EO and RCC.

[concretecamper]

And who it is that goes to Purgatory? It's anyone who needs to 'pay' for unforgiven venial sins,

wrong for the umpteenth time.

 

[concretecamper]

I have to admit that you are spot-on in this regard. It's no so much as leaving "some wiggle room" or "backdoors"...but exhaustively defining even the minutia...leaving no space for discussion or fraternal debate. A certain put-off if I were on the receiving end.

well, when you have the guarentee of the Holy Spirit and are charged with teaching the faithful, this sort of stuff happens.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

So you disagree with 1, 2 and 3 despite having used all of them?
It’s The problem discussing with orthodox : they refuse to define a position.

I disagree with your definition of them. I did define my position...you just refuse to acknowledge it...

 

[Mountainmike]

Not scrambling at all.

The catechism 1030-32
Notes a place or state where prayers are effective, a purification for those impure, and says precious little else.

Many early fathers aired similar thoughts citing several dozen OT and Nt verses.

Anglicans too? Take CSLewis and Cardinal Newman before he jumped ship.

Anglicans make the mistake of assuming the bible is a how to manual.
It never was.

You're scrambling for a reply, Mike, but there isn't any doubt about the way the church itself goes about defining its doctrines. It is done with the most extensive detail.

Look at Purgatory, for instance, which the church itself invented. The idea that it's just a transitional period after death in which the person/soul is prepared for heaven is the way it's described when the idea is to make light of the specifics, but it was the church herself which added all the details--the Treasury of Merit as being necessary to justify any reduction in the Purgatorial penalty...and, oh yes, Indulgences, which of course don't have any meaning unless we have Purgatory.

And who it is that goes to Purgatory? It's anyone who needs to 'pay' for unforgiven venial sins, not mortal sins (because dying with unforgiven mortal sins means Hell instead of Purgatory), and also for having committed certain sins in the first place, even if later forgiven by the sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation while the person was still alive.

And that's just the start of it. No Protestant ever concocted any of that business just to attack the RCC. It's all the RCC's doing. And so it goes with all the canon lawyers and their doctrines.

 

[Albion]

Not scrambling at all.

Okay. It seemed you were reaching for some sort of reply.

The catechism 1030-32
Notes a place or state where prayers are effective, a purification for those impure, and says precious little else.

I've noted that before. The church has not disavowed Purgatory, and that's because it was decreed by a church council, so to do that in the way she ditched Limbo would call into question the claim that this church is the one and only one that has never changed.

But change Purgatory unofficially the RCC surely has done. It's being subjected to a slow death assisted by an overly simplified definition given in the current Catechism.

Anglicans make the mistake of assuming the bible is a how to manual.
It never was.

I cannot begin to guess at how you came up with something as incorrect as that claim is.

 

[Mountainmike]

Okay. It seemed you were reaching for some sort of reply.


I've noted that before. The church has not disavowed Purgatory, and that's because it was decreed by a church council, so to do that in the way she ditched Limbo would call into question the claim that this church is the one and only one that has never changed.

But change Purgatory unofficially the RCC surely has done. It's being subjected to a slow death assisted by an overly simplified definition given in the current Catechism.


I cannot begin to guess at how you came up with something as incorrect as that claim is.

On the last point, personal experience.
I was one of you remember, and for what it’s worth I hold many in high regard, even though I have moved on.

Unlike catholics or orthodox you don’t accept purgation/ purgatory because of lack of formal statement or definition in scripture, and a somewhat perverse view of sola scriptura: To assume there should be explicit reference is an invalid assumption about the context of scripture, it’s not a manual.

Yet many church fathers relate to similar ideas with scriptures drawn from across OT as well as NT.

Of course, one thing I could do to liven things up is make reference to visions and references to purgatory across the world by a lady whose prophecies have been impossibly accurate so proving her bona fides.....

 

[Albion]

On the last point, personal experience.

Of course I don't know what those particular experiences might have been, but what you said wasn't in line with Anglican thinking or theology.

It might be a case, however, that's similar to that of Roman Catholics in the USA, around 70% of whom have described their view of the Eucharist basically the same way a Baptist would describe the meaning of the Lord's Supper in his own church.

We all spend time here on CF debating doctrine with all the fine points, but it's not as though the average church member is at all conversant with what his church's catechisms or the clergy are teaching.

 

[Mountainmike]

I despair of much of what I hear from catholics, who don’t seem to know their faith!

Of course I don't know what those particular experiences might have been, but what you said wasn't in line with Anglican thinking or theology.

It might be a case, however, that's similar to that of Roman Catholics in the USA, around 70% of whom have described their view of the Eucharist basically the same way a Baptist would describe the meaning of the Lord's Supper in his own church.

We all spend time here on CF debating doctrine with all the fine points, but it's not as though the average church member is at all conversant with what his church's catechisms or the clergy are teaching.