Doctrinal Origin from Pope Gregory I

Swordman007 · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
There is nothing in the Catholic doctrine of purgatory that asserts that there is "a lack in the power of the Blood of Christ Jesus".

Ok. That's why I'm here, having created this thread. If there is some sort of need to have some sins burned away through burning in some place called "purgatory," then what other conclusion can be drawn other than the fact that such a teaching suggests there is some measure of lack in the sufficiency of the Blood of Chris Jesus to cleanse us from ALL sin.

[1 John 2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

As you can see in that verse, John has made sin the exception in the life of a believer, not the rule. He also stated that IF we sin, we have an advocate with the Father. Advocates stand in the place of the accused, and if the purgatory doctrine is true, then John had a perfect opportunity here to address that very thing, but he didn't. He made it clear that the blood of Jesus is totally sufficient for all cleansing.

Now, if you see wiggle room for an alternative conclusion, that's why I'm here, to see if I have missed something.

That is something that anti-Catholics say to virtue-signal and feel good about themselves, just like the how the pharisees loved to boast about their piety.

I can't speak for others because I'm not anti anything except false teaching, lies and deceptions. Let's forget about bashing others and just stick to the topic.

And by the way, the Scriptures that you profess to rely on, you would not even know what they are, except for the Catholic Church telling you so.

Whoah! You must not have ever read 1 John 2:27. What you're saying is an accusation of his being a liar. I will retain my belief that, given ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God, all others are themselves liars, even if they wear funny robes and hats, fancy suits, or ragged and living under a bridge. The word of God is inspired by Him, and is stable...never having been added to by anyone.

If you don't mind, I will stick to "It is written..."

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

LightLoveHope said:
It is one reason I sincerely oppose celibacy for church officials as it leads to immorality and failure because there is not a healthy outlet for desire and companionship, which is innate in most people, and exalting devotion above the reality of how people can actually live. The sexual abuse scandals is founded on this false belief priests are above such things. And the reason it was hidden was to maintain this false image.

Sexual abuse is every-bit of a problem in the Baptist churches as it has been in the Catholic Church. The only difference is that the Catholic Church took steps to end it, while the Baptist churches have done nothing.

Swordman007 · Jan 13, 2021

DamianWarS said:
Normally the choir is in harmony with the preacher however in this case it would seem the OP's position is in contention. Preaching can be to edify but also to challenge, the former is welcomed in the "One Bread, One Body" forum and the latter is reportable. @Swordman007 choosing to post in the controversial forum implictly means he wishes to challenge the doctrine in the OP, not agree with it.

I have already explained in here my purpose for posting here. I have been beat up in the grouping forums for daring to ask question, because doing so was assumed to be brute force attack.

Besides, when asking questions, that isn't an offensive attack. If there is merit to the claims behind a doctrinal belief, then there should be no problem defending it from scripture. That's what I'm looking for. Nobody asks questions with the intention to eventually agree with what they are asking about. That's absurd.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
Ok. That's why I'm here, having created this thread. If there is some sort of need to have some sins burned away through burning in some place called "purgatory," then what other conclusion can be drawn other than the fact that such a teaching suggests there is some measure of lack in the sufficiency of the Blood of Chris Jesus to cleanse us from ALL sin.

[1 John 2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

As you can see in that verse, John has made sin the exception in the life of a believer, not the rule. He also stated that IF we sin, we have an advocate with the Father. Advocates stand in the place of the accused, and if the purgatory doctrine is true, then John had a perfect opportunity here to address that very thing, but he didn't. He made it clear that the blood of Jesus is totally sufficient for all cleansing.

Now, if you see wiggle room for an alternative conclusion, that's why I'm here, to see if I have missed something.

Well if you are totally clean, why do you continue to sin? If you are perfectly purified, why does God, who loves you, continue to discipline you to make you holier? Please see the Hebrews verse I quoted above, which speaks of a cleansing punishment.

Do you have trouble making a distinction between removing the guilt of sin by which we are condemned to hell, and the sanctification of the believer? Our Lord died to save us from the punishments of hell. He did not die so that we can live easy lives and sin without facing any form of reprimand or other consequences for it. Do murders and rapists not have to go to jail and be reformed because they prayed the sinner's prayer and believed on the Lord?

Friend, I don't think you understand the Catholic teaching on purgatory. Perhaps you have been listening to too many anti-Catholics in forming you view of what the teaching is. You can read this:

What is Purgatory?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines purgatory as a “purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven,” which is experienced by those “who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified” (CCC 1030). It notes that “this final purification of the elect . . . is entirely different from the punishment of the damned” (CCC 1031).

The purification is necessary because, as Scripture teaches, nothing unclean will enter the presence of God in heaven (Rev. 21:27) and, while we may die with our mortal sins forgiven, there can still be many impurities in us, specifically venial sins and the temporal punishment due to sins already forgiven.

What Happens in Purgatory?
When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that “it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment” (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5).

Augustine said in The City of God that “temporary punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by others after death, by others both now and then; but all of them before that last and strictest judgment” (21:13). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: “I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper” (Luke 12:59).

Swordman007 · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
Well if you are totally clean, why do you continue to sin? If you are perfectly purified, why does God, who loves you, continue to discipline you to make you holier? Please see the Hebrews verse I quoted above, which speaks of a cleansing punishment.

[Rom 6:6, 12] 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. ... 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[Rom. 8:10] And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
[1 Cor. 6:18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

So, does the writer of the above verses know what he's talking about, or is he in error?

[2 Cor. 5:21] For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Again, Jesus was made to be sin for me, and when He said, "It is finished," I take it that He meant what He said. Now, I'm here to explore any reason as to why I should not believe what the clear language says. Did the writer beat around the bush with word games, and left things out that can be redefined by injections into the white space? When he wrote that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, how does that suggest that His having become sin for us left out some aspects of sin along some time line of life? That is what I'm asking about, because the scriptures look like they contradict what you posted from that other writing.

Please keep in mind that I'm not here to tell you that you don't have a right to believe whatever you want. We all are free, and responsible, for what we choose to believe in this life. I'm always on a pursuit for truth, which is a noble pursuit, and when confronted by high-mindedness and conceit, I have to wonder about the beliefs such people stand upon. I didn't come here to be analyzed and brow beat, just to see if there is any merit in a belief I am asking about.

Valletta · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
You continue to swing your battle ax rather than to simply discuss the merits of the questions posed.

Are you referring to the ROMAN catholic church? I too am catholic, just not ROMAN catholic.

True. Now, if I may, there is another CLEAR teaching in the Bible that needs no explanation because of the clarity of its meaning:

[1 John 2:26-27] 26 These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. 27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of ALL things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. [emphasis mine]

So, that's why I am only here to try and dredge up any potential gems or nuggets of gold that I may have missed while panning the river of this subject. Jesus didn't have much of anything positive about the traditions of men, but always made reference to "It is written...," even when confronted by Satan. Rather than match wits, Jesus ONLY made reference to what is written in scripture. He did not make appeals to traditions, practices, dogmas or anything else.

Just wanted you to understand that the standard by which I apply any and all acid tests for teachings, doctrines, commands, traditions, et al are gauged against what it written in scripture. If it ain't in scripture, it ain't God's position on the given subject, just as nothing was added to the Torah over the centuries regardless of what the people may have believed about other things. The Lord never, at any time, allowed for additions. The Jews, however, DID write other things that thy mistakenly held up as traditions, and enforced them as if they had been commanded by God, and Jesus thoroughly chastised them for that.

My Church is the Catholic Church, we have a Catechism online at the Vatican website--sometimes we are referred to as "Christ's Church" but the official name is the Catholic Church. "Catholic" means universal. To my knowledge we are the only Church with members in every country of the world. We are of the Roman rite.

Valletta · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
Ok. That's why I'm here, having created this thread. If there is some sort of need to have some sins burned away through burning in some place called "purgatory," then what other conclusion can be drawn other than the fact that such a teaching suggests there is some measure of lack in the sufficiency of the Blood of Chris Jesus to cleanse us from ALL sin.

[1 John 2:1] My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

As you can see in that verse, John has made sin the exception in the life of a believer, not the rule. He also stated that IF we sin, we have an advocate with the Father. Advocates stand in the place of the accused, and if the purgatory doctrine is true, then John had a perfect opportunity here to address that very thing, but he didn't. He made it clear that the blood of Jesus is totally sufficient for all cleansing.

Now, if you see wiggle room for an alternative conclusion, that's why I'm here, to see if I have missed something.

I can't speak for others because I'm not anti anything except false teaching, lies and deceptions. Let's forget about bashing others and just stick to the topic.

Whoah! You must not have ever read 1 John 2:27. What you're saying is an accusation of his being a liar. I will retain my belief that, given ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God, all others are themselves liars, even if they wear funny robes and hats, fancy suits, or ragged and living under a bridge. The word of God is inspired by Him, and is stable...never having been added to by anyone.

If you don't mind, I will stick to "It is written..."

Do not assume purgatory is a place. Nothing unclean can enter Heaven, so says the Word of God.

lsume · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
I'm wondering if there's anyone who can explain the doctrine of purgatory?

Given that the doctrine didn't even exist until Gregory I revealed it in about 593 AD, did purgatory not exist until that time, given that it was completely unknown to christendom before that time, so far as I can find, all the way back to the time of the apostles? I mean, if the apostles knew about it, then why did it not become a central doctrine until 593 AD?

What are the authoritative definitions for that place, and who goes there, and by what criteria?

I realize this has probably been asked many times, but reading through the posts, it appears there was application of all kinds of logical fallacies on both sides of the argument. Can anyone summarize the criteria for that place with a bird's eye view of that criteria without having to read through myriads of ancient literature?

This captured my attention because of the thief on the cross who was told by Jesus that he would be with Jesus in paradise that very day as is recorded in the Greek texts.

I noticed that some claimed the thief had done his suffering on his cross to negate his need for cleansing, while others claimed he had done his indulgence and prayer works for everything before his crucifixion, and the crucifixion itself purged his thefts. It seems like those explanations strain at imagination, with no adherents willing to admit that maybe the doctrine itself is flawed, or downright false, or even originating from one or more of the many religions of Rome at that time. The ancient Greeks and Roman religions spoke of a place in the afterlife called the Asphodel Fields, where dwelled a varied selection of human souls...those whose sins equaled their goodness, were indecisive in their lives, or were not judged. This is very similar to purgatory. The ancient Egyptian and buddhist religions also had a similar place in their belief systems.

So I'm wondering how anyone can so easily make claimed assumptions about that thief without addressing only the known facts. I mean, it seems dangerous for anyone to not desire to test doctrines to see if they can withstand scrutiny rather than accepting it blindly; without question, just because someone in the ancient past claimed it's true who is not among the apostles who lived and walked with Jesus.

Perhaps this life offers plenty of purgatory.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
[Rom 6:6, 12] 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. ... 12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
[Rom. 8:10] And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness.
[1 Cor. 6:18] Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

So, does the writer of the above verses know what he's talking about, or is he in error?

[2 Cor. 5:21] For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Again, Jesus was made to be sin for me, and when He said, "It is finished," I take it that He meant what He said. Now, I'm here to explore any reason as to why I should not believe what the clear language says. Did the writer beat around the bush with word games, and left things out that can be redefined by injections into the white space? When he wrote that we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, how does that suggest that His having become sin for us left out some aspects of sin along some time line of life? That is what I'm asking about, because the scriptures look like they contradict what you posted from that other writing.

Please keep in mind that I'm not here to tell you that you don't have a right to believe whatever you want. We all are free, and responsible, for what we choose to believe in this life. I'm always on a pursuit for truth, which is a noble pursuit, and when confronted by high-mindedness and conceit, I have to wonder about the beliefs such people stand upon. I didn't come here to be analyzed and brow beat, just to see if there is any merit in a belief I am asking about.

Are you one of these Christians who thinks that he never sins?

None of the verses you quoted conflicts with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. I interpret them differently than you do, obviously.

Look, Catholic theologians and apologists have carefully studied all of the arguments against the doctrine of purgatory, the particular verses used, and the theological objections. You can easily find a Catholic response with respect to any verse or argument that you have made, either here in these forums, using "Google" or going to your local library. Protestants have been making the same arguments and using the same verses for 500 years, it's not like Catholics have never thought about them. If you want to know the Catholic response, you can do some work and research them on your own.

Or we can continue the debate here endlessly with neither of us changing our opinion, as has been done 10,000 times before in other threads on the same topic.

DamianWarS · Jan 13, 2021

Swordman007 said:
I have already explained in here my purpose for posting here. I have been beat up in the grouping forums for daring to ask question, because doing so was assumed to be brute force attack.

Besides, when asking questions, that isn't an offensive attack. If there is merit to the claims behind a doctrinal belief, then there should be no problem defending it from scripture. That's what I'm looking for. Nobody asks questions with the intention to eventually agree with what they are asking about. That's absurd.

the early centuries of the church are steeped in a very different culture than our own. One that is honour driven, not fact-driven. For example, at the first ecumenical council of Nicaea there is reported to be 318 bishops in attendance as the official count when the factual number probably is a lot less and closer to 250. So why is 318 the number? 318 is the number of men that Abraham took to reclaim Lot and 318 can also be a number associated with Christ so 318 is chosen not because it is the factual number but because it is the best number, the number it should have been and the number that tells the story best. 318 ordains the council and cements it in as orthodox doctrine. This is a choice driven by honour over facts where the claim to honour is more important.

Purgatory is probably adopted from pagan values systems as a strategic move to better speak to people in their mission, a form of contextualizing by essentially absorbing other values and accounts, and depaganizing them to fit a Christian narrative. You can argue the same thing may be happening in some of the earlier Genesis accounts to help depaganize a post-exodus Hebrew people who were heaviliy influenced by cultures around them. An effective strategy is not to say you're wrong, your father was wrong and his father before him was wrong and his father before him... but rather to take the values active and alive and restructure them to point to God (rather than pagan things/gods). Purgatory may very well be an example of that but because it is during a time of an explosion of written history we know that before x date no such place exisited and the bible speaks nothing of it.

To a fact based culture this exposes them as frauds, to a honor based culture it cements them in as heros. The Catholic and Orthodox communties are ancient systems thrown into modern ways and thinking. They don't mix that well all the time and their traditions can be in tension with other systems or earlier accounts. there is a balance sometimes of how far you can go with this approach and it is possible to go too far even if your intentions are good which can have very deep unrepairable effects.

lsume · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
Are you one of these Christians who thinks that he never sins?

None of the verses you quoted conflicts with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. I interpret them differently than you do, obviously.

Look, Catholic theologians and apologists have carefully studied all of the arguments against the doctrine of purgatory, the particular verses used, and the theological objections. You can easily find a Catholic response to any verse or argument that you have made, either here in these forums, using "Google" or going to your local library.

You comment was sobering and I really appreciate where you are coming from. Please if you are able, pray on and consider the following; when I was around the age of 20 I outwardly professed Christ. I believed in my heart and I tried to live a Christian life. I failed miserably in my efforts some years later but shortly after turning 36 I was called. I can only share that I didn’t know much if anything about fasting and very little if anything about The Holy Spirit. Somehow during normal life I went into a fast. On the 3rd day of that fast in the morning, I opened my old Bible and the scales on my eyes were removed. I was refined and born again and now live always trying to do so without sin. Christ makes captivity captive and protects you from yourself and the world. Of course what I’m sharing with you few really know. The promise is that if you seek, you will find. I always believed but when Christ came to me personally, it was the beginning of the huge change that occurs when you are Truly born again. I add that my experiences that began shortly after turning 36 have continued now for over 30 years.

Albion · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
No, the Catholic Church has never defined as doctrine purgatory as you describe above. Much of what you wrote fell into the realm of individual theological speculation, and was never taught as the official doctrine binding on the church.

Well, this is an old and familiar story. When the Church decides to junk something that it has taught to its membership as the truth and has done so for centuries, it claims that it never was "official."

This is what happens even when (as in this case) it was concocted by an official church council of a denomination that considers the teachings of its "magisterium" to be infallible. If the church did not do this, it would jeopardize its claim of being the church that has never changed any of its beliefs (unlike everyone else, allegedly).

Albion · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
Rank nonsense. The Nicene Creed refers to "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" and was written centuries after the death of the last apostle.

Sorry, but you are not even talking about the same thing as was being discussed.

Albion · Jan 13, 2021

DamianWarS said:
I take @Swordman007 wishes to discuss this beyond the scope the "One Bread, One Body" forum can provide

I believe you're right about that, and of course we welcome that. I had a different impression when I read his first post, but I think we're on track now.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

Albion said:
Sorry, but you are not even talking about the same thing as was being discussed.

No, your use of the term apostolic church is incorrect. But that's OK. If my church were founded by a king so that he could get a divorce, I would probably want to obfuscate the meaning of the phrase as well.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

lsume said:
You comment was sobering and I really appreciate where you are coming from. Please if you are able, pray on and consider the following; when I was around the age of 20 I outwardly professed Christ. I believed in my heart and I tried to live a Christian life. I failed miserably in my efforts some years later but shortly after turning 36 I was called. I can only share that I didn’t know much if anything about fasting and very little if anything about The Holy Spirit. Somehow during normal life I went into a fast. On the 3rd day of that fast in the morning, I opened my old Bible and the scales on my eyes were removed. I was refined and born again and now live always trying to so without sin. Christ makes captivity captive and protects you from yourself and the world. Of course what I’m sharing with you few really know. The promise is that if you seek, you will find. I always believed but when Christ came to me personally, it was the beginning of a the huge change that occurs when you are Truly born again.

I am glad to hear that our Lord and the Holy Spirit have changed your life. So it is the same with me.

Albion · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
No, your use of the term apostolic church is incorrect.

No, that's a common use. It does not rebut or compete with the idea that the true faith is "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic"--which is affirmed by a number of different Christian denominations.

In any case, my use of the term was made in reply to a question asked me by another member, and I explained the meaning as I had used it in that reply.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

Albion said:
In any case, my use of the term was made in reply to a question asked me by another member, and I explained the meaning as I had used it in that reply.

OK that is a fair point.

Swag365 · Jan 13, 2021

Albion said:
When the Church decides to junk something that it has taught to its membership as the truth and has done so for centuries

Friend, you have offered no proof that the Catholic Church taught the doctrine you described above as the truth and has done so for centuries. That is what you have personally concluded based on your own private studies, and is what you personally believe. But you have offered no proof. It is merely your opinion. I reject your opinion, just as you would reject my opinion if I started incorrectly telling the world what the Anglican church "really teaches" in contrast to her official documents, with no proof offered whatsoever to back up my assertion.

Albion · Jan 13, 2021

Swag365 said:
Friend, you have offered no proof that the Catholic Church taught the doctrine you described above as the truth and has done so for centuries.

Anyone can look it up and find the proof in a matter of a few minutes. It is history and not simply a personal opinion.

Doctrinal Origin from Pope Gregory I

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member

Truth Seeker

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Follower of Isa Al Masih

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Facilitator

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency