave my sources properly referenced.

people on all sides who won’t learn and live the faith, are legion in numbers.

Yes, but it seems your apostolate is to Protestants.

steve-b:

What’s the name of this thread? Who is it addressing?

John has no problem assigning blame and degree of one’s sin.

Actually, I don’t see that he does either of those things in this passage. No one is being blamed here.

Let’s see.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, (that’s a judgement call AND assigning of guilt.) he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ( one has to know the difference between mortal and non mortal sin for that to even make sense) There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. (Judgement call again, guanophore) 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. ( Judgement AND assigning guilt guanophore)

What part of what John is saying is not understood?

 

[guanophore]

I’m mystified you can’t apply the definition.

The definition can be applied. But it cannot be applied when the conditions are not present.

If baptism took place with water and the Trinitarian formula, it’s valid. They are a new creation.

The issue is not whether the baptism is valid. The issue is that it may have occurred in a community where divine and catholic faith is not consistent or cannot be discerned from faith in other doctrines.

They are a new creation. Open to the supernatural truths of the Catholic faith.

Certainly the grace of baptism is to be preferred to not having it, but openness to the grace that is available is a matter of the predisposition of the soul. If a soul is predisposed toward a Protestant mentality and doctrine their ability to perceive divine and Catholic faith will be limited. This is no different with Catholics who are baptized as infants, then not raised in the faith. They may have been regenerated, but what they are able to grasp will be limited due to their environment.

I understand that you believe your “instruction” is sufficient to pass judgment upon them as heretics if they don’t accept what you have to say. Perhaps you are a modern Saint Stanislaus?

Let’s see.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, (that’s a judgement call AND assigning of guilt.)

I understand you believe you are called to make the judgment call upon your brethren and assign guilt to them when they fall short standards you believe are imposed by God.

I understand you believe you are in a position to do this with strangers, over the internet.

What part of what John is saying is not understood?

That it is directed toward a community of Christians. They know one another. The Apostle is not recommending this action toward those with whom we have not been acquainted.

Judging the souls of others is a delicate matter even if one has prayed with them.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’m mystified you can’t apply the definition.

The definition can be applied. But it cannot be applied when the conditions are not present.

If baptism took place with water and the Trinitarian formula, it’s valid. They are a new creation.

The issue is not whether the baptism is valid. The issue is that it may have occurred in a community where divine and catholic faith is not consistent or cannot be discerned from faith in other doctrines.

They are a new creation. Open to the supernatural truths of the Catholic faith.

Certainly the grace of baptism is to be preferred to not having it, but openness to the grace that is available is a matter of the predisposition of the soul. If a soul is predisposed toward a Protestant mentality and doctrine their ability to perceive divine and Catholic faith will be limited. This is no different with Catholics who are baptized as infants, then not raised in the faith. They may have been regenerated, but what they are able to grasp will be limited due to their environment.

I understand that you believe your “instruction” is sufficient to pass judgment upon them as heretics if they don’t accept what you have to say. Perhaps you are a modern Saint Stanislaus?

Let’s see.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, (that’s a judgement call AND assigning of guilt.)

I understand you believe you are called to make the judgment call upon your brethren and assign guilt to them when they fall short standards you believe are imposed by God.

I understand you believe you are in a position to do this with strangers, over the internet.

What part of what John is saying is not understood?

That it is directed toward a community of Christians. They know one another. The Apostle is not recommending this action toward those with whom we have not been acquainted.

Judging the souls of others is a delicate matter even if one has prayed with them.

here are 4 scenerios

I know which scenerios I want to be in

 

[guanophore]

I know which scenerios I want to be in

I have no doubt you will be without fail in completing your apostolate. You are persistent and dogged. There will be no chance to fix blame against you for failure to warn.

 

[JonNC]

Honestly, I don’t.
You know the different traditions we talk about.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

Wannano:

steve-b:

mcq72:

steve-b:

For those who die without mortal sin on their soul, that’s true.

Perhaps, but I am more familiar with the distinction of believers /non believers or those who blaspheme H.G.

Have you not seen all the mortal sins mentioned in scripture that keep one from heaven if one dies with any of them on their soul? By definition they are mortal sins.

Here’s an example

sins of the flesh sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ) factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven

I bring up dissension for a reason. Depending on one’s translation, that word might be any number of words. The Greek there is important. Open the link. It narrows down the meaning.

Note: Think of who it is also identifying 1500 years after Paul writes this letter.

Steve, you have made this point over and over to the point where it begins to look like you are consumed with it.

All the other mortal sins mentioned in scripture don’t need explaining.

I am choosing to believe you are sincere and speaking from a heart of love and genuine concern. If all other mortal sins mentioned in Scripture do not need explaining why does it appear that the CC is very busy explaining, justifying and seemingly redefining so many of them listed in Scripture? Maybe your analysis of what needs defining is a little different than your Churchs.

Do you have an example of where the Church has been justifying and redefining those sins mentioned

I only know what I read in various articles and see in documentaries. I do read the Catholic Edition of Lifesite News.

With all due respect, that’s not answering my question.

Sexual immorality for example.