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

[joshua_b]

I see bookgirl beat me to it…hahaha. I will personally interpret our almost paralell responses as guidance form the Holy Spirit. LOL

 

[SSTeacher]

Hello SSTeacher,

Hello Jimmy.

No, why would I… or why should I?

I find it a rather repugnant idea and I wondered if that thought had ever crossed your mind. I meant no offense.

Then again, I have no doubt about the Holy Trinity.

Well said.

I fully surrender to Christ and His Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and do not hold beliefs that are contrary to Catholicism.

Bravely declared.

For Catholics, Holy Scripture, the Holy Church and Holy Tradition are all important.

I have no argument with that.

How much of the information provided here, to explain Purgatory, did you have a chance to look at?

I looked at all of it. I still have difficulties, though.

First, came Christ… then came the His Catholic and Apostolic Church and then a few hundred years later, came the Bible and then, more than a thousand years later… came Protestant Christianity.

I agree that this is an accurate summary of the historical record.

Using your logic here, one might argue against the validity of the Bible itself.

Certainly.

What about Protestantism, which wasn’t on the scene until more than 1500 years after Christ walk the earth? It seems to me that it would be and should be easier, as a Christian, to accept Catholic doctrine, including doctrine defining Purgatory, than to accept Protestantism.

Possibly.

Do you see what I am saying here?

Yes I do. I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the Protestant position, which is why I’m examining the truth claims of the Catholic Church.

Thank you for your post.

Thank you for yours.

Merry Christmas!

And a Happy Christmas to you, too.
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

And . . . one more good article and website. These are explaining the history of the Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, and an article addressing the problems the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are having at a ecumenism (did I spell that right?)

www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/resources/cis/CIS342.pdf
saintelias.com/ca/theologic/anamnesis.php

Yes, your spelling is correct. Full marks. Thanks for the info.

Gratefully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

It might help for you to understand that purgatory is not a place, but a process.

I guess it might. Can you enlarge at all?

Curiously,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Please look at the verses that were posted as eidence FOR purgatory. REad them ask yourself are they about prugatory?
It is another Catholic attempt to read a doctrine into the scripture rather than allow a doctrine to be defined by scripture. Do not be decieved.

I appreciate your concern for my spiritual welfare.

Thankfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

Hi SSTeacher,

May I refer you to the answer given by Dr. Anthony Dragani:

Purgatory: **Could you please explain the differences among Latin theology concerning the Dogma of Purgatory and that of the various Eastern Churches? **

As a general rule, all Eastern Christians do not use the word “Purgatory.” This includes both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians. The word “Purgatory” is specific to the Latin tradition, and carries some specific historical baggage that makes Eastern Christians uncomfortable.

In the Medieval West, many popular theologians defined Purgatory as a specific place, where people essentially sat around and suffered. Some theologians went so far as to imply that a literal fire burns those who suffer in Purgatory. It was also popular to tally periods of time that people spent in purgatory for various offences. It is worth noting that contemporary Roman Catholic theology has (thankfully) moved beyond this approach, to a more Patristic understanding of Purgatory.

In the Catholic understanding, only two points are necessary dogma concerning “purgatory”: 1) There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven, and 2) prayer is efficacious for the dead who are in this state.

The Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches agree with the Latin Church fully on both of these points. In practice, we routinely celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf. We would not do so if we did not agree with the above two dogmatic points.

But again, we do not use the word “Purgatory” for two reasons. First, it is a Latin word first used in the Medieval West, and we use Greek words to describe our theology. Second, the word “Purgatory” still carries specific Medieval baggage that we aren’t comfortable with.

It is noteworthy that my own Byzantine Catholic Church has never been required to use the word Purgatory. Our act of reunion with Rome, “The Treaty of Brest,” which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require us to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.

Article V of the Treaty of Brest states “We shall not debate about purgatory…” implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls “Purgatory.”

In the East, we tend to have a much more positive view of the transition from death to Heaven. Rather than “Purgatory,” we prefer to call it “the Final Theosis.” This refers to the process of deification, in which the remnants of our humans nature are transformed, and we come to share in the divine life of the Trinity. Rather than seeing this as a place to “sit and suffer,” the Eastern Fathers of the Church described the Final Theosis as being a journey. While this journey can entail hardships, there are also powerful glimpses of joy.

Interestingly, Mother Angelica has repeatedly expressed a very positive understanding of “Purgatory” being a joyful state, rather than a place of suffering. In some ways her description lines up well with the Eastern understanding of the Final Theosis.

Although we do not use the same words, Eastern Orthodox/Catholics and Latin Catholics do essentially believe the same thing on this important point.

east2west.org/doctrine.htm#Purgatory

Thanks, Peter J. My current understanding is that Orthodox Christians don’t believe in a place called purgatory. For them, it simply doesn’t exist. They still evidently pray for the dead, though. Not to pray them out of purgatory but to pray that the Lord would remember them in His eternal Kingdom. There is apparently a sense in which these prayers work forward and backward and any which way into this timeless place.

The commentary you provided seems to be commensurate with that notion. I appreciate you taking the time to post it and I’ll reflect upon it.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

I fail to see why purgatory has to be viewed so negatively, even if someone doesn’t believe in it.

I suppose it might be that the doctrine of purgatory, to some minds, makes God seem like Shylock who demanded his pound of flesh.

Grace and peace,
Mick

 

[joshua_b]

I suppose it might be that the doctrine of purgatory, to some minds, makes God seem like Shylock who demanded his pound of flesh.

Grace and peace,
Mick

Perhaps, but that is a reaction to the theology that attempts to explain purgatory in the western Church, not to the doctrine itself. The official Church teaching on the matter has been very well stated here.

I will readily admit that it is very hard to distinguish theology from doctrine, especially with a protestant frame of reference. It has been my subjective observation that the line between “theology” and “doctrine” is much more blurred in protestant teaching.

 

[adrift]

We’ve discussed this scripture to exhaustion. Look at the last sentence. What is “burned up?” It is not the person, but the work.

I apologize you have said this before so I should have commented on it.

But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire.

What is work? It is what person does. It says that the person’s work isn’t saved, the person is saved through what? Fire.

“Tested by fire” is a clear allusion to persecutions in this lifetime, not purgation in the afterlife.

I agree with you here.

OK. How does this prove purgatory? As I stated elsewhere, Jesus could very well snap his fingers or dance the jig, and voila, we’re forgiven. This doesn’t explicitly, or even very strongly implicitly, support purgatory.

It shows that there is forgiveness of some type after death.

Jesus did not always speak in parables. A parable is a story that illustrates a divine truth. The Sermon on the Mount is not a story, but instructions in living Righteously:

Do not murder, do not be angry, forgive, settle your debts, do not commit adultery, do not lust, etc., etc.

These are not parables, they are moral teachings.

I am not going to argue the point. I don’t think you can call the Sermon on the Mount a story. I don’t think you can say that he was speaking only to one person when he made the statement about paying the last penny. Can you name other place in Scripture where only one person is meant? You are right they are not parable they are moral teachings that teach about being perfect to enter heaven. That perfection being accomplished by a purging or what the Church has come to call purgatory.

 

[guanophore]

With or without the Bible, the Catholic church is still inconsistent and contradictory in its doctrines,

LOL. I sure would like to see that! Inconsistent with what? If there are no divergent interpretations of scripture, what other standard is used for “consistency”?

and I would also have a hard time reconciling the atrocities against humans that were instigated by the church while it claims to follow someone who said to “turn the other cheek” and “love your enemy.” The problem with the Catholic church is not the Bible, but itself.

It is certainly true that there have been many corrupt persons who called themselves Catholic and committed atrocities. However, judging the Teaching of the church by those who fail to follow it makes about as much sense as saying Jesus taught poorly because Judas betrayed Him.

 

[guanophore]

Please, stop feigning outrage at someone for stating historical facts. I’m sorry if they’re inconvenient for you, but they happened. The point is that I, and many others, cannot, will not, and refuse to believe an infallable “Vicar of Christ” on earth had people murdered who disagreed. Somewhere along the way, things went terribly wrong.

Well, this is where you may need to revise your reason for rebellion against the authority appointed by Christ. The Vicar of Christ only is “infallible” when he teaches on faith and morals from the chair of Peter. This never happened with regard to the Inquisitions or the Crusades. Improper behavior does not invalidate the true teaching. When Jesus told Peter “get thee behind me Satan”, it did not mean that Peter could not act infallibly, as He later did in the council of Jerusalem.

Yes, many times along the way men have gone terribly wrong. That does not mean, however, the the Holy Bride of Christ, the Church, is wrong.

The world of denominationalism is as much a fault of the Catholic church and its wrongs as it is the fault of the individuals who led the Reformation, and those who continue to create new denominations.

I would say that it is the fault of those who called themselves Catholics, yet betrayed the faith they claimed to espouse.

The difference is that the Catholic church is the Holy Bride of Christ so she cannot err, because she is protected by Christ her Head. The Soul of the church is the Holy Spirit, who descended upon Pentecost and indwelt the Church. It is these divine elements that preserve the Church, it is not dependent upon fallible men.

 

[guanophore]

I was not outraged at all. In fact, I found what you said rather amusing because “Gee, I’ve never heard THAT before.” So, rather than eleborate you provide no historical facts except to say that there are historical facts. Okay, then, what are they. Please educate us. How many people has the Catholic Church killed? You obviously have the information at your fingertips or you would not have made such a statement. Are we talking hundreds? Thousands? Millions? Billions? I mean, sure Henry the VIII lopped off the head of Saint Thomas More because of a disagreement over divorce, but that is only one so we have some catching up to do, right?

I think the first killings that can be laid at the feet of the Church are those of Ananias and Sapphira.

Acts 5:1-12
" But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property, 2 and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. 6 The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.

7 After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” 9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. 11 And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things.

12 Now many signs and wonders were done among the people by the hands of the apostles."

 

[guanophore]

Just for the sake of argument… is anyone aware of any documentation of a Pope ordering the death of anyone?

Yes, but respectfully, it hardly seems related to the topic.

 

[guanophore]

Innocent. Albigensian Crusade. Look it up yourself. Once again, I’m not going to let you guys waste my time proving things that everyone in the world knows happened.

What might be a waste of your time is confusing the sinful actions of individuals with the infallible teaching of Jesus which has been preserved by the Church.

You seem to be taking the approach that servants of God who failed to live up to what is taught by the Church somehow invalidates the teaching.

 

[guanophore]

Sorry if I seem overly frustrated with your request, but I don’t feel I should have to prove that the Catholic church has committed atrocities, when everyone knows that it has. As far as Copernicus, AFAIK, he died of natural causes. I at least try not to make false accusations, such as Catholics siding with Hitler, or any other number of crazy ideas such as the Pope being the anti-Christ, etc., etc., etc…

Well, you do. The reason is because you are confusing sinful persons who defied the teachings of Christ while claiming to be Catholic were the ones that committed such atrocities. For that reason, you have to somehow demonstrate that this invalidates the Teachings of Jesus that have been preserved by the Church.

Otherwise, otherwise, you really have no basis for your faith at all, since all the Apostles betrayed Christ at His trial, and Judas turned Him over. Does such a betrayal invalidate His teachings? That is what youhave to show.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’m enjoying the current discussion about Purgatory (kudos to those who’ve been contributing), but technically it is off topic for the thread, and should perhaps be split out on its own.

Returning to the OP, I can postulate one reason why Protestants wouldn’t make a large effort to address the writings of an apologist whether from CAF or elsewhere. If they were to take the time and effort to do so, and if they were successful in identifying holes in the apologist’s argument, such an effort would likely be met with the following Catholic response:

It doesn’t matter if there’s a problem in the apologist’s writing because the apologist:

a) isn’t the Pope and thus has no claim to infallibility, even if they are discussing a doctrine that has been infallibly defined;

b) isn’t part of the Magisterium and thus not an authority for promulgating doctrine in the church, therefore the apologist’s explanation may be wrong without invalidating the doctrine;

c) isn’t providing any more than his or her private interpretation and thus we aren’t bound by it.

Since finding a hole in the writings of an apologist would provide little to no benefit in holding Catholic doctrine up for inspection or evaluation, it’s not surprise that many Protestants simply don’t bother to do so.

Thoughts?

 

[Peter_J]

Perhaps, but that is a reaction to the theology that attempts to explain purgatory in the western Church, not to the doctrine itself. The official Church teaching on the matter has been very well stated here.

Right. In fact, going back to something you said earlier, I would have to question whether we can even say that we KNOW that “there is great suffering in purgatory”, or whether we should say that this is simply the typical Western way of envisioning purgatory.

 

[Peter_J]

Thanks, Peter J. My current understanding is that Orthodox Christians don’t believe in a place called purgatory. For them, it simply doesn’t exist. They still evidently pray for the dead, though. Not to pray them out of purgatory but to pray that the Lord would remember them in His eternal Kingdom. There is apparently a sense in which these prayers work forward and backward and any which way into this timeless place.

The commentary you provided seems to be commensurate with that notion. I appreciate you taking the time to post it and I’ll reflect upon it.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

Thanks, Mick.

Granted, Dr. Dragani tends not to elaborate much on the Orthodox p.o.v., so if that’s something you’re interested in you may wish to seek other sources for it.

 

[ckempston]

I apologize you have said this before so I should have commented on it.
What is work? It is what person does. It says that the person’s work isn’t saved, the person is saved through what? Fire.

I agree with you here.

It shows that there is forgiveness of some type after death.

I am not going to argue the point. I don’t think you can call the Sermon on the Mount a story. I don’t think you can say that he was speaking only to one person when he made the statement about paying the last penny. Can you name other place in Scripture where only one person is meant? You are right they are not parable they are moral teachings that teach about being perfect to enter heaven. That perfection being accomplished by a purging or what the Church has come to call purgatory.

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?

 

[ckempston]

LOL. I sure would like to see that! Inconsistent with what? If there are no divergent interpretations of scripture, what other standard is used for “consistency”?

I’ll retract that statement. It doesn’t make much sense.

It is certainly true that there have been many corrupt persons who called themselves Catholic and committed atrocities. However, judging the Teaching of the church by those who fail to follow it makes about as much sense as saying Jesus taught poorly because Judas betrayed Him.

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.