Posted on 07/26/2021 9:07:05 AM PDT by Cronos
Your recourse to such blatant bombast in lieu of actual Scriptural substantiation will not help your prevaricating propaganda.
"Firstly, let's look at your term "heresy" - you call the orthodox view heresy and that's an oxymoron (like your posts in general) - a heresy is belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious (especially Christian) doctrine. -- net-net, your views are heresy, not orthodox"
Rather, you are presuming what needs to be proved, i.e. that RC doctrine is orthodox, which presumes a sure and supreme standard, which only Scripture is, not a self-proclaimed conditionally "infallible" church, regardless of the delusions of RCs which trust in her.
"I said "one must be scrubbed clean of all sin in the final stage of sanctification. The sins were already forgiven. As usual, you make a strawman out of your own false reading"
Actually "forgiveness" also has a sense of being forgiven as to guilt or punishment, and there is that of forgiveness of unrepented venial sins. From your own Catholic Answers, and Pope St. Gregory the Great as well as Hardon:
Matthew 12:32 is often a go-to passage for Catholics when it comes to purgatory. The text reads: “Whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Pope St. Gregory the Great wrote that, from this passage “we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come” (Dial. 4, 39). The Catechism of the Catholic Church uses this quote as support for its definition of purgatory as an after-death “final purification of the elect” (1031). Since purgatory involves the forgiveness of unrepented venial sins (along with the purification of any remnants of past forgiven venial or mortal sins—e.g., unhealthy attachments to created goods, unpaid debt of temporal punishment), some conclude that Jesus affirms the existence of purgatory. - https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/on-the-remission-of-sins-after-death
The poor souls in purgatory still have the stains of sin within them. This means two things. First, it means that the souls have not yet paid the temporal penalty due, either for venial sins, or for mortal sins whose guilt was forgiven before death. It may also mean the venial sins themselves, which were not forgiven either as to guilt or punishment before death. - https://hardonsj.org/poor-souls-purgatory-still-stains-sin-within/
Thus your argument is with Catholics here.
"Secondly as clearly stated "The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence. Those who, after death, exist in a state of purification, are already in the love of Christ Who removes from them the remnants of imperfection" --> this is not a place"
Actually Purgatory has traditionally often been termed a “place” and and I only referred to it being a place once and was not arguing for that definition and did not contrast it with being a condition and such can be both, and I followed with the statement "The term does not indicate a place, but a condition of existence." Hardon states "The place or condition in which the souls of the just are purified after death and before they can enter heaven." (https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35915) And as other of your brethen teach as regards spatial existence, Purgatory, "Heaven and Hell, can all be both places and conditions. Time is relative because we are talking about eternity." (https://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2006_04APR/2006AprImConfusedAboutPurgatory.cfm) I also quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia that by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation " (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) And which also taught "Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions." "the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers, who allege reasons for succouring departed souls...the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation;" "many who have died are still in a place of purification..."
Thus you are much flailing away at a ambiguous term that I did not make a point of.
The rest of your post is your standard bloviating strawman wherein you think that repeating your errors over and over again will make people think you know. Sorry, your way may worked since Goebbels
Meaning you must have wrote this to the man in your mirror.
Of course not, since as you do know, this is one of many doctrines that is not uniquely affirmed in Catholicism, which, as the link evidences, is what "distinctive Catholic teachings" refers to. Thus your attempted polemic is spurious, as usual.
The distinctive Catholic beliefs as you put it include the Trinity.
You use the term “Protestant” and that includes the Oneness pentecostals and until at least Eisenhower, the Unitarians. Neither of which are Trinitarians.
Hence the Trinity is a distinctive Catholic and Orthodox belief as opposed to your pre tribulation rapture beliefs
Of course he redeems us. Sheesh you take one word and light in it?
You’re cute. Find one Christian in the first thousand years of Christianity that agrees with your interpretation. I’ll give you your lifetime
And you are blinded by erroneous Catholic dogma. Been drinking that false Gospel koolaid a little too long apparently.
That’s an unartful dodge.
Find me a Cristian in the early Church that embraced the folly of your false interpretation. Cat got your tongue?
Wrong, fallacious and flailing. Where, just WHERE do you see the Trinity in my list of distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)???
Why or what must you resort to reading a specific into what I wrote when it is simply not listed? But Rome does so even with Scripture. Both of which are arguments against being a Catholic.
"You use the term “Protestant” and that includes the Oneness pentecostals and until at least Eisenhower, the Unitarians. Neither of which are Trinitarians."
Where and in what context do I myself use the term “Protestant” to describe the faith I am defending, and infer that means all that falls under that term today? Why must you read that into what I said when it is not there, and I refute doctrines that such as the Unitarians hold to as well as other so-called Protestants and usually use more specific terms?
Your deceptive desperation is all to evident.
Why are you (also) attributing a belief you me that I do not teach and have actually argued against here - even in response to you?! Careless or simply ignorant?
Twice no less! See my rejection also here in a thread you began.
The poster uses that technique to try and niggle anger from you. He knows when he is lying and uses that technique in his dishonesty. Don’t give him such a benefit of doubt to wonder if it is ignorance or carelessness. He is doing it on purpose.
When you begin your sermonette conflating The Church with the Catholic ORG, there is little expectation that an honest offering follows.
Your Catholicism ORG is not the True Church Jesus established based upon profession of faith alone in Him alone. Shucks, the current incantation of Catholicism isn’t even Christianity ... with mary-idolotry and ever striving to obtain eternal life only to earn the Gregory’s mythos of purgatory, as if God is not able to fully accomplish what He promises. Icons and minarets ... what show!
Wow! PTL!
You mean “agent provocateur.” The incessant RC posting of provocative propaganda could be said to do this, although it has resulted in such being exposed and refuted time and again, by the grace of God. But which includes provoking us to make personal attacks (versus addressing the issue) even if warranted, but thus we need to be more careful even when they do the like.
Rather, only the metaphorical understanding easily conflates with the rest of Scripture, and especially as regards John 6, versus the incarnate Christ being manifest as an non-existent inanimate object, whose appearance and all testable aspects do not conform to what He materially became in His incarnation, nor any Divine being, meaning a false Christ.
See here and more, by God's grace:
The Lord's Supper: metaphorical commemoration or the consumption of the metaphysical "real" body and blood of the Lord Jesus?
(Note: allow scripts for pop up Bible verses
4. 1Cor. 10,11 |
5. The Lord's Supper in the record and descriptions of the New Testament church |
6. Purely literal versus the contrived Catholic interpretation |
11. Endocannibalism |
12. Conclusion |
"Unless you eat my flesh (greek - literally gnaw) or drink my blood ( gurgle) you will not have eternal life. Does this offend you?"
So in response to Jn. 3:3, are you saying that Jn. 6:53 means that one must believe in transubstantiation and receive the Catholic Eucharist to be regenerated, and thus obtain spiritual life in himself? Remember to be consistent with your professed literal understanding.
Try four: Call no man father.
And you are then saying that Jesus is a door.
Guess what, the Catholic church is as corrupt an organization as there is. Infiltrated with pedophiles and homosexuals and riddled with non biblical stupidity that only fools choose to believe. If you want to believe that being Catholic buys you a ticket to Heaven, feel free.
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.