Replies

[note] ping to SR for reason of having borrowed from a recent discussion/posting of his. see below link

Post an example or say, you don't have one

That's your argument? After all these years here, and countless of thousands of posts we've all seen on the RF?

No. Valid challenges & scriptural proofs have been brought forth repeatedly, only to end up on the same sort of merry-go-round I previously gave some description for. I'm supposed to pretend it's a new day, and start afresh each and every time? Like last week, last month, last year, five years ago, ten years ago here, never happened. Right.

1 Cor 3:8-10 describes a soul being cleansed of inferior works that adhere to it. The soul then enters heaven.

Care to try again? Here is 1 Cor 3:8-10:

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

10 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.

In fuller context of the entire chapter we see Paul speaking of foundational works, then works built upon those.

There is no hint there that the "works" will somehow be soulishly clinging, but instead it is conveyed the works themselves will be judged.

I'm having a flash-back, deja vu moment right about now, as it comes to me this EXACT same point has been discussed here on these pages before...
"Clinging works" vs. the plainer, more literal yet possibly metaphorical textual reading of the works themselves being tried by fire., albeit the ending of verse

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
There is the "...but he himself shall be saved;yet so by fire".

Is that the portion in which is read into or alleged to be "clearly seen" the clinging of works to one's soul? This "clinging" you claim is a part of it, and "clearly seen". yea, right. If the Purgatory doctrine is 'etched into one's eyeballs' before reading it perhaps, as another here on FR once mentioned in regards to some RCC scriptural interpretation.

In the text, there is mention of reward given (for those good works, withstanding the test of fire it is safe for us to "understand") and loss (of what was built that failed the "test") yet these precepts still do not show us Purgatory where one must be coaxed, led into "purging" such as the Jesuit Hardon described.

I must say though, Roman Catholic theology can be slippery-er than a bucket-full of slime eels...

No it is a part of both oral and written Tradition as evidenced by the scripture I cited.

Underwhelming, to say the least.

"... I gave you two examples: the disciplinary/ritualistic aspects of the liturgy, such as the

proepr form of the Holy Eucharist, and phenomena not foreseeable in antiquity, such as human cloning."

Proper form of the Eucharist? One needs to have thrown Augustine under the bus to get where the RCC took it, including the sacerdotal-ism claims of their being able to "confect" the wafer into being something other than that which he speaks of, below, with this borrowed from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2942154/posts?q=1&;page=240#240

"But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord Himself, when He was speaking in praise of this same earth, said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing.”. . .It seemed unto them hard that He said, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, ye have no life in you:” they received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the Lord would cut off parts from His body, and give unto them; and they said, “This is a hard saying.”. . .But He instructed them, and saith unto them, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” Understand spiritually what I have said; ye are not to eat this body which ye see; nor to drink that blood which they who will crucify Me shall pour forth. I have commended unto you a certain mystery; spiritually understood, it will quicken. Although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood." (Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Psalm 99, Section 8).

I notice Augustine uses scripture rather than imagining or inventing extended explanation.
If instead of taking Eucharist doctrinal statements to where they did later, it would have saved much needless misunderstanding if they'd hewed more closely to Augustine's exposition ---

That he has been abandoned for the most part in this particular regard, is partial demonstration of how the magisterium has over-reached over the centuries, changing, adding, "unpacking", conveying to others they have sole powers, which they themselves do not truly posses.

I myself have discerned the presence of the Spirit of the Lord be stirred within while taking of the Supper, yet that does not mean that the one whom consecrated the "bread" was himself fully vested with powers to change it's substance.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

More borrowed again from the above provided link;

For here also He has used both terms of Himself, flesh and spirit; and He distinguished the spirit from what is of the flesh in order that they might believe not only in what was visible in Him, but in what was invisible, and so understand that what He says is not fleshly, but spiritual. For for how many would the body suffice as food, for it to become meat even for the whole world? But this is why He mentioned the ascending of the Son of Man into heaven; namely, to draw them off from their corporeal idea, and that from thenceforth they might understand that the aforesaid flesh was heavenly from above, and spiritual meat, to be given at His hands. For `what I have said unto you,' says He, `is spirit and life;' as much as to say, `what is manifested, and to be given for the salvation of the world, is the flesh which I wear. But this, and the blood from it, shall be given to you spiritually at My hands as meat, so as to be imparted spiritually in each one, and to become for all a preservative to resurrection of life eternal.' Athanasius, ad Serap. iv. 19, concerning John 6:62-64

Was a bumpety-bump heard when the proto-bus wagon wheels went a-rollin' over poor 'ol Athanasius? His above words are illuminating. It is from Christ's hands we are fed.

At the Last Supper, in the upper room, Christ is not written or said to have had them kneel before Himself, and pop the bread (which He broke) into their mouths like they were little birdies, either. He handed it to them.

We see today the RCC agrees that "in the hand" can be proper, yet for long years, wasn't that NOT the case? ...we still have today on this forum the uber Catholics here suggest that to be the only proper way...regardless if there had been some previous allowance for "in the hand". What was pushed was something else. Kneel and receive like little birdies being fed from momma/papa Big Bird.

You may tell me all about "the proper way" if you wish, but I must tell you sir, I do think I have heard it all before. Much in the same way as you yourself have read or "heard" the sort of objections which I have displayed once again, above.

MThat's your argument? After all these years here, and countless of thousands of posts we've all seen on the RF?

No

Yes, and I have seen plenty of these, and rebutted what I saw. Countless attempts of Protestants to malign the Catholic doctrine prove nothing about the Catholic doctrine. I understand, however why you don't want to answer the challenge.

There is no hint there that the "works" will somehow be soulishly clinging, but instead it is conveyed the works themselves will be judged.

I am sorry, I gave, from memory, wrong verse numbers. It had to be 8-15 as I originally posted in my 31.

To answer, in verse 9 we have the metaphor established: "you are God's building". Next, St. Paul continues with the metaphor: "if any man build upon this foundation..." (12). This shows a Christian building up his life, the one that is going to be judged. The quality of his work "shall be revealed in fire". That is the judgment. "If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward" (14), that is immediate entry into heaven (where rewards vary). "If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss" (15); observe, the work burns but it is the man himself suffering the loss. That answers your puzzlement how is it that the works are "clinging". The work is the man, inseparable from him because the man in the metaphor adopted by St. Paul is the building and the works are parts of the building that burn. Finally, "he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire" (15) -- it is therefore not punishment of hell fire but the saving Purgatorial fire.

deja vu moment

Me too. You guys, like wind-up monkeys repeat the same set of phoney arguments: it's works that burn, where is the redemptive blood of Christ in that, and then as the final argument you guys play dumb. I can make posts about 1 Cor. 3:8-15 and Purgatory all day long now, as fast as I can type.

these precepts still do not show us Purgatory where one must be coaxed, led into "purging"

That is the playing dumb part. No, 1 Cor 3:8-15 does not show, exactly, coaxing. It does not say anything about the mis-en-scene at all. It is scripture, not a soap opera, you know. You expected different? Maybe in the AWANA class, not here.

Proper form of the Eucharist?

Yes, that would be an example where the Church has authority and the Bible does not say anything. I skip the tangent I caused you, -- did not ask for it.

He handed it to them

Right. On that part, no one argues. The priest hands the Holy Eucharist. The arguments are: should one kneel; should one receive on the tongue? Should the bread use yeast? Should the host and the cup be offered? if so, mixed? Since you don't have the Holy Eucharist I understand you would not care, but Catholic Christians care. By the way, the tray with tiny cups of grape juice? seriously?

I have heard it all before. Much in the same way as you yourself have read or "heard" the sort of objections

Indeed. I write for the reader, not for the Protestant obfuscator on hand.