N
NeedImprovement
Guest
jrgiancola, check PM’s. I’m sending you a short PM on how to post links - you’ll be able to do it after 5 minutes- easily.
- Status
P
Pug
Guest
Yes, indeed all have sinned and fall short. Furthermore, whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. (James 2:10) Who among us is different from St. Thomas More, then? If I lie, am I not guilty of the whole of the law? We are all transgressors in need of God’s mercy. I’m not going to point at him and say the guy who did such and such is not someone who could be a saint. I have done such and such. So has that person over there. We all have done such and such. On your reasoning, it doesn’t matter that it is St. Thomas More. It could be most any saint.Being a Catholic does not mean that we are obligated to blindly give up our reason or ignore our own private, personal inspirations from the Holy Spirit. I maintain that our church, which I DO love dearly, has made mistakes in the past. In fact, about 30 or 40 years ago, the church examined its list of saints and “shortened the list” for a variety of reasons. I repeat, one thing I particularly love about our church is that it is not afraid to correct past errors, such as when it refuted the teaching that Galileo was wrong. Not all doctrine is ex cathedra; some is, unfortunately, “tainted” by men who reach inaccurate conclusions based upon the limited knowledge available during their lifetime or simply by being overzealous in their beliefs. Again, I’m NOT judging whether More repented and was forgiven and is now, in fact, in Heaven with God. If he did repent and confess, he deserves forgiveness and salvation; “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” I’m just saying that we cannot know whether this occurred, and it seems to me that people who behaved in such a fashion should not be assumed to be saints.
There is so much there in your post and your other posts that could be addressed. I’m not sure which point is the most important to you, but if St. Thomas More is important, I think you’ll get more answers to that on the Apologetics board than the Moral Theology board.
You are still making statements about “ex cathedra” that seem to suggest that you think only those statements are protected. I answered this in a previous post to you above. There is more than one way for a doctrine to be infallible. I agree, though, that some statements by Church officials are not infallible doctrine. Popes and bishops say things all the time that are not categorizable as a statement that all the faithful must believe with faith.
We **do **read the bible.
P
Pug
Guest
I’m not sure what you have in mind with your concern about current day Christians/Catholics being under the OT Law. IF I were to assume you are a once saved always saved thinker, I could make a vague guess, but that would be one wild assumption, since you are Catholic. :whacky: Catholics do not view themselves as required to keep the old covenant, as you know. Lots of the “613” Mitzvot are not something Catholics think about for their examination of conscience, nor are they taught to think about them, like wearing those tassels. We do think about some of them, like honor thy father and thy mother. Is honoring my parents a formula to get me into heaven? No. Is it something I ought to do? Yes. If I don’t do it on an occasion, should I repent and go to confession? Yes and yes, if it was serious.Besides, who stands to benefit more from the belief that Christians are still under the OT law? Who stands to benefit more by convincing Christians that we are still judged by the Mosaic law? Who stands to benefit more by making Christians believe that Christ’s redemptive acts are not fully salvific? Only satan stands to benefit. No human being can ever satisfy the OT law; only Christ could and did satisfy it. If we Christians start believing that we have to satisfy the OT law, then we have to conclude that we are all damned, since none of us can ever be found worthy when judged by it. Only Christianity provides God’s salvation of mankind. We are saved by the grace and mercy of God, not because we deserve it, but because we believe in the Holy Trinity, in Jesus’ gift of redemption, and in God’s mercy which JPII called God’s greatest attribute. Does this mean we can just sin all we want? Of course not. Paul explains all this in Romans. Read the book of Romans. This is not jrgiancola’s doctrine; it is Paul’s doctrine. You people sometimes quote a lot of church fathers, and doctrines, etc., but fail to quote the Bible itself. Any doctrine that disagrees with what Jesus, and then Paul, preached is not correctly interpreted. Simple as that. The Bible is the final source of our beliefs. I refuse to accept a hybrid “Judeo-Christian” religion; Christianity is not Judaism, and the laws of Judaism are absolutely not binding on us. Is the law still in existence? Of course. But it is not binding on Christians. If a man and woman receive an annulment from the RCC, the laws of marriage are still in effect, they are not abolished; however they no longer apply to that man and woman. It’s the same principle. I am not a Jew. I am a Christian. A Catholic Christian to boot. Christ is my law, and my mercy, and my love. Christ’s father is my father. Moses has nothing to do with my salvation and never will.
I do want to point out that it is a Mitzvot to love God. But, the commandment does not bestow the Holy Spirit.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Sin has 2 consequences. One is temporal and the other is eternal.
Let’s use an example:
John hates his neighbour and tosses a brick through his window. The eternal consequence is separation from God because of the hate in John’s heart. The temporal consequence is a broken window.
John repents his action and asks forgiveness. God forgives the eternal consequence. John is no longer separated from God.
However, the window is still broken. Jesus’ death on the cross will not fix the window. This is up to John to repair.
All the broken windows, all the people we have hurt, all this remains as a consequence of our sins. This is the stain of sin which remains in us after we are forgiven.
It may be a place, or it may be a process. We don’t know exactly, just that nothing unclean can enter heaven.
I like to view it akin to a bride preparing for her wedding. No bride will appear dirty, with her hair unkempt, in a filthy ragged dress. No, she will take care with her bathing, she will wash and arrange her hair and she will wear a new gown before presenting herself to her bridegroom.
All the temporal consequences of our sins for which we have not given satisfaction in this life are the filth or stain which clings to us after our sins are forgiven. We aren’t going to Hell, because Jesus paid for the eternal consequence but we are still unclean. Purgatory is the ante-chamber of Heaven, where we are cleansed and purified before entering.
Let’s use an example:
John hates his neighbour and tosses a brick through his window. The eternal consequence is separation from God because of the hate in John’s heart. The temporal consequence is a broken window.
John repents his action and asks forgiveness. God forgives the eternal consequence. John is no longer separated from God.
However, the window is still broken. Jesus’ death on the cross will not fix the window. This is up to John to repair.
All the broken windows, all the people we have hurt, all this remains as a consequence of our sins. This is the stain of sin which remains in us after we are forgiven.
It may be a place, or it may be a process. We don’t know exactly, just that nothing unclean can enter heaven.
I like to view it akin to a bride preparing for her wedding. No bride will appear dirty, with her hair unkempt, in a filthy ragged dress. No, she will take care with her bathing, she will wash and arrange her hair and she will wear a new gown before presenting herself to her bridegroom.
All the temporal consequences of our sins for which we have not given satisfaction in this life are the filth or stain which clings to us after our sins are forgiven. We aren’t going to Hell, because Jesus paid for the eternal consequence but we are still unclean. Purgatory is the ante-chamber of Heaven, where we are cleansed and purified before entering.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Pug: A lot of Catholics and Christians use quotations from the OT law to justify their beliefs; I maintain that this is inappropriate for the reasons I’ve given and the quotes from Scripture I’ve given. I don’t want to hear about the OT law when someone is trying to make a point. The OT law means nothing to me.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Linda Marie: I can’t believe that anyone thinks as you do. There is nothing in Scripture to justify your statements. Furthermore, when I sin against another person, I make amends to that person. I, myself, therefore, “repair the window” that I broke. Sorry, I just don’t buy it, and I never will. You’re making salvation much more complicated than it really is. Seems to me that the only one benefited by this kind of thinking, i.e., that God’s grace is not sufficient without further punishment after death, is satan himself. How he must love confusing Christians into feeling despair regarding their salvation; making Christians think that no matter how hard they try, they cannot escape some form of punishment after death; making Christians believe that God is some old white man with a white beard glaring down at humanity ready to throw lightning bolts at the first breach of His commandments. Sounds more like Zeus to me. My father is nothing like Zeus. He is total love; Jesus is mercy incarnate; if I believe in Jesus, and that His sacrifice reconciled Our Father to mankind, and confess and repent my sins, His angels will lift me into Heaven upon my death; He promised it. Furthermore, Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross: “TODAY you will be with me in Paradise;” He did NOT say: “You will be with me in Paradise after you burn awhile in Purgatory.”
P
Pug
Guest
I’m glad you clarified. I’m happy to quote things like, “You shall be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy.” (Leviticus) Paul, Peter, and Jesus are a few of the people I am imitating when I quote the OT to support what I am saying. I did notice you said the OT Law not the OT itself, but I don’t avoid the Law either. I consider the example I gave as from the Law section of the OT, or, perhaps more pointedly to your concerns, as from stuff that God said to Moses. I see no reason to avoid quotes like that. Peter himself uses that particular one as a justification for why Christians ought to behave a certain way, saying, because it is written. Furthermore, and perhaps of more significance to you, **all **scripture isinspired and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness… (this is a bible quote). So, I find scripture, all of it, profitable. This includes the OT Law. Of course, it must be rightly understood.
I agree with you on at least this point, it would be foolish to try to say that a Christian has sinned merely because he has not left a portion of his fields unreaped for the gleaners. (a reference to OT Law) But I don’t think it would be foolish to use that portion of the Law to talk about God’s interest in our being concerned for our fellow man.
Which passage of scripture do you mean when you say he promised that his angels would lift you to heaven upon your death? Please note that Purgatory is no more at the second coming.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
The Catholic Church is not sola scriptura. We have Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium to guide us. Even though not everything that the Church teaches is in scripture, Purgatory definitely is.
You completely misunderstand Purgatory. Purgatory is not condemnation. Purgatory is cleansing, as I said, like the bride preparing for her bridegroom. If you go the the link for these quotes from the Catechism, you can check out the notes which give the relevant scriptures.
From the Catechism:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c2a4.htm#1472
scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1021
J
jrgiancola
Guest
This is one of the few doctrines that I don’t accept. Two others are contraception and homosexuality. I don’t want to get into these at this time. Other than these three, I accept everything else as true doctrine. I don’t see that my beliefs in these areas warrant me finding another church. I believe 98% of what the RCC teaches, especially the fundamentals such as transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra infallibility, the Holy Trinity, etc. I just think we need a Vatican III to eliminate a few more doctrines, and I’m sure it will happen, perhaps not in my lifetime. God bless all of you for your comments. I enjoy talking with other Catholics; it sure beats the hell out of listening to the born-again Christians.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Nope, the Catholic Church has always taught the existence of Purgatory and always will teach it.
H
Holly3278
Guest
If the Church has stopped teaching about the existence of Purgatory, then why is it in the Catechism?
Catechism of the Catholic Church said:**III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030** All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name *Purgatory *to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore [Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."609 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.610 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.
606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439)S 1304; Council of Trent (1563)
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39L 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.
609 2 Macc 12:46.
610 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274)
611 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41,5
P
Pug
Guest
We don’t want you to go away, okay?This is one of the few doctrines that I don’t accept. Two others are contraception and homosexuality. I don’t want to get into these at this time. Other than these three, I accept everything else as true doctrine. I don’t see that my beliefs in these areas warrant me finding another church. I believe 98% of what the RCC teaches, especially the fundamentals such as transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra infallibility, the Holy Trinity, etc. I just think we need a Vatican III to eliminate a few more doctrines, and I’m sure it will happen, perhaps not in my lifetime. God bless all of you for your comments. I enjoy talking with other Catholics; it sure beats the hell out of listening to the born-again Christians.
You do not need to accept the explanations that people provide to help themselves understand what the Church has said. We only need to accept what the Church has said we must accept. For example, the Church has not said we must accept the broken window analogy of Purgatory. That is merely a common way many people find helpful to understand it. If it is not helpful to you, this is fine.
I was confused for a long time by this. I thought I had to believe whatever doctrine as people explained it. This caused me a lot of sorrow and grief, because I could not do that. But I was trying to do the wrong thing, *that *is why I couldn’t do it. I only had to accept the formulation of the Church, that is it. And, the word “accept” does not mean “understand with my own reason”. That, I could do. (and I do do
).
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
You may have noticed my Tiber Swim Team signature. This means I am a convert. Once I had accepted that the Catholic Church is The Church of Christ, with the promise of Jesus to be protected by the Holy Spirit from EVER teaching error, then I had to accept that everything She teaches is the Truth. If I do not ‘accept’ (take that to be believe) a teaching, then my understanding of that teaching must be what is incorrect, not what the Church teaches.This is one of the few doctrines that I don’t accept. Two others are contraception and homosexuality. I don’t want to get into these at this time. Other than these three, I accept everything else as true doctrine. I don’t see that my beliefs in these areas warrant me finding another church. I believe 98% of what the RCC teaches, especially the fundamentals such as transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra infallibility, the Holy Trinity, etc. I just think we need a Vatican III to eliminate a few more doctrines, and I’m sure it will happen, perhaps not in my lifetime. God bless all of you for your comments. I enjoy talking with other Catholics; it sure beats the hell out of listening to the born-again Christians.
Do I have the promise of Jesus to be protected from error by the Holy Spirit in my understanding of doctrine? No, I don’t, but the Church does. Thus, when I come up against a hard to understand doctrine, I must assume that the Church is right and do my utmost to understand why She teaches as She does.
The Doctrine of Purgatory was one of those with which I had difficulty. In accepting the Church as the True Church, I had to accept that this was true even if I didn’t believe it. I asked the Holy Spirit to enlighten my heart to understand. It has taken many years.
Purgatory is the process/place where we will receive our final purification. Every broken window we didn’t fix, or fixed sloppily, will leave a stain on us. We are still saved. We are heaven-bound, but we are dirty. Some things come out in the wash, but what sticks to us can only be removed by refining by fire. We will be refined like gold in the furnace and have all our dross burned away so that we may enter heaven purified.
I used to work at a gold mine. The ore was mined and brought to the mill. First the ore went through a crusher to reduce it to powder. It then went through a series of tanks with cyanide solutions and a host of other toxic chemicals. The gold dissolves in the cyanide. The liquor was then decanted into further tanks where electrodes are placed, electric current is passed through it and the gold crystallises on the electrodes. When they are sufficiently covered with gold, the electrodes are removed from the tank and they go into the furnace with flux and melted. Most of the remaining impurities are attracted to the flux and separated from the gold. When it is ready, they pour it into molds. It is yellow-white hot when it comes out of the furnace. The men in the gold room have to wear special heat suits to get near enough to extract it. Once it has cooled in the mold, it is turned out and beaten with a sledge hammer to remove the flux stuck on the outside of the bar. It is about 20 carat gold at this point. It is then sent to the mint where it undergoes further refining by fire until it is 24 carat, or pure gold.
Purgatory will burn, but we will still be joyful and welcome it because we will know that we will be one with Jesus in Heaven at the end of our purgation, our cleansing. It is well to do everything we can to eliminate our attachment to sin in this life, to make amends for every wrong and live our lives by the teachings of the Jesus which come to us through the Church. The closer we get to Jesus in this life, the less impurities which will need to be removed.
The Church cannot eliminate or change doctrines. Our Teachings are from God as passed down through the Apostles and their successors.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Vatican II changed alot of doctrines. That’s why the Sedevacantists are so incensed. They believe that the last five popes, including Benedict XVI, are antipopes.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Go to www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com if you want to really see some dissent from Catholics. They make me look like a saint. 
V
Vile_Servant
Guest
Dear jrgiancola,This is one of the few doctrines that I don’t accept. Two others are contraception and homosexuality. I don’t want to get into these at this time. Other than these three, I accept everything else as true doctrine. I don’t see that my beliefs in these areas warrant me finding another church. I believe 98% of what the RCC teaches, especially the fundamentals such as transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra infallibility, the Holy Trinity, etc. I just think we need a Vatican III to eliminate a few more doctrines, and I’m sure it will happen, perhaps not in my lifetime. God bless all of you for your comments. I enjoy talking with other Catholics; it sure beats the hell out of listening to the born-again Christians.
Since you have no trouble accepting the infallible doctrine of Transubstantiation;
Ex Cathedra: Council of Trent, Session XIII, Chapter IV
“On Transubstatiation.
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.”
You should also have no trouble accepting the infallible doctrine of Purgatory;
*Ex Cathedra: Council of Trent, Session XXV
“DECREE CONCERNING PURGATORY.
Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, from the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught, in sacred councils, and very recently in this oecumenical Synod, that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls there detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar; the holy Synod enjoins on bishops that they diligently endeavour that the sound doctrine concerning Purgatory, transmitted by the holy Fathers and sacred councils, be believed, maintained, taught, and every where proclaimed by the faithful of Christ.” *
Blessings and Peace.
L
Linda_Marie
Guest
Please tell us what doctrines were changed in this pastoral council?Vatican II changed alot of doctrines. That’s why the Sedevacantists are so incensed. They believe that the last five popes, including Benedict XVI, are antipopes.
A
andyandely1997
Guest
“If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you.” (John 14:15-17)This is one of the few doctrines that I don’t accept. Two others are contraception and homosexuality. I don’t want to get into these at this time. Other than these three, I accept everything else as true doctrine. I don’t see that my beliefs in these areas warrant me finding another church. I believe 98% of what the RCC teaches, especially the fundamentals such as transsubstantiation, the Immaculate Conception, ex cathedra infallibility, the Holy Trinity, etc. I just think we need a Vatican III to eliminate a few more doctrines, and I’m sure it will happen, perhaps not in my lifetime. God bless all of you for your comments. I enjoy talking with other Catholics; it sure beats the hell out of listening to the born-again Christians.
This spirit of truth was left to the apostles and the Church. When we come up with our own truth, we are not keeping the commandments of Christ, and loving ourselves more than Christ. When we proclaim our own truth, we do it at our own peril. It is one thing for us to be led astray, but it is even more grievious, when our proclamation may lead others to stray from the teachings of the Church.
R
RosaryFan
Guest
No. You’re confusing it with limbo, which was never a teaching, but just a theory.
- Status