The scriptural supports the Latins adduce (from books dropped from the canon by Luther who perferred the judgement of the Christ-denying rabbis who shortenned the Jewish canon to the judgement of the pre-Christian Jews of Alexandria and of the ancient and undivided Church) for this innovation all indeed support the usefulness of prayer on behalf of the departed. They do not, however, support the Latin doctrine of purgatory. In the East we pray for the dead to provide aid to them in the particular judgement (usually presented in the image of "the Tollhouses"), as a comfort even to those confined in hell, and in solidarity with those in blessedness.
By the way: the canon was officially fixed by the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, whose canons incorporate those of local councils which fixed the canon for local churches by reference. For the Latins Trent reiterated what was already part of the universal patrimony of all Christians--though their eccleiological theory fixes the canon on the basis of papal assent to the local councils, rather than the actions of the Holy Ecumenical Councils. (The Monophysites who rejected both councils also have the same canon, except for the Ethiopians who consider the Shepherd of Hermas, and I believe the Epistle of Barnabas and the Epistles of Pope Clement as canonical.)
The_Reader_David:
The scriptural supports the Latins adduce (from books dropped from the canon by Luther who perferred the judgement of the Christ-denying rabbis who shortenned the Jewish canon to the judgement of the pre-Christian Jews of Alexandria and of the ancient and undivided Church) for this innovation all indeed support the usefulness of prayer on behalf of the departed.
Ignoring the fact that the books in question didn't have full canonical status until after Trent, can you cite the passages in question, please? Can you show that Purgatory is a consistent teaching throughout Scripture, or do you have one or two references in a debatable book? And lastly, what then do you do with the thief to whom Jesus promised paradise that same day?
SoothingDave:
You sound so reasonable, I wonder why you have to include this piece of nonsense.
Perhaps because it is so often true. To date, of the dozens of Catholics that I have engaged on this forum, I have found a total of three willing to discuss the matters from the Holy Scripture, without the name-calling spoken of in my post. These three I happen to have great respect for. Those who give the kneejerk response, which is an evasion rather than a response, I have a hard time taking seriously. The point of my jibe was to head off that evasion before it started, and hopefully to prompt a few Catholics to deal with my position instead.
The position of whether priests can marry or not is a matter for the Church to decide. There is no great thrological question, the position is not infallible or etched in stone.
Except that it is etched in stone. Your position would not be as much of a problem in simply one denomination among many, but the RCC claims to be the one and only Church, and for a long time enforced its iron will with no alternative for those who lived in western Europe.
The fact remains that the RCC teaches one thing (celibacy), and the Scripture teaches another (marriage and children). Having one example in which there is no argument otherwise, why then should I or anyone else accept the RCC's teachings on salvation, Mary, the saints, Purgatory, or anything else as any less fallible?
Who would want a man who can't even rule his children to rule the Church? It is foolishness.
I agree. So does my father, who stepped down from his position as a deacon of our old church without compulsion from any of the elders after my brother came out of the closet. But this isn't the issue at hand. The issue is that the Bible allows for bishops and deacons to be married, and the RCC demands that they do otherwise. By what right does the RCC put a yoke of slavery on a man whom the Christ preached in the Scriptures has made free (against Gal. 5:1)?
patent:
You're one of the three I had in mind. Much of my response to Dave applies to your arguments as well: If Paul allowed the freedom for a bishop to have a wife, by what right does the papacy put the yoke of celibacy on him?
Nor, does he applaud married Bishops.
He assumes that bishops and deacons will be married. There is no hint that he ever considered celibacy to be a part of God's calling to the role of a teacher or elder of the Church.
Couple things, works of the law =OT, no?
In the context of Paul's struggle, yes. However, it is no more of a stretch to take the principles taught by the Apostles in the proper relationship between faith, works, and the Law and apply them to the RCC's particular brand of legalism (or to Seventh Day Adventism's, or the Watchtower's, or even some of the legalism in my own adopted denomination, the Southern Baptists [i.e. no dancing, no drinking, etc.]) than it is to see God's condemnation of child sacrifice in ancient Israel and extending it to include our present-day abomination of abortion.
They are the same thing, if you have true faith you obey Christ and do His commands, the works. If you have a false faith, if you carelessly rely on faith alone, but ignore the works, your faith is dead, and this is the faith alone that you are not justified by.
There are a couple of different takes on that relationship, but I think you've stated it well. However, when we are talking about "works" we do not mean, if we are learning from the Scripture, specific mandated external regulations and ceremonies. Consider the many Catholic holy days and fasts: If I do not keep them, do I sin or miss out on an indulgence? What if I have a steak on a Friday (as I just did)? On the contrary, that I do not feel compelled to keep them is actually commended as a show of strength and maturity in my belief (Rom. 14), and no one is allowed to judge me on that basis if they believe the Scriptures.
What then are the works that Scripture commends to us, if not the strict adherence to an external law? Faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6). "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. . . But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather serve one another in love" (vv. 1 and 13).
ThomasMore:
It seems that there is a fourth Catholic that I can add to my list of those who are willing to discuss the issues and the Scriptures! I haven't seen you on FR before, but it's a pleasure to engage you.
So let's talk about assured salvation. I am not entirely once-saved-always-saved in my theology, as I do believe that a man can apostatize from the faith, and Christ plainly said, "But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 10:33).
Yet Jesus also said of His followers, "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and the Father are one" (John 10:29-30). From that, Paul concluded, " For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38).
We cannot misplace our salvation, cannot be tricked out of it, can't lose it by committing our 491st sin of the day. However, we can purposefully walk away from it by denying Christ publicly before men (2 Tim. 2:11-13). Now, given the incredible pressure that Paul was under to do just that, is it any wonder that he should write as he did? And yet this same Paul also assured us, "Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, Abba, Father" (Eph. 4:6), and "If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him up for us all--how will He not also, along with Him, graciously give us all things?" (Rom. 8:31-32).
"Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."--Rom. 5:9.
Frankly, Paul doesn't sound all that lacking in confidence about his or anyone else's salvation (2 Tim. 4:7), provided that they remain in Christ and do not purposefully disown Him. That's a far cry from Catholic teaching that missing Mass without good reason constitutes a mortal sin that, should you be killed by a bus the following day, will land you in Hell. Indeed, how can a person be truly set free from the curse of the Law (Gal. 5:1) if he is still in fear of the condemnation of the Law?
There are far too numerous scripture quotes exhorting us to good works...
Yes, but you don't take them out of context (the rest of Scripture, which says that faith saves, not adherence to the Law or works) and put the cart before the horse. As I said, the works are the effect of the believer's faith, the demonstration of that faith to the world, not a supplement to the faith in any way, shape, or form to contribute to salvation.
SMEDLEYBUTLER:
It's always interesting to read and or hear a Protestant tell a Catholic what the Catholic Church believes and what the Bible, which the "Reformers" took from the Catholic Church and then edited to their liking, says.
It's similarly interesting to hear Catholics tell us what we believe, but let's not get into a spitting contest here. You try to nitpick at my argument (which was a reply to an argument that I have seen several Catholics on this forum advance) by citing all of the passages immediately surrounding the verses I cited, but not the one. What, I need to cut and paste whole pages of Scripture to make sure I don't leave a particular verse out that someone might use instead? How does this change the essence of my point at all?
Those who aspire to the priesthood are not forced to be celibate. They make that choice out of free will.
Uh-huh. And if they choose not to be celibate, are they still allowed to be priests? No? Then don't try to obfuscate the issue by calling a mandatory requirement a free choice! By whose authority is the freedom given to bishops to marry and have children, a freedom given by Christ and the Apostles, taken away from them?
Again, this isn't even a matter of the RCC adding to Scripture. It's a matter of Scripture saying one thing and Rome another. Which should I believe?
Sola Fide is bunk, based on Scripture.
I dealt with that in my original post, which you evidentially did not read very carefully. Go back, read my understanding of the proper relationship of faith and works, and then tell me just what the heck you do with John 3:16 and Gal. 2:16 if "faith alone" is bunk.
Yours in Truth,