Is There A Purgatory?

In Plain Site ^ | 02/26/2015 | Jason Engwer

[HossB86]

Actually she said nothing of the sort.

Time to stop playing with your straw men again.

Hoss

[Elsie]

... if you are not opposed to taking a walk on the Pentecostal wild side.

;^)

Are you a Trinity believing kind; or a Oneness Pentecostal?

[Elsie]

“The Catholic Church has never taught we “earn” our salvation.

It is true, however, that you must DO certain things and BELIEVE certain things to get it.

[Elsie]

I hope way day you come to know Christ. So far you apparently don’t know Him.

Seems a bit judgmental...

[CynicalBear]

>>So far you apparently don’t know Him.<<

Not the one who sinned by eating blood and hides behind His mother.

[RnMomof7]

Yes, there is which is exactly why Luther was so anxious to throw out the books of Maccabees based on his accepting the power and perfection of anti-Christ Pharisees and denying the power and perfection of the Holy Spirit.

Rome had not closed the canon until AFTER Luther..the Dutercannonicals were not considered "infallible" scripture by Jerome (that translated the OT for Rome).. it was put n a separate section as worthwhile reading

It was actually ADDED by Rome as a Purgatory proof ..not removed by Luther

FYI at the time of the reformation Luther actually BELIEVED in Purgatory .. and publicly stated so.. but as a trained theologian he did not believe you should make doctrine out of non infallible writings

[dartuser]

Oh you foolish Catholics. Having begun by faith, are you being perfected by the flesh?

lol ... And I would challenge the assertion that they even began by faith ...

[Rashputin]

Rome had not closed the canon until AFTER Luther.

Bunk. The Church established the canon over a thousand years piror to Luther even being born.

Protestants can play their games of making up councils of Jews that never took place, pretending the Church added something to Scripture after Luther, or whatever other trash they like to talk but it doesn't change the fact that well before Christ was born the Septuagint contained all the books the Catholic Church recognizes as being the Old Testament.

Protestants believe in the power and perfection of Pharisees, heretics like Luther, and all sorts of other things but the absolutely do not believe in the power and perfection of the Holy Spirit or they wouldn't deny that everything that was in the Septuagint (and therefore the OT the Catholic Church recognizes) is the inspired Word of God.

Anyone who wants to blaspheme the Holy Spirit by claiming the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word is, of course, free to do so.

[RnMomof7]

>>>>>>>>> Bunk. The Church established the canon over a thousand years piror to Luther even being born..<<<<<<<<

I SAID CLOSED CANON ...The canon was not CLOSED until the council of TRENT ...you need to learn YOUR church history

From EWTN http://www.ewtn.com/library/councils/trent4.htm

As I pointed out Jerome the RC translator of the OT into latin did not see the Apocrypha as INSPIRED scripture .. and he placed them in a seperate area of the Bible as worthwile teaching ..bit not doctrinal AS DID LUTHER ...
it is wise to know what one is talking about and just not repete romes talking points

[RnMomof7]

Notice no reply to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3261988/posts?page=72#72

[Elsie]

...The canon was not CLOSED until the council of TRENT ...you need to learn YOUR church history

"Don't know care much about his-to-ree...

Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.^[1]

Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.

Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy

Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy

Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.^[2]

Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.^[3]

Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony^[4]

Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bad_Popes

[Rashputin]

The canon of the OT is what was in the Septuagint and anyone who disagrees with that must assert that the Holy Spirit cannot and did not protect His Holy Word from the inclusion of error for about eighteen hundred years. That's roughly three hundred years prior to the birth of Christ and fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ.

Anyone who claims that's just a "talking point" is also claiming that the Holy Spirit is not perfect and therefore cannot be part of the Trinity which is in effect blaspheming the Holy Spirit as well as denying that the Trinity exists.

Facts are facts and the fact of the matter is that Protestants assert that anti-Christ, anti-Christian, Pharisees and their follower Martin Luther are all more perfect than the Holy Spirit

The desperation of Protestantism is clear when the fantasy of a Pharisee council was dreamed up in the eighteen seventies when older Hebrew language versions of several of the books Luther threw out were found and the claim that they shouldn't be included because they weren't written in Hebrew was shown to be nothing but more trash from Luther and his pals.

Until a nitwit heretic like Luther claimed he had the right to alter the canon there was no need to "close" or otherwise confirm what had been accepted for eighteen hundred years which means the BS about it not being closed is just more of the same Protestant revolt againist Christ smokescreen that claiming Luther could alter the canon is.

Typical Protestant circular reasoning : Luther changed the canon so when the Church affirmed that he had no right to do so it "proves" Luther had the right to do so.

Someone can play games all they like but denying that what is in the Septuagint is the inspired Word of God is denying the the perfection of the Holy Spirit. PERIOD

[RnMomof7]

I think that understanding that the canon was not CLOSED ( meaning additions and subtractions could be done ) is pretty fundamental..

Reading Trent makes that clear and Trent was a response to Luther

Note that the the Orthodox Canon is different than Rome . But, taking the Council of Trent literally, it is not invalidated by their decree.

Here is a list of litany of post-Jerome Western theologians who held to a shorter canon, including many luminaries:

• Cardinal Cajetan (1469-1534);
• Primasius (died c. 560);
• Gregory the Great (bishop of Rome 590-604);
• Venerable Bede (c. 672 - 735);
• Agobard of Lyons (c. 779 - 840);
• Alcuin (c. 735 - 804);
• Wilafrid Strabo (c. 808 - 849);
• Haymo of Halberstadt (d. 853);
• Ambrose of Autpert (c. 9th century);
• Radulphus Flaviacensis (Webster and a couple of people reliant on Webster refer to him as "Radulphus Flavicencius" and "Radulphus Flavicencius" and mistakenly place him in the 10th century) (get the book) (fl. 1157);
• Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1096 - 1141);
• Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173);
• John of Salisbury (c. 1115 - 1176);
• Peter Cellensis (d. 1183, successor of John of Salisbury);
• Rupert of Deutz (c. 1075 - 1129);
• Honorius of Autun aka Augustodunensis (c. 1080/1090 - 1150);
• Peter Comestor (d. c. 1179);
• Peter "the Venerable" Mauritius (c. 1092-1156);
• Adam Scotus (c. 1140 - 1212);
• Hugh of St. Cher (c. 1200-1263);
• Philip of Harvengt (d. 1183);
• Nicholas of Lyra (c. 1270 - 1340);
• William of Ockham (c. 1287 - 1347);
• Antoninus ("Saint") (c. 1389 - 1459);
• Alonso Tostado (c. 1400 - 1455);
• Dionysius (Denys) the Carthusian (c. 1402 - 1471);
• Thomas "Walden" Netter (c. 1375 - 1430);
• Jean Driedo (d. 1535);
• John Ferus (c. 1497 - 1554); and
• Jacobus Faber Stapulensis (c. 1455 - 1536).

(see the endnotes here, for documentation of these assertions)

Webster also points out that the edition of the Bible printed by Cardinal Ximines and approved by Pope Leo X, followed Jerome and included all of Jerome's prologues, including those identifying the apocrypha as extra-canonical.

Webster's work in regard to documenting the existence of the shorter canon of Scripture down through history is notable, but is not the first such effort.  The great Anglican bishop of Durham, John Cosin, provided "A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture," which was first published in 1657.  The works of the editor in attempting to verify and document Cosin's citations in the edition from Cosin's works (linked above) was itself an enormous effort.

I believe that Webster probably was at least partially reliant on Cosin in locating some of the many testimonies of the medieval authors.  The result of Cosin's and Webster's work, however, is quite impressive.

And it is by no means exhaustive.  In a later post we may explore at least one area where Webster's research can be augmented.

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/12/william-webster-and-canon-of-old.html

[Rashputin]

And just where do the "Scripture Alone" folks claim Scripture says Luther, anti-Christ Pharisees, or individual Catholics, have the right to throw into the garbage what was accepted as Scripture when Christ was preaching and teaching?

Right after the verse that says the Holy Spirit cannot and will not protect His Word from the inclusion of error?

More noise and nothing but noise since from the folks who only accept the anti-Christ Pharisee Approved Luther Subset of Scripture.

It doesn't matter which individuals disagreed with what, the Septuagint was accepted by the Church as it was at the time Christ was walking the earth right through to today except by those who claim the Holy Spirit is both imperfect and incapable of doing what Jesus Christ promised the Holy Spirit would do.

Those who belive anti-Christ Pharisees and/or Martin Luther are more perfect than the Holy Spirit are, of course, free to make up whatever sort of excuse they like for blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[caww]

“I was wondering...
I guess I believe...
I’m more worried...
I have no illusions...
I worry about dying...
I’m worrying about the big stuff and what I can do to quit pushing the Lord away from me or pushing myself away from the Lord.”

These are not words one who understands the Gospel Message could say. Obviously ‘guessing’ that you belief what you’ve been taught hasn’t taught you what you need to know. Being full of worry reveals there’s no assurance of what you do believe.

I would simply advise you begin with the Gospel message itself....read it for yourself in the four “Gospels”..Matthew, Mark Like and John. Which tell us about Jesus. Go there with the idea of what He wants you to know and ask Him to reveal Himself to you as you read....The book of John is a good place to start for it teaches us of His love and forgiveness Which you need to grasp IMO.

Do stay with reading ... relax and enjoy the Master Teacher lifting His Word so that you do understand. I promise you you will not be disappointed if you stay with it and really want to know the truth He would have you know.

[caww]

To promote that purgatory is a necessary purification is to deny that the grace of God is sufficient.

1 John 1:9 says,..... “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

In 2 Corinthians 12:9, ....Paul said that ‘Christ’s Grace’ was sufficient for him.

Indeed, Christ’s grace is sufficient for us all. Praise God!

[caww]

...”We believe we are saved ONLY by the grace of Christ”....

What is Grace ....and how does it affect a believer?

[caww]

....” They seem to think that because they “belong” to what they claim is the one true church it’s a done deal”....

It's called practicing “Church-ianity” rather than Christianity. Their “relationship” is with Catholicism peppered with distorted and deceptive Christian lingo to make it palatable.

Their allegiance to the catholic church/Pope etc. (Rome) is no different then the same psychological attachments cult members have and are frequently exposed on these threads. So just as it's difficult for cultists to break away from cults, so to catholics who choose to believe what they are told and cannot come away from Catholicism.

They first have to ‘desire’ truth and reality. Otherwise it's much easier to remain part of the crowd they are ‘habitually’ attached to.

[L,TOWM]

Trinity all the way, ma’am. Father God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

[CynicalBear]

I understood long ago that it was I who would stand alone before that throne and not in some group that I had signed allegiance to. It’s Chris alone who I look to, no some organization run by fallible man.