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.
This [the above paragraph] indicates to me likelihood of having been written, before even reading much what was written to you. For I did "answer the challenge", but you reveal also over the balance of your reply, in your closing remark, that it's all some sort of game, while you play to the peanut gallery.
Here I must protest. I didn't spin up the soap opera aspect. That was circulating in Catholicism long before I was ever born. I surely see no soap opera concerning the winnowing, purifying "flames" in the biblical text.
That "opera" is due to Catholic inventions, past teachings & practice.
Said while obfuscating, himself. I stepped up to the challenge, yet you claimed right off the bat I did not, while playing for some imagined audience.
Whatever. Just do not expect myself and perhaps others, to take what you say more seriously than you extend courtesy to do likewise for those who take the trouble to write, responding in detail, to points which you raise.