Our roommate is infatuated with catholicism

[Basil the Great]

Hammster - I did a little research on Purgatory tonight. If you go to the website entitled, Holy Souls Online, they have a long list explaining ways to avoid going to Purgatory and/or to lower the time spent in Purgatory. Just a few ways: (1) Receive the sacrament of Exteme Unction at time of death. (2) Pray the Rosary as often as possible. (3) Wear the brown scapular. (4) Attend Mass daily and go to Confession weekly. There are many other suggestions listed there.

This is an interesting website that I have never been to previously. They also give citations for some Early Christians who prayed for the dead. That is fine with me. However, I am not at all pleased with the later teachings of some RCC theologians and saints who compare the burning fires of Purgatory to those in Hell, though not quite as bad. I find it hard to believe that God will punish souls who are bound for Heaven, in a manner similar to the fate of those destined for Hell. However, I am not certain if the RCC official Purgatory doctrine gets specific re: the form of Purgatorial punishments.

I believe that the RCC has gone too far in the development of the Purgatory doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox have not developed their belief in an intermediate state with nearly as much specificity as the RCC. By the way, according to a current thread on the EO board, the practice of the Greek and Jerusalem EO churches of granting indulgences was condemned. Apparently this practice endured for 200 years or so and is no longer considered a valid practice anywhere with the EO Church.

 

[Fencerguy]

Most definitely the EO would disagree. They believe that they are the one Church founded by Christ.

What is the earliest official canon from the EO church? Cause the first that I am aware of came from around 360 AD within the Roman Catholic Church

That is fine with me. However, I am not at all pleased with the later teachings of some RCC theologians and saints who compare the burning fires of Purgatory to those in Hell, though not quite as bad. I find it hard to believe that God will punish souls who are bound for Heaven, in a manner similar to the fate of those destined for Hell.

Such punishments are nothing more than we deserve though, in fact, they are much less than what we deserve.... the idea being that very few people achieve a level of holiness during their lives as believers that will allow then to enter heaven without any final purification. The Bible says in a couple of places that a man's works will be tested, and that he will enter into heaven as though through fire. Purgatory is nothing more than the final purification of the sould who is bound for heaven. It makes sense to think that the purification process would feel similar to hell, to show us in a very real way what we have been saved from...

I believe that the RCC has gone too far in the development of the Purgatory doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox have not developed their belief in an intermediate state with nearly as much specificity as the RCC. By the way, according to a current thread on the EO board, the practice of the Greek and Jerusalem EO churches of granting indulgences was condemned.

Purgatory is not a very complicated doctrine within the RCC.... It is described only as a process of purification, not a destination, or a limbo where people "do their time." Since is occurs after death and immediately prior to a sould entering heaven, temporal time is not applicable. When someone prays for the dead, they pray to ease the process of purification. Praying for a deceased sould is akin to praying for someone who is ill or going through a trial....You can't make it end any sooner, but you pray for the person to have comfort and perseverence while they endure it...
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText
"III. The Final Purification, or Purgatory
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.604 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. the tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:605
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.606
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin."607 From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God.608 The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.609"

 

[Hentenza]

First canons of Scripture came from the Catholic church....becaus that's all there was until the 1500s......any Protestant-specific Bible translation is only as new as the 1500s

Brother, the "c"atholic church (katholitos- adjective- meaning universal, of the whole) existed since 33 ad. The "C"atholic church (katholitos- noun- proper name) was established sometime after the edict of Milan. The scriptures are God breathed and written by the apostles (and their disciples) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God used the men in the councils of Carthage and Hippo to formally affirm His special revelation.

The books of the "protestant" bible are the same as in the RC bible except for the apocrypha. These the RC formally canonized in the counter-reformation council of Trent in 1854. The RC, EO, and OO respective bibles do not contain the same apocryphal books.

 

[Hentenza]

Purgatory is not a very complicated doctrine within the RCC....

Purgatory is not biblical whether complicated or not.

 

[Fencerguy]

Brother, the "c"atholic church (katholitos- adjective- meaning universal, of the whole) existed since 33 ad. The "C"atholic church (katholitos- noun- proper name) was established sometime after the edict of Milan. The scriptures are God breathed and written by the apostles (and their disciples) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God used the men in the councils of Carthage and Hippo to formally affirm His special revelation.

The first official canon of Scripture seems to have occurred at the Council of Laodicea, around 360 AD.....
Council of Laodicea: THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA
And it does include some of the Apocryphal books....

The books of the "protestant" bible are the same as in the RC bible except for the apocrypha. These the RC formally canonized in the counter-reformation council of Trent in 1854. The RC, EO, and OO respective bibles do not contain the same apocryphal books.

From Historical and Geographical Background for the Development of the Two Old Testament Canons

"Historians place the fixed canon for both the Alexandrian and Palestinian translations at the end of the second century. Bishop Melito of Sardis recorded the first known list of the Septuagint canon in 170 AD. The Septuagint canon contained 45/46 books (Lamentation was once considered a part of Jeremiah); the Palestinian canon contained 39 books.

[12] The first translation of the Bible from Greek to Latin, now the common language (the vulgar or "Vulgate") of the Mediterranean world, was made by Jerome, in Rome, in 383-383 AD. He based his translation on the Hebrew text of the Palestinian canon, but translated from the Greek Septuagint canon those books not found in the Palestinian canon. Jerome's Old Testament canon for the Latin Vulgate contained the books of the Alexandrian canon, 46 books.
[13] Two church councils, local and hence not ecumenical or worldwide councils, Hippo (in north Africa), 393 AD, and Carthage (also in north Africa), 397 AD, from which Protestants and Evangelicals take as the authority for their canon of the New Testament, 27 books, approved the Alexandrian canon of the Greek Septuagint, 46 books, as the canon for the Old Testament.
It is interesting to note that the Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible, was the Latin Vulgate Bible with the Alexandrian canon, 46 books, of the Greek Septuagint. [14] Roman Catholics accepted the canon of the Bible--the Alexandrian canon of the Old Testament--as a matter of uncontested faith. Since it was not a matter of controversy for sixteen centuries, there was no need to define the canon as infallible truth. When Martin Luther proposed the Palestinian canon, 39 books, in Hebrew in 1529 as the Old Testament canon, the Catholic Church, following the model of refuting error and defining biblically unrevealed truth set in Acts 15--accepting the Holy Spirit as revealing authority--defined, at the Council of Trent, 1563, the Old Testament canon of 46 books following the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint."

Purgatory is not biblical whether complicated or not.

Please provide some authoritative sources to back up your statement. An opinion alone is not convincing...

 

[Hentenza]

The first official canon of Scripture seems to have occurred at the Council of Laodicea, around 360 AD.....
Council of Laodicea: THE COMPLETE CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA
And it does include some of the Apocryphal books....

The council of Laodicea is not credited with "canonizing" the bible.

From Historical and Geographical Background for the Development of the Two Old Testament Canons

"Historians place the fixed canon for both the Alexandrian and Palestinian translations at the end of the second century. Bishop Melito of Sardis recorded the first known list of the Septuagint canon in 170 AD. The Septuagint canon contained 45/46 books (Lamentation was once considered a part of Jeremiah); the Palestinian canon contained 39 books.

[12] The first translation of the Bible from Greek to Latin, now the common language (the vulgar or "Vulgate") of the Mediterranean world, was made by Jerome, in Rome, in 383-383 AD. He based his translation on the Hebrew text of the Palestinian canon, but translated from the Greek Septuagint canon those books not found in the Palestinian canon. Jerome's Old Testament canon for the Latin Vulgate contained the books of the Alexandrian canon, 46 books.
[13] Two church councils, local and hence not ecumenical or worldwide councils, Hippo (in north Africa), 393 AD, and Carthage (also in north Africa), 397 AD, from which Protestants and Evangelicals take as the authority for their canon of the New Testament, 27 books, approved the Alexandrian canon of the Greek Septuagint, 46 books, as the canon for the Old Testament.
It is interesting to note that the Gutenberg Bible, the first printed Bible, was the Latin Vulgate Bible with the Alexandrian canon, 46 books, of the Greek Septuagint. [14] Roman Catholics accepted the canon of the Bible--the Alexandrian canon of the Old Testament--as a matter of uncontested faith. Since it was not a matter of controversy for sixteen centuries, there was no need to define the canon as infallible truth. When Martin Luther proposed the Palestinian canon, 39 books, in Hebrew in 1529 as the Old Testament canon, the Catholic Church, following the model of refuting error and defining biblically unrevealed truth set in Acts 15--accepting the Holy Spirit as revealing authority--defined, at the Council of Trent, 1563, the Old Testament canon of 46 books following the Alexandrian Greek Septuagint."

Biased source. Again, the "C"atholic church is not responsible for the bible, God is.

Please provide some authoritative sources to back up your statement. An opinion alone is not convincing...

Scripture. Show me from scripture where purgatory is biblical. And please, in your own words. I don't debate links.

 

[Hentenza]

The Edict of Milan did not create any church. The Edict of Milan just made it legal to be Christian. And contrary to popular belief, it did not establish Christianity as the State Religion.
The books we're discussing aren't the Acrophya. That refers to the books left out of the new testament canon. These books are in the deuterocanon. The Tridentine Council was in 1546 and the Deuterocanon was in the bible long before that.

1, My earlier post read "the "C"atholic church was established after the edict of Milan" not by the edict of Milan.

2. Both the RC bible and the "protestant" bible contain the same 27 books so there is not NT dispute. The apocrypha (also called the deuterocanon) refers to certain OT books and additions that the RC considers canon which we dispute.

3. This IS the Baptist forum. You can post fellowship posts but you can not debate or teach here.

 

[Fencerguy]

The council of Laodicea is not credited with "canonizing" the bible.

please provide some support for this opinion....

Biased source. Again, the "C"atholic church is not responsible for the bible, God is.

God inspired the Bible, but Inspiration doesn't do much good if there is no one around willing to write it down.....or attempt to organize it...
And I can't help but notice that rather than refute the information given in the source that I provided, you simply dismiss it.....This does nothing to invalidate the argument I made....

Scripture. Show me from scripture where purgatory is biblical. And please, in your own words. I don't debate links.

In the Old Testament we see a foreshadowing of the purification that precedes Holiness (and thus entrance into heaven) in Isaiah. "Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."" (Isaiah 6:5-7)

In the New Testament we see a purifying fire specifically mentioned. A man's works are judged, and he will be saved as through fire. When does this purification take place? If it takes place after a soul enters heaven, then it invalidates the idea that God does not allow anything that is not perfectly holy into heaven. If it takes place before one enters heaven, then it starts to sound more like Purgatory...
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
"For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."

Scripture also speaks of sins that have consequences that ocurr both in this world, and in the next world. Rather than simply being that the eternal consequences of sin are eternal hell, some sins have consequences that are meted out after a person has died.

Matthew 12:32 "And whoever speaks 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."

If there is the opportunity for sins to be forgiven after a soul has passed out of this world, it logically follows that the consequences of sins can also be administered after a soul has passed out of this world.

And please, in your own words. I don't debate links.

So wait.....you want me to just gtive you opinions without any support? That makes no sense, and any discussion would be pointless...

 

[Fencerguy]

...additions that the RC considers canon which we dispute.

Additions?

3. This IS the Baptist forum. You can post fellowship posts but you can not debate or teach here.

So, opinions that are posted that are often quite obviously false and belittling should be allowed to continue without any requirement of support?

 

[student ad x]

Would you rather that some Christians be allowed to speak ill and demean others and not be required to back up their statements? The idea that individuals can post whatever they want to within their own congregational domains and never be required to validate their statements is quite disingenuous.....if you found catholics posting things that were clearly uneducated and false about baptists, would you not want to be able to ask them to defend their statements?

I'll tell you what, go back to the OP and look to see how many Catholics posted within the first dozen posts........... then ask why. If y'all who aren't Baptists want to talk about the baseball or why the NFL folk are arguing, great ......... but don't expect me to acknowledge Roman Catholics posting in this forum for anything other than it is.... apologetics. Baptists have the RIGHT to expect the rules of this SAFE HAVEN to be enforced......... which includes my RIGHT to hold and speak in the affirmative on the objective truths contained in the historic Baptist confessions of faith on the issue of Roman Catholicism, apostasy or any other heterodox religion for that matter.

If your desire is for the congregational rules to be changed........... go tell MSC your concern, don't campaign here.

 

[student ad x]

Perhaps we all would profit if members of different congreagtional forums posted more often in forums other than their own? I have always believed that an exchange of ideas is a good thing, as long as we stay away from heated debates.

Since "arguing" a position/debate is not possible, let's say in OBOB, then I have no reason to post there.......... since I respect the rules of THAT forum.

 

[LinuxUser]

question withdrawn

 

[Hentenza]

please provide some support for this opinion....

The council of Laodicea stated the books that the councils of Hippo and Carthage affirmed. The last two are considered the final word. There were other canons before Laodicea with one of the most famous being the Muratorian canon (CE 170) which stated 24 of the 27 NT books so the general acceptance of all the books was progressive but assured.

God inspired the Bible, but Inspiration doesn't do much good if there is no one around willing to write it down.....or attempt to organize it...

Again, God used the men of the councils to accomplish this but this does not give ownership to the men of the councils. It is still God's book.

And I can't help but notice that rather than refute the information given in the source that I provided, you simply dismiss it.....This does nothing to invalidate the argument I made....

I don't debate links. Been there done that.

In the Old Testament we see a foreshadowing of the purification that precedes Holiness (and thus entrance into heaven) in Isaiah. "Then I said, "Woe is me, I am doomed! For I am a man of unclean lips, living among a people of unclean lips; yet my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then one of the seraphim flew to me, holding an ember which he had taken with tongs from the altar. He touched my mouth with it. "See," he said, "now that this has touched your lips, your wickedness is removed, your sin purged."" (Isaiah 6:5-7)

An angel touched an ember to his tongue. Did it take a moment, years, centuries, a millennial? Or was it immediate?

In the New Testament we see a purifying fire specifically mentioned. A man's works are judged, and he will be saved as through fire. When does this purification take place?

In Heaven.

If it takes place after a soul enters heaven, then it invalidates the idea that God does not allow anything that is not perfectly holy into heaven.

Satan has access to Heaven (see Job) so God does allow unholy things in Heaven

If it takes place before one enters heaven, then it starts to sound more like Purgatory...
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
"For no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one's work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone's work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire."

Did it take a moment, years, centuries, a millennial? Or was it immediate?

Paul is describing the judgment of the believer which happens in an instant right after death. This judgment results in rewards not salvation.

BTW- Paul tells us that "there is not condemnation to those in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8) consequently no purification is necessary. Believers are already declared righteous by God through the sacrifice of the Son so no further purification is needed.

Scripture also speaks of sins that have consequences that ocurr both in this world, and in the next world. Rather than simply being that the eternal consequences of sin are eternal hell, some sins have consequences that are meted out after a person has died.

Matthew 12:32 "And whoever speaks 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."

If there is the opportunity for sins to be forgiven after a soul has passed out of this world, it logically follows that the consequences of sins can also be administered after a soul has passed out of this world.

All sins are forgiven here not in the afterlife. Christ died for all of them not just a few. The verse does not make a suggestion of remission of sins after this life but a statement that there is no remission in the afterlife.

So wait.....you want me to just gtive you opinions without any support? That makes no sense, and any discussion would be pointless...

Many folks just let others talk for them which shows a weak understanding of the theological issues being discussed. If you want to post a link as support then that's fine but if you are going to rely in the content of the link as your argument then no thanks. This usually ends up in the "battle" of the links. My link trumps your link baloney. lol

 

[Hentenza]

''

 

[Hentenza]

Additions?

Example, additions to Esther.

So, opinions that are posted that are often quite obviously false and belittling should be allowed to continue without any requirement of support?

Not what I said.

 

[Fencerguy]

........ but don't expect me to acknowledge Roman Catholics posting in this forum for anything other than it is.... apologetics. Baptists have the RIGHT to expect the rules of this SAFE HAVEN to be enforced...

Sure, but when people who lack a decent education outside of their own little brand of Christianity go around spouting ill founded and false opinions, those of us who are educated have a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to correct those statements, or at the very least to ask those who made the statements to give support for them.....
Without such liberty to correct falsehood, then nothing that is said in any congregational thread can be trusted.

...... which includes my RIGHT to hold and speak in the affirmative on the objective truths contained in the historic Baptist confessions of faith on the issue of Roman Catholicism, apostasy or any other heterodox religion for that matter.

You do have that right, i won't contend that. The only thing that I am taking issue with are statements and opinions that are uneducated and unsupported

If your desire is for the congregational rules to be changed........... go tell MSC your concern, don't campaign here.

I'm not campaigning for anything. I'm drawing a distinction between evangelizing in a congregation-specific thread and requiring those who make uneducated statments to back themselves up or change their statements to reflect some degree of education

 

[Hentenza]

Sure, but when people who lack a decent education outside of their own little brand of Christianity go around spouting ill founded and false opinions, those of us who are educated have a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to correct those statements, or at the very least to ask those who made the statements to give support for them.....
Without such liberty to correct falsehood, then nothing that is said in any congregational thread can be trusted.

This is the second time that you have accused others here of being uneducated and having uneducated opinions. Many here are very educated in this topic. I, for example, attended the Catholic church for 22 years including one year of Catholic seminary. I am a deacon and teacher in my church.

Please do not demean others here and post with charity.

 

[student ad x]

Sure, but when people who lack a decent education outside of their own little brand of Christianity go around spouting ill founded and false opinions, those of us who are educated have a RIGHT and a RESPONSIBILITY to correct those statements, or at the very least to ask those who made the statements to give support for them.....
Without such liberty to correct falsehood, then nothing that is said in any congregational thread can be trusted.

 

[Fencerguy]

The council of Laodicea stated the books that the councils of Hippo and Carthage affirmed. The last two are considered the final word.

and.... how does this invalidate the fact that Council of Laodicea was a legitimate canon of Scripture?

Again, God used the men of the councils to accomplish this but this does not give ownership to the men of the councils. It is still God's book.

Didn't say that a canon gave anyone "ownership" of the Bible....The first canons of Scripture simply came from the catholic church...

I don't debate links. Been there done that.

So you don't debate.....The reason for posting links along with your argument is to provide support for your argument, otherwise you are simply spouting opinions and assuming that your opinion is infallible....

An angel touched an ember to his tongue. Did it take a moment, years, centuries, a millennial? Or was it immediate?

immediate, what is the issue?

In Heaven.

Satan has access to Heaven (see Job) so God does allow unholy things in Heaven

There is one episode where Satan entered heaven, he never resided there and it is never mentioned that he was allowed to stay, this has nothing to do with Christians entering heaven while still possessing the stain of sins...

Did it take a moment, years, centuries, a millennial? Or was it immediate?

We have no reason to assume that it wasn't immediate...

Paul is describing the judgment of the believer which happens in an instant right after death. This judgment results in rewards not salvation.

ture....what issue do you have here?

BTW- Paul tells us that "there is not condemnation to those in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8) consequently no purification is necessary. Believers are already declared righteous by God through the sacrifice of the Son so no further purification is needed.

Ok...You have not truly studied the doctrine of Purgatory objectively have you? The teaching of the RCC says that purgatory only contains souls who are already guaranteed heaven. Just because you are guaranteed heaven does not mean that you are excused from all consequences of sin just because you die. It is reasonable to assume that we will be finally purified in the time before we enter heaven, because it is unlikely that we will all die in a state of perfection....

All sins are forgiven here not in the afterlife. Christ died for all of them not just a few. The verse does not make a suggestion of remission of sins after this life but a statement that there is no remission in the afterlife.

Matthew 12:32 "And whoever speaks 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."

then why this distinction, if there is no reason to assume that any sins will be forgiven after death (or not forgiven after death), why does Matthew make this distinction regarding a specific sin?

Many folks just let others talk for them which shows a weak understanding of the theological issues being discussed. If you want to post a link as support then that's fine but if you are going to rely in the content of the link as your argument then no thanks. This usually ends up in the "battle" of the links. My link trumps your link baloney. lol

and where have I engaged in this? You are accusing me of something that I have not done.....suggesting that you cannot answer my argument, or the support that I have given for it...

 

[Fencerguy]

This is the second time that you have accused others here of being uneducated and having uneducated opinions. Many here are very educated in this topic. I, for example, attended the Catholic church for 22 years including one year of Catholic seminary. I am a deacon and teacher in my church.

Please do not demean others here and post with charity.

You left the catholic church....i would be interested to know why...


But attendence does not guarantee a good education...

I post with charity, but i will require the arguments made here to be accurate and properly supported.....for the furtherence of my own education and of others...