purgatory

[Thing]

Quote:
Matt 10: 38 And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. Matt 16: 24 Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Luke 9:23 And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.

That’s not necessarily experiencing “suffering.” You might want to look this word up.

Deny yourself take up your cross and follow Me. Pick up your cross and follow you where but to Golgotha to deny yourself, be crucified, to suffer; as He picked up His own cross and went to Golgotha to suffer for you…
14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world.
St. Paul describes himself as being crucified to the world. At least, thats how it looks to me.

 

[moondweller]

Indeed, it is true, Moon. If you’ve ever loved anyone you must know that sacrifice and suffering are involved.

But redemption is not involved, else all people who experience love are redeemed.

It’s impossible to love without sacrifice and suffering–this is made quite apparent to anyone who’s ever been a parent. Or been a spouse.

But you’re not going to contribute one ounce to either your children’s redemption or your spouse’s redemption by such sacrifice and suffering. That belongs to Christ and Christ alone. No one can enter into a redeemed state by the love of a mother, father or spouse, but only by turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ alone - The Redeemer.

 

[PRmerger]

But redemption is not involved, else all people who experience love are redeemed.But you’re not going to contribute one ounce to either your children’s redemption or your spouse’s redemption by such sacrifice and suffering. That belongs to Christ and Christ alone. No one can enter into a redeemed state by the love of a mother, father or spouse, but only by turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ alone - The Redeemer.

“The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit” Ps 51:17.
Christ’s atoning death on the cross made all previously ineffectual sacrifices effectual. It accomplished what the blood of millions of animals slaughtered could not do: it atoned for offenses against an infinitely Good God.

So what, exactly, do you think is “lacking in the afflictions of Christ”, if not your participation in this redemptive act. Without Christ’s atonement, we have no redemption. Now, we must participate in this through our self-giving, sacrificial love.

“How shall I make a return to the Lord for all the good He has done for me?” Ps 116:12

Gandhi said that “worship without sacrifice” was an absurdity of the modern age. Ironic that it takes a Hindu to recognize the truth of true Christian worship!

 

[PRmerger]

You simple quote verses but have absolutely no idea what they mean.

Isn’t that statement *contrary to your entire paradigm *about understanding the Scriptures, moon?

Don’t you proclaim that each individual can read Scripture and come to a personal interpretation of a verse, guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems peculiar to me that anyone who promotes this view would ever call another person’s interpretation of Scriputure wrong. For that is the very foundation of your theological system: the Holy Spirit guides you to an understanding of His Word.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

moondweller:

Now, to participate personally in Christ’s redemptive act by suffering is stating that your suffering contributes to your own redemption, and that of others as well. Divine redemption was achieved only through the shedding of the precious blood of Christ (1 Pet. 1:18-19). One might suffer (even experience death) by speaking forth about this Divine truth (as Paul certainly did), but that suffering does not contribute one once to anyone’s personal redemption or the redemption of others.

That is what St. Paul is talking about…

Col 1:24 ¶ “I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church,”

THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OUR REDEMPTION IS DEPENDENT ON OTHERS THAN JESUS CHRIST. It means that Jesus Christ, in his mercy and generosity, through the Gospel, has invited us to participate with Him in our redemption, as a Royal Priesthood. All of this is Scriptural. You deny yourself the understanding of so much of Scripture by your narrow, one track understanding of “Faith alone” That is why you have NO Theology of Penance or understanding of the Royal Priesthood, or the oblation that is pleasing to the Father.

You will never understand Purgatory, the Gospel of suffering with Jesus, which transforms our suffering into a sublime act of Love, united with Jesus. You will just keep chanting your Mantra like a broken record, never seeing and never hearing anything else.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yes.
Scripture is not what one decides it is. It is what the Church has always taught it to be, from the start.
Think of St. Phillip and the eunuch; the eunuch could not understand, he said unless the Apostle explained what the Scipture meant. These are the Traditions of the Church. The Traditional understanding of Scripture, what the Church always understood the Scriptures to mean. All I am saying is that the Church has not a Tradition of believing in the Rapture. That belief started not so long ago.

The reason why the Ethiopian eunuch could not understand the Scriptures is because he was still unregenerate. Remember he had not yet received the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Phillip whereby he received Christ as his Lord and Savior and was baptized. The unregenerate man cannot understand the things of God.

Anyway, this is the Purgatory thread and we have been warned many times to stick with the topic.

 

[Thing]

The reason why the Ethiopian eunuch could not understand the Scriptures is because he was still unregenerate. Remember he had not yet received the preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Phillip whereby he received Christ as his Lord and Savior and was baptized. The unregenerate man cannot understand the things of God.

Anyway, this is the Purgatory thread and we have been warned many times to stick with the topic.

Then I can answer you by using Purgatory instead of using the Rapture. Tell me how is it that ‘regenerate’ men, ie ‘Catholic Christians’ have always believed in Purgatory.

Unless you mean that Catholic Christians understood nothing because they were always ‘unregenerate’ and as a consequence of being unregenerate absolutely everyone has gone to hell from the beginning of the church until the time some reformer became ‘regenerate’ and stepped out from those ‘unregenerate’ men and reinterpreted the Scriptures to exclude unregenerate mans Purgatory from the Bible.?

 

[ncgolf]

That belongs to Christ and Christ alone. No one can enter into a redeemed state by the love of a mother, father or spouse, but only by turning from unbelief to belief in Jesus Christ alone - The Redeemer.

Then believe Paul in these verses. We are part of the same body … each part of this body contributing through the gifts received. Christianity is not an “alone” religion.

“For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ…” (Romans 12:4).

“For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body…” (1 Corinthians 12:13).

If we are in same body then we function together … each part of the body responsible to each other and to the head.

Again more Paul …

“Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church (Colossians 1:24).”

The part of the Church for this discussion is the Church Suffering … those souls not on this earth but destined for heaven. Your definition of the Church does not include these souls.

“And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ: yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him (Romans 8:17).”

Does not Christ desires for us to participate, not only in his resurrection but also in his Passion? Is this not truly “putting Christ on”.

This can be so only because we are part of the mystical Body of Christ.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Indeed, it is true, Moon. If you’ve ever loved anyone you must know that sacrifice and suffering are involved.

It’s impossible to love without sacrifice and suffering–this is made quite apparent to anyone who’s ever been a parent. [SIGN]Or been a spouse.

]

Or just a Human Being. We are all put on this earth to carry some kind of Cross. Which means suffer. God never promised us paradise thats in the next world. Like you said anyone that LOVES period and see someone they Love suffer they suffer right along side of them.

Just like when we suffer in purgatory, if we go there, God will be there right with us every step of the way. The same as he is here. Purgatory is not off limit to God he is everywhere. Just like he us here, he is also helping the souls in Purgatory. Nothing is impossible for God. Nothing.

Just because Purgatory exists does not mean everyone will go there. So will not need it, and some will not make it that far.

 

[brb2]

One might be called to suffer here for the cause of Christ, like the Apostle Paul, but not for the cause of one’s redemption.

Those who are redeemed WILL suffer. To suggest a Christian ‘might’ be called to suffer … exposes your ignorance of scripture and ‘experience’ living the spirit-filled life.

The TOTALITY of scripture & Paul’s writings ‘confront’ [denounce] your errant beliefs. :sad_yes:

 

[adriancombe]

One might be called to suffer here for the cause of Christ, like the Apostle Paul, but not for the cause of one’s redemption. Such a notion is blasphemous, indeed. You simple quote verses but have absolutely no idea what they mean.

If you think you DO know what he means, what does he mean when he says we will be glorified IF we suffer for him?

Why you have provided is not even an argument. It is an excuse to avoid dealing with the Word of God in Scripture. Don’t offend God by callling the plain sense of Scripture blasphemy. Repent and believe!

 

[SteveGC]

Isn’t that statement *contrary to your entire paradigm *about understanding the Scriptures, moon?

Don’t you proclaim that each individual can read Scripture and come to a personal interpretation of a verse, guided by the Holy Spirit?

It seems peculiar to me that anyone who promotes this view would ever call another person’s interpretation of Scriputure wrong. For that is the very foundation of your theological system: the Holy Spirit guides you to an understanding of His Word.

Yes, indeed PR. Profoundly observant.

One has to often wonder why there are non-Catholic Christians even attempting to debate Scripture at all…one would think they would afford all Christians their own personal Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture, even the Catholic Church’s Herself, without attempting to refute that interpretation in favor of their own. For as soon as they challenge another Christian’s interpretation, they concede that their own interpretation could be completely in error as well…funny that they don’t acknowledge that.

Of course we know the answer that remains unspoken by them…they silently believe that THEIR private interpretation is without error, because of their superior faith…and those that disagree to varying degrees, lack proportionately varying degrees of faith. Some have been so bold on CAF as to fess up to that position…and not really even winced at the astonishing arrogance of such a personal, individualized claim.

 

[adriancombe]

One might be called to suffer here for the cause of Christ, like the Apostle Paul, but not for the cause of one’s redemption. Such a notion is blasphemous, indeed. You simple quote verses but have absolutely no idea what they mean.

And why are you still confusing purgatory with redemption? Is your position so weak that you need to continually throw up the same old straw man?

 

[yankee_drifter]

Then I can answer you by using Purgatory instead of using the Rapture. Tell me how is it that ‘regenerate’ men, ie ‘Catholic Christians’ have always believed in Purgatory.

Unless you mean that Catholic Christians understood nothing because they were always ‘unregenerate’ and as a consequence of being unregenerate absolutely everyone has gone to hell from the beginning of the church until the time some reformer became ‘regenerate’ and stepped out from those ‘unregenerate’ men and reinterpreted the Scriptures to exclude unregenerate mans Purgatory from the Bible.?

Can you show me where Jesus and the apostles taught purgatory?

Can you show me unanimous consent of the early church “fathers” on the belief of purgatory? And I don’t mean find just 3 fathers who believed in it.

Anyone can call themselves a “Christian,” but it isn’t enough just belonging to a church and following the rules and rituals of that church. Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Scriptures says “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The world cannot understand the things of God because only the truly born again Christian receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible teaches this, how do you feel about the fact that the catholic church teaches that you cannot understand the Scriptures on your own; that you need the church to interpret it for you? If you are regenerate, born from above and thus a child of God, then why is it your church says you can’t understand and interpret the Scriptures?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you show me where Jesus and the apostles taught purgatory?

I believe that has been shown here ad nauseum.

Can you show me unanimous consent of the early church “fathers” on the belief of purgatory? And I don’t mean find just 3 fathers who believed in it.

That’s a peculiar criterion. Why should truth be unanimous?

Anyone can call themselves a “Christian,” but it isn’t enough just belonging to a church and following the rules and rituals of that church. Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.

There are many, many verses which talk about different criteria needed for salvation. One that comes to mind right now is: unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you shall not have life within you. John 6:53

Why don’t you eat his flesh and drink his blood, as commanded to you by Our Lord?

 

[James_N]

Yes, indeed PR. Profoundly observant.

One has to often wonder why there are non-Catholic Christians even attempting to debate Scripture at all…one would think they would afford all Christians their own personal Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture, even the Catholic Church’s Herself, without attempting to refute that interpretation in favor of their own. For as soon as they challenge another Christian’s interpretation, they concede that their own interpretation could be completely in error as well…funny that they don’t acknowledge that.

Of course we know the answer that remains unspoken by them…they silently believe that THEIR private interpretation is without error, because of their superior faith…and those that disagree to varying degrees, lack proportionately varying degrees of faith. Some have been so bold on CAF as to fess up to that position…and not really even winced at the astonishing arrogance of such a personal, individualized claim.

I can’t speak for other Protestants, but I refuse to believe that all interpretations of Scripture are equal. I’m no Derrida. However, I also don’t claim that my interpretation is infallible, just that it’s the best I’ve been able to discover. When another person’s disagrees with me, we go to the relevant passages and do our best to determine who is right, and who is dead (thanks, Vizzini). Obviously, we aren’t assured of coming to the correct conclusion, and an infallible interpretation would make things easier, but it takes some convincing for us to buy that the Catholic Church’s is infallible. I do see some evidence to support the Catholic Church being led by the Spirit in a special way (it hasn’t gone the way of the PCUSA or mainline Anglican and Episcopal churches), but infallibility is a step further than that. Also, I know this is a bit off-topic; I just felt like that comment deserved a response.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can you show me where Jesus and the apostles taught purgatory?

Yes, of course we can. These verses have been provided numerous times in this thread.

Luke 16:19-31
Matthew 12:32
Matthew 18:32-35
1 Corinthians 3:10-15

We would also look to numerous passages that support the idea of praying for the dead which makes no sense unless something like purgatory exists.

Now, a few questions for you:

Can you show us where Jesus and the Apostles taught that the early Church should ignore what they taught orally and go by scripture alone?

:nope:

Can you show us where Paul taught that we should ignore his express written instructions that we should “hold to the teachings [he] passed on to [us], whether by word of mouth or by letter” and simply go by his letters alone?

:nope:

Can you show us where Jesus and the Apostles taught the hypostatic union or that Jesus had two wills and two natures?

:nope:

Can you show where Jesus and the Apostles taught that God is a Trinity as we understand that doctrine today?

:nope:

Can you show me unanimous consent of the early church “fathers” on the belief of purgatory? And I don’t mean find just 3 fathers who believed in it.

I already answered this exact question in this thread in post #525. There, I wrote:

Sure there is. You just don’t understand what the phrase means. We Americans tend to be very analytical and precise in our language. Other cultures are less so. However, let me use an analogy in an attempt to explain this.

Imagine that the local Rotary club has been discussing the idea of building a playground for the kids in town. All the costs and options and pros and cons have been presented and discussed. Now, it’s time for the vote.

The president says, “All in favor, say ‘Aye’.”

“Aye.”

“All opposed.”

“Nay.”

“The Ayes have it.” Later, the local newspaper reports that the vote passed unanimously, and the playground gets built. But it wasn’t REALLY unanimous, was it?

Conversely, the President could have called the roll of all the members and recorded carefully who voted and how they voted…just like Congress. There, if a measure passes 99-1, it is called an “overwhelming majority” but not “unanimous consent.”

That’s how we modern Americans view and do things.

However, that is somewhat beside the point. The Church listens carefully to all of her sons with regard to matters of doctrine. And then she chooses which of their ideas to accept and which to reject. It does not matter whether the majority believe an idea or not…what matters is what is true.

For example, at one time, the Arian heresy overwhelmed the Church; there were more Arian Bishops than orthodox Bishops. Athanasius held out against them all, and in the end, Arianism was defeated.

Anyone can call themselves a “Christian,” but it isn’t enough just belonging to a church and following the rules and rituals of that church. Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.

Agreed, and this normally happens at baptism. However, the Church also recognizes two other possibilities: baptism of desire and baptism of blood.

The Scriptures says “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The world cannot understand the things of God because only the truly born again Christian receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps this explains why so many people struggle to accept the fact that Jesus built a single Church upon Peter the rock and that this Church has been protected from EVER teaching error by the Holy Spirit just as Jesus promised.

Since the Bible teaches this, how do you feel about the fact that the catholic church teaches that you cannot understand the Scriptures on your own; that you need the church to interpret it for you? If you are regenerate, born from above and thus a child of God, then why is it your church says you can’t understand and interpret the Scriptures?

The Catholic Church does not teach that we cannot understand and interpret the scriptures. However, the Church does encourage us to compare our understanding with the Church’s teachings because she is taking into account the warning from Peter:

[2 Peter 3:16](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2 Peter+3:16&version=NIV)
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

From this, we see that Peter knew that people were misunderstanding Paul’s letters during Paul’s lifetime. Nothing has changed since that day.

 

[PRmerger]

I can’t speak for other Protestants, but I refuse to believe that all interpretations of Scripture are equal. I’m no Derrida. However, I also don’t claim that my interpretation is infallible, just that it’s the best I’ve been able to discover. When another person’s disagrees with me, we go to the relevant passages and do our best to determine who is right, and who is dead (thanks, Vizzini). Obviously, we aren’t assured of coming to the correct conclusion, and an infallible interpretation would make things easier, but it takes some convincing for us to buy that the Catholic Church’s is infallible. I do see some evidence to support the Catholic Church being led by the Spirit in a special way (it hasn’t gone the way of the PCUSA or mainline Anglican and Episcopal churches), but infallibility is a step further than that. Also, I know this is a bit off-topic; I just felt like that comment deserved a response.

So in your theological system the best we can have is a tie between opposing Scriptural interpretations?

That is, we just really don’t know if the Pope is the vicar of Christ or he isn’t. We just don’t really know if the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday or Sunday. We just don’t really know if baptism saves you. We just don’t really know if once you’re saved you’re always saved. We just don’t really know if women can preach the Gospel or not?

 

[Thing]

Can you show me where Jesus and the apostles taught purgatory?

Can you show me unanimous consent of the early church “fathers” on the belief of purgatory? And I don’t mean find just 3 fathers who believed in it.

Anyone can call themselves a “Christian,” but it isn’t enough just belonging to a church and following the rules and rituals of that church. Jesus said unless you are born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God.

The Scriptures says “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). The world cannot understand the things of God because only the truly born again Christian receives the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Since the Bible teaches this, how do you feel about the fact that the catholic church teaches that you cannot understand the Scriptures on your own; that you need the church to interpret it for you? If you are regenerate, born from above and thus a child of God, then why is it your church says you can’t understand and interpret the Scriptures?

The only thing I am going to give you to think about is this;

The Church that Jesus Christ founded on Rock which can not be destroyed has taught Purgatory for 2000 years.

 

[James_N]

So in your theological system the best we can have is a tie between opposing Scriptural interpretations?

That is, we just really don’t know if the Pope is the vicar of Christ or he isn’t. We just don’t really know if the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday or Sunday. We just don’t really know if baptism saves you. We just don’t really know if once you’re saved you’re always saved. We just don’t really know if women can preach the Gospel or not?

Hey now. I didn’t say we couldn’t know. There’s a difference between knowledge and absolute certainty. I’m really not sure how much we can be 100% certain of. I guess that we exist. How far past that did Descartes get without cheating?

Obviously, some things are more well-supported by Scripture than others. That baptism is necessary, for instance, is very well-supported. Whether baptism is done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, is not well-supported. That the Lord is really present in the Eucharist is well-supported. The manner of that presence is left vague. That women shouldn’t be ordained and that homosexuality and extramarital sex is sinful and that saving faith has works as a necessary outpouring are all well-supported.

The basics of the faith, I think, are supported well enough that we can say we know them. But there are some other questions that are theologically important that have a lot of support on both sides. Perseverance of the saints is one of those. Heb 3:14, Phil 1:6, 1 John 2:19 on one side, Heb 6, Rom 11: 22, Col 1:21-23 on the other. The historical position of the church is certainly good support, but I’m not convinced that it proves things 100% (if I were convinced, I would be Catholic). It’d be nice if it did though.