No, you are extrapolating,
Which you simply cannot show is the case in the light of Scripture in contrast with RC teaching. See further below.
which is why I say making judgements based on just one's person's interpretation of what is or isn't scripture, as you or the Unitarians or Oneness Pentecostals do, is wrong
Which recourse is also false. Besides interpreting their interpreter, RCs interpret Scripture all the time based on their interpretation of it as supporting Catholic teaching, or their argument for it - and which they have a great deal of liberty to do (according to at least one RC apologist), for while there are parameters which limit the scope of interpretion, there simply is no official commentary on all the Bible (and the CCC is not it). Meanwhile, the required notes in her official American Bible have (and do) often taught liberalism for decades .
You simply cannot escape the problem of varying degrees of interpretation, nor the need for the magisterial office to settle controversies, or the deficiencies of it. For this not settle the problem of disagreement , which is frequent in Catholicism, and would be most manifest if they were doctrine-intensive, for very little has been infallibly defined according to Rome, and which class requires the highest degree of assent ("of faith"), and while the assent of mind and intellect ("religious assent) is required for the next, and a lesser degree for the next level, there is disagreement upon which level many teachings belong to, and even how many levels of magisterial teaching there are, as well as their meanings, to varying degrees.
What canon law teaches is subject to variant interpretations, including based on what Rome does, which manifest what it truly believes, and even in dealing with the issue of what constitutes heresy, and the different types of heretics (and which, among other things, requires defining the precise phrase “divine and Catholic faith"), a canon law lawyer states , "it’s not always immediately clear to anybody which category a particular tenet of our faith falls into."
And rather than creating unity, the magisterial office can make things worse, or at least make latent disagreements more evident. As one poster wryly puts it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” (Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html0.
Thus while there certainly must be and are parameters that limit the scope of disagreement (which is manifest in your typical Bible church, at least are regards known public teaching, and thus liberals are less likely to call such home rather than Rome), yet even the magisterial office of Rome is subject to interpretation.
But while the need for the magisterial office must be acknowledged ( and "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - Westminster Confession XXXI) this is conditional, as it presumes it is sound, as in Acts 15.
Which condition is the issue, that of the basis for the veracity of conciliar decisions, that of the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation, as we see in Acts 15, or the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Tell me how the NT church began: on the basis of the veracity of the valid historical magisterium, or Scriptural substantiation in word and in power as demonstrated by some itinerant preachers and their Leader? Based upon the Catholic model, they should have submitted to the historically valid magisterium in all judgments.
And in RC theology, being completely sinless is not enough, but instead they must become actually good enough to be with God, which is how they are said to be justified in the first place, despite yet having a sinful nature.
You are wrong tos ay that Christians are excluded from entering Heaven.
You are wrong to say I said that, for what i said was they must become actually good enough to do so.
The Catholic Encyclopedia also states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc. (City of God XXI.24.)
And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness".
One "cannot approach God till the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested." (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory)
The Believers are "already washed, sanctified and justified" - and that is the process of purification, which includes the stage of purgatory.
No, you are extrapolating support for purgatory out of a text which speaks of what they presently positionally are by effectual fait, and as said, are already accepted in the Beloved on His account, and made to spiritually sit with Christ in Heaven, (Eph. 1:6; 2:6) and by Him have direct access to God in the holy of holies in prayer. (Heb. 10:19) And who, if they die in faith will go to be with the Lord at death. (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17)
Yet Rome seems to have a different take on it.
Quite incorrect. Since you are making a judgement call based on your own individual interpretation of what merits being called scripture or not, this is in not way different from what Joseph Smith or Charles Taze Russell did.
Remember that Purgatory is salvation. It is not Hell, which is when someone is eternally damned. Purgatory is basically a period of purification so that they can withstand God’s goodness; after all, God is described as a “consuming fire”, and Jesus instructs us to be perfect like our Father in Heaven is perfect. What better way for perfection than for a short time out being purified like gold?
This is in no way different from you as an individual making your own theology which differs from that of the other non-orthodox individuals on this thread