Posted on 08/09/2015 11:06:27 AM PDT by Old Yeller
The Bible never speaks of a place where one can go to be purified of his sin. Rather, it always speaks of a Person to whom we can go to be purified: Jesus Christ. God tells us that those who refuse to trust Christ to cleanse them from their sins are condemned: Whoever believes in Him avoids condemnation, but whoever does not believe is already condemned for not believing in the name of God's only Son (John 3:18). There are only two choices: Whoever believes in the Son has life eternal. Whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but must endure the wrath of God (John 3:36; See also Revelation 20:15; Luke 16:19-31, especially verse 26). Anyone who accepts Christ is completely saved: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1). Saying that there is no condemnation, certainly eliminates the flames of purgatory.
Another passage which clearly excludes the idea of purgatory is, their sins and transgressions I will remember no more (Hebrews 10:17). If, as the Bible says, God no longer remembers the sins of those who are in Christ, He does not punish them for these sins. To do so would be saying that Christ had not made full payment for them and that God the Father still remembered them. (See also Romans 5:8-11; Hebrews 10:14-18; Psalm 103:12).
Anyone who does not believe that Christ has completely saved him, has not completely trusted Christ to save him. That is, he does not believe that Christ's sacrifice has paid for all of his sins, and thinks he must pay for some of them himself. However, we are saved when we stop trusting what we can do, and start trusting Christ to save us.
The idea that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient to cleanse us from all of our sins would condemn a great sinner such as the thief who was crucified with Jesus to suffer a long time in purgatory if not for all eternity in hell! Instead, there was nothing left over that Christ's death on the Cross did not cover. When the thief placed his trust in Christ, Jesus said to him, I assure you: this day you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).
If purgatory existed, and the mass helped people to get out, the rich would have a tremendous advantage by being able to pay for masses to shorten their suffering. The poor instead, would be left to the mercy of the occasional priest who might say an unpaid mass for them. One ex-priest wrote, "If we really believed that the mass would save people from the flames of purgatory, would we make them pay for it? I would even save a dog if I saw one in a fire, and I would never even think of asking to be paid!"
Purgatory was evidently a pagan idea. Virgil, the pagan Latin poet who lived 70 - 19 B.C. divided the departed souls into three different places in his writings: One for the good, one for the damned, and a third where the less bad could pay for their sins. Since the idea of purgatory existed outside of the church before it came into the church, it is probable that it was brought in by contact with pagans like Virgil. There was a great influx of non-Biblical ideas into the church around 300 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine took many unsaved people in as members of the church.
In any event, there is no mention of purgatory in the Bible. Some would try, however, to make the idea sound somewhat Biblical by referring to 2 Maccabees 12:41-45, a passage in one of the apocryphal books written between the times of the Old and New Testaments. These books were never accepted as part of the Hebrew Old Testament, nor quoted in the New Testament, but they are included in the Catholic Bible, though usually with an explanation that they are of a less inspired category. Apart from this passage in 2 Maccabees, the apocrypha is little used by the Catholic church to support a doctrinal position.
It is important to notice that this passage does not speak of purgatory at all, but actually condemns idolatry, particularly the practice of wearing little images on a necklace or such. Hebrew soldiers were found wearing this sort of thing after a battle, and their buddies, on making this discovery, realized that they had died in the sin of idolatry. They then counseled prayer for their souls. The Roman Catholic position is that prayer for them would have been unnecessary if they were in heaven and useless if they were in hell, so there must be another place. The logic seems good, but the result contradicts the clear teaching of the inspired Scripture. Contradicting inspired Scripture with a philosophical response based on an apparent inference from the Apocrypha is a very weak argument indeed. The very word "Apocrypha," which comes from the Greek word for hidden, has come to mean "false," or "of doubtful authorship."
A valid marriage must meet three criteria:
1) The couple must be capable of being married.
2)The couple must give their consent to be married.
3)They must follow the canonical form for marriage.
Let me give you an example from each that would invalidate the marriage:
1) an example of this would be if one of the partners is already married. Polyamorous marriage may become legal in the future but will not be recognized as valid
2) The two best examples of this would be a minor child or a person that due to chemical impairment (drugs or alcohol) can not give free consent.
3) The couple must be of the proper matter and the minister must follow the proper form.
proper matter means that same sex marriages are not permitted.
I have assisted with several nullity cases over the years. In one the groom was engaging in a long term affair both before and after the marriage. In another the groom was addicted to heroin.
The first case was interesting since they had applied for a dispensation from form. She was Catholic, he wasn't. The couple did have a child and the boy was recognized as legitimate, but his half sibling was not. The groom had gotten his mistress pregnant about a month after the honeymoon.
As for the "outrageous cost: That one was about $300.00. Less than the cost of the civil divorce.
I hope this clarifies the difference between licit and valid. I hope that anytime that someone makes the claim that a cert of nullity is a Catholic divorce you will recognize that they are lying through there teeth and call them on it.
What it comes down to, basically, is that only a very limited number of marriages are considered legitimate by the Catholic church.
If non-Catholic marriages are not valid because they are not done according to Catholic protocol, then there’s a whole lot of people in this world living in sin.
Interestingly, I can’t find any precedent for that in Scripture. Have you seen it any where?
Pre-cana classes are supposed to weed that sort of thing out, are they not?
If the priests don’t have enough discernment to not marry someone who is not capable of giving full consent, then he has no business being a priest and providing spiritual leadership. He has shown that he is unqualified for the job.
“Interestingly, I can’t find any precedent for that in Scripture. Have you seen it any where?”
No, but I found this refreshingly simple statement on it from Jesus:
“Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”—Matt.19
You are wrong.
Exactly.
GOD puts the man and woman together.
Marriage is marriage and no one has the market on performing *legitimate* marriages.
It’s just another control thing, trying to control the personal lives of everyone.
And if someone wants to submit to the Catholic church and abide by its rules. Fine.
But they have no business trying to impose their religiosity on anyone else. They claims to be that kind of authority do not hold water and mean nothing to those outside the church.
The RCC has NO say or control over my life or my salvation. That is in the hands of Jesus. He is the only one who has the right to do that.
So pre-cana classes AREN’T supposed to weed out those who are not ready for marriage?
Nice. The priest is then marrying people who have no business being married in the first place.
Then the church offers annulments for a fee.
Nice racket.
This still shows that the priest is not qualified to be ina leadership position.
You are wrong.
To: metmomFrom earlier on this thread:You are wrong.
verga
To: vergaFull circle.You’re wrong.
What was that you said earlier about bullies when I said you were wrong?
I thought so.........
The difference is that I am right, you are wrong.
Stupid facts always get in the way of a a good rant.
Nope, MANY reasons why a valid marriage doesn't exist...after wedding, wife/husband states that they are not open to having children, either is not capable of consummating the marriage, find out that you are too closely related to each other (perhaps an adoption situation), find out that one or the other was coerced into the marriage, find out that one or the other had been previously married and the marriage had not been dissolved (Las Vegas Quickie),...I have no idea of how many there are, but people do strange things.....
LOL!
Show an 8 year old child an empty cross and a Crucifix....then explain just How Christ died for us....which of the two will enable him to understand what happened????
you’re wrong.....again
When He established the Catholic church and thus Sacramental marriage....remember Catechism class now???
“I ask the same questions Jesus asked when He was accused of doing satan’s work”
“You aren’t Jesus, so the relationship is not even int hesame ballpark, and how can you know you are actually casting away demons and not being deceived by said demons to believe you cast them away?”
But you sure sound like the Pharisees.... Just kidding.. seriously... there is a lot more than you realize.... be kind to strangers as they just might be angels in disguise.. Blessings
What if the wife discovered that her husband was the baby boy that her mother had, and gave up for adoption when she was 15??....still a valid marriage????
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.