[Springfield Reformer]

Actually, the "method" of using context to develop an honest understanding of the text is rather essential in any attempt to understand God's word.  To me, it seems the foundational difference in the Catholic versus the Protestant/Evangelical hermeneutic is the starting point:

The Roman Catholic begins, a priori, with the assumption that the Roman Magisterium has provided the dogmatic framework, and it only remains to find passages in Scripture that, however weakly, may be conscripted into support of that dogma.

Whereas the Protestant/Evangelical starts with the belief that Scripture is the very Voice of God to the body of Christ on earth, and so it is necessary to approach such sacred ground with supreme reverence, a humble waiting to see what God will say, even if it does not conform to our a priori expectations, even if we come away convicted of sin or error, because that is how we feed "on every word of God," as Christ instructed us, and that is how we grow.

So if you're taking votes on preferences, I much prefer the latter to the former.  In the case of the specific passage concerning the burning off of unprofitable works (1 Corinthians 3), many of Mr. Rogers' multiple "paragraphs" are just an expansion of the passage cited by NYer, which provides a very helpful context.  That context makes it impossible to read "purgatory" into the text, so I can understand why the typical RC apologist would be apoplectic about using it.

What is always odd to me, though, is the manner in which Scriptures are made to seem to be in competition with each other.  This is bizarre, because all of Scripture is Gold talking. He doesn't contradict Himself, so any two passages which seem to be in opposition to each other simply haven't been understood correctly.  All of Scripture is a coordinated whole.  As Spurgeon once said (in a different context) why set forth as enemies the very best of friends? Our justification, our being transformed from children of darkness to children of light, that is all the work of Christ, completed on our behalf when He took all our punishment for sin onto Himself and became our Lamb of Sacrifice.  

But as those who would build on that wonderful foundation, we are obligated to do the very best we can do to build a worthy structure, something of real value, because everything less than that will indeed be burned away, and we will lose reward if we fail in that regard.  Yet saved as those, not who were purged by fire, but who escaped the fire, but with all their possessions destroyed.  It is an entirely different image than what is represented in the concept of purgatory, and so it is understandable why the full context should be problematic for the would-be RC expositor.

Peace,

SR

[avenir]

“The Roman Catholic begins, a priori, with the assumption that the Roman Magisterium has provided the dogmatic framework, and it only remains to find passages in Scripture that, however weakly, may be conscripted into support of that dogma.”

Brilliance. I give up. You take over for this poor communicator, lol!

[verga]

As Spurgeon once said (in a different context) why set forth as enemies the very best of friends?

This is exactly what non-Catholics are guilty of in regards to the relationship among the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and the Bible.

[annalex]

In the case of the specific passage concerning the burning off of unprofitable works (1 Corinthians 3), many of Mr. Rogers' multiple "paragraphs" are just an expansion of the passage cited by NYer, which provides a very helpful context. That context makes it impossible to read "purgatory" into the text

Wrong. The passage says that the man (or the collective man if Mr. Rogers so insists on this ecclesiological aspect) is purified from his inferior works by burning their presence in him as a building. That is purgatory. You just make your obfuscation long-winded to confuse the reader.

[af_vet_1981]

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine

[ealgeone]

You’re correct. Context is the key to understanding all Scripture.

[boatbums]

What I find most interesting in these frequent arguments over the Catholic dogma of Purgatory is no two Catholics seem to believe the same thing about it once you get down through the surface layer. One believes it is an almost instantaneous process and another adamantly insists it is as tortuous as hell and getting through can take thousands of years for some. Isn’t it logical to expect some kind of detail after all these years when they invented the whole idea in the first place? Scripture sure is no help.