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.
jim1130 said:
What the poster is referencing is the origin of the “12 Days of Christmas.” In England the Catholics were persecuted by the Crown and were not allowed to teach or practice Catholicism. The “12 Days of Christmas” originated as a code-way for Catholics to teach one another the faith.

Now,if you ask me to identify each “symbol” I must admit I will be hard pressed to get too far, but here goes:

Partridge in a pear tree - Christ
2 Turtle Doves - OT and NT
3 French Hens - Is it the Trinity? Or Faith, Hope, and Love?
4 Calling Birds - 4 Gospels
5 Golden Rings -?
6 Geese a laying - ?
7 Swans a Swimming - 7 Sacraments
8 Maids a Milking - Is this the Beatitudes?
9 Ladies Dancing - ?
10 Lords a Leaping - 10 commandments
11 Pipers Piping - ?
12 Drummers Drumming - 12 Apostles
Click to expand...
Actually, it wasn’t an Aglican opposition, it was a law that forbade the celebration of Christmas that stemmed from the Puritans that prompted teh 12 days of Christmas.
 
Steadfast said:
Which is why the thread about how one Catholic poster prefers atheists and pagans to Protestants really galled me.
Click to expand...
That really is sad.

I seem to remember hearing in school (many many years ago) that the war in which the most Americans died was the Civil War – the one in which they were killing each other.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Why can’t you use the term “debate” to describe what I do? I’m not here to argue.

As a fellow Christian, am I not deserving of the same charity?

Why don’t you post something here that you disagree with…something that a “real’’ Catholic Apologist wrote and we can “debate” it.

Peace
Click to expand...
I am sorry, I just had to giggle at the bolded statement here…

Jimmy,
See your OP and title of this thread:

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

That is why they use the term ‘argue’ because you made your assertion and based your OP on this. You TYPE that you aren’t here to argue but your posts say something MUCH different. 🤷
 
Singinbeauty said:
I am sorry, I just had to giggle at the bolded statement here…

Jimmy,
See your OP and title of this thread:

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

That is why they use the term ‘argue’ because you made your assertion and based your OP on this. You TYPE that you aren’t here to argue but your posts say something MUCH different. 🤷
Click to expand...
Ok :rolleyes:
 
ralphinal said:
In the era before electrical or even gas lights, it was DARK at night. In fact, the way we measure light, lumin, in connected to the visibility of a single candle from a certain distance.

Now, in those days, when a loved one was out past dusk, a single candle was left in the window to show them where home was. The phrase exists today, most notably in an REO Speedwagon song.

During the oppression, a candle was left in one window of the home (east I think) to tell wandering priests that the home was safe.
Click to expand...
**Feel free to open a thread on the catholic forum to share these. I love them. Thank you for this one. :love: **
 
Ok, you guys got me…good one, that’s not what I meant but I too see what you’re saying. :takethat:

I don’t know about that Jimmy B….I got my eye on him.:cool:

How about someone here, posting a comment from a Catholic Apologist that they disagree with and tell us why they disagree?

Unless, that is… you are “ascared” of the real Catholic Apologists. I believe some of you here are and that is the point of this thread. It’s difficult to win a fight… when that fight is against the truth.

Merry Christmas everyone and thank you for putting up with me. this last year.🙂

Peace
 
I also wouldn’t describe him as a “devoted” Protestant. Like Elizabeth before him, his church affiliation was as much a matter of political necessity and practicality as anything else.

This is not to say that he was not a Christian. He was, and he was a Protestant Christian, but it needs to be remembered that he ruled during a time when Puritanism was forming and rising. It’s difficult to see “devotedness” in any terms other than relative to those who would have “reformation in the church without tarrying”.

Whatever may be the case, he was no where near as “devoted” to Protestantism as, say, his contemporary Gustavus Adolphus, the King of Sweden.
 
Jimmy_B said:
Ok, you guys got me…good one, that’s not what I meant but I too see what you’re saying. :takethat:

I don’t know about that Jimmy B….I got my eye on him.:cool:

How about someone here, posting a comment from a Catholic Apologist that they disagree with and tell us why they disagree?

Unless, that is… you are “ascared” of the real Catholic Apologists. I believe some of you here are and that is the point of this thread. It’s difficult to win a fight… when that fight is against the truth.

Merry Christmas everyone and thank you for putting up with me. this last year.🙂

Peace
Click to expand...
Here’s a pretty sorry attempt at justifying Purgatory with the Bible:

*catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).*

The works are burned up; this does not support temporal punishment in any way. This says nothing about fire touching the person at all. Man, that was easy.

yet another paragaph that draws conclusions not supported by a passage:

CATHOLIC: I agree that we cannot say that everything present in Judaism before Christ is something that applies to our state after Christ. Even so, the indication in Maccabees of purification after death is not a precept but a belief, and so it is not in the same category as dietary laws. Furthermore, the New Testament shows a continuity with this idea. For example, Matthew 12:32 says that some people who sin “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This suggests that there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death, then this passage doesn’t make much sense.

Forgiveness in the age to come suggests absolutely nothing about a purgation process after death. It could be that Jesus just snaps his fingers.
 
ckempston said:
Here’s a pretty sorry attempt at justifying Purgatory with the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).

The works are burned up; this does not support temporal punishment in any way. This says nothing about fire touching the person at all. Man, that was easy.

yet another paragaph that draws conclusions not supported by a passage:

CATHOLIC: I agree that we cannot say that everything present in Judaism before Christ is something that applies to our state after Christ. Even so, the indication in Maccabees of purification after death is not a precept but a belief, and so it is not in the same category as dietary laws. Furthermore, the New Testament shows a continuity with this idea. For example, Matthew 12:32 says that some people who sin “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” This suggests that there are some sins that will be forgiven in the age to come. If there is no purification after death, then this passage doesn’t make much sense.

Forgiveness in the age to come suggests absolutely nothing about a purgation process after death. It could be that Jesus just snaps his fingers.
Click to expand...
But do you agree that purification by fire is not an unfamiliar concept in Scripture. i.e. Baptism by fire.
This concept is not without Scriptural precedence.
 
ckempston said:
Here’s a pretty sorry attempt at justifying Purgatory with the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

CATHOLIC: Look at 1 Corinthians 3:14–15: “If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” You see, the Latinate word purgatory means a purgation or burning by fire. Paul in these verses refers to a purgation process whereby a man is saved even though his works are burned away. This is precisely what the Catholic Church teaches. A person at death who still has personal faults is prevented from entering into heaven because he is not completely purified. He must go through a period of purgation in order to be made clean, for nothing unclean will enter heaven (cf. Rev. 21:27).

The works are burned up; this does not support temporal punishment in any way. This says nothing about fire touching the person at all. Man, that was easy.
Click to expand...
But look at the end of the verse “though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire”.

Sounds like Purgatory to me.
 
 
ckempston said:
Here’s a pretty sorry attempt at justifying Purgatory with the Bible:

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0511sbs.asp

…
Click to expand...
Hello ckempston,

I posted several Bible verses yesterday, which touch on this subject…I thought for sure there would be one or two verses there that you might want to comment on.

Is there any verse that you do not think goes towards explaining Purgatory? If so, let me know which verse(s) and I will elaborate.

I enjoy defending Catholicism, using the Catholic Book…the Bible. 👍

Peace
 
Jimmy_B said:
Hello ckempston,

I posted several Bible verses yesterday, which touch on this subject…I thought for sure there would be one or two verses there that you might want to comment on.

Is there any verse that you do not think goes towards explaining Purgatory? If so, let me know which verse(s) and I will elaborate.

I enjoy defending Catholicism, using the Catholic Book…the Bible. 👍

Peace
Click to expand...
Hi Jimmy,

I have a question about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, which is something of a stumbling block for me. I accept that it’s possible to adduce various Bible verses to support the doctrine. But am I right in asserting that the existence of purgatory wasn’t declared as doctrine in the West until well after the Schism of 1054? The Eastern Orthodox Church insists that purgatory does not exist and that fact is certainly a consideration for an inquirer like me. However, I’m trying to get my mind around the Catholic understanding of purgatory.

It seems to me that purgatory is perhaps best described as a “temporary hell.” It hurts like hell but it won’t last forever, some might say. In Catholic thought, then, purgatory is a place where people are purged – that is, they are punished for the bad things that they did while they lived on earth. When they’re completely purged, they can progress into heaven.

Well, if I’ve got that right, it seems to follow that the best a Catholic can hope for after death – assuming he or she doesn’t get martyred, which I’m led to believe is the only route by which a sane adult Catholic may gain direct entry into heaven at the point of his or her death – is to be sent away by God to suffer for an indeterminate but presumably lengthy time in a temporary hell.

The thing is – assuming I’ve correctly grasped all the implications of the doctrine – this simply doesn’t sound like good news. I guess what I’m struggling with is the fact that Christ didn’t make it crystal–clear that there is this intermediary place after death that most people can count on heading for. The doctrine wasn’t developed until centuries after Christ walked the earth. That doesn’t necessarily make the doctrine wrong. But it does make it rather more difficult to believe. Have you ever had doubts about this doctrine based on the thought process I’ve just outlined? I daresay such a train of thought has occurred to you at one time or another.

Cordially,
Mick
👍
 
SSTeacher said:
Hi Jimmy,

I have a question about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, which is something of a stumbling block for me. I accept that it’s possible to adduce various Bible verses to support the doctrine. But am I right in asserting that the existence of purgatory wasn’t declared as doctrine in the West until well after the Schism of 1054? The Eastern Orthodox Church insists that purgatory does not exist and that fact is certainly a consideration for an inquirer like me. However, I’m trying to get my mind around the Catholic understanding of purgatory.

It seems to me that purgatory is perhaps best described as a “temporary hell.” It hurts like hell but it won’t last forever, some might say. In Catholic thought, then, purgatory is a place where people are purged – that is, they are punished for the bad things that they did while they lived on earth. When they’re completely purged, they can progress into heaven.

Well, if I’ve got that right, it seems to follow that the best a Catholic can hope for after death – assuming he or she doesn’t get martyred, which I’m led to believe is the only route by which a sane adult Catholic may gain direct entry into heaven at the point of his or her death – is to be sent away by God to suffer for an indeterminate but presumably lengthy time in a temporary hell.

The thing is – assuming I’ve correctly grasped all the implications of the doctrine – this simply doesn’t sound like good news. I guess what I’m struggling with is the fact that Christ didn’t make it crystal–clear that there is this intermediary place after death that most people can count on heading for. The doctrine wasn’t developed until centuries after Christ walked the earth. That doesn’t necessarily make the doctrine wrong. But it does make it rather more difficult to believe. Have you ever had doubts about this doctrine based on the thought process I’ve just outlined? I daresay such a train of thought has occurred to you at one time or another.

Cordially,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
Don’t get confused about something needing to be declared as official doctrine in response to a heretical charge against it with creating new doctrine. At the council of Trent they had to officially state the canon in response to reformers who were claiming that books accepted as part of the canon for the past 1000 - 1200 were never really part of it. That doesn’t mean that they added those books, they were simply officially protecting what had already been there. Make sense? Just because the doctrine of Purgatory was officially preserved at one point in time does not mean it was not in existence until that point in time.

Secondly, purgatory is in NO WAY a temporary Hell. Hell is Hell b/c you are without God for eternity, no longer with any chance to change your situation. God is with you in Purgatory, just not in the same way that He is in Heaven (just as God is with us now on Earth, etc.) Purgatory is a purge, a cleaning, not a punishment. The suffering comes into play in that you are very close to Heaven, just not there yet. It is not possible for the stains of sin to enter Heaven, therefore Purgatory. It might feel like a punishment (I don’t know, never been there), but that is not it’s intention. Purge and punish are not the same things.

I think even moreso than some of the apologists books you’re seeking out, the Catechism of the Catholic Church would help you quite a bit!

(I know, I keep suggesting more books, sorry :rolleyes: )
 
One more thing: Christ didn’t make it crystal clear in the Bible. But you’re kind of over needing it to BE crystal clear in the Bible, aren’t you?

To me He made it very crystal clear through the authority of His Church, which speaks not only through the Bible, but through Sacred Tradition as well.
 
SSTeacher said:
…Have you ever had doubts about this doctrine based on the thought process I’ve just outlined? …👍
Click to expand...
Hello SSTeacher,

No, why would I… or why should I?

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

Do you see what I am saying here?

Thank you for your post.

Merry Christmas!
 
SSTeacher said:
Hi Jimmy,

I have a question about the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, which is something of a stumbling block for me. I accept that it’s possible to adduce various Bible verses to support the doctrine. But am I right in asserting that the existence of purgatory wasn’t declared as doctrine in the West until well after the Schism of 1054? The Eastern Orthodox Church insists that purgatory does not exist and that fact is certainly a consideration for an inquirer like me. However, I’m trying to get my mind around the Catholic understanding of purgatory.

It seems to me that purgatory is perhaps best described as a “temporary hell.” It hurts like hell but it won’t last forever, some might say. In Catholic thought, then, purgatory is a place where people are purged – that is, they are punished for the bad things that they did while they lived on earth. When they’re completely purged, they can progress into heaven.

Well, if I’ve got that right, it seems to follow that the best a Catholic can hope for after death – assuming he or she doesn’t get martyred, which I’m led to believe is the only route by which a sane adult Catholic may gain direct entry into heaven at the point of his or her death – is to be sent away by God to suffer for an indeterminate but presumably lengthy time in a temporary hell.

The thing is – assuming I’ve correctly grasped all the implications of the doctrine – this simply doesn’t sound like good news. I guess what I’m struggling with is the fact that Christ didn’t make it crystal–clear that there is this intermediary place after death that most people can count on heading for. The doctrine wasn’t developed until centuries after Christ walked the earth. That doesn’t necessarily make the doctrine wrong. But it does make it rather more difficult to believe. Have you ever had doubts about this doctrine based on the thought process I’ve just outlined? I daresay such a train of thought has occurred to you at one time or another.

Cordially,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top