Posted on 04/27/2021 5:25:46 AM PDT by Old Yeller
The Church is not about the people ... it's about Jesus Christ. People are sinners. Every church has them. No, we do not have to accept the sins of the past that were committed by people within the Church.
Just reading his exact words:.. WATER and SPIRIT
I do comprehend the written word.
“Sadly true, however unlike you and your comrades we are not defending any “one true church” “
No protestants just defend their own heretical versions of the True Church
Yo Yo Ma?
Yeah Nicodemus understood it that way and Jesus corrected him.
Protestants who object to Purgatory don’t understand (or refuse to understand or listen) to what it really is and the teaching of the Church throughout the centuries. Here is a great explanation, with scripture references and a history of the doctrine.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/purgatory
Read and understand or keep throwing out slogans. Y’all’s choice.
Thanks for the great link, very interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZRj-CleopA&t=1019s
Watch this, then get back to me. It’s a really good watch.
The astonishing reality of God's Grace to us is that once we are Justified by HIM, there is no thing we can or can't do that will remove our Justification by Him for us. So even the blasphemy of thinking you can eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus will not cancel the Justification God does, for He is God Justifying you to Himself, not you justifying you to God.
ONLY God can Justify someone to Himself and there are no works by you or me that count in that because even if we thought we were doing works of righteousness, without actual righteousness in us by His imputing Christ's righteousness to us, we are not capable of doing any works of actual righteousness.
But first we must start shining up now, just to make it to Purgatory.
Besides not being a belief of the NT church of Scripture, the doctrine of RC Purgatory is clearly not that which is taught by "unanimous consent of the fathers," and has actually been a process of development. While hell is Scripturally taught as a actual place in which lost souls are in a state of torment, (Luke 16:19-31) men like Tertullian held that their equivalent of purgatory was a place, a "prison of Hell," teaching of Abraham's bosom, that,
"Although it is not in heaven, it is yet higher than hell, and is appointed to afford an interval of rest to the souls of the righteous, until the consummation of all things shall complete the resurrection of all men with the 'full recompense of their reward.'" (Against Marcion, 4:34) (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:34, before 220 A.D.),
And Jacques Le Goff further explains:
"Between Tertullian's refrigerium interim [a region of the afterlife some believers go to] and Purgatory there is a difference not only of kind - for Tertullian it is a matter of a restful wait until the Last Judgment, whereas with Purgatory it is a question of a trial that purifies because it is punitive and expiatory - but also of duration: souls remain in refrigerium until the resurrection but in Purgatory only as long as it takes to expiate their sins." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], pp. 47-48) Which refrigerium is akin to what EOs tend to profess.
Also,
"In this vision of the other world [advocated by Clement of Alexandria and Origen] a number of ingredients of the true Purgatory are lacking, however. No clear distinction is made between time in Purgatory and the time of the Last Judgment. This confusion is so troublesome that Origen is forced both to expand the end of the world and to collapse it into a single moment, while at the same time making its prospect imminent. Purgatory is not really distinguished from Hell, and there is no clear awareness that Purgatory is a temporary and provisional abode. The responsibility for postmortem purification is shared by the dead, with their weight of sin, and God, the benevolent judge of salvation; the living play no part. Finally, no place is designated as the place of purgatory. By making the purifying fire not only 'spiritual' but also 'invisible,' Origen prevented the imagination of the faithful from gaining a purchase on it." (The Birth of Purgatory [Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986], p. 57)
Origen erroneously imagines that 1 Cor. 3 refers to the equivalent of purgatory as a place, (Patres Groeci. XIII, col. 445, 448) but as clearly shown this cannot be Purgatory. And he also opines, "I think, therefore, that all the saints who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls... in each of which he will first see clearly what is done there, and in the second place, will discover the reason why things are so done: and thus he will in order pass through all gradations, following Him who hath passed into the heavens. (De Principiis, 2:11:6)
3rd century martyr Perpetua also taught that her vision of what Caths call purgatory was a place. "Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment." (Acts of the Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, Chapters iii-x)
Aphrahat (270-345) believed, “For when men die, the animal spirit is buried with the body, and sense is taken away from it, but the heavenly spirit that they receive goes according to its nature to Christ. And both these the Apostle has made known, for he said:–The body is buried in animal wise, and rises again in spiritual wise. The Spirit goes back again to Christ according to its nature, for the Apostle said again:–When we shall depart from the body we shall be with our Lord.
Polycarp refers to over a dozen deceased Christians, and he comments that all of them are in Heaven: that they are now in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead." (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 9) Polycarp would not know for sure if all of these people had completed their sanctification but would know they died in faith, and even people like the prophet Daniel and the apostle Paul confessed sins as being imperfect.
"not to mention Jewish faith. "
There is no purgatory in the Jewish faith of Scripture, nor Purgatory in 2 Mac. 121, as shown.
"There is also no intellectual justification for removing substantial parts of the Bible."
Rather, there was NO removal of any books from a settled canon, and Catholic sources themselves affirm the Protestant canon as being that of the ancient Jews, and since scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent then you are arrogantly presuming to reprove the many Catholics who also held to a smaller canon before Trent finally indisputably settled it for RCs.
Actuality read what i provided before you ignorantly parrot RC propaganda again.
"It is also incredibly ignorant to believe the Bible is divinely derived but that after 1,500 years so eone could remove substantial parts that didn’t conveniently fit his/their “theology”. "
More parroting, since Luther, as with others, has scholarly reasons for their rejection of certain books, yet Luther said his canon was his personal opinion that others could disagree with him, and translated and included apocryphal books in his Bible - even if your propaganda parrots do not tell you that. See
General
Luther's View of the Canon of Scripture
Luther Added The Word "Alone" To Romans 3:28?
Luther Deleted"Alone" from Romans 3:28?
Debate: Did Martin Luther Mistranslate Romans 3:28?
Dutch Research on Luther and the Bible
Luther's Lies about the Bible?
Luther Added Books to his Bible?
Luther and the Scriptures by J.M. Reu
Called To Communion on Luther's Canon
Father Mitch Pacwa and Luther's Canon
Luther: Is The Church Over Scripture?
"Luther removed books from the Canon" - a few replies
Infuriating Factoids
Luther: The Infallible Church Declared The Contents of Scripture?
The Canon: The Empty Arguments From the Defenders of Rome
A Response To Catholic Apologist Bob Klaus on Luther and Romans 3:28 (Part 1)
Luther's View Of The Canon: Dialog With Malcolm
Luther's Canon: A Response To "Catholic Dude" (Part one)
Luther's Canon: A Response to Catholic Dude (Part Two)
Luther's Canon: A Response To Catholic Dude (part Three)
Luther's Canon: A Response To Catholic Dude (Part Four)
The Evils of Private Interpretation: "There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads"
Steve Ray and Melanchthon on Keeping Books in the New Testament Canon
Luther's Response To, "I Would Not Believe The Gospel Without The Authority of Rome"
Alister McGrath on the Bible Answer Man
"Little about Luther’s celebrated translation may have been original"...so says Philip Blosser
Luther on the Perspicuity of Scripture
Luther: Sola Scriptura Had a "Devastating Effect"?
Luther: There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads
Luther Plagiarized His Translation of the Bible?
J.M. Reu: Luther's German Bible... now online
Luther Said There Were Errors in the Bible?
Cochlaeus on the Impact of Luther's Bible
Cajetan on the Canon: He's Ok Bcause He's One Of Us
" Part of which includes the heretical Sola Scriptura” which basically is a belief that God is not necessary for salvation, one may simply read the Bible and be assured that whatever they dream of as interpretation is solid theology."
Which is not what Sola Scriptura is, but is a strawman that befits your prevaricating polemics.
"This anti Christian belief has resulted in there being over 20,000 versions of Protestant theology. Does that really sound like God’s plan? The Catholic Church was begun by Jesus and there is a lineage known and recorded ftom the beginning to this day."
Which is also fallacious, since likewise under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible as the as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority. And those who do most strongly esteem Scripture thusly testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death. Catholicism is an unholy amalgamation of liberals and conservatives, and of conflicting interpretations of what valid church teaching is and means, and far less unified in than those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God, which Catholics attack as a basis for unity.
And as a web site popular among "RadTrad" RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/ sums up the RC situation, In response to the phenomenon of the Vatican II revolution, there are three essential lines of thought that have been proposed as “solutions” to understanding the situation. This is not now the place or time to critique or justify any of them. For now, we want to just describe them: (1) despite appearances, nothing has really substantially changed, and any interpretation of Vatican II that arrives at the conclusion that there has been a substantial change must be incorrect; (2) we must oppose (resist) these substantial changes and stick to the traditional, age-old teaching instead and ignore the Vatican II novelties while recognizing, however, that the authorities in the Vatican are legitimate and genuine Roman Catholic authorities — we just cannot agree with them on these points; (3) because it is impossible for the Catholic Church to change substantially, and because Vatican II constitutes such an impossible substantial change, it is necessary to conclude that the authority which gave us Vatican II is not in fact the legitimate Catholic authority; that is to say, the “Popes” which gave us Vatican II are not true Popes, nor are their successors, who have implemented and expanded this new religion that has its roots in the council. In fact, the entire religion that now occupies the Vatican and the official structures of the Catholic Church throughout the world is false — it is not the Catholic religion at all, and its putative authorities are not Catholics but heretical usurpers. Thus we have articles such as Is Catholicism about to break into three? Pope Says he Prays U.S.-Led Schism Can Be Thwarted
" The Catholic Church was begun by Jesus and there is a lineage known and recorded ftom the beginning to this day. "
Rather, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
"Some of the greatest minds in world history have given their lives in developing a fuller, richer theology. "
And justifying false doctrine, while the common people hear Jesus gladly. (Mk. 12:37)
Consider who this "great mind" rationalizes the lack of warrant for the assumption of the Assumption despite the lack of evidence:
Ratzinger confessed,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative. What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
How then can Rome rationalize making belief in the Assumption a binding doctrine? Why, by claiming,
But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously and was already handed down in the original Word,” J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
"Caught sight of" means seeing what is not there. Yet the actual basis for the claimed veracity of such decrees as the Assumption is NOT that Scripture substantiates it, but is bases upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
Thus as asserted by the founder of sophist "Catholic Answers,"
"...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true," -Karl Keating, founder of Catholic Answers; Catholicism and Fundamentalism San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988, p. 275)
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined(?) (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
The rest of your infomercial is worthless.
Another desperate false charge since you remain refuted since the age to come easily refers to Post "....the 1,000 year reign of Christ in which there will be sin and forgiveness of sins..." (156 )
Wrong again, since the only one true church is as said, it only and always consists of true believers, while the organic fellowships in which believers are to be part of end up being admixtures of wheat and chaff. Even a few pious penitent RCs of evangelical faith are in it.
LOL, looks like I touched a nerve.
Take the plank out of your eye before trying to get at the speck in mine.
You wanna talk about atrocities? Ask the Hugenauts. Oh wait, they’re dead because the Catholics slaughtered them. Okay, ask the Hussites. Oh wait, you can’t because the Catholics slaughtered them.
And that’s to say nothing of Catholic-approved idol worship and Catholic-approved buggery of children.
Luther never presided over an auto-da-fe.
Your church? Did.
" No, we do not have to accept the sins of the past that were committed by people within the Church. "
Why is that so hard for you to understand that if you are preaching/defending a particular one true organic church in which the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors,* then your must accept all that your leadership manifestly considers to be members, and defend such.
*'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3578348/posts?page=14#14)
Interesting, but right now i have other things to attend to. Later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.