Why won’t the Protestant non-Catholic Christians here, argue with the real Catholic Apologists at CAF?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Right. But it is painful to be separated from one’s unholy attachments. These are works (doings) of ours that fall short of God’s perfection, holding unresolved resentments for instance. Many people do this without even realizing they are doing so. What “work” have you done that, if it was burned up, would not be painful to you? I just built a bookshelf. I would be very sad to have it burned. 🤷
I really fail to see the comparison. You may be sad, but you wouldn’t be punished, which is what happens in Purgatory.
Why could it not be both?
You can’t just pick and choose. You let context decide. In this case, in context, it’s clearly about this lifetime.
Well, I don’t think it is possible to “prove” any of the doctrines of the faith. I can’t “prove” that Jesus is the Son of God, either, but I believe He is. If you are looking for “proof” you need a science forum, not a faith forum. 😉
You can indeed “prove” to me that Jesus is the Son of God, because I believe the Bible is true. That is the kind of “proof” we are talking about here, not scientific proofs.
Yes, Jesus could do this in an instant, and I believe at times He does. When He returns, it is clear it will be in “the twinkling of an eye”. He also, at other times, does not transform people instantly, but gradually.
This is true, but when He did, he did not create “untruths” within His parables. He used real situations and real contexts/issues to make His point. He did not tell “fables” about the afterlife.
Parables are fiction.

Do not murder, do not be angry, forgive, settle your debts, do not commit adultery, do not lust, etc., etc.
These are not parables, but moral teachings
Well, we believe that Jesus was teaching moral principles by parable as well. In the case of the story of Abraham’s bosom, it was that if they did not believe the prophets, they would not believe one even if he rose from the dead. The fact that people were alive, aware of what was happening on earth, and able to communicate are incidentals in that parable. It does not make them untrue.
 
Guanophore said:

My comment was in response to this. My point was that there is only so much “corruption” that can be tolerated before one rejects the authority of the corrupt. Nowhere did I say only the authors of scripture are infallable. You cannot seriously compare the actions of some leaders of the Catholic church in history to the Apostles. You don’t see Paul, after his conversion, commanding Christians to wage war on those who wouldn’t “get in line.”
Of course not, but you do see Judas betraying Jesus and getting Him killed on the cross, hmmmm . . .

And Paul’s not an apostle. But let’s see, Peter was. We also believe Peter to be the first Pope. Paul corrected Peter when he was wrong, yet still remained under his authority. Peter also denied Jesus. Peter was a weak human, the authority given to him through the Holy Spirit was not. His weakness before he was given the authority did not make him unable to receive it if that’s what God wanted, and his weakness after did not make it null and void. But again, he was obviously admonished by someone who was NOT an apostle.

I know that some of the corrupt Popes did things that seem worse (they do to me too) than what Peter did. But are they really? Peter did this directly to Jesus while He was on earth. That’s not really bad? To us questioning the corrupt popes’ authorities in matters of “faith and morals” or speaking “ex cathedra” is questioning God’s ability to keep Satan (the one that convinced them to do these horrible things) from prevailing against His Church, it really doesn’t have much to do with that individual person. Even if you don’t agree with me, can’t you see the logic that’s being followed? We had these corrupt popes, yet still the Church is the same Church, isn’t that an example that Jesus and hte Holy Spirit did what they said they would?
 
Come on! This is ridiculous. You’re confusing two subjects: purgatory and “testing by fire” through trials during this lifetime, which is what the verse in question was referring to: testing in this lifetime. The verse does not in any way imply an application to the afterlife.
Okay ckemp, I gave it up to you the other day. You said to guanaphore that when the Bible speaks of them being tested by fire they did not actually suffer b/c no real “fire” touched them. Guanaphore was only reacting to your statement by saying, “of course they suffered, obviuosly.” He wasn’t saying, “of course they suffered in Purgatory” because there would be not way for us to know if they were ever in that state or not. You’re twisting his words now.
Simple question: did the suffering occur in purgatory, or in this lifetime? You are seriously confusing two different subjects. Every time “fire” is mentioned in the New Testament, you seem to be thinking hell or purgatory. That’s not at all correct.
Oh no, not at all. You obviously are NOT completely familiar with the doctrine of Purgatory. Suffering on this earth can very well be applied towards “time spent” (best way to describe it, although Purgatory isn’t bound by time) in Purgatory. It’s about the cleansing of your soul from the temporal stains of sin, whether it’s here or or in Purgatory. Indulgences, for instance: something you do here can effect your Purgatory experience (they cannot, however, be sold :rolleyes: ). Penance as well, if you’re familiar with the sacrament of Confession, is dealing directly with Purgatory, and that’s something we do here on Earth. You still may not believe in Purgatory, but at least completely understand what it is first.
 
Of course not, but you do see Judas betraying Jesus and getting Him killed on the cross, hmmmm . . .

And Paul’s not an apostle. But let’s see, Peter was. We also believe Peter to be the first Pope. Paul corrected Peter when he was wrong, yet still remained under his authority. Peter also denied Jesus. Peter was a weak human, the authority given to him through the Holy Spirit was not. His weakness before he was given the authority did not make him unable to receive it if that’s what God wanted, and his weakness after did not make it null and void. But again, he was obviously admonished by someone who was NOT an apostle.

I know that some of the corrupt Popes did things that seem worse (they do to me too) than what Peter did. But are they really? Peter did this directly to Jesus while He was on earth. That’s not really bad? To us questioning the corrupt popes’ authorities in matters of “faith and morals” or speaking “ex cathedra” is questioning God’s ability to keep Satan (the one that convinced them to do these horrible things) from prevailing against His Church, it really doesn’t have much to do with that individual person. Even if you don’t agree with me, can’t you see the logic that’s being followed? We had these corrupt popes, yet still the Church is the same Church, isn’t that an example that Jesus and hte Holy Spirit did what they said they would?
Are you serious? “Paul’s not an Apostle”???
 
Okay ckemp, I gave it up to you the other day. You said to guanaphore that when the Bible speaks of them being tested by fire they did not actually suffer b/c no real “fire” touched them. Guanaphore was only reacting to your statement by saying, “of course they suffered, obviuosly.” He wasn’t saying, “of course they suffered in Purgatory” because there would be not way for us to know if they were ever in that state or not. You’re twisting his words now.
I don’t think I’m twisting anyone’s words. That was how I interpreted what he said; if I was wrong, I offer my apologies. We ARE, after all, talking about Catholic defense of purgatory, so it only made sense that a Catholic would be defending it. There are two different passages being tossed around interchangeably, and I think that is causing some confusion.
Oh no, not at all. You obviously are NOT completely familiar with the doctrine of Purgatory. Suffering on this earth can very well be applied towards “time spent” (best way to describe it, although Purgatory isn’t bound by time) in Purgatory. It’s about the cleansing of your soul from the temporal stains of sin, whether it’s here or or in Purgatory. Indulgences, for instance: something you do here can effect your Purgatory experience (they cannot, however, be sold :rolleyes: ). Penance as well, if you’re familiar with the sacrament of Confession, is dealing directly with Purgatory, and that’s something we do here on Earth. You still may not believe in Purgatory, but at least completely understand what it is first.
I never denied that “suffering on this earth can very well be applied towards” purgatory; I’m simply denying that passages about suffering in the Bible refer to purgatory. I’m not sure where the disconnect is here. Perhaps I have too many discussions going on at once.
 
I really fail to see the comparison. You may be sad, but you wouldn’t be punished, which is what happens in Purgatory.
If you’re sad b/c you’re sitting there in the consequences of something you put yourself through, all on your own, that’s not a punishment you put yourself through? This isn’t God punishing us for our sins, this is God allowing us to experience the punishment we brought upon ourselves, that’s what temporal punishment is, don’t ignore the adjective.

This is the definition of temporal from the dictionary:
Of, relating to, or limited by time: a temporal dimension; temporal and spatial boundaries.
Salvation has nothing to do with temporal consequences, it has to do with eternal consequences.
You can’t just pick and choose. You let context decide. In this case, in context, it’s clearly about this lifetime.
But everything about this lifetime matters to the next, including how we are saved. Why would consequences we earned for ourselves not matter, whether we pay them here or in Purgatory, as long as they’re accepted and experienced by us before we get to Heaven.
 
Are you serious? “Paul’s not an Apostle”???
I was just reacting to your insistence on keeping your own standards, so to speak. The apostles, being fully human (Judas being one, appointed by Jesus), are under a different set of rules to you because you apparently think of them as being the only humans ever to be granted infallibility by God. Of coures Paul considered himself an apostle – and I do believe he was – but he was not one of the twelve that Jesus appointed. So which “apostles” (and the meaning of the term can be quite encompassing newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) actions were excusable using the standards your using? That was my point.
 
I don’t think I’m twisting anyone’s words. That was how I interpreted what he said; if I was wrong, I offer my apologies. We ARE, after all, talking about Catholic defense of purgatory, so it only made sense that a Catholic would be defending it. There are two different passages being tossed around interchangeably, and I think that is causing some confusion.
I didn’t say he wasn’t talking about purgatory. You can’t completely isolate purgatory as an issue in and of itself when it deals directly with what happens on Earth, it’s only cause, or reason for existence, is what happens on Earth, in this lifetime. If Jesus is talking about what has to happen before one enters Heaven – NOTICE I did not say before someone was forgiven, or saved (those in Purgatory ARE saved), but before one is in God’s presence, it either has to happen here or somewhere else, right? In that sense you’re right, it doesn’t have to do with judgement, but consequences. The judgement comes when we eventually are or are not saved. What we’re saying is that the temporal consequences (which we’ve established are punishing consequences) cannot be avoided.
 
I was just reacting to your insistence on keeping your own standards, so to speak. The apostles, being fully human (Judas being one, appointed by Jesus), are under a different set of rules to you because you apparently think of them as being the only humans ever to be granted infallibility by God. Of coures Paul considered himself an apostle – and I do believe he was – but he was not one of the twelve that Jesus appointed. So which “apostles” (and the meaning of the term can be quite encompassing newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) actions were excusable using the standards your using? That was my point.
First off, I have already rejected your statement that the apostles were “the only humans ever to be granted infallability by God.” Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I rejected this statement in no uncertain terms.

Secondly, I don’t think your point is supported by the analogy you’re drawing. We don’t know what would have happened had Judas not killed himself. Peter repented. As did Paul (of his persecuting the church). The same cannot be said for some Catholic leadership throughout history. If Paul started trying to make people worship Apollo as a secondary deity, or started teaching that homosexuality was OK, Christians would have been completely justified in rejecting his authority.
 
Okay, I’m hearing some grunting coming from my two year old in the other room, anyone who has kids knows what that means. I’m signing off for now. I’ve really enjoyed talking to you ckemp, and I’ll check later if I can. But I’m getting a little addicted, in the sense that I’m kind of ignoring other things I need to do, so I might see you before Christmas, but I might not. However, I really do wish you a holy Christmas, and I hope my pride hasn’t gotten too in the way of what I’ve been trying to say, I do like to be right, you know :eek: .
 
First off, I have already rejected your statement that the apostles were “the only humans ever to be granted infallability by God.” Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I rejected this statement in no uncertain terms.

Secondly, I don’t think your point is supported by the analogy you’re drawing. We don’t know what would have happened had Judas not killed himself. Peter repented. As did Paul (of his persecuting the church). The same cannot be said for some Catholic leadership throughout history. If Paul started trying to make people worship Apollo as a secondary deity, or started teaching that homosexuality was OK, Christians would have been completely justified in rejecting his authority.
You know for certain exactly what happened in the minds and hearts of these popes before they died?

Okay, I’m sticking to two posts ago, bye 🙂 !
 
Oh I do have to make one more point though. Peter or Paul doing the things you suggested would’ve meant they were actually changing Church Dogma. No pope, however bad he was, did that. They did really bad things THEMSELVES, just like Peter and Paul.
 
I didn’t mean it applied to only one person. I mean it is a moral teaching that applies to all. Jesus is teaching us a concept: settle matters quickly, and in humility, rather than bring in a judge. The thing is, if you force an interpretation on this that makes it about the judgment, you then have to ask the question, what is the “real” meaning of the REST of the Sermon on the Mount? If divorce, lying, lusting, etc., are not really referring to divorce, lying, lusting, etc., what is it that he is talking about?
I am sure how hard it is to tell tone in a post. So please don’t take this the wrong way. Your post made me giggle. It provided a very light mood for me. Here is why. I called it a parable which you objected. I didn’t want to get bogged down on it so I skipped it but when I read your post it made me smile. There you have parable defined. A moral teaching that applies to all or A short story based on a familiar life experience used to teach a spiritual lesson. I still don’t want to get bogged down. I would accept your explanation accept for one thing. After saying to settle quickly, He adds Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny. So it is more than just settling your differences there is going to be a judgment there. I don’t think it is a force. I think it is a force to try to define it any other way.
 
Are you serious? “Paul’s not an Apostle”???
Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
First off, I have already rejected your statement that the apostles were “the only humans ever to be granted infallability by God.” Please, stop putting words in my mouth. I rejected this statement in no uncertain terms.
Well, granted, some books of the bible weren’t written by an apostle. So I guess the question is, would you agree with the statement “The apostles and other Scripture writers (e.g. Luke and Mark) were the only humans ever to be granted infallability by God.”?
Secondly, I don’t think your point is supported by the analogy you’re drawing. We don’t know what would have happened had Judas not killed himself. Peter repented. As did Paul (of his persecuting the church). The same cannot be said for some Catholic leadership throughout history. If Paul started trying to make people worship Apollo as a secondary deity, or started teaching that homosexuality was OK, Christians would have been completely justified in rejecting his authority.
Agreed. St. Paul was infallible at certain times in his life, but he was not “personally infallible”. Just like the popes.
 
No, Jesus says quite clearly, “by their fruit” that we will know his disciples; not by their teaching or who they claim to follow on earth but, “by their love for one another.” On these grounds, I have a difficult time reconciling Catholic claims with the church’s actions throughout history.
Therin lies the problem. You are judging the teaching of the Church based upon the failure of certain persons to live by it. It is true you will know them by their fruits, and indeed we do! Laying this at the feet of Christ, however, is not right.
Since, based on my understanding, which could be wrong, Scripture is part of the Deposit of Faith, I think your statement that the church does not need to “justify” doctrines using it is incorrect.
You are right that Scripture is part of the Divine Deposit of Faith. However, now you are changing your arguement. It is true that no doctrine can contradict the scriptures, but the Faith of the church was whole and entire before scripture was written.
If it is not needed, then why is an apologist on a Catholic website doing it? That’s where I got that from: catholic.com.
I never said scripture was not necessary. And the article you quoted was about scriptural references to purgatory, not an attempt to create a biblical basis for the doctrine. None of the doctrines of the Church are “bible based”. They all pre-ceeded scripture.
If you destroy my car, it’s an inconvenience, but you did not “hurt” me personally.
Well, you are an amazement of detachment. WHen someone does something to my stuff, I get very upset. Especially when it is malicious.
I would question your statement that they are outside time. They may experience time differently, but humans require the passage of time to “experience” anything, including Heaven. Only God is outside of time.
OK.
 
Declarations are made to counter rampant heresies. For example, the word Trinity, not found in Scripture, was not used for some time, but was “declared” to combat heresies that had emerged (gnosticism and the roots of arianism). The decalaration does not mean that it was not held as a doctrine of the faith previously.
This seems not unreasonable but I was focusing on the fact that the existence of purgatory (in the Catholic sense) wasn’t declared as doctrine until after the Schism of 1054.
MOst of the differences between the eastern and western Church result from differences in language and culture.
I agree that there are differences in language and culture between the East and the West but for me that’s not a central issue. I’m concerned with differences in doctrine. And my understanding at this point is that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree with the Catholic Church concerning this doctrine.
The Eastern Churches also agree that we must all be made pure before we enter heaven, and we are not necessarily pure when we die.
I’m not sure if that’s quite correct. I think it’s the idea of being "forcibly made pure” that seems wrongheaded. I’ll have to make further inquiries of my Orthodox friends and go on from there.
It would be more accurate to call it a ‘state’ rather than a place. Heaven, hell, Purgatory, etc. exist outside the space time continuum.
With respect, I’m not yet convinced that the place/state even exists so figuring out its category at this early stage would seem to be a less than productive exercise for me.
Purgatory is not intended to be “punishment” but purification.
I can’t speak to intent so I’ll just have to take your word for it, I guess.
However, some of us are quite attached to our sinful ways, and separation from them is painful. Remember the rich man who went away sorrowful after Jesus told him to sell all he had and give it to the poor? He was attached,
Yes, he was, as we all are (attached that is, not rich).
Catholics believe that baptism completely washes all temporal and original sin, as well as the consequences of those.
And I respect that belief.
It is not “sent away” by God. In fact, it has been said that one of the reasons the purgation is painful is the intense longing of those being purified to be with the Lord. In HIs love, He separates everything in us that might prevet us from Him. We can elect to have this done in this life, or it will be done in the next, but it will be done.
There is some logic in it, I agree, but it’s a strange doctrine, all the same.
Well, none of us should aim short! We should all strive for perfect purification here and now!
Absolutely!
This is not true. This is one of the beliefs that the Church inherited from the Jews. You can read about it in the book of Maccabees.
Yes, I think I know where you’re pointing me. It’s to the verse that says something like, “It’s a good and wholesome thought to pray for the dead so they can be released from their sins.”
Do you also find the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, worship on Sunday, and the canon of the NT “hard to believe”?
I can accept the doctrine of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union and Sunday worship without a great deal of trouble. Not so the New Testament canon. For example, I find it hard to believe that the Book of Revelation is inspired.
All of these came after the doctrine of purgatory, which was clear during the intertestamental period.
Well, in an attempt to bring the thread back from this tangent let me say with respect that your concluding comment above provides a good example of why the Protestant non–Catholic Christians here won’t argue with the real Catholic apologists. It’s like trying to nail down jello. Here you are suggesting to me that the Catholic doctrine of purgatory was an ancient belief of the Jews (as evidenced by an apocryphal book) that has been inherited by the Catholic Church. That takes care of any mention of the Council of Ferrara–Florence (as if I’d dare mention it). I think that’s called a preemptive strike. But even if you were pushed back a little and found yourself having to concede that the Council of Ferrara–Florence is rather more central to understanding the background concerning the development of this belief in the West than any part of the Apocrypha you would simply point to your opening statement i.e that regardless of when a Catholic doctrine is developed/promulgated it’s always retroactive, which would automatically allow you to return to your ancient Jewish position.

Head you win, tails I lose.🙂

Admiringly,
Mick
👍
 
I’m concerned with differences in doctrine. And my understanding at this point is that the Eastern Orthodox Church does not agree with the Catholic Church concerning this doctrine.



I’ll have to make further inquiries of my Orthodox friends and go on from there.
Yes, as I said before, Dr. Dragani can sometimes be a little skimpy on detail when it comes to the Orthodox. (He’s Eastern Catholic, btw.) So I did a wee bit of looking, and found something that might be more helpful in that regard:

Prayers for the Departed. ‘With the saints give rest, O Christ, to the souls of thy servants, where there is neither sickness, nor sorrow, nor sighing, but life everlasting.’ So the Orthodox Church prays for the faithful departed; and again: ‘O God of spirits and of all flesh, who hast trampled down death and overthrown the Devil, and given life unto Thy world: Do thou, the same Lord, give rest to the souls of Thy departed servants, in a place of light, refreshment, and repose, whence all pain, sorrow, and sighing have fled away. Pardon every transgression which they have committed, whether by word or deed or thought.’

Orthodox are convinced that Christians here on earth have a duty to pray for the departed, and they are confident that the dead are helped by such prayers. But precisely in what way do our prayers help the dead? What exactly is the condition of souls in the period between death and the Resurrection of the Body at the Last Day? Here Orthodox teaching is not entirely clear, and has varied somewhat at different times. In the seventeenth century a number of Orthodox writers — most notably Peter of Moghila and Dositheus in his Confession — upheld the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, or something very close to it (According to the normal Roman teaching, souls in Purgatory undergo expiatory suffering, and so render ‘satisfaction’ or ‘atonement’ for their sins. It should be remarked, however, that even in the seventeenth century there were many Orthodox who rejected the Roman teaching on Purgatory. The statements on the departed in Moghila’s Orthodox Confession were carefully changed by Meletius Syrigos, while in later life Dositheus specifically retracted what he had written on the subject in his Confession). Today most if not all Orthodox theologians reject the idea of Purgatory, at any rate in this form. The majority would be inclined to say that the faithful departed do not suffer at all. Another school holds that perhaps they suffer, but, if so, their suffering is of a purificatory but not an expiatory character; for when a man dies in the grace of God, then God freely forgives him all his sins and demands no expiatory penalties: Christ, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, is our only atonement and satisfaction. Yet a third group would prefer to leave the whole question entirely open: let us avoid detailed formulation about the life after death, they say, and preserve instead a reverent and agnostic reticence. When Saint Antony of Egypt was once worrying about divine providence, a voice came to him, saying: ‘Antony, attend to yourself; for these are the judgments of God, and it is not for you to know them’ (Apophthegmata (P.G. 65), Antony, 2).
  • from The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos Ware
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top