The question was, does the Church teach a doctrine contrary to the scripture? I get tired of your obfuscations on this simple question. Post an example or say, you don't have one.
That portion which you did cite as being supportive, one must needs have a priori acceptance of the idea
1 Cor 3:8-10 describes a soul being cleansed of inferior works that adhere to it. The soul then enters heaven. That is purgatory. Neither I or St. Paul wrote anything about the purgatorial fire lasting one instance or a long time -- so I don't see where your objection is, and that is the only thing that you mention that appears to have a discernible substance in that paragraph of yours. It would be fine if you tried again.
You are not claiming that Purgatory (as doctrinal truth) was part of "oral tradition", handed down to us directly from Christ and the Apostles, now are you?
No it is a part of both oral and written Tradition as evidenced by the scripture I cited.
The Scriptures forbid teaching "new" Gospels (good news). Reading between the lines, to find new, additional ideas not previously, clearly expressed, is shaky theological construction, risky at best, quite fraudulent and something destined for the fire itself at worst.
I agree, especially when charlatans like Luther or Calvin do it. The Church, however, has a teaching authority today and where she must, she teaches. 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.
cure for Roman Catholicism
We are just fine, thanks. Worry about your own semi-literate pastors whose training consists in how to lie about the Gospel. When you drop your "Faith alone, Bible alone" counterscriptural drivel, we can pay attention to what useful thoughts you may have.
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.
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
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...
Underwhelming, to say the least.
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
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.
More borrowed again from the above provided link;
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.