It does not sound like the writer fully understands. No Catholic is allowed to dissent on any defined doctrine and remain in the Church. The organization must remain unified to retain the four essential marks of the Church: 1. one, 2. holy, 3. catholic, and 4. apostolic.
Here is the proof text for purgatory:
"Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." (1 Cor. 3:13-15)
The key is “defined.” Do you know how many verses of the Bible have been infallibly defined, and do you know for sure how many infallible declarations there are?
Rome actually makes very few binding statements about what purgatory is, and due to the lack of Scriptural support, what it does state took centuries to formulate, and any Scriptural support is extrapolated from a few vague and misunderstood texts.
As for your proof text, has that been infallibly defined to say that? Or is this you interpretation, which is one of 6 interpretations?
This actually is a poor choice if one seeks to defend purgatory by it, as contextually the issue is “how” one builds the church, with the fire being in relation to rewards, with loss of rewards being suffered according to how much one built Christ church by carnality, NOT one being purified from personal faults.
Leading up to this Paul speaks about how he “planted, and Apollos watered; but God gave the increase,” (v. 6) and “According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. “ (1 Corinthians 3:10)
The larger context is that the Corinthians were building the church with carnal membership, even tolerating a man living in an incestuous relationship with his mother, a capital crime under Moses. (1Cor. 5; Lv. 20) Which certainly relates to the subject of this thread. Thus the temple referred to in v. 17 is that of the church, and is what the Corinthians were warned of.
Scripture does foretell of every person receiving for the things done in his body, but as regards the elect, 1Cor. 3:10-17 most clearly deals with such, and nothing is shown as to making more satisfaction for sins to God than what Christ made, or purifying torments, but there will be tears when one sees at the judgment of 1Cor. 3:10-17 how much more he could have gloried Christ but did not.
In addition, while the N.T. speaks about chastisement for sin(s), which can be very grievous i know, yet the location of postmortem believers is always shown to be with the Lord, (Luke 23:43; 2 Cor 5:8; Rv. 6:9) wherever it is addressed, including all who will be raptured. (1Thes. 4:17)
In contrast, Gregory even said that the fire of Purgatory is the same as the fire of hell: and hence they are in the same place
Moreover,, chastisement and refinement for holiness is only shown as connected to this life, (1Cor. 11:29-32; 1Pt. 5:9,10) and the only further punishment for sins after death is seen in the warning against continued will-full sinning after conversion, and is unto perdition, and which is punitive, not purifying. (Heb. 10:19-39)
In the world to come, as regards the 1,000 year reign of Christ, though one need not hold to that, there will be punishment for sin, but this doe not refer purification of believers.(Zech. 14:17,18)
Other text may be invoked, but to do not established purgatory, as it is really based upon Tradition, and Rome’s self-proclaimed authority, not Scripture, and even then Orthodox reject Rome’s version as being unTraditional. See post 270 above.
All of which is in contrast to expiation for sins being made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” And which leads to a bureaucratic system of salvation in which sssisting with devotion at the procession of the holy Rosary obtains 7 years and 7 quarantines of indulgence; Or “with faith, piety and love” saying “My lord and my God” at the elevation of the host during Mass (7 years); Kissing the Pope’s (300-day indulgence, but a bishop’s gets only 50); Ascending the holy stairs in Rome on one’s knees, “whilst meditating on the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ” (9 years per step). Among others
Canon 915 - Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
Sadly, Archbishop Chaput has indicated that it is the responsibility of the communicant to stay away from the Communion Rail. This is not correct. Rather, it is the responsibility of the Minister of the Eucharist to deny Holy Communion. This is a huge difference that goes against the Church's teachings regarding canon 915 as well as recent statements from the Vatican stating that the manifest pro-abortion politicians must be denied, and the burden IS upon the Minister to deny, NOT upon the communicant to stay away
. -- from the thread Will Denver Catholic Archbishop finally enforce Canon 915?
"...there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' -- from the thread [Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion
Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard says it is "unfair and imprudent" to conclude that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and his girlfriend, Sandra Lee, shouldn't receive Communion simply because they're living together. -- from the thread Bishop: None of your business (Hubbard rejects Catholic expert's criticism of Gov. Cuomo)
[Archbishop Timothy Dolan] also does not outright deny the sacrament to dissenting Catholic lawmakers, but he is seen as an outspoken defender of church orthodoxy in a style favored by many theological conservatives.Related threads:
-- from the thread US bishops elect NYC archbishop as head in upset (Catholic bloggers blamed)
But you agreed with the writer on Calvin being a sodomite ... so he MUST be correct right?