Why don't Protestants believe in purgatory?

[PJM]

The error here is that although the Apostles are obviously in Christ’s’ (“MY”) Church and the head is obviously Peter, the realisation that the Catholic Church is THIS SAME Church is lacking.

But this is a matter of history:
Catholic was first used by St Ignatius of Antioch in his letter to the Smyrneans, A.D. 107, “Where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” It is from the Greek katholike meaning “general” or “universal”. Within 90 years it meant also “orthodox” or faithful to the teachings of Christ. (The Catholic Catechism, Fr John A Hardon, S.J., Doubleday, 1975, p 217).

That’s where your problem lies.

How could the Christ not mean that His OWN Church could NOT teach error when having given His authority to St Peter, confirmed: “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15).

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

The reason for the dogma on infallibility came with the culmination in Gallicanism of contrary stances. When a truth in the Church is challenged, She may deem it necessary to define it as dogma or doctrine.

Thanks for sharing,
God Bless,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Okay so I changed my emails notifications to once a week not to be tempted, but I will have a look once in a while. I will work from the top as I see many new posts. Please let me know if I miss anything. I am not dodging.

So to the post

Wait hang on? "NOT ALL Catholic teaching LACKS Infallibility ". What do you mean by this? So not all lack to be true. So some are? I talked about Luther being Fallible, forgive me but htis statement seems the other way around.

I have addressed Matthew and you would need to clarify on John to state what I should have to read into it. No God/Jesus can not. I’m not seeing the problem.

On Mt 28: 19-20
"[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU: and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I think I am seeing the problem. I see the verse. I agree with it. But you are assuming I agree that Apostles = Catholic Church. So I say YOU does not equal “Catholic Church” This is not an obvious assumption and maybe we need to address that first before that verse can just be used as a proof? Seriously no offence but it seems like we are running into this the whole time? Is this a new argument? As history led me to believe otherwise. I grew up thinking the Catholic Church was there all along. But I didn’t know much then. I am challenging that concept now knowing better.

“Just One Set of faith beliefs [which GOD could not have waited for Wycliffe, Luther, Calvin or anyone else . more than a thousand years after the TEACHINGS were identified, defined and guided by the Holy Spirit, lived and practiced:shrug:” [/COLOR]

Not that this is my point. But we know very well from the old Testament that God tends to wait and take His time as He pleases. But this would be me assuming Catholics aren’t Christians. Not to offend, just a thought. God waiting is not an argument. Fact is, it happened. Who are we going to blame? (Please don’t say the devil)

Infallibility is sadly not rightfully understood.

This is a topic I would seriously like to get into. As I think that’s where most of our problems are.

Regards
Michael

Michael, It’s FACT, historical and biblical:

Today’s CATHOLIC Church was the ONLY Christian Church [apostates aside] to exist ANYWHERE in the WORLD until the Great Eastern Schims of 1054:shrug:

So how my friend do you refute that?

God Bless you,

Partick

 

[PJM]

I suspect a typo.

You are 71? Okay sorry. If we had a face to face conversation I would probably have a different tone. My dad didn’t even make it to 60. Although I maybe missed some of your parts. Will get back to you.

I’ll have a look at the site.

Michael

God Bless you MT friend!

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Yeah this is a good topic. One I would still want to get into. But then the questions on the other should end. Papal Infallibility is one of my most favourite research topics. Keep a note, will get to it sometime. I just think it will be a lengthy one.

Regards dear Abu
Michael

Oh dear. My answers are in the quote. Sorry

READ John 17:17-20; Mt 16:18-19 & Mt 28: 19-20 THEY are its biblical foundation:thumbsup:

BUT we also need to VERY likely define for you exactly WHAT exactly is Papal-Catholic Infallibility

WHAT’s you’re understanding of it?

God Bless,

Patrick

 

[guanophore]

it was the Catholic Church that would open the door,

 for money had been used against the poor for the manipulation of religion.

I am not sure what this means. It seems like a poorly constructed sentence. I think what you mean is that the sale of indulgences was a way of manipulating the faith of the poor for profit?

Indulgences were listed as time off from purgatory.

This is a misunderstanding. Purgatory exists, like heaven and hell, outside of the space time continuum, so one cannot get “time off” whe it does not exist.

Luther believed that purgatory was not an actual fact but a place created by the Catholic Church for the gain of money.

No. Luther did not have an issue with purgatory, or indulgences. He had an issue with abuse of one, the other, or both. Luther understood that Purgatory is not a "place: but a state.

Catholics believe that Purgatory is a place that a believer goes so he can be purified to enter heaven.

Only if they have not been properly educated in their faith.

Indulgences were sold in the 16th Century of the church to help build St. Peter Basilica in Rome.

Technically speaking, and indulgence cannot be “sold”. Abuses did occur.

 

[MichaelP3]

Michael, It’s FACT, historical and biblical:

Today’s CATHOLIC Church was the ONLY Christian Church [apostates aside] to exist ANYWHERE in the WORLD until the Great Eastern Schims of 1054:shrug:

So how my friend do you refute that?

God Bless you,

Partick

But I’m sorry. Uhm, Well in my Newman thread I feel I gave enough information to challenge that. Will have to go have a look again, It was a lot of typing. But I can easily say I agree we had a catholic Church, not a Catholic Church. And by just stating “but it was like that” isn’t doing it for me. But yea, you sent me some messages previously I still need to respond to. Sorry, will get there.

 

[MichaelP3]

READ John 17:17-20; Mt 16:18-19 & Mt 28: 19-20 THEY are its biblical foundation:thumbsup:

BUT we also need to VERY likely define for you exactly WHAT exactly is Papal-Catholic Infallibility

WHAT’s you’re understanding of it?

God Bless,

Patrick

I am pretty clued up on that Catholic understanding. One should realise with me, when I do a topic research, I don’t just go and see why it’s wrong. I see why it may be right, I watch a few debates. I go into historical and Biblical. I look up arguments and counter arguments. So I can assure you I would probably with all due respect not hear anything new.

But after all this and I guess we can make this a starting point. To me Papal infallibility " I am not always right (Non ex-cathedra) except when I am (ex-cathedra).

So go ahead and ask. Ill answer whatever.

 

[PJM]

But I’m sorry. Uhm, Well in my Newman thread I feel I gave enough information to challenge that. Will have to go have a look again, It was a lot of typing. But I can easily say I agree we had a catholic Church, not a Catholic Church. And by just stating “but it was like that” isn’t doing it for me. But yea, you sent me some messages previously I still need to respond to. Sorry, will get there.

Perhaps this might help? And BTW what alternative did you turn up?

The Primacy of Peter/Rome
staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
In his famous work Against the Heresies Irenaeus–the saintly Bishop of Lyon wrote about all the different little groups who made claims to authenticity and gave them a sure fire way of knowing the truth. Writing in about the year 125 he says,

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.
With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loose and, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).*

 

[PJM]

I am pretty clued up on that Catholic understanding. One should realise with me, when I do a topic research, I don’t just go and see why it’s wrong. I see why it may be right, I watch a few debates. I go into historical and Biblical. I look up arguments and counter arguments. So I can assure you I would probably with all due respect not hear anything new.

But after all this and I guess we can make this a starting point. To me Papal infallibility " I am not always right (Non ex-cathedra) except when I am (ex-cathedra).

So go ahead and ask. Ill answer whatever.

TRUE as far as you went

BUT it ONLY applies to matters of Faith-beliefs & Morals.

Personally, I’m delighted you do such due-diligence. On this we’re alike

Also Bishops SO LONG as they teach in complete conformity as the Church
; teach with the AUTHORITY [not necessarily the term as defined] of “infallibility” too:thumbsup:

Blessings,

Patrick