And as you assert that the Catholic authority is the Catechism then are you saying it cannot contain errors, or be in need of correction? How do you interpret it being a “sure norm for teaching the faith?"
not commentaries to bad translations by Catholic quislings, whose name is legion.
What you are teaching is that according to you, in certain cases RC Bishops who grant the stamps are in league with the enemy, and that what constitutes official Roman Catholic doctrine is open to interpretations.
Many Catholics invoke the Nihil Obstat ("nothing stands in the way" for dissemination) and Imprimatur (“let it be printed") as providing assurance that such does not contradicts Catholic doctrine, that is contrary to the Faith, but is free of doctrinal or moral error, as part of their promotion of Rome as providing surety of doctrine in a comprehensive manner. Others call it a rubber stamp, at least when it contradicts them, and we often need to find out from Roman Catholics what their interpretation is as to what constituents official Roman Catholic doctrine (and often its meaning).
As is typically explained,
The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”
This latter part is interpreted that,
While at first glance this statement might seem contradictory, an example might be that of a Roman Catholic work that offered parenting advice — the advice may not be morally wrong or contradict Roman Catholic doctrine, but it might not reflect the views on parenting of the censor or bishop.) Imprimaturs are not automatically transferrable to later versions of a work. Any new edition also requires a new imprimatur to be obtained. The imprimatur can be revoked if, upon further examination, any doctrinal or moral error is found to be contained in the work. http://aquietmoment.wordpress.com/2007/07/25/imprimi-potest-nihil-obstat-imprimatur/
In any case, your own Catechism places significant weight on such approval:
The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the “objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their “okay” if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” ¶ 822-832)
Cannot law also states, “Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.” 9 825 §1) — http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2Q.HTM
The fact that canon law requires that this and other certain categories of writings must receive the bishop’s authorization to be published does not allow this to be relegated to be a rubber stamp, or for it to often approve works which are in error, without sowing confusion and impugning on apologetical claims of perspicuity and consistency.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites 1 Cor. 3 as biblical support for the purgatory.
the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire. 605 Cf. ⇒ 1 Cor 3:15; ⇒ 1 Pet 1:7.
This can be understood as only invoking it insofar as fire being purifying, just as the use of 2 Macc 12:46 need not mean this directly supports purgatory and making atonement for men who died because of idolatry, which is what the text teaches (and I know the special pleading responses). The New Catholic Answers Bible states, 12, 42-46: “This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v 42) and sacrifices (v 43) for the dead are beneficial. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Mc 7,9. 14. 23. 36)....His belief was similar to, but not quite the same, as the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.”
Zachary J. Hayes, retired teacher of theology at the Catholic Theological Union states, "Since the text seems to be more concerned with helping the fallen soldiers to participate in the resurrection of the dead, it is not a direct statement of the later doctrine of purgatory" (Zachary J. Hayes, Four Views On Hell (Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1996) p. 105).
Unless you can prove that every reference in the CCC means they are interpreting said verse as supporting the entire doctrine, versus an aspect of it, then Catholics must allow the interpretation of their brethren and cease to contend that Rome sees 1Cor. 3 as directly referring to purgatory. .
In support of this only being used to support the aspect of fire being purgative, the second reference is to 1 Pet 1:7: “That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” And the subject here is present afflictions “accomplished in your brethren that are in the world” But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you, (1Pt. 5:9,10) unto praise and honor and glory in the day of Christ. And which is always associated with the realization of conformity to Christ for NT believers, (1Jn. 3:2) not a perfection through a postmortem process, but instead the postmortem condition for believers is most clearly that of being in paradise, (Lk. 24:43) with Christ, (Phil. 1:23) with the Lord. (2Cor. 5:7; 1Thes. 4:17)
In any case, i only referenced your sources in condescending to Catholic and as revealing the teaching of the magisterium on one level, while my supreme authority must be Scripture, and which your CCC authority only weakly attempts to support purgatory by.
As I pointed out, it consents with the Catechism; it is an interpretation on which the consensus exists at least in the Western Church. Again, 1 Cor 3 is the answer to the question "where is purgatory taught"?
You do not show it is only consenting in one aspect, while the “consensus,” for what it is worth, i have not seen. And in any case, whoever believes 1Cor. 3 directly refers to Rome's purgatory is in exegetical error.
>your interpretation [does not] have the required “unanimous consent of the fathers.”<
When I see you converting to authentic Christianity, Eastern or Western we can discuss the patristics on the purgatory as brothers
It is your church which you promote that requires this, but as it can autocratically define non-unanimous to be the“unanimous consent” of the fathers, as well as history, etc. as supporting her as needed, then we must rely upon the only established transcendent material source which is perpetually infallibility, the Scriptures.
>(2Tim. 2:19) and there is no waiting for getting into Heaven now,<
If it ws written to refute something the Church teaches, kindly try again.
What is was being refuted was your belief that “The judgment here is at the time of the return of Christ's return” would mean that people will suffer the purgatorial fire then, and being is contrary to the particular judgment of everyone immediately upon one's death, and thus going into purgatory (though this is waived for the canonized as per Rome). My response, as was my argument, was that there is no wait to enter Heaven now, but to die or be caught up is to be present with the Lord, to await the time of the dead and giving of reward unto God's servants, (Rv. 11:18) which 1Cor. 3 and other texts conflate with
Since the Church does not style all church goers as saints,
Since Scripture does
but rather sees in sanctification a life long process,..
Also.
You see a difference because you don't understand Catohlic anthropology.
It is because the use of saint, or sanctified one, is a exhortation and an encouragement to live out what practically what they are positionally; “ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.“ (1Cor. 6:11) Not that you deny this in a real sense, but along with other texts which most clearly speak of the postmortem state of believers without distinction, Scripture shows that the faith by which the Corinthians were saints, and accepted in the Beloved., (Eph. 1:6) is what gains one entrance into Heaven at death, versus the need for an actualized practical perfection, although true saving faith is one that effects holiness, and necessary things which accompany salvation.
The Corinthians, as many as were believers, were washed, sanctified and justified, “For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” (Heb. 10:14) and likewise spiritually were placed in Heaven, and while they were not perfectly conformed to Christ in character, yet Paul made no distinction between them and himself as to whom he would be with upon death, (“we” 2Cor. 5:5-18) and as said, the 1st century believers would have been with the Lord immediately if the Lord had returned in their lifetime. (1Thes. 4:17) One either has saving faith at death or he does not. Salvation by grace through faith is not that one by grace becomes morally practically perfect in heart holiness in order to be accepted by and be with God, but is accepted in the Beloved by faith which justifies the unGodly, (Rm., 4:5) though it is a faith that will work righteousness in seeking to live out what he is in Christ, and which faith endures in this world.
The Church is the mother of all Christians.
RCAs seem compelled to assert Rome to be the Church ©, and you interpret Lumen Gentium as meaning one must truly be a Catholic at death to be saved, and you sanction Rome's killing men like Tyndale, but your assertions do not makes it so, or appealing, and does not convince us former faithful Catholics who know both sides.
No becase "every man" is called to be a building himself, which building is tested...St. Paul writes to more than one person, but he says that "if any man build upon this foundation" and then "every man's work", so the building might be a common one, but it is the person of the builder that is tested.
In context there is a distinction between the building and builders and their works, these being converts, true or false. And while these will be tried by fire in some way, this only reveals what “sort” they are, but the subject is loss or gain of rewards, and it is the second party who is rewarded based upon whether his converts, the 3rd party, have been found to be true, or they lose rewards if they were found false. This is counted as loss, and not a loss that gains him heaven, but he is saved despite losing converts. And if it was souls in purgatory who were being purified, then it would have to include lost souls.
It is true that every good work build the Church, and every Protestant effort at exegesis aims to destroy it. This is why one should not collaborate with the Protestants in matters of faith.
I agree with the latter, but because as is increasingly manifest, it is the wrested extrapolated efforts at exegesis by souls bound to defend Rome at any cost of credibility and reason that works to destroy it, and such are actually arguments against Rome.
The purgatorial suffering is for those who for various reasons died while their purification in this life was not complete.
In Scripture, the place of purification is in this world which is set forth as the place of testing, and in which one is tempted to give into the lust of pleasure, possession and power, prestige, as tempted by their “old man” and the devil, and “the corruption that is in the world through lust,” (2Pt. 1:4) But death is used as signifying a cessation from sin, “he that is dead is freed from sin,” (Rm. 6:1-7) to be with the Lord, even if one has not already attained to full practical perfection. And believers are to follow Christ, who in this world was “made perfect through sufferings” (Heb. 2:10; 5:9) — as “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb. 4:15) — as it is this world that believers groan, and desire to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.
Too late for more.
This can be understood as only invoking it insofar as fire being purifying
Bingo. That is all the Purgatory is: purification preceding the entry into Heaven,necessary for some but perhaps not for all.
As to the lines of authority in the Church, trust me, they are not limited to the comments to some half-baked American translation of the Holy Scripture. If you have a direct question, I will be glad to answer.
Two attempts at thought.
(1)The souls in purgatory ARE freed from sin. Honestly, read Dante. This whole conversation is made more difficult that need be because you guys get the ‘vibe’ wrong. Dante presents Purgatory as joyful!
(2) The other vibe, that a lot of Catholics get wrong too, is the persistent idea of a top down, legislative or executive Vatican and a set of faith and morals teachings laid out like the income tax code.
I was just checking the Catholic Encyclopedia on Semi-Pelagianism and was struck once again how it’s not like that at ALL! It’s way more fermenty and diverse! For most people most of the time,the rules and doctrines that matter are easily known. It’s when people start thinking about tricky questions and disagreeing that somebody appeals to “The Vatican”. Then, often reluctantly, a decision is made.
Even decision or acts which look like “bold, new initiatives” — like, say, the outreach to Anglicans — are responses to problems posed to the Holy See.
I think a lot of non-Catholics (We’ve GOT to come up with a term that ruffles no feathers and denotes Christians who are not Catholics or Orthodox) have the idea that everything can be derived from the Scriptures. And that leads to an approach which is somewhat like geometry, with its first principles and derived theorems. So they expect to find similar first principles and to derive Catholic faith and practice from those.
But in “real life” it’s not like that. It’s way less defined, less static and mathematical, more dynamic, fluid, even biological.
Oh well. I must pretend to work.