Posted on 10/26/2012 2:28:43 PM PDT by NYer
I agree that many do, although I know nonCatholics who agree with the basic concept. I think JimRed summed it up quite nicely when he said, "God looks upon the heart."
What a beautiful way to express why we (well, at least me!) need purgatory. What are my sins if not a failure to love God in the way I should?
We know from scripture that sinners do not inherit the kingdom. If I sin then I am not yet ready to enter the kingdom even if I have accepted Jesus paid for all my sins. Purgatory isn't an acknowledgement that Jesus' blood was insufficient payment for my sins. It's acknowledgement that I don't yet love God as I should and my sins are evidence of that failure to love. If my love for God were perfect, I would never do the slightest thing to offend him or any of his other children.
Purgatory is where those last bits of me that resisted sanctification before death get cleansed away, allowing me to enter into God's glory able to love him in the way he wants me to love him. It's not about limitations on God's action. It's about my inability to love as God desires me to in his kingdom. I can't remove these obstacles on my own. I had a lifetime to do it and I failed. Finally in purgatory they get removed and I will at last be able to love God at the very deepest levels that he desires from me. "God looks upon the heart." Yes, I like that sentence very much :) Thanks, JimRed.
Peace be with you.
Same place as the Internet and beer in a can.
Inventions like "Scripture Alone", "Faith Alone", "sin boldly", contradicting Jesus Christ Himself, teaching that while incarnate in the flesh Christ was either stupid or a liar, approving of the murder of infants with contraceptives, denying that homosexual sex is a sin, "marrying" queers to one another, and many, many more.
Ever since Luther revived the heresy of Core and invented "Scripture Alone", those who follow in his footsteps sure have sought out inventions.
Good morning, Dutch.
I would suggest that you might think of it this way:
You and I are currently sinful. Nothing sinful shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, if you (or I if God is most merciful) shall be admitted to the Kingdom, there will be a process to adjust your status from sinful to sinless.
That process (rather undefined, I suspect on purpose for a series of rather good reasons) is called Purgatory.
Each man’s Purgatory will be tailored to him according to his particular, shall we say, talents. Everyone has his own predilections and habits, some of which are in opposition to a sinless life. These must be eliminated before one may attain access to the Presence of God.
That is called the process of Purgatory.
If, as you claim, the Blood of the Lamb cleanses all destined for salvation, and there is no process involved, I would be interested in just what that process is, and in the selection of the individuals chosen.
I did not do anything to "prove my point". A poster asked the question, where is Purgatory in the Bible and I answered. Every biblical passage can have hundreds of interpretations and I am sure this one can be interpreted in a number of ways as well, especially by the enemies of Christ and His Church. However, the passage is talking about purification of a soul entering Heaven -- that you cannot deny.
Did Paul have keys to the kingdom, like Peter, since they were both laying foundations, based on Jesus Christ as the cornerstone?
And how that question relates to the topic? I think it is a noise-making question. However, on the chance that you really decided to wonder about on this thread, I'll answer: All the Holy Apostles (like St. Paul), all the Catholic bishops they consecrated (like St. Timothy), all the bishops consecrated by Catholic bishops since then, and every priest ordained by a Catholic bishop, unless defrocked, is on the foundation of Catholic faith given us by Christ and united to St. Peter and all the popes since him. Collectively, they are all priests and all of them lay foundations of faith in those Christians who are interested in unity with Christ, St. Peter, St. Paul and the Holy Apostles, -- that is, Catholic Christians or those wanting to become Catholic Christians.
St. Peter received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven from Christ because Christ chose to make St. Peter the head of the Church on earth, as the symbol of his, Peter's leadership (Matthew 16:16-19 also see Luke 22:32). However, Christ did not give St. Peter a private heaven: whenever a priest united to St. Peter in the Catholic Church gives the last rites to someone he opens the gates of Heaven to that man, because the use of the Keys has been delegated to him, the priest, with the priestly ordination (Matthew 18:18, 1 Timothy 4:14). That man, who dies Catholic in a state of grace, goes to heaven on the power of the Sacrifice of Christ Who redeemed him, and Who shall cleanse him of every blemish (see Ephesians 5:27) so that he may enter Heaven "not having spot or wrinkle".
God works as God works.
You posted: Where in the Holy Scriptures is Purgatory described, or mentioned?
The fact is, as I showed in 31, it is described in 1 Cor 3:9-15. But why did you ask? Let is say the Church teaches some other thing never mentioned or described in the Holy Scripture; what of it? Where does this rule itself in the scripture? I know the Holy Scripture says that it is inspired by God, that it is necessary for the formation of a Christian, must not be tempered with, and that it is good to test any proposition on faith and morals against it. Where does it say that the Church MUST NOT teach anything not in it?
Sorry.
The Apostle Paul writes;
Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386);
NPNF2, Vol. 7,Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 4:17
"I would suggest that you might think of it this way:
"You and I are currently sinful. Nothing sinful shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Therefore, if you (or I if God is most merciful) shall be admitted to the Kingdom, there will be a process to adjust your status from sinful to sinless."
Yes, absolutely, I agree with this first paragraph. There is this blight on humanity called the "sinful nature" which permeates everything we do, think, feel. We are all, as David was inspired to report, "...conceived in sin." Ps. 51:5. Paul echos the same in Rom. 3 as he quotes David. However, if this were solved, we still would not be holy enough to stand in heaven.
The process, however, of adjusting our status from sinful to sinless is, according to the Scriptures, accomplished to solve these two problems. First, we are forgiven by Christ when we are adopted into His family. That is, as Paul wrote in Col. 2:13ff, "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumsicision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the 'certificate of debt' consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."
This solves the first problem. Our evil nature is forgiven, once for all, just as the sacrifice of the Lamb of God was accomplished once for all. The, ..."death that He died, He died to sin once for all..." Rom. 6:10, Heb. 7:27, Heb. 9:12, Heb. 10:10, IPet 3:18.
But, it still would not have fit us for heaven. To stand before the Creator of Heaven and Earth, spotless and blameless, AND holy enough to bear the, "...unapproachable light" (ITim 6:16) in which God dwells, we had to be wrapped in the righteousness of His Son. Rom. 3:22. This is the solution to our second problem, not possessing righteousness, not being holy. Again Paul describes this when he tells the Philippians, "..I count all things to be loss in in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MY OWN derived from doing the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,..." Phil. 3:8,9.
This fits one for heaven, second problem solved. Again, all done by God.
Here is where careful hermeneutics come in. In the early portions of the Scriptures, Israel is ordered, cajoled, disciplined to induce this in themselves (forgiveness and holiness). Even as Jesus spoke on earth (Sermon on the Mount and much of the three years), He was telling folks to solve these two problems themselves. "Unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Phar..." "You are to be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."
Toward the end of His three years we find Him saying this self-help is impossible with man, but help is possible with God. Matt. 19:26 Here, unfortunately, is precisely where the RCC has wrongly focused its "works" oriented religion. It believes that Jesus is teaching the world to obey...but He is not. In the first place, He is breaking the back of the Jews who believed they could obey. Then He is telling those who give up...I will do it for you. And, He is still not talking to Gentiles.
Most of His so-called "earthly ministry" was to the Jews. Read Matt. 15:24. "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." His crumbs to us dogs was a kind and merciful toss. But, at the cross, all this changed.
At the cross, the entire world was grafted in...if they were among the elect. Eph. 2:11ff. "Remember, that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh (every non-Jew) ...remember that were at that time separate from Christ, excluded fron the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promis, having no hope and without God in the world. But NOW in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near BY THE BLOOD of Christ."
I find nothing in the Scriptures which intimate that man has a part in any of this, assuming that one reads the story consecutively, like a historical novel and not encyclopedic, as if all is directed to us. There is no Purgatory process.
How God makes His choice to elect some to His rescue and leave some lost in their sins, I don't pretend to know. If He has chosen me, it was certainly not due to my character.
With all due respect, the questions that the "add-ons" raise are the signals that the RCC has developed its own "religion". There are no add-ons. Any add-on nullifies the view of Paul that salvation is by grace through faith, alone...
I did not ask where heresy is forbidden. Of course when a charlatan like Luther comes and preaches whatever suits him, let him be anathema.
The question is, if the Church teaches some other thing never mentioned or described in the Holy Scripture, -- for example, what makes the Eucharist valid or whether cloning is allowed, -- where is that prohibited in the Holy Scripture?
I answered that question. Now you want more?
Asked and answered, buddy, it has been asked and answered.
What scant Scripture you have brought can scarcely be seen as firm basis for the fully fleshed-out doctrine of "Purgatory". One sees such an idea as that, neither in the earliest writings, nor elsewhere in Scripture. The doctrine assumes some punishment we endure makes us somehow good enough. Other apologetics explain that since mankind is sinful, even those with some knowledge of, acquaintance with, and devotion to the Lord, can still be found to have *some* sinful attributes. Since that is the case [the logic follows] that after earthly death then they must be held in a place of transition, while "purging", since one is not fit for heaven...meaning the blood of Christ is NOT sufficient to blot out ALL sins, or something...
Is imputed Grace only sufficient for Mary? that seems to be the case...listening to the cacophony of Romish teachings and commentary regarding such...
More specifically towards the subject of Purgatory again;
Hardon the Jesuit might be your guide, but he is surely not mine.
As for the stubble being separated from the straw, as it is written, there is mention of "fire", but no hint of a place somewhere between this life's realm, and the heavenly. That "extra" much, is pure invention. That it is a heresy, homegrown within Roman Catholicism, is again, not my problem, regardless of all the RCC "explaining" not found in the Word, and even in conflict with the same.
Luther did not invent the principle that Scripture must guide doctrine, as compared to Scripture being interpreted to justify doctrinal invention & novelties, unknown to the primitive church, and not mentioned by the Apostolic writers & earliest patristic "fathers".
How about inventions such as Purgatory? What were those Old Testament references again? Oh that's right...you claimed there were such, but never brought them out. Let me guess...Are they from the Apocrypha? Those books you have previously & frequently refereed to as having being "yanked out because Luther didn't like them", were nothing of the sort. Josephus, Origin, Melito, and Jerome all agreed. The "Hebrew Bible", what was accepted by the Jews of Jerusalem as being equivalent to canonical, did not include what only centuries later, in the 16th century, was re-named "Deuterocanonical".
As for Jerome, his original translation did not include the Apocrypha, but he did translate those also after pressure was applied for him to do so.
Otherwise;
The solas do not stand alone, but of five together. Misunderstanding or disregarding that aspect when discussing those precepts reveals arguments against them to be made of straw. Which is convenient for the critic perhaps, but serves none well if understanding of the precepts under discussion is important.
If understanding is NOT important, then FRomish assault troopers can go right on ahead, keep running around smacking all others over the head in ignorance, accusing one and all whom have theological disagreements with Romish views, with being fully guilty of the "heresy of Core", while dishing out heaping helpings of spite & condemnation.
I mean, if that's what makes *some* self-appointed FRomish assault troopers' High Holy Selves *feel* justified, then who am I to spoil it?
Webster again:
Scripture and Tradition
Roman Catholic teaching claims that sola scriptura is unhistorical; that is, it contradicts the universal teaching of the early church. But the facts will not support this claim. Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages. Let me cite Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386) again because he is reflective of the overall view of the fathers:
No clearer concept of sola scriptura could be given than that seen in these statements of Cyril. He equates the teaching he is handing on to these catechumens with tradition, in which he specifically references 2 Thessalonians 2:15, that he says must be proven by Scripture. Tradition is simply the teaching of the church that he is passing on orally, but that tradition must be validated by the written Scriptures. He states further that the extent of authority vested in any teacher, be he bishop or layman, is limited to Scripture. No teaching is to be received that cannot be proven from Scripture. The church does have authority, as Cyril himself acknowledges, but it is an authority grounded in fidelity to Scripture and not principally in succession. According to Cyril, the church is subject to the final authority of Scripture, and even the church is to be disregarded if it moves outside that authority in its teaching.
Cyril is a vigorous proponent of the concept of sola scriptura. It is a teaching he handed down to the catechumens as an implicit article of the faith. As one reads the writings of the fathers it becomes clear that Cyril's statements are representative of the church as a whole. J.N.D. Kelly affirms this observation:
Therefore, the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is not a heresy or a novel doctrine, but in reality it is a reaffirmation of the faith of the early church. It is both biblical and historical, yet the Roman Catholic Church continues to teach that oral tradition is a second source of divine revelation, equally as authoritative as Scripture and that this was the view held by the church Fathers. Such a claim, however, contradicts both Scripture and history. When the Fathers speak of a tradition handed down from the apostles independent of Scripture, they are referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices, never to doctrine. Tradition was always subordinate to Scripture as an authority, and the Word of God itself never teaches that tradition is inspired. The Scriptures give numerous warnings against tradition,38 and the Fathers rejected the teaching of an apostolic oral tradition independent of Scripture as a gnostic heresy. For the church fathers apostolic tradition or teaching was embodied and preserved in Scripture. As we have seen the teaching of the fathers is this: What the apostles initially proclaimed and taught orally, they later committed to writing in the New Testament. Irenaeus succinctly states it in these words:
37 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), 46.
39 Irenaeus, Against Heresies III.1.1, in Alexander Roberts and W. H. Rambaugh, trans., in The Writings of Irenaeus (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1874).
annalex, if you would read Gal. 2:2,9 carefully, you would be astonished at what it says. You would discover that Paul was not a Catholic, Peter was not a Catholic, the others were not Catholic, and the whole Catholic religion is nothing more than a farce. The whole answer to Catholicism is found in Gal. 2. It is IMPOSSIBLE, in light of this Scripture, to maintain with a straight face, that the church of today is a perpetuation of the organization Jesus Christ established while on earth. And it is by Rome’s OWN ARGUMENT that this is so. Galatians 2:2,9 will set you free.
Cyril of Jerusalem taught doctrines often cited by nonCatholics as unbiblical (purgatory, the Mass, magisterium, etc). Was he a poor exegete to find basis for Catholic doctrine in scripture or was he not really a sola scriptura adherent as you suggest?
What gets me is that Catholics don’t believe in the rapture, because the word “rapture” is not used in the Bible (although the description of the occurrence is very clear), but they take the Purgatory concept hook, line and sinker.
It is much more prudent to simply stick with the Word as best we can, neither inventing things not found therein, nor accepting some form of gnosticism, even if it crop up or come from within otherwise respected persons or groups. We see what peer pressure can do.
A new and different Gospel, differing from the original, being a much amended one, is highly suspect.
Was he a poor exegete to find basis for Catholic doctrine in scripture or was he not really a sola scriptura adherent as you suggest?
Take it up with the former Catholic, Webster, whom I was quoting. You may then need address your argument (if you actually have one) to his own cited sources also. Some of them could be easy enough to debate, for they are now dead.
You did not answer the question. I am fully aware that the Church may not teach contrary to the Holy Scripture. That is what your quotes were "answering".
It is possible that your understanding of Purgatory as "punishment" is not seen in 1 Cor.3, but as far as Catholic understanding of Purgatory, and the redemption by Christ alone, 1 Cor. 3 is indeed a sufficient prooftext.
No we don't teach that Mary (or the Good Thief, or many other people) went through Purgatory or needed it, on their way to Heaven. We do teach that some, -- we don't know who and how, -- is purified from the effects of his inferior works, as 1 Cor. 3 explains, before he enters Heaven. How come the blood of Christ did not prepare them fully, -- ask St. Paul, he wrote it.
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.