Can you find the Church?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I cant find (penalty).

I’m sorry I thought you might be familiar with the word. Here ya go here’s the definition of punishment.

Punishment
  • The imposition of a penalty or deprivation for wrongdoing: the swift punishment of all offenders.
  • A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: "The severity of the punishment must ... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated" (Simone Weil).
  • Rough treatment or use: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I did, twice already. The punishment of being separated from God and the punishment of being purified by fire. That’s the two punishments according to the catechism.
the Catechism YOU quoted defines THE TERM "temporal punishment" as:
On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory.

This is clearly not a penalty. Penalty is YOUR word.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I’m sorry I thought you might be familiar with the word. Here ya go here’s the definition of punishment.

Punishment
  • The imposition of a penalty or deprivation for wrongdoing: the swift punishment of all offenders.
  • A penalty imposed for wrongdoing: "The severity of the punishment must ... be in keeping with the kind of obligation which has been violated" (Simone Weil).
  • Rough treatment or use: These old skis have taken a lot of punishment over the years.
you can quote all the online definitions you want, PENALTY is your word.

If you wanted to be fair, use the definition the CCC provides in the same paragraph you quoted.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
the Catechism YOU quoted defines THE TERM "temporal punishment" as:
On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory.

This is clearly not a penalty. Penalty is YOUR word.

And the next sentence?

On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

The very next sentence just defined the purification as a punishment.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
you can quote all the online definitions you want, PENALTY is your word.

If you wanted to be fair, use the definition the CCC provides in the same paragraph you quoted.

A punishment is a penalty. I’m sorry I wasn’t looking right at the catechism when I made that statement I was paraphrasing so if I used the word penalty instead of punishment it doesn’t make any difference at all because the very definition of the word punishment that is used in the catechism is a penalty. You’ve already been proven wrong so just stop with the nonsense already. You asked for proof and I provided it, if you don’t like it you can take it up with your church.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
And the next sentence?

On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

The very next sentence just defined the purification as a punishment.
yes, it is referring to eternal punishment and temporal punishment as defined in the same paragraph
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
the Catechism YOU quoted defines THE TERM "temporal punishment" as:
On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory.
That Catechism entry also used the word punishment to describe the consequence of the need for purification.

On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin.

Perhaps the misunderstanding comes from the reference to "two punishments" or from the reference to purification for "temporal punishment."

Temporal punishment is punishment that doesn't last forever (Purgatory). The other is eternal punishment (Hell). But both are places of punishment.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Placemat
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
A punishment is a penalty.
ok
I’m sorry I wasn’t looking right at the catechism when I made that statement
what Catechism were you looking at?
I was paraphrasing
when you claim to be state doctrine, it is normally a good idea not to paraphrase. Otherwise you get in the trouble you did.
so if I used the word penalty instead of punishment it doesn’t make any difference at all because the very definition of the word punishment that is used in the catechism is a penalty
you are equating the phrase "temporal punishment" to penalty. This is clearly not.correct becasue in the same paragraph, the Catechism defines what temporal punishment is, and it ain't penalty.
You’ve already been proven wrong so just stop with the nonsense already
your opinion
You asked for proof and I provided it, if you don’t like it you can take it up with your church.
you provided no congruent argument for saying the Church's doctrine says purgatory is a penalty
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
That Catechism entry also used the word punishment to describe the consequence of the need for purification. You omitted that part of the entry.
keep up, I omitted nothing. We are working with what @BNR32FAN quoted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
keep up, I omitted nothing. We are working with what @BNR32FAN quoted
Yes, your post 423 did omit part of it.

That omission caused both "BNR" and me to complete the Catechism's statement by quoting--in posts 425 and 428 respectively--the omitted wording immediately following which referred to punishment. See the bolded sections in those posts. His post 425, in fact, reiterated the earlier post that included the part about punishment.

If it is the case that "We are working with what @BNR32FAN quoted," it's the entire section from the Catechism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
ok
what Catechism were you looking at?
when you claim to be state doctrine, it is normally a good idea not to paraphrase. Otherwise you get in the trouble you did.
you are equating the phrase "temporal punishment" to penalty. This is clearly not.correct becasue in the same paragraph, the Catechism defines what temporal punishment is, and it ain't penalty.
your opinion
you provided no congruent argument for saying the Church's doctrine says purgatory is a penalty

So purgatory is a punishment but not a penalty? I guess that’s what you get when you ignore the dictionary and make up your own definitions for words that have already been defined for centuries. See the thing is tho, you weren’t around in 1439AD to provide your definition of the word punishment to the council, so I think we’ll have to assume that they intended the same definition that the rest of the world uses instead of your’s since your definition didn’t exist yet.
 
Upvote 0

concretecamper

Member of His Church
Nov 23, 2013
6,742
2,553
PA
✟271,779.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So purgatory is a punishment but not a penalty?
the CCC states exactly what Purgatory is: "On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. "

I guess that’s what you get when you ignore the dictionary and make up your own definitions for words that have already been defined for centuries
I'm using the definition found in the same paragraph YOU quoted.
See the thing is tho, you weren’t around in 1439AD to provide your definition of the word punishment to the council, so I think we’ll have to assume that they intended the same definition that the rest of the world uses instead of your’s since your definition didn’t exist yet.
you weren't around either. So why dont we agree to use the explanation given in the CCC.
 
Upvote 0

Placemat

Active Member
Jun 16, 2021
166
23
Kingston
✟36,570.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, but I disagree
Of course you do.

Placemat: You have not ‘answered’ my question but have merely responded by parroting (salted throughout with self-gratulatory winking or blue faced smilies) what you, as a Catholic have been taught to ’know’ by your self-proclaimed ‘one true’ church.
Fidelibus: Sure I have.... Twice! You know....Somebody on this forum once told me...."Don’t blame me for your faulty reading comprehension." Sound familiar? ;)
It sure does – and it was appropriate at the time.

Ha-ha... I think not. Funny thing is..... you didn't deny it!
Funnier still was the actual claim you made!

Ahh.... nice try PM, but no. Anybody that can comprehend writing of the English would see you were .... shall we say...............spot off! :)
.......oh the irony....

Ha-ha... say's you! ;)
Sigh....yes...ha-ha..say's me.....

First off PM, being you are a sola scripturist, could you show where in the bible it say's this? In verbatim.
Put in a little effort and open your bible and I’m sure if you search hard enough you can find it nestled in there right beside where He calls the church, verbatim, the ‘Catholic Church’ with sole authority to interpret scripture and the same Authority and power that the Apostles had to settle issues/disputes back then - disputes such as the handling of the sexual abuse by priests - when it is brought to their attention – yep, just like the Apostles would have done.

Secondly, and with no dis-respect PM, what "you" believe is of no concern to me.
Then why the question that you so desperately wanted an answer too:

"Now that I've answered your question, let me ask you a couple. In Matt. 18:15-17 it say's.....
15 “If your brother* sins [against you], go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

The question being........Jesus is saying we are to take these scenarios to "the church." (singular) What "Church" do you believe Him to be speaking of?

The reason being, as I presume,you being a Protestant must agree that your interpretation and opinion of these scripture passages (or any other scripture passages) are fallible/non absolute and have no authority over me or anyone else for that matter, and could be in error........ correct?
Just as fallible/non absolute as the Catholic church’s interpretations that have no authority over me or anyone else for that matter and that could be in error.

Placemat: Yes.

Fidelibus:Really? does that mean you are your own little pope?

I’m awaiting delivery from Amazon of my little red slippers as we post!

Oh, you mean the church that would happen to teach and agrees with what you believe in at that certain time? WOW! Guess being a Protestant, you'd have plenty of churches to choose from. ;)
Any church that teaches and preaches Christ Jesus and His unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message is where He wants me to be and as a born again, non-Catholic Christian, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be.

Whoaaa......as an adherent in the belief of sola scriptura, sure you don't want to re-think what you are saying here? Because it seems, what you are saying goes completely against what it say's in the Bible! ( Matt. 18:16-17, 1 Tim.3:15) You don't see a problem with that??

As an adherent of HIS, there’s nothing to re-think about what I said.

I’ve already stated that I would take any issue to the church that I would be attending, so that serves Matt. 18:16-17 and I know how to behave myself in the house of God, so that serves 1 Timothy 3:15.

Matthew 18:16-17

16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.

17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.



1 Timothy 3:15

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


And at the present time, I am in the care of the best ‘Overseer’ of all time.
Do you see a problem with that??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Actually, there is.

There is only one position on Sola Scriptura. The idea is remarkably straightforward.

Really? If there is only one position, and it is so remarkably straight forward, why are there so many competing sola scripturist factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues like, what kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants? Must baptism be by immersion only? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government? Abortion is allowed. Abortion is not allowed. We recognize same sex marriage. We do not recognize same sex marriage. ect... ect... So the next question has to be asked, who has or holds the authority of this only one position on Sola Scriptura to determine who is correct in these matters, and who is in error? Way I see it, this is an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of private judgment, and thus the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Not to mention it's unbiblical. ;)

People sometimes add to it and/or qualify it with their own personal provisos, but that happens with any doctrine, whether we're talking about Catholic teachings or Protestant beliefs.

Ahhhh..... No. The Catholic Church does not...... I repeat, does not embrace the unbiblical and neoteric belief of sola scriptura. Besides we have the Magisterium.

If a Catholic misrepresents Transubstantiation or Purgatory, for example, I would hope that you would not then say that there is no identifiable meaning for them.

I would tell them to go to their nearest Catholic book store, or Parish and pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to see just exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Really? If there is only one position, and it is so remarkably straight forward, why are there so many competing sola scripturist factions, teaching different doctrines on key theological issues like, what kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Needed? Is baptism for infants?
Those are conclusions different people reached by following the principle we call Sola Scriptura. But that isn't Sola Scriptura itself. And Sola Scriptura isn't multifaceted or a collection of different ideas or a grab bag of variations on a theme, or anything of the sort. :)

Ahhhh..... No. The Catholic Church does not...... I repeat, does not embrace the unbiblical and neoteric belief of sola scriptura. Besides we have the Magisterium.
LOL. I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church embracing Sola Scriptura.

Besides we have the Magisterium.
Oh yes. Something that exists only in theory. And you think that's better than Scripture??

Or maybe there's legend, custom, and folklore--what your church calls "Sacred Tradition" even though the best known doctrines claimed in its name aren't traditional at all.

Scripture, the word of God, looks a lot more dependable than that stuff when you think about it for a moment! ;)

Anyway, Catholics themselves are all over the place when it comes to doctrines, even ones that are supposedly infallible and required for salvation So....they're no different from Protestants in that respect.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Placemat
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Those are conclusions different people reached by following the principle we call Sola Scriptura. But that isn't Sola Scriptura itself. And Sola Scriptura isn't multifaceted or a collection of different ideas or a grab bag of variations on a theme, or anything of the sort.

You gotta be kidding, we witness right here on CF forums sola scriptura conformist posters disagreeing on what they or their church interprets and believe on any certain bible verse say's or means all the time..... you included!

LOL. I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church embracing Sola Scriptura.

Just making sure other folks don't get the notion or idea we Catholics do embrace this non-biblical belief. ;)

Oh yes. Something that exists only in theory.

Nope.....The Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is illustrated in various places in the New Testament. All of the apostles have the power to bind and loose (Matt. 15:15-18), but only St. Peter—the first Pope—had “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” illustrating his primacy re: teaching and governing in leading the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). We also see the teaching authority of Peter and the apostles affirmed in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) and in Acts 2:42.

And you think that's better than Scripture??

Hmmm.... odd thing for you to say, being you pride yourself as a poster very knowledgeable of the Catholic Church and her teachings. This proves that you are not. Reason being, if you did, you would know that Catholics agree that Scripture is supremely important, we don’t believe that it’s the only infallible guide to our faith. We believe that Sacred Tradition is just as important and authoritative as the Bible and that the Magisterium of the Church (the pope and all the bishops of the world in communion with him) can infallibly teach about faith and morals. Taken together, these three authorities form the supreme rule of our faith. Scripture and Tradition contain God’s revelation to us, and the Magisterium authoritatively interprets their contents.

Or maybe there's legend, custom, and folklore--what your church calls "Sacred Tradition" even though the best known doctrines claimed in its name aren't traditional at all.

If we are going to listen to the apostle Paul, then we/you should obey his command to follow the oral traditions of the Church as well (2 Thess 2:15). But you won’t do that, nor will you even investigate what they are, because it seems you live in a world of private-judgment Christianity where your personal opinions are the final authority. (Sola scriptura)

Scripture, the word of God, looks a lot more dependable than that stuff when you think about it for a moment!

Did Jesus teach Sola Scriptura?

Anyway, Catholics themselves are all over the place when it comes to doctrines, even ones that are supposedly infallible and required for salvation

See Paragraphs 2039-2040 from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So....they're no different from Protestants in that respect.

Nope, there is a huge difference! Protestants/ non- denominationals are all over the place when it comes to doctrines. Like concretecamper said on a post somewhere, "all one has to do is follow any certain thread for a month to see for ones self." I would be willing to bet, if I were to start a thread asking Protestants/non- denominationals their understanding or definition of Sola Scriptura it would be..... again.... all over the place. ;)

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0

Fidelibus

Well-Known Member
Jan 4, 2017
1,185
300
67
U.S.A.
✟66,007.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Of course you do.
Yup.... with good reason.

Funnier still was the actual claim you made!

Gotta call it for what it is.

Sigh....yes...ha-ha..say's me.....

You can 'sigh' all you want, but the fact remains, your accusation is still unjustified.

(unfortunately to no avail I may add)

Again, my answer (what, at least twice? I lost count.) was successfully presented. Unfortunately for you, it didn't feed your seemingly anti Catholic narrative.

Put in a little effort and open your bible and I’m sure if you search hard enough you can find it nestled in there right beside where He calls the church, verbatim, the ‘Catholic Church’ with sole authority to interpret scripture and the same Authority and power that the Apostles had to settle issues/disputes back then - disputes such as the handling of the sexual abuse by priests - when it is brought to their attention – yep, just like the Apostles would have done.

First off, just because you are limited to the unbiblical belief of sola scriptura, doesn't mean I am.

Secondly, couldn't help noticing you deflected/side-stepped providing what you believed with the bible.

And lastly, by not being able to provide it, you should at least try to make an attempt of not being so transparent of continually going to the old anti-Catholic play book, if you can't show it from the bible, deflect and turn to the page were it says.... "If you find yourself with a question you can't answer, just throw the Catholic Churches sex abuse scandal at them to deflect." ;)

Then why the question that you so desperately wanted an answer too:

Ha-ha... I wouldn't go so far as calling it "desperate" but only to see which one of the many flavors and interpretations of Protestantism or non-denominational of said Scripture you would provide.

Just as fallible/non absolute as the Catholic church’s interpretations that have no authority over me or anyone else for that matter and that could be in error.

Well, I will stick with what Jesus say's about His Church. He said in Matt. 16:18, "You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it," The Catholic Church!

I’m awaiting delivery from Amazon of my little red slippers as we post!

I hope you ordered your Zucchetto as well. ;)

Any church that teaches and preaches Christ Jesus and His unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message is where He wants me to be and as a born again, non-Catholic Christian, I really do trust Him to lead me to where He wants me to be.

So how do you know if any one of these churches are "teaching and preaching Christ' unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message?" How do they get the authority to do so? Surely, as a Protestant you do not consider any of them to be infallible do you? If not, do you agree any one of these churches you are attending at any certain time could not be teaching and preaching Christ' unadulterated, uncontaminated gospel message?

As an adherent of HIS, there’s nothing to re-think about what I said.

I’ve already stated that I would take any issue to the church that I would be attending, so that serves Matt. 18:16-17 and I know how to behave myself in the house of God, so that serves 1 Timothy 3:15.

Ahem....as you being a Protestant non-Catholic, I'm pretty sure the church that you happen to be attending at any certain time is not the Church referenced in these passages, for they didn't come into existence until the sixteenth century.

And at the present time, I am in the care of the best ‘Overseer’ of all time.

Alrighty then!

Do you see a problem with that??

Nope, you can believe whatever you want. ;)

Have a Blessed Day!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Nope.....The Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Pope and the bishops in union with him, is illustrated in various places in the New Testament. All of the apostles have the power to bind and loose (Matt. 15:15-18), but only St. Peter—the first Pope—had “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” illustrating his primacy re: teaching and governing in leading the Church (Matthew 16:18-19). We also see the teaching authority of Peter and the apostles affirmed in the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) and in Acts 2:42.

Why is Peter’s successor in Rome any more significant than his successor in Antioch?
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.