Posted on 08/12/2007 7:03:32 AM PDT by Ottofire
Seems I indirectly started a series on the Scriptures (and assumed “Scripture” verses) which are alleged to support purgatory. I think I will stay on this subject for awhile. I figure that if a refutation of the doctrine is to be made, it starts with the Scriptures Catholics claim imply a purgatory. With this in mind we go to 2 Timothy 1:16-19 which reads:
May the Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus, because he often refreshed me, and he was not ashamed of my chain, but having come to Rome, he more diligently sought and found me. May the Lord give to him to find mercy from the Lord in that Day. And in what things he served in Ephesus, you know very well.
The argument usually goes like this:
From the context, it seems certain that Onesiphorus is dead (This is also the opinion of the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible; vol 3; p 603). Paul praises his Christian friend, Onesiphorus, for his good work, but notice Paul does not presume immediate entrance into heaven for his dear friend (Even if Onesiphorus is not dead, Paul still asks the Lord to be merciful). Why be merciful, if all Christians go straight to heaven? We either have Paul praying for a dead person, or we have him interceding for him for mercy on his judgment day. In either case, purgatory alone can explain such thoughts of Paul. If there is no purgatory, then Christians go straight to heaven, which is the popular Protestant belief. If this is so, then Paul's remarks are totally off base; it would be meaningless to ask mercy for Onesiphorus. Purgatory alone makes the passage coherent (see here Purgatory).
Onesiphorus was very faithful. In spite of Paul’s situation (remember Paul was chained to a soldier), he not only sought him out, but did so diligently. Paul was very thankful for his faithful disciple and bestowed his blessing upon him and his family. The context of the passage doesn’t really reveal if Onesiphorus is alive or dead. Paul could have easily stated the same if Onesiphorus was away or jailed; thus he bestows these blessing upon his family residing in Ephesus. The Roman Catholic priest who wrote this allows for the possibility that Onesiphorus is alive, which is a rarity considering many do not waver and claim he is dead. Yet, Catholic tradition state that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D. (see here: St. Onesiphorus) and considering that these sources place Paul’s death at around 67 A.D. (see here: St. Paul) this would place Onesiphorus’ death some 14 years AFTER Paul. For those who insist that Onesiphorus is dead in the passage, this would be a case where a Catholic tradition contradicts Catholic apologetics.
Yet, the writer assumes that a purgatory is implied even if Onesiphorus is alive and he bases this on Paul’s prayer for mercy on “that Day.” This is a leap in logic considering that God can grant mercy at the general Judgment without the need for a purgatory. This would entail reading purgatory into the verse. There is no reason to jump this far considering that the fact that God allows us into heaven is based on His mercy. But why did Paul specifically pray for mercy upon Onesiphorus, especially if there was no reason to? It can be gathered from the context of the verse that Paul was merely being reciprocal to the house of Onesiphorus. In other words, he prays for mercy upon Onesiphorus because Onesiphorus had mercy on him with his visits. There is no need to inflict purgatory into the verses when there is nothing which lends to it.
In closing, I must mention that, according to Rome, the majority of us will endure purgatory. Only the saints and those who die in martyrdom will bypass it. Scripture evidently speaks of a heaven and a hell, but for purgatory, where the majority will go, it’s odd that the writers can only muster “implications.” That's quite an oversight. Indeed, it is odd that one could only muster implications considering its importance in the afterlife. Asides from its absence in Scripture, we realize that for almost two centuries there was nothing which even remotely resembled afterlife purgatorial thought, Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the first to indulge a concept of it with its fruition coming in the 12th century.
Posted by Churchmouse at 8:05 PM 4 comments
>Any and all discussion about Purgatory, from a scriptural basis, is already moot since the Protestants stacked the deck against any such discussion, when they removed 2 Macc from the Canon of Scripture.
>Period. End of story. Although for anyone who knows this historical fact, it should actually end the story in the Catholic’s favor, since it’s intellectual dishonesty in the least to say otherwise.
Anyone want to go through the ‘net and look up how many of the ECF’s didn’t want the apocrypha included in the scripture? But these are the same people that were taught that Purgatory existed by the apostles, no? Why were they stacking the deck against the Roman Church too? You are not suggesting that they were time-travelling protestants, are you? Perhaps they did not get taught the doctrine of Purgatory either? Perhaps that is why when Paul goes through the Gospel pretty completely in 1 Corinthians 15, the doctrine is never mentioned, and the Roman church has to cherry pick passages to find SOMETHING that suggests it, when it is not in the context...
That's all we honor her for. But that's a lot. You SEEM (but I think it is not so) to have a debased view of motherhood and of family. We honor all mothers and do not consider Mary a baby-producing machine, a surrogate womb, to be cast aside after she bears and suckles her Son.
We think motherhood is or ought to be held in high esteem, is or ought to be sacred, and that good mothers enjoy an intimacy with their children which is unlike any other.
And because we think that Jesus was truly human, we think Mary was truly His mother and therefore she enjoyed (and still enjoys) an intimacy with Jesus which we can scarcely imagine.
And we think that ALL loving relationships with Jesus are granted by God's grace and favor and that loving and being loved by Jesus is the supreme hope and joy of all humanity. So Mary, who - by God's grace and favor - loves and is loved by Jesus enjoys all He can give her.
You seem to think that He is a neglectful Son -- I'm sure you don't, but that's how it looks to me -- who would not give His mother all He had to give. We think he did and in honoring her we also rejoice with her in the gifts her Son gave her. Do you not hope one day to be sinless through the act of God in Jesus? Do you not hope to be resurrected and beyond death, again through the act of God in Jesus? If you do, then our main disagreement is about timing.
Those are our hopes, and, loving the Son, we love both the Father and the Mother.
We remember the woman with the issue of blood who touched only Christ's garment and was healed. We recall those who touched the tassels of his clothes and were made whole. And, remembering those things, we consider what it means that Mary enclosed the Son of God in her womb, and nourished Him secretly, hiddenly, and experienced maternal union with Him who is the hope of Israel and the Saviour of the world. We remember what Jesus said about feeding the least of his brethren, and we know that Mary fed not His brethren, but Jesus Himself. She fed and sheltered Him from the moment of His conception. We think this is no small thing.
We do not think Mary saves us, we do not think she bestows gifts -- except through Her prayers to the God to whom she has made a total gift of herself so that she cannot will other than in accord with His will.
Mary herself would tell you to quit crossing yourself and start weeping on your knees!!!!!
!!!!!!!! yourself!
How about if we cross ourselves AND weep on our knees? Is that okay with you?
Do you think you can do what you want and then say a few hail marys and cross oneself and then think you are all good!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!
No we don't. But thanks for asking, instead of telling us what we believe.
Wherever did you get the idea that we do? Why do people say ridiculous things about the Catholic Church and hurl accusations at us without troubling even to try to see if what they say is true? You are big on Scripture. What would you say to someone who made accusations about what you believe without trying to find out whether the accusations have a basis in fact? Here's what Scripture says:
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.(I note that in your list of things we must renounce, you do not include "falsehood and the bearing of false witness." Why is that?)
Did all the ECF's you suggest exist oppose a body of books they called the "apocrypha", or did some oppose these books while others opposed some other book or group of books. Your argument seems over-specific.
And, of course, the main counter-argument is that there were ECFs who opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian definition and all manner of things. The existence of ECFs who oppose something the Church did may inform us about what She did and why, but doesn't indicate that she was wrong to do it.
"Cherry picking" is a polemical term used to describe the way people one disagrees with read Scripture. A Catholic might as well accuse some protestants of "cherry picking" because they tend to slide over "horate hoti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon," but of course the truth is that we approach Scripture differently and mean different things by "proving from Scripture."
But these observations are useless to those who prefer discord to discourse.
An excellent response Mad Dawg, but I’d like to add this if I may:
One must be careful when reading the writings of the ECF’s with regards to the Canon and also books that were considered “apocryphal”. The term “apocryphal” was used back then (and still today in some scholarly circles) to mean anything that wasn’t CLEARLY Scripture.
There were 3 classes of possible Scriptural writings when the Canon was being determined: 1. Protocanonical - those books accepted by everyone today, iow, undisputed Scripture 2. Deuterocanonical - that Scripture (2 Macc is one) that was disputed at some time, but long ago (ie, much before the “Reformation”) was accepted as Scripture and 3. Apocryphal books - those never accepted by the Church, such as the “Gospel of Judas”.
Now, it’s important to note here that the terms above (EXCEPT APOCRYPHA) were NOT used at the time of the ECF’s. Thus, any book that wasn’t part of the protocanon would be lumped in to the category of “apocrypha” or “apocryphal”. IOW, there was “Scripture” and there was “Apocrypha”.
However, again, these two distinctions don’t have the same meaning as today. And indeed, while there was some dispute among the ECF’s about the veracity of some (of what we call today) DEUTEROCANONICAL books, they were EVENTUALLY ACCEPTED. IOW, anytime you see an ECF refer to a book we Catholics call the “deuterocanon” as “apocryphal” they are NOT using the same terminology we use today, and thus, an implication of disparagement cannot be inferred simply from the use of the term.
One of the things that I tripped over in my early days was that when Episcopalians say "apocrypha" they mean, "Come 'ere, Lover boy," No, wait, I mean they mean those books which you are classifying as deuterocanonical, while those books which we Calflicks call apocryphal were, in my Episcopal seminary bookstore called Pseudepigrapha. (And If I'd had $100+ dollars at hand I would have bought an amazing book with all or most of them bound together.)
Am I more or less right?
But your comment is very helpful. One difficulty in conversations of this kind is that it is like conversation between Captain Cook and Sandwich Islanders: Everybody is assuming that,"Well, EVERYBODY knows X," when it turns out that X means one thing to us and another quite different thing to them.
Exactly, and hopefully Ottofire understands this now.
I once saw a book like you described in a used bookstore; all the apocryphal books in one binding, it was only $10 but at the time I was in my "I don't care about church history, all that matters is I'm saved now" time. (Yes, before returning to the Church, I was one of those non-denominational Christians that believed in OSAS, so why do research on the Church when I'm already saved?)
Definitely one of my top 10 things I'd do differently if I had that Rovian-time machine many libs "know" exist.
He already discussed it in 1 Cor 3.
>Are you saying that all the ECFs who didn’t want the apocrypha included in the canon opposed “it” on the grounds that it provided sources for arguments in favor of Purgatory? (If so, would that be what you call an “empty claim”?)
I reread my post (41), and don’t think you need a infallible interpreter to see what I meant. Some ECF’s agreed with the protestants that the apocryphal books were not scripture, which was in response to:
>> >Any and all discussion about Purgatory, from a scriptural basis, is already moot since the Protestants stacked the deck against any such discussion, when they removed 2 Macc from the Canon of Scripture.
>>Period. End of story. Although for anyone who knows this historical fact, it should actually end the story in the Catholic’s favor, since it’s intellectual dishonesty in the least to say otherwise.
Many ECF’s removed 2 Macc from the Canon of Scripture. Period. End of story. If I was to be arrogant, I would suggest that “Although for anyone who knows this historical fact, it should actually end the story in the reformers favor, since it’s intellectual dishonesty in the least to say otherwise.”
You said I was being intellectually dishonest, and as such suggest that any response to you otherwise is lying. I show that some ECF’s agree with the reformers, were they intellectually dishonest too? Or perhaps the ECF’s disagreed with each other, and not until the Roman Bishop gathered his power and usurped the authority given to the other bishops in the universal faith (1 Nicea, canon 6) did the story slowly change over 1500 years to support a ungainly and ungodly monster...until we have the Bishop of Rome as he is now. Myth can seem like fact over time.
>He already discussed it in 1 Cor 3.
Is that an infallible reading of the text? I don’t know if you can actually say that this supports the doctrine of Purgatory if the RCC hasn’t infallibly interpreted it.
...otherwise you are just becoming your own pope. We don’t need another protestant denomination on this side of the pool, we are crowded enough already. :oP
>And, of course, the main counter-argument is that there were ECFs who opposed the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Chalcedonian definition and all manner of things. The existence of ECFs who oppose something the Church did may inform us about what She did and why, but doesn’t indicate that she was wrong to do it.
Okay, now this argument of yours is throwing doubt on the apostolic traditions, as the ECF’s were apostolicaly taught. If they were so, then what right does Rome have to say which teaching is right and which is not? How do we know that the apostles didn’t contradict each other? Were they totally infallible, and if they all have the keys are all their successors infallible also?
Um...I use apocrypha rather than deuterocanonical books due to the fact that the apocrypha is not canon. Many of the ECF’s, by name, say that the books in question are not canon. Some do.
Note that those that actually could read Hebrew, and were well versed in the books rejected them, Jerome most notable. Even the Jews rejected them. Luther actually placed them in his translation, but noted that they were not scripture...
You said I was being intellectually dishonest,
Please check and show me where exactly I, Mad Dawg, said you were intellectually dishonest and then get back to me and we can continue the discussion.
>Please check and show me where exactly I, Mad Dawg, said you were intellectually dishonest and then get back to me and we can continue the discussion.
Oops. I am confusing you with your fellow catholic apologist and brother in faith, Fourtyseven...sorry. You catholics all look the same to me... :o)
I know, I know, the RCC is perfectly fine with excommunicating protestants for disagreeing with their doctrines, but if the ECF’s say something contrary to the de fide’s which happen to support the protestant claims, then it is okay for THEM to disagree with the Magisterium. Are you going to go with the “it’s okay, because the pope hadn’t decreed that it was wrong” theory?
You just made a very bitter accusation about me that was false and was owing to your carelessness. 47's comment was directed to a class of people. You chose to take it personally and to direct your injured rage at me.
When your error was caught, you joked about it. I don't think it's funny.
Second, have you googled "Tertullian Purgatory" yet?
Third, disagreement among the ECFs CLEARLY can have nothing to do with either the teaching about Apostolic Succession or about Papal Infallibility. Think about it, do you think the formulators of those doctrines didn't know that the ECF's disagreed on various matters?
Fourth, There's a distinction between willful heresy and sincere error. There's a gradation of ways and culpability for divergence with orthodoxy. It is hard for me to believe either that you do not think so or that you think we do not think so.
Fifth, you brought up papal infallibility and apostolic succession when I made an argument about the meaning of the fact which you adduced of disagreement among the ECFs. My question was: were you alleging that the reason some ECFs wanted to rule out some b books in what we can call the apocrypha if it makes you feel better -- the name doesn't alter the reality either way -- because those books had verse which might support the teaching about purgatory? The guy who attributed to me something NOT said by another poster told me to go back and re-read what you had posted. My question still stands, because those of us who are here to reason instead of to vent rage would like to understand the shape of the argument. Who knows, if there were a reasonable Protestant maybe my mind would be changed. It took us maybe 4 centuries to get over the Reformation. I thought that was bad, but some of you guys are still so angry that one concludes that the main part of their religiosity is attacking Catholics.
So, Sixth, let me humble myself and toss you a sop to your wrath by asking you a question. Those books you call apocryphal, were they not, for the most part if not entirely, written in Greek? It was my opinion and my recollection, possibly faulty, from the Protestant seminary I attended that one standard used for their exclusion was that there were no original Hebrew texts.
Now, if I'm correct about that (which may not be the case) I don't see what the expertise in Hebrew of some of those ECF's who rejected those books has to do with the question?
I have been reminded here on FR that the so-called Conference of Jamnia was in response to Xtianity and that books were rejected not merely because of the absence of a Hebrew original but because they seemed to come in mighty handy in providing proof-texts for those pesky Xtians. You say, Even the Jews rejected them. We'd say, "Of COURSE the Jews rejected them. Rejection by the Jews is a fact that can be used both ways.
Here's another sop for you. If somebody gave me the assignment of defending the doctrine of purgatory on the basis of II Tim 1:16-19, I'd ask for another assignment.
As to your question about infallibility:
Okay, now this argument of yours is throwing doubt on the apostolic traditions, as the ECF’s were apostolicaly taught. If they were so, then what right does Rome have to say which teaching is right and which is not? How do we know that the apostles didn’t contradict each other? Were they totally infallible, and if they all have the keys are all their successors infallible also?Are you serious? We KNOW the Apostles disagreed with one another. They called a council to settle a disagreement, for crying out loud. In this hostile environment, I'm afraid to give an account of papal infallibility and of apostolic succession, and I'm scarcely qualified to do so, but I'm sure we can get one for you if you'd like. As it is, it looks like a red herring. If we put up a disagreement the subject gets changed to another controversial teaching. You cite SOME ECF's to support something, I suggest that there is another way to look at what the meaning of an ECF disagreement might be, and like the hydra, you bring up apostolic succession and papal infallibility, whose connection with the argument is unclear, but which gives the impression that you think the fact of disagreement is something my side cannot acknowledge. I don't get it, or I'm afraid I DO get it.
Finally, I really have a problem with attacking doctrines without making some effort to understand them. Too often, and this happens on both sides, the other side's view is presented as only something a demented fool would profess and then attacked. As an example which has NOT happened here yet, Protestants triumphantly declare that if Mary did not sin, she wouldn't need a savior, while the doctrine for the Immaculate Conception as promulgated states that BECAUSE Jesus saved her she was without sin. There's plenty to question in the doctrine, as there is plenty to question in much of what we teach, but let's at least try to aim our barbs and our rage at existent targets. After you falsely and carelessly accused me, you said
Myth can seem like fact over time.
I'd add that among the myths which seem like fact are those falsehoods which each side says about the other in these disputes. It seems to me it might be good to try to get things right.
And I still think that churchmouse is mistaken in saying that nobody mentioned Purgatorial type thinking Before Origen and Clement and that he is imprecise to the point of fogginess when he says "according to Rome". A lot of Protestants seem to have an idea of what Catholics think of the developing articulation and specification of doctrine that doesn't comport with reality.
Let's try again, shall we? I think, as I said at first, that it's a careless article, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from discussing some of the issues it raises. But if the object of the game is to dodge and duck and to call names, include me out. I think I can give as good as I get, but what's the point?
False logic, because I submit my opinions to those of the magisterium.
>Look, let’s go over this.
>You just made a very bitter accusation about me that was false and was owing to your carelessness. 47’s comment was directed to a class of people. You chose to take it personally and to direct your injured rage at me.
>When your error was caught, you joked about it. I don’t think it’s funny.
Sorry that you cannot find it in your heart to be charitable. I probably sent the post that was directed at 47 to you. Oops, it happens. 47 needs to defend it, not you.
>Second, have you googled “Tertullian Purgatory” yet?
Don’t need to. Your position is that the RCC has traveled through the centuries unchanged. Tertullian? He actually stated the full doctrine of Purgatory with the treasury of merit and Mary and the saints? Wow, I sure don’t see that in the quotes. But the scripture is clear. Sin is removed fully with the blood of the Savior. And Paul and Luke make clear that their teaching is fully in the scripture, and sorry, what you are talking about is not.
>Third, disagreement among the ECFs CLEARLY can have nothing to do with either the teaching about Apostolic Succession or about Papal Infallibility. Think about it, do you think the formulators of those doctrines didn’t know that the ECF’s disagreed on various matters?
Actually EVERY discussion betwixt the Roman and the Reformer is that of the Roman Church’s authority to change the meaning of things as it pleases. After the RCC changes Mary to a co-redeemer, you will be forced to say that the apostles did teach it from the beginning or else you will be sitting on the curb with Gerry Matatics, mumbling about how you got left by the bus.
>Fourth, There’s a distinction between willful heresy and sincere error. There’s a gradation of ways and culpability for divergence with orthodoxy. It is hard for me to believe either that you do not think so or that you think we do not think so.
The difference betwixt the two is neglegible. Is the sincere Mormon in heresy? They are taught the same things that the Romans are. Follow the church teachings and you will be saved, break and you will not. Follow what the bible says alone and you are going to hell or somewhere not in heaven.
>Fifth, you brought up papal infallibility and apostolic succession when I made an argument about the meaning of the fact which you adduced of disagreement among the ECFs. My question was: were you alleging that the reason some ECFs wanted to rule out some b books in what we can call the apocrypha if it makes you feel better — the name doesn’t alter the reality either way — because those books had verse which might support the teaching about purgatory? The guy who attributed to me something NOT said by another poster told me to go back and re-read what you had posted. My question still stands, because those of us who are here to reason instead of to vent rage would like to understand the shape of the argument. Who knows, if there were a reasonable Protestant maybe my mind would be changed. It took us maybe 4 centuries to get over the Reformation. I thought that was bad, but some of you guys are still so angry that one concludes that the main part of their religiosity is attacking Catholics.
I said that the ECF’s mostly disagreed on the canon. If the Church is unchanging since Pentecost, then many of the ECF’s were obviously not walking perfectly with the church. If they were wrong on this, (and is there ANY ECF that agrees with all the modern doctrines of the church?) then how do we know that they were right on anything? Rome saying just doesn’t cut it, since the scriptures disagree with much of what Rome says. Again, you do not answer the questions, just ask for a rephrase.
>So, Sixth, let me humble myself and toss you a sop to your wrath by asking you a question. Those books you call apocryphal, were they not, for the most part if not entirely, written in Greek? It was my opinion and my recollection, possibly faulty, from the Protestant seminary I attended that one standard used for their exclusion was that there were no original Hebrew texts.
Rage? Wrath? I guess you are reading me in the worst possible way. Sorry you cannot see my enjoyment of discussing theology.
As for the language of the books in question, it is more important to who actually had contact with the Jews. Those that did knew that the Jews did not feel that they were canon. Thus those that knew Hebrew and learned that language from the Jews, such as Jerome, knew that they used them as non-scriptural, but important books.
>Let’s try again, shall we? I think, as I said at first, that it’s a careless article, but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from discussing some of the issues it raises. But if the object of the game is to dodge and duck and to call names, include me out. I think I can give as good as I get, but what’s the point?
Hey, if you think this is the dodge and duck game, I am sorry. If you think that is all I was doing, then I was not being clear. Yes, discussing religion gets all involved emotionally heated.
>>I don’t know if you can actually say that this supports the doctrine of Purgatory if the RCC hasn’t infallibly interpreted it....otherwise you are just becoming your own pope.
>False logic, because I submit my opinions to those of the magisterium.
Has the Magisterium given infallible interpretation on this scripture? If not, are you straying off the reservation a bit?
I think you're making a false assumption, which is that I am not permitted to have an opinion about a Scripture passage unless that opinion is supported by an infallible magisterial declaration.
I am not permitted to have an opinion about a Scripture passage which contradicts an infallible magisterial declaration. That is not the same thing at all.
In this particular case, both Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 483) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 1031) cite 1 Cor 3:15 in support of the dogma of purgatory.
Maybe you like to raise your concerns about "straying off the reservation a bit" with them? :-0
Why do you set up the opinions of 2nd Century Jewish rabbis (opinions for which we have no evidence prior to Our Lord's crucifixion) as authoritative over the Church of Christ?
Isn't this really just another flavor of the Judaizing error Paul condemns in Romans and Galatians?
The Church of Christ had all authority given to her by her Risen Master on Pentecost day. From that day forward, the opinions of Jews are as authoritative over the Church of Christ as the opinions of Buddhists or Zoroastrians ... which is to say, not at all.
You cite Jerome as some kind of sacrosanct authority on the deuterocanon, but Jerome bowed to the will of the Pope of Rome and included the deuterocanonicals in the Vulgate. You don't consider Jerome an authority on any other point of doctrine, e.g., his vigorous defense of the perpetual virginity of Mary, but you want to attach his prestige to your cause when he agrees with you on the deuterocanon. I find that rather strange.
You do not know that. And that's a personal characterization AND mind-reading, hence the ping to the RM. My understanding is that we don't play that way here. I was hoping for a frank apology for your error, not a crack about Catholics looking alike.
Sometime we might discuss whether charity requires pretending offenses did not exist.
Second, have you googled “Tertullian Purgatory” yet?You asked for a citation and said that without one my post wass an empty claim but now you say you don't need to know? It's not so much that I don't understand as that I fear I understand all too well.
Don’t need to.
Your position is that the RCC has traveled through the centuries unchanged.
No, that is not my position. Instead of making an "empty claim" about my position, remember Cardinal Newman and consider that development is a kind of change.
I wonder if we'll we ever get to discuss what the Catholic Church actually teaches rather than the mistaken over-simplifications which some Protestants try to attribute to us.
After the RCC changes Mary to a co-redeemer, you will be forced to say that the apostles did teach it from the beginning or else you will be sitting on the curb with Gerry Matatics, mumbling about how you got left by the bus.
Again, you are arguing against some fantasy, not the reality of the Catholic Church. For example, I have discussed Aquinas's take on the Immaculate conception and have not had to pretend anything about it even though he was against it as it was finally promulgated. I wasn't forced to pretend anything.
They [the Mormons] are taught the same things that the Romans are. Follow the church teachings and you will be saved, break and you will not. Follow what the [B]ible says alone and you are going to hell or somewhere not in heaven.
That's another misstatement of Catholic teaching and yet another 'empty claim' contradicted as recently as a few weeks ago by the clarification of Dominus Jesus. I am reminded of dealing with Harvard graduates or most Ph.D.s They know so much that isn't so that there seems to be no hope of their ever listening or learning what is in fact so. The Church you are condemning may exist somewhere, but it is not the Catholic Church.
And yes, someone who first demands a citation from Tertullian, then says he doesn't need a citation, and then characterizes what Tertullian does or does not say (Tertullian? He actually stated the full doctrine of Purgatory with the treasury of merit and Mary and the saints? Wow, I sure don’t see that in the quotes.) in the citation he did not need does not persuade me that he is interested in anything other than dodge and duck and certainly does not seem as interested in discussing theology as in a kind of polemical counting coup and trading of insults and mischaracterizations. That is a game I don't much care to play.
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.