Catholic Teachings.... Backed by Scripture??

[GoingByzantine]

You can find scripture that supports clerical celibacy, and also those verses that support marriage in the clergy. That's great, because the Catholic Church practices both.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Nothing here to do with Purgatory. Your better off using 2 Macc 12:38-45, eventhough this don't work either. Ill explain this if you would like.

Nothing about purgatory here. There is an age to come and it is either heaven or hell.

You may want to do your history again, for the first two centuries there was not even a mention of Purgatory. Not even the slightest allusion to the idea of Purgatory. The practice of the Roman church praying for the dead became more common by the beginning of the third century.

If you do your research you can you will find the roots of Purgatory in the pagan Greek religions. Also, the true founder of Purgatory was Origen, and the RCC considered him a heretic.

What we have here is a difference of intepretation.

Your interpretation is modernist, created after the enlightenment.

Your view is not part of historical Christianity.


Do you even know what Purgatory is? It appears you don't.

From the Cathechism:

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.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

The popes have had many disagreements also. That's quite odd, huh?

There has never been a change in settled Catholic doctrine.

Popes agree regarding official teachings of the Church.

 

[GoingByzantine]

The Catholic Church after the Second Vatican Council uses the local vernacular, with some exceptions. In the United States this is generally English, occasionally there will be a parish that offers the old Tridentine Mass in Latin for those who prefer a more traditional Catholic experience.

Even before Vatican II...there were Catholic services conducted in Latin, Greek, Church Slavonic, Coptic and other proper languages. Now that the Church uses the local vernacular worldwide, what do you want me to defend with scripture?

 

[BBAS 64]

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Raymond E. Brown: Some Roman Catholics may have expected me to include a discussion of the historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin, especially since the concept of original sin did not fully exist in the first century. The dogma is not based upon information passed down by Mary or by the apostles; it is based on the Church’s insight that the sinlessness of Jesus should have affected his origins, and hence his mother, as well. Nor does a Catholic have to think that the people gathered for her funeral saw Mary assumed into heaven—there is no reliable historical tradition to that effect, and the dogma does not even specify that Mary died. Once again the doctrine stems from the Church’s insight about the application of the fruits of redemption to the leading disciple: Mary has gone before us, anticipating our common fate. Raymond E. Brown, Biblical Reflections on Crises facing the Church (New York: Paulist Press, 1975), p. 105, fn. 103.

And therefore.....?

What biblical evidence do you have that Jesus was born to a sinful woman who had not been cleansed by grace?

What biblical evidence do you have that marries body exists on earth?

 

[BBAS 64]

And therefore.....?

What biblical evidence do you have that Jesus was born to a sinful woman who had not been cleansed by grace?

What biblical evidence do you have that marries body exists on earth?

All have sinned... universal (all)

Asking me to prove a negative (not) is illogical, you presuppose that which you have yet to prove with imperial evidence.

In Him,

 

[catholichomeschooler]

All have sinned... universal (all)

Asking me to prove a negative (not) is illogical, you presuppose that which you have yet to prove with imperial evidence.

In Him,

You teach that Mary was not assumed and that Jesus was born in original sin.

 

[BBAS 64]

You teach that Mary was not assumed and that Jesus was born in original sin.

I believe that it is not relevant in any way to historic Christian faith wether Mary was magically assumed or not, only the RC denomination demands such a belief by their attendees.

One thing for sure it is not in Scripture

Jesus was God so no..... do you presume Mary was God (of course) not.

You presume she was "(cleansed by grace)", you have yet to define what that means for you (subjective), and prove that it happened by imperial evidence.

This is from a misunderstanding of Luke.... Raymond Brown notes in the Jerome commentary:

"we should not "eke every drop of theological and even mariological significance from Luke 1, 28." If the phrase has theological significance, as it does, the meaning is not that usually associated with the text. It really means that Mary received the grace of conceiving the Messiah.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

Amazon.com: The Biblical Basis for the Catholic Faith (9781592761463): John Salza: Books

I don't find all his arguments compelling, but I think this book covers what you're looking for.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I believe that it is not relevant in any way to historic Christian faith wether Mary was magically assumed or not, only the RC denomination demands such a belief by their attendees.

Jesus was God so no..... do you presume Mary was God (of course) not.

You presume she was "(cleansed by grace)", you have yet to define what that means for you (subjective), and prove that it happened by imperial evidence.

The point is that your belief is not in the bible. It is your "assumption".

Here's what is in the bible:

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".

Is this no longer valid in your opinion?

 

[BBAS 64]

The point is that your belief is not in the bible. It is your "assumption".

Here's what is in the bible:

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven".

Is this no longer valid in your opinion?

It is valid, as it is scripture...

You applying this to your own denomination for the explicit purpose of upholding their own self appointed authority is not valid. It is a mishandling of Scripture.

They say what it means, regardless of what the text says, and then it is infallible because they said so...

Name it claim it.... not very convincing.

Johann Adam Möhler: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.

Again:

Historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin

Do you agree?

They are not Historical, nor mentioned in the scripture, but are based upon the supposed authority of your denomination?

In Him,

Bill

 

[Foghorn]

You claimed to be an ex catholic before I think? Either a badly informed one, or someone who is deliberately misleading it seems.

Purgatory is not an alternative to heaven or hell, but cleansing for heaven.
And about all the doctine formally says is that there will be be purging - a cleansing - and that will be in some sense painful.
And that's about it.

I know what purgatory is. It does not exsist, so how can their be a place for purging before heaven? If anything it's the sanctification process here on earth.

don't you see you have no scripture support?

 

[brinny]

*subscribing*

 

[Foghorn]

What we have here is a difference of intepretation.

Your interpretation is modernist, created after the enlightenment.

Your view is not part of historical Christianity.


Do you even know what Purgatory is? It appears you don't.

From the Cathechism:

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.

i sure do know what it is. How can we have a decent discussion when you consider nothing? I don't see how you can make such a reply, did you even read my reply?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

It is valid, as it is scripture...

You applying this to your own denomination for the explicit purpose of upholding their own self appointed authority is not valid. It is a mishandling of Scripture.

They say what it means, regardless of what the text says, and then it is infallible because they said so...

Name it claim it.... not very convincing.

Johann Adam Möhler: Catholic theologians teach with general concurrence, and quite in the spirit of the Church, that even a Scriptural proof in favour of a decree held to be infallible, is not itself infallible, but only the dogma as defined. Johann Adam Möhler, Symbolism: Exposition of the Doctorinal Differences between Catholics and Protestants as evidenced by their Symbolical Writings, trans. James Burton Robertson (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 1997), p. 296.

Again:

Historicity of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary. But these Marian doctrines, which are not mentioned in Scripture, clearly lie outside my topic which was the quest for historical knowledge of Mary in the NT. Moreover, I would stress the ambiguity of the term “historicity” when applied to these two doctrines. A Roman Catholic must accept the two dogmas as true upon the authority of the teaching Church, but he does not have to hold that the dogmas are derived from a chain of historical information. There is no evidence that Mary (or anyone else in NT times) knew that she was conceived free of original sin

Do you agree?

They are not Historical, nor mentioned in the scripture, but are based upon the supposed authority of your denomination?

In Him,

Bill

Jesus gave us a Church. He gave the Church the authority to bind and loose.

The question is, which Church holds this authority?

This Church will be given new understanding of God's will as it relates to new events:

John 16
12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

i sure do know what it is. How can we have a decent discussion when you consider nothing? I don't see how you can make such a reply, did you even read my reply?

Your comments made it clear that you didn't even know what the teaching regarding purgatory is.

You are like many lapsed Catholics who never learned the faith. It is a shame because it is probably not your fault.

It is your fault, however, when you misrepresent Church teaching today.

 

[BBAS 64]

Jesus gave us a Church. He gave the Church the authority to bind and loose.

The question is, which Church holds this authority?

This Church will be given new understanding of God's will as it relates to new events:

John 16
12“I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Good Day,

That is a very novel way of interpreting John 16:12, is that yours or your denominations??

If it is the later, would you have the source?

If it not the later (but your own private interpretation) you would have to agree you could be in error as you infallible interpreter of scripture has yet to weigh in on the passage.

In Him,
Bill

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Good Day,

That is a very novel way of interpreting John 16:12, is that yours or your denominations??

If it is the later, would you have the source?

If it not the later (but your own private interpretation) you would have to agree you could be in error as you infallible interpreter of scripture has yet to weigh in on the passage.

In Him,
Bill

There is nothing novel about it.

Jesus promised that the Church would be led into ALL truth and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.

Clear enough?

 

[yogosans14]

People still dont understand the Biblical definition of Church I see..what a shame.