So much of what you write is merely the modern interpretation of scripture being held in contrast to the ancient, Traditional, apostolic interpretation. We could trade blows forever about the meaning of 1 Cor 3:15, but the plain fact is that the ancient Church prayed for relief of suffering of the departed, and that a long list of Church fathers explained the purpose of doing so in the context of 1 Cor 3.
But as to the matter of the Council of Florence, there does seem some debate as to whether the Council as a whole was infallible or merely some portion of it. (Herein, the American-written Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is virtually useless, since so much of the Catholic faith was unavailable to the English-language, mid-Western, US-bound authors; the imprimatur only signifies that it contains no false moral doctrine, not that it effectively serves as the Catholic position in all apologetic disputes.) You seem to relish a fight, so you ignore that I said I only brought up the Council of Florence as a correction to my previous statement that the Catholic canon was established as Trent.
Because I am interested in leading no-one astray, however, let me clarify the Council of Florence.
Yes, the Council of Florence suggests anyone separated from Rome is bound for Hell. And the Council of Trent, which is absolutely infallible anathematizes any Protestant. Context is required here, however. The Council of Florence meant to bind the conscience of anyone under the authority of the Orthodox-cum-Catholic bishops so as to prevent schism. The context of someone entering schism because they refuse to accept their own bishops is quite different than the context of someone who remains loyal to their only episcoacy and presbytery their land has ever known. The Catholic church had already made quite clear that the supposed excommunication of the Orthodox made at the time of the Great Schism had been made “ultra vires” (beyond oversight).
As someone who finds much favorable to Orthodox spirituality through first-hand experience, the absurdity of the Orthodox’s version of history is quite saddening: That the bishops were with but one exception all heretics, and that the princes the defenders of the faith. The entire POINT of an ecumenical council is so that the bishops can discuss their differences and achieve a common understanding; to say that those who did not participate can nullify such a council is to reject the very notion of a council. I lump this one with blaming the atrocities of the excommunicated crusaders in the 11th century for the 15th century fall of Constantinople. (The reality is the Greeks assassinated so many of their own leaders, they lost their institutional memory. The many assassinations are even probably why they lost the secret of Greek Fire!)
Which cannot be purgatory.
but the plain fact is that the ancient Church prayed for relief of suffering of the departed
The plain fact is that was a later development, as said, while the ancient NT Church nor believers in the OT never are shown praying for relief of suffering of the departed (nor is 2Tim. 1:18 a prayer for that), or even addressing any one in Heaven but the Lord in the hundreds of Bible prayers , and are only instructed to pray to Him in Heaven, God's throne.
But as to the matter of the Council of Florence, there does seem some debate as to whether the Council as a whole was infallible or merely some portion of it. (Herein, the American-written Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913 is virtually useless,
I will remember the latter when a RC invokes it, but that is just oner more thing RCs disagree about, and i do not go along with your dismissal, and find the CE unmatched as free online extensive resource, and which RCs use as evidence, and i think some RCs disparage it mainly because it has provided documented refutation of their undocumented assertions.
I only brought up the Council of Florence as a correction to my previous statement that the Catholic canon was established as Trent.
And why should i not challenge that? And i linked to other sources that confirm that, even a Trad. RC apologist.
Yes, the Council of Florence suggests anyone separated from Rome is bound for Hell.
It does not suggest or mean to suggest, but " "firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics" are lost "unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." Quite an imagination that is much the opposite.
And the Council of Trent, which is absolutely infallible anathematizes any Protestant.
Actually, this is another issue in which RC apologist can disagree, unless the high hierarchy makes it clear, Dave Armstrong debates the issue, http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/01/catholic-understanding-of-anathemas-of.html, while David Mac writes quite a bit on this and states,
“In particular, the statement that anathemas were "put on all non-Catholics" is incorrect. In fact, the anathemas were only put on Catholics. You had to be a "card carrying Catholic" in order to "qualify." Anathemas never applied to non-Catholics. Anathema was the most severe form of excommunication. Someone can't be "ex-communionicated" if they were never in communion with the Church in the first place. Also, the canonical penalty of Anathema was removed from Canon Law (Catholic Church law) in 1983. It is not in the Catechism.” http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm
The Council of Florence meant to bind the conscience of anyone under the authority of the Orthodox-cum-Catholic bishops so as to prevent schism.
Primarily, but pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics is broader. And there are more like it.
As someone who finds much favorable to Orthodox spirituality through first-hand experience, the absurdity of the Orthodox’s version of history is quite saddening:
I am sure the feeling is mutual, but I will let the two debate it here on this aspect. Getting too late here.