I cant find (penalty).
the Catechism YOU quoted defines THE TERM "temporal punishment" as: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.
you can quote all the online definitions you want, PENALTY is your word.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.
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.
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.
yes, it is referring to eternal punishment and temporal punishment as defined in the same paragraphAnd 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.
That Catechism entry also used the word punishment to describe the consequence of the need for purification.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.
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.
okA punishment is a penalty.
what Catechism were you looking at?I’m sorry I wasn’t looking right at the catechism when I made that statement
when you claim to be state doctrine, it is normally a good idea not to paraphrase. Otherwise you get in the trouble you did.I was paraphrasing
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.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
your opinionYou’ve already been proven wrong so just stop with the nonsense already
you provided no congruent argument for saying the Church's doctrine says purgatory is a penaltyYou asked for proof and I provided it, if you don’t like it you can take it up with your church.
keep up, I omitted nothing. We are working with what @BNR32FAN quotedThat Catechism entry also used the word punishment to describe the consequence of the need for purification. You omitted that part of the entry.
yes, it is referring to eternal punishment and temporal punishment as defined in the same paragraph
Yes, your post 423 did omit part of it.keep up, I omitted nothing. We are working with what @BNR32FAN quoted
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
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. "So purgatory is a punishment but not a penalty?
I'm using the definition found in the same paragraph YOU quoted.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
you weren't around either. So why dont we agree to use the explanation given in the CCC.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.
my post was to define "temporal punishment".Yes, your post 423 did omit part of it.
Of course you do.Sorry, but I disagree
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.
It sure does – and it was appropriate at the time.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?
Funnier still was the actual claim you made!Ha-ha... I think not. Funny thing is..... you didn't deny it!
.......oh the irony....Ahh.... nice try PM, but no. Anybody that can comprehend writing of the English would see you were .... shall we say...............spot off!
Sigh....yes...ha-ha..say's me.....Ha-ha... say's you!
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 PM, being you are a sola scripturist, could you show where in the bible it say's this? In verbatim.
Then why the question that you so desperately wanted an answer too:Secondly, and with no dis-respect PM, what "you" believe is of no concern to me.
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.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?
Placemat: Yes.
Fidelibus:Really? does that mean you are your own little pope?
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.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.
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??
Actually, there is.
There is only one position on Sola Scriptura. The idea is remarkably straightforward.
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.
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.
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.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?
LOL. I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church embracing Sola Scriptura.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.
Oh yes. Something that exists only in theory. And you think that's better than Scripture??Besides we have the Magisterium.
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.
LOL. I didn't say anything about the Catholic Church embracing Sola Scriptura.
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.
Yup.... with good reason.Of course you do.
Funnier still was the actual claim you made!
Sigh....yes...ha-ha..say's me.....
(unfortunately to no avail I may add)
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.
Then why the question that you so desperately wanted an answer too:
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.
I’m awaiting delivery from Amazon of my little red slippers as we post!
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.
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.
And at the present time, I am in the care of the best ‘Overseer’ of all time.
Do you see a problem with that??
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?