Why do Protestants object to Purgatory?

[SoonerServant]

You made the same claim here
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1863906#post1863906
I answered but you have not responded. No it is not referring to the grave.

You forget the word gates. It is true that the word comes from Greek mythology, To use the allusion means that it is a place where souls go. Jesus preached there are you saying he preached to a grave, to death?

Jesus has always spoken in a figuretive and poetic way. It fits perfectly into the context of the passage. Right after he returns Peter’s true statement with another truth, he goes on to use a term used in most Greek tales, which are poetic in themselves. This also gives even more merit to the arguement over “petros” and “petra”. Scholars say that these terms were only used in a poetic context. IMO, this entire passage was worthy of Shakespere! All glory be to God!

 

[SoonerServant]

Yes, I have Youngs concordance and when it describes words it, many times uses a number of descriptions of what the word means or could mean but gives many possiblities. That you just look up the Greek and pooof there it is, isn’t factual!!! That’s over simplistic and WAY BAD theology. But that’s the offspiring I’m afaid, of sola Scriptura.

Hey, if you don’t think that when God speaks, it’s with authority, then the bloods on your hands, not mine. I’m just the good messenger.

 

[SoonerServant]

Wow, you really know your Greek words. Gosh, can you tell me what constitutes a “good” concordance?

Oh, yeah before I forget, here is what “Catholic” actually means…

"The Greek roots of the term “Catholic” mean “according to (kata-) the whole (holos),” or more colloquially, “universal.” At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term “Catholic” in reference to the Church. At that time, or shortly thereafter, it was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others.

The term “Catholic” is in the Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, and many Protestants, claiming the term for themselves, give it a meaning that is unsupported historically, ignoring the term’s use at the time the creeds were written.

Early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:** “As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general.’ . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations** (cf., e.g., Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (Early Christian Doctrines, 190–1). "
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1867292

lol, did the church tell you to say that too. I feel like I’m talking to robots. Can I get a human in here! Let me clarify the name of your “church”. The Roman Empire('s) Universal Authority (Program for the) “Called Out”. Sounds sick, but true. In the words of Metallica,“You know it’s sad, but true.”

 

[SoonerServant]

Yes, I have Youngs concordance and when it describes words it, many times uses a number of descriptions of what the word means or could mean but gives many possiblities. That you just look up the Greek and pooof there it is, isn’t factual!!! That’s over simplistic and WAY BAD theology. But that’s the offspiring I’m afaid, of sola Scriptura.

You want to hear bad theology? How about Pope Pius IX calling the Vatican Council togther in 1869 to declare himself “infallible”. And then, “agaisnt strong opposition from the heirarchy”, it gets ratified into the Catholic Creed a year later. Wow, Jesus must be moving much slower these days with his plans, or it’s a false doctrine of a hauty man.

The rabbit’s hole just goes on and on.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Unless you yourself are a witness, your testimony is void.

The same logic could be used against Mark and Luke…

 

[Pryority7]

lol, did the church tell you to say that too. I feel like I’m talking to robots. Can I get a human in here! Let me clarify the name of your “church”. The Roman Empire('s) Universal Authority (Program for the) “Called Out”. Sounds sick, but true. In the words of Metallica,“You know it’s sad, but true.”

We’re not robots, bro, we’re just relaying to you what the Catholic Church teaches…not our own private interpretation of it…which seems to be something You’re fond of doing…private interpretation leads to disunity…differences, arguments…bias…alot of other negative stuff…
Please understand, we are not called to come up with our own version of Christianity but to maintain what Christianity has taught for 2,000 years…through the Catholic Church…
P7

 

[MrS]

You want to hear bad theology? How about Pope Pius IX calling the Vatican Council togther in 1869 to declare himself “infallible”. And then, “agaisnt strong opposition from the heirarchy”, it gets ratified into the Catholic Creed a year later. Wow, Jesus must be moving much slower these days with his plans, or it’s a false doctrine of a hauty man.

The rabbit’s hole just goes on and on.

Either you know that is not true, and you exclaim it anyway…makes you a liar
or
You know the “source” you got that from is a distorter of truth…makes you a deceiver
or
You really don’t know what infallibility is… makes you a “good-little-protestant”

When you research your statement… please post it correctly on this or a new thread… until then I will hope you become more insightful, and less inciteful.

.

 

[adrift]

Jesus has always spoken in a figuretive and poetic way. It fits perfectly into the context of the passage. Right after he returns Peter’s true statement with another truth, he goes on to use a term used in most Greek tales, which are poetic in themselves. This also gives even more merit to the arguement over “petros” and “petra”. Scholars say that these terms were only used in a poetic context. IMO, this entire passage was worthy of Shakespere! All glory be to God!

Did you get this from your Greek dictionary? No wonder you are so confused
Now that it has been shown to you that the correct interpretation is what Catholics believe you are going to say it is figurative? WOW who is the robot? If you can’t prove what you believe is correct call it figurative.

2 a : expressing one thing in terms normally denoting another with which it may be regarded as analogous :

m-w.com/dictionary/figurative
All I can say is you must be desperate

 

[Bishopite]

Hey, if you don’t think that when God speaks, it’s with authority, then the bloods on your hands, not mine. I’m just the good messenger.

Is your interpretation of Scripture the infallible voice of God?

 

[Bishopite]

You want to hear bad theology? How about Pope Pius IX calling the Vatican Council togther in 1869 to declare himself “infallible”. And then, “agaisnt strong opposition from the heirarchy”, it gets ratified into the Catholic Creed a year later. Wow, Jesus must be moving much slower these days with his plans, or it’s a false doctrine of a hauty man.

The rabbit’s hole just goes on and on.

You argue as though the Church is a democracy, as though the Pope needs to ask the hiearchy to ratify anything. The Church is not a democracy that’s and American political phenomenon. In the Old Testament Moses didn’t take a vote to see what the people wanted, he was appointed by God, having God’s authority.
In the NT Jesus grants authority to Peter (Mt 16:19)

 

[sterryfamily]

Jesus has always spoken in a figuretive and poetic way. It fits perfectly into the context of the passage. Right after he returns Peter’s true statement with another truth, he goes on to use a term used in most Greek tales, which are poetic in themselves. This also gives even more merit to the arguement over “petros” and “petra”. Scholars say that these terms were only used in a poetic context. IMO, this entire passage was worthy of Shakespere! All glory be to God!

Got a coupla questions for you, Sooner;

1. How many times in the Bible did God change a man’s name?
2. How many times did God change a man’s name and it had absolutley no significance?
3. Why, in your opinion, did God change Simon’s name to “Rock”? What was the point?

 

[jmcrae]

The same logic could be used against Mark and Luke…

Yes, it certainly could. And there is no testimony that either Mark or Luke ever performed their own miracles, either.

 

[jacobaer]

Hi soonerservant,

You said: “lol, did the church tell you to say that too. I feel like I’m talking to robots. Can I get a human in here!”

ME: Why do you insult people?

You said: “Let me clarify the name of your “church”. The Roman Empire('s) Universal Authority (Program for the) “Called Out”. Sounds sick, but true.”

ME: More insults! Why?

If you are a Christian, don’t you think you should display…love, gentleness, kindness?

Peace,
Jacobaer

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus has always spoken in a figuretive and poetic way. It fits perfectly into the context of the passage. Right after he returns Peter’s true statement with another truth, he goes on to use a term used in most Greek tales, which are poetic in themselves. This also gives even more merit to the arguement over “petros” and “petra”. Scholars say that these terms were only used in a poetic context. IMO, this entire passage was worthy of Shakespere! All glory be to God!

Newsflash for you: Jesus wasn’t speaking in Greek to Peter - He was speaking in Aramaic. The name given to Simon was “Cephas” and there was no differentiation between the first (the name) and the second (the object thus represented).

We see this in the Book of Acts and in various letters of Paul, where Peter is referred to as “Cephas,” at certain times, even when the writer is using Greek, which shows that this Aramaic word was being used as his actual name.

Matthew uses Greek terms to make it plain to his Greek-speaking audience that Peter was being named “Rock” - not because he thought that “Petro” and “petra” meant two different things - he didn’t.

He spoke Greek as a second language, so he may or may not have been aware of the ancient poetical meaning of the word “petro” [incidentally,this is also the root word of “petroleum,” which is extracted from huge immovable underground rocks] - but from the larger context, it seems much more likely that he was simply masculinizing the word “petra” - just as parents today do in reverse, when naming their daughters after St. Peter - young Petra understands perfectly that Petra is the same name as Peter, and that she couldn’t be actually named Peter, since that is a boy’s name, and she is a girl; thus, she is named “Petra” which is how girls are named after St. Peter.

 

[MrS]

cool… we can go over 1000 posts:thumbsup:

 

[Bishopite]

You want to hear bad theology? How about Pope Pius IX calling the Vatican Council togther in 1869 to declare himself “infallible”. And then, “agaisnt strong opposition from the heirarchy”, it gets ratified into the Catholic Creed a year later. Wow, Jesus must be moving much slower these days with his plans, or it’s a false doctrine of a hauty man.

The rabbit’s hole just goes on and on.

Why would “strong opposition from the hierarchy” be of concern for you? The “hierarchy” you are speaking were Catholic bishops.
Do you put submit to their authority? I’m sure the answer is no, so what does it matter to you?

 

[MrS]

repeat previous post…

any response SoonerServant??

have your found the source of the link for your quote??

Quote:
Originally Posted by SoonerServant forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You want to hear bad theology? How about Pope Pius IX calling the Vatican Council togther in 1869 to declare himself “infallible”. And then, “agaisnt strong opposition from the heirarchy”, it gets ratified into the Catholic Creed a year later. Wow, Jesus must be moving much slower these days with his plans, or it’s a false doctrine of a hauty man.

The rabbit’s hole just goes on and on.*

Either you know that is not true, and you exclaim it anyway…makes you a liar
or
You know the “source” you got that from is a distorter of truth…makes you a deceiver
or
You really don’t know what infallibility is… makes you a “good-little-protestant”

When you research your statement… please post it correctly on this or a new thread… until then I will hope you become more insightful, and less inciteful.

 

[Sixtus]

Originally Posted by SoonerServant

I’m not even going to argue that point because I don’t believe in confession.

Jesus OWN kith and kin believed in Confession.

St paul believed in Confession.

So why not Christians 2000-years later? Do Christian’s no longer sin? Or does God no longer count sin as an offence against His goodness, love, mercy and justice?

 

[anamchara]

Jesus OWN kith and kin believed in Confession.

St paul believed in Confession.

So why not Christians 2000-years later? Do Christian’s no longer sin? Or does God no longer count sin as an offence against His goodness, love, mercy and justice?

Sixtus, I am curious where does it say that St. Paul believed in Confession? And do you mean the Confession we know today?

 

[Bishopite]

Sixtus, I am curious where does it say that St. Paul believed in Confession? And do you mean the Confession we know today?

We know from Scripture that St. Paul met with the Apostles…

“According to Acts, his preaching in the local synagogues got him into trouble there, and he was forced to escape, being let down over the wall in a basket (Acts 9:23). He describes in Galatians, how three years after his conversion, he went to Jerusalem, where he met James, and stayed with Simon Peter for fifteen days (Gal 1:13–24). **According to Acts, he apparently attempted to join the disciples and was accepted only owing to the intercession of **Barnabas– they were all understandably afraid of him as one who had been a persecutor of the Church (Acts 9:26-27)”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

Even if the gospel of John hadn’t been written yet, Paul would have still been told via Oral Tradition of confession so we could logically deduce St. Paul knew of confession by knowing what the Apostles told Him of what Jesus told them.

Also in John’s gospel 20:21-23 Jesus said…
"(Jesus) said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”
As noted above, Paul also personally met with James who wrote in James 5:14-16…
"He should summon the presbyters of the church, and they should pray over him and anoint (him) with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith will save the sick person, and the Lord will raise him up. If he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven. Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may

Presbyter and priest are synonyms (different words meaning the same thing), so here we have Scriptural evidence in John’s gospel and the book of James of confession. Was it mechanically the same then as it is now? No. It was primarily public which by today’s standards would be scandalous and non-functional as you may already know However in the Church’s infancy groups confessing sin at Mass (Eucharist) was common in the early Church.
And since this thread is about purgatory, we also have evidence in the catecombs of inscriptions asking those who have died to pray for them as they hid and awaited martyrdom.
newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm