Purgatory and Sin Offerings?

[BNR32FAN]

The idea of Purgatory is found in Maccabees but that book in in the Apocrypha which is not found in the canon of Scriptures so then it can not be used to formulate any Biblical doctrine.

The RCC uses it because there are NO BIBLE whatsoever to base a doctrine on.

The Roman Catholic church teaches that those who are perfect at death are admitted to heaven. Those who are not perfectly cleansed and are still tainted with the guilt of venial sins, however, do not go to heaven but rather go to purgatory where they allegedly go through a process of cleansing (or "purging"). Such souls are oppressed with a sense of deprivation and suffer certain pain. How long they stay in purgatory - and how much suffering they undergo while there - depends upon their particular state of sin.

That thought is no where to be found in the Scriptures!

Roman Catholics also teach that a person's time in purgatory may be shortened, and his pains alleviated, by the faithful prayers and good works of those still alive. The sacrifice of the Mass is viewed as especially important in this regard.

That purgatory is a false doctrine is easy to prove from the Scriptures. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30).

Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross. In His high priestly prayer to the Father, Jesus said, "I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do" (John 17:4).

Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, "By one sacrifice he has made perfect for ever those who are being made holy." Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further "purging" is necessary.

First John 1:7 says, "The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." Romans 8:1 says, "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus."

Jesus took care of "purging" our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, "After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven." Jesus provided full purification for our sins.
Is Purgatory Biblical?

The key here to this my friend is that it does not matter what the Word of God says to the Catholic believer, he will follow his Pope's teaching instead of the Word of God because he accepts the RCC teaching of "Traditions of men" over and above the teaching of God as found in the Bible.

YES, it is just that simple.

Wait and see and you will soon understand how true that statement actually is.

I completely agree. Notice these verses stated in the past and present tense indicating that our forgiveness and salvation has already taken place.

“Yet now he has reconciled you to himself through the death of Christ in his physical body. As a result, he has brought you into his own presence, and you are holy and blameless as you stand before him without a single fault.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭1:22‬ ‭

“Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭6:11‬

“And Christ lives within you, so even though your body will die because of sin, the Spirit gives you life because you have been made right with God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:10‬ ‭

Since these are from epistles this was not said directly after these people were baptized so Paul could have no way of knowing if these people had sinned after being baptized or if they had unconfessed sins. Surely he wasn’t writing to dead people who had already gone thru purgatory.

 

[thecolorsblend]

WHY?

Yes, exactly. Why do Protestants get upset over the Church's opinions?

It is just as simple as WHY do you pray to a Rosary?

That's off topic for what this thread is about. Even so, we do it to ask for the Blessed Mother's prayerful intercession.

Why do you believe that Mary was Assumed into heaven?

That's off topic for what this thread is about. Even so, Elijah and Enoch were assumed into Heaven. So there is precedent for such a thing.

Psalm 16 says God won't allow His holy one (eg, Our Lord) to undergo decay and rot. Microchimerism - Wikipedia indicates that cells of Our Lord would remain inside Our Lady, possibly for decades. If she died and her body decomposed, she would take those cells with her into decay. To be clear, microchimerism by itself doesn't prove that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, of course. However, microchimerism certainly does give God incentive to assume Our Lady into Heaven.

Why do you believe in the Perpetual virginity of Mary?

That's off topic for what this thread is about. Even so, the Church Fathers believed it. Origen, for example.

Because NONE of those, and probably 30 more are NOT in the Bible.........NONE!

I don't see that as a limitation. Obviously you do. I suppose we'll have to simply disagree there.

The Bible says that ALL who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ will be saved.

Nobody has said otherwise. My contention has been that everybody in Heaven is Catholic. Whether or not they were Catholic in life, they will most assuredly be Catholic in Heaven. Mind you, that's one person's opinion. You still haven't explained why my having that opinion is so upsetting to you.

The Bible does NOT say ONE SINGLE word about church members going to heaven.

...

Okay...

The Bible does NOT say that Only Catholics will go to heaven.

The Church doesn't believe it has to say that in for the order doctrine to be true.

In Fact, the word CATHOLIC is not in the Bible at all.

The Church doesn't believe it has to be in order for the name to be valid.

Incidentally, "The Bible" is not in the Bible.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yes, exactly. Why do Protestants get upset over the Church's opinions?

Perhaps you may be confusing someone pointing out the incorrect nature of a belief with being upset by it. If the lady next to me at work says it's raining outside, I don't have to be upset by her belief to point out that it's a bright sunny day, the ground is dry, and there isn't a cloud in sight.

 

[Major1]

Yes, exactly. Why do Protestants get upset over the Church's opinions?

That's off topic for what this thread is about. Even so, we do it to ask for the Blessed Mother's prayerful intercession.

That's off topic for what this thread is about. Even so, Elijah and Enoch were assumed into Heaven. So there is precedent for such a thing.

Psalm 16 says God won't allow His holy one (eg, Our Lord) to undergo decay and rot. Microchimerism - Wikipedia indicates that cells of Our Lord would remain inside Our Lady, possibly for decades. If she died and her body decomposed, she would take those cells with her into decay. To be clear, microchimerism by itself doesn't prove that Our Lady was assumed into Heaven, of course. However, microchimerism certainly does give God incentive to assume Our Lady into Heaven.

That's
Romans 5:1-11 King James Version (KJV)
5 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

5 And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

. Even so, the Church Fathers believed it. Origen, for example.

I don't see that as a limitation. Obviously you do. I suppose we'll have to simply disagree there.

Nobody has said otherwise. My contention has been that everybody in Heaven is Catholic. Whether or not they were Catholic in life, they will most assuredly be Catholic in Heaven. Mind you, that's one person's opinion. You still haven't explained why my having that opinion is so upsetting to you.

...

Okay...

The Church doesn't believe it has to say that in for the order doctrine to be true.

The Church doesn't believe it has to be in order for the name to be valid.

Incidentally, "The Bible" is not in the Bible.

First of, I am not upset.

Second of all, I really hate to see people deceived by religion.

And third.....How I feel is OFF topic for this thread.

 

[thecolorsblend]

First of, I am not upset.

Oh?

Second of all, I really hate to see people deceived by religion.

???

And third.....How I feel is OFF topic for this thread.

I would agree but it seems to keep intruding on your posts.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The idea of Purgatory is found in Maccabees but that book in in the Apocrypha which is not found in the canon of Scriptures so then it can not be used to formulate any Biblical doctrine.

The logic here seems rather circular. The canonicity of the text was not in dispute by the Church for centuries. In fact, the loudest voices in opposition the deuteroncanonical books are all based on the traditions of men (ie, Luther).

The RCC uses it because there are NO BIBLE whatsoever to base a doctrine on.

Heh...

That thought is no where to be found in the Scriptures!

Is it too soon to sarcastically thank Luther for that?

Seriously though, whether certain Catholic doctrines appear or do not appear in sacred scripture are not a major concern. The Church does not view the scriptures as a foundational constitution, a book of rules/doctrines or any such. The authority belongs to God and it is expressed through the Church.

That purgatory is a false doctrine is easy to prove from the Scriptures. When Jesus died on the cross, He said "It is finished" (John 19:30).

St. Matthew 5:25-26 contains a fairly helpful description of Purgatory. I emphasize here that you aren't the one who needs to find this passage persuasive vis a vis Purgatory. Rather, Catholics need to find it so persuasive. And many do.

I am fairly certain I have mentioned 1 Corinthians 3 to you in the past with it's extensive description of Purgatory. And here again, it is beside the point whether you are persuaded by that passage. In relation to Catholic teachings, what is important is that the Church finds this to be an accurate depiction of Purgatory. And she does.

Jesus completed the work of redemption at the cross.

With respect, statements such as this one suggest to me that, in spite of repeated explanation and obvious independent study on your own part, you still do not understand the purpose of Purgatory.

Is Purgatory Biblical?

As above, something being "Biblical" isn't a major factor in Catholic thought.

The key here to this my friend is that it does not matter what the Word of God says to the Catholic believer, he will follow his Pope's teaching instead of the Word of God because he accepts the RCC teaching of "Traditions of men" over and above the teaching of God as found in the Bible.

I find that statement to be neither accurate nor helpful. Sacred scripture is recognized by the Church as being inspired by God with the same authority from which various councils, creeds, canon law, etc, are derived. Which is to say sacred tradition.

And sacred tradition benefits all. As you have no doubt been told (by me, if nobody else), Protestants are at a loss to recognize sacred scripture without a heaping helping of sacred tradition to depend upon.

The Pope, to borrow your example, is not at liberty to teach against scripture. A given Pope could not deny the Virgin Birth, for example. Sacred scripture teaches the Virgin Birth, sacred tradition teaches the Virgin Birth, at least a few councils reaffirm the Virgin Birth, etc. It is simply a foundational, undeniable element of Christianity. And no Pope has the latitude to deny the Virgin Birth.

 

[Major1]

The logic here seems rather circular. The canonicity of the text was not in dispute by the Church for centuries. In fact, the loudest voices in opposition the deuteroncanonical books are all based on the traditions of men (ie, Luther).

Heh...

Is it too soon to sarcastically thank Luther for that?

Seriously though, whether certain Catholic doctrines appear or do not appear in sacred scripture are not a major concern. The Church does not view the scriptures as a foundational constitution, a book of rules/doctrines or any such. The authority belongs to God and it is expressed through the Church.

St. Matthew 5:25-26 contains a fairly helpful description of Purgatory. I emphasize here that you aren't the one who needs to find this passage persuasive vis a vis Purgatory. Rather, Catholics need to find it so persuasive. And many do.

I am fairly certain I have mentioned 1 Corinthians 3 to you in the past with it's extensive description of Purgatory. And here again, it is beside the point whether you are persuaded by that passage. In relation to Catholic teachings, what is important is that the Church finds this to be an accurate depiction of Purgatory. And she does.

With respect, statements such as this one suggest to me that, in spite of repeated explanation and obvious independent study on your own part, you still do not understand the purpose of Purgatory.

As above, something being "Biblical" isn't a major factor in Catholic thought.

I find that statement to be neither accurate nor helpful. Sacred scripture is recognized by the Church as being inspired by God with the same authority from which various councils, creeds, canon law, etc, are derived. Which is to say sacred tradition.

And sacred tradition benefits all. As you have no doubt been told (by me, if nobody else), Protestants are at a loss to recognize sacred scripture without a heaping helping of sacred tradition to depend upon.

The Pope, to borrow your example, is not at liberty to teach against scripture. A given Pope could not deny the Virgin Birth, for example. Sacred scripture teaches the Virgin Birth, sacred tradition teaches the Virgin Birth, at least a few councils reaffirm the Virgin Birth, etc. It is simply a foundational, undeniable element of Christianity. And no Pope has the latitude to deny the Virgin Birth.

You said...........
" The Church does not view the scriptures as a foundational constitution, a book of rules/doctrines or any such. The authority belongs to God and it is expressed through the Church."

And YOU just turned the key to understanding and opened the door to your own question of........."Why do Protestants get upset at Purgatory?

We, Protestants believe that the Bible is our foundational constitution and YOU as a Catholic and Catholic in general do not but accept the doctrines of man instead and call them TRADITIONS.

The Virgin birth is NOT a focus if this thread and NO one is suggesting that it is not Biblical as IT IS FOUND IN the Bible. PURGATORY is NOT found anywhere in the Bible.

 

[Mountainmike]

You accept the doctrine of man : the manmade tradition that is sola scriptura
Which is provable false, historically, scripturally and by simple logic
And it is the falacy that launched 10000 schisms.

If scripture alone is enough. Why do you ALL disagree on what it means - reformed churches believe in mutually exclusive variants of every aspect of doctrine from baptism onwards, because YOU set yourself in a position of assuming you can determine infallible meaning. But if all you have is the words of scripture, and not the true meaning, you do not have the word of God. There is but one truth, we know from tradition the meaning of scritpure.

Even luther despaired of this in later life he said "there is the greatest scandal" "now there are as many doctrines as heads" - the direct consequence of the monster he helped to create called "sola scriptura"

We accept the Jesus given authority of the apostolic church in which faith was handed down by a process called tradition - the new testament only came later because of the authority of the church to "bind and loose" which is why "the pillar and foundation of truth is the church" so scritpure tells uis.

Irenaues stated that truth lay with the doctrine and tradition of Rome, and early fathers confirm that is because of the see of Peter - whose office of keys is a direct fulfillment of the keys of David from Isaiah and was give the role of Chief pastor.


I suggest you listen to what the fathers who chose your canon have to say.
If you only have scripture you do not have the word of God - the meaning is passed by tradition.

You presume to teach Major.
But as the bible says "how can they teach if they are not sent". By what apostolic succession were you sent?

And as for purgatory, do you not pray for the dead confirmed as the tradition of the early church (ie the true faith handed down)? And since Jesus considered the septuagint scripture, since he quoted from it, which contains maccabees, which notes the prayers for the dead... it is there in writings. Coming to which..in 1 peter 3 when jesus died , where did he preach to the spirits of dead?

You said...........
" The Church does not view the scriptures as a foundational constitution, a book of rules/doctrines or any such. The authority belongs to God and it is expressed through the Church."

And YOU just turned the key to understanding and opened the door to your own question of........."Why do Protestants get upset at Purgatory?

We, Protestants believe that the Bible is our foundational constitution and YOU as a Catholic and Catholic in general do not but accept the doctrines of man instead and call them TRADITIONS.

The Virgin birth is NOT a focus if this thread and NO one is suggesting that it is not Biblical as IT IS FOUND IN the Bible. PURGATORY is NOT found anywhere in the Bible.

 

[thecolorsblend]

We, Protestants believe that the Bible is our foundational constitution

Speaking of doctrines which aren't "biblical"...

and YOU as a Catholic and Catholic in general do not but accept the doctrines of man instead and call them TRADITIONS.

Earlier you wrote:

First of, I am not upset.

So you are upset then?

To your actual point though, we call it sacred tradition. Now, based on context clues, a lot of Protestants seem to use "tradition" as a polite euphemism for "making up a bunch of nonsense as we go along". But that's simply not true. Sacred tradition is handed from one generation to the next, a continuity of thought and teaching going all the way back to Our Lord's earthly ministry.

Dei Verbum put it rather eloquently with: "And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes."

This is an important matter to understand because without that insight, it simply isn't possible to understand the purpose of sacred tradition, what it is and, as importantly, what it isn't.

The Virgin birth is NOT a focus if this thread

Neither is the Pope, although that didn't stop you from mentioning him in your last post. All I did was correct misapprehension about the Pope's role in the Church in an attempt to bring the discussion back on topic.

PURGATORY is NOT found anywhere in the Bible.

Indeed it is. Those passages have been cited before, often by me specifically for you, IIRC. The issue is and has been that Protestants have their own definition of Purgatory and therefore refuse to acknowledge that those passages accurately describe the Catholic view of Purgatory.

Putting aside the gall of a Protestant lecturing Catholics about Catholic doctrines which Protestants don't even believe in anyway, it speaks to a rhetorical challenge where Protestants completely redefine the meaning of a word and then make the claim that sacred scripture doesn't support that doctrine.

Well, scripture doesn't support the Protestant (lack of) understanding about Purgatory. But the actual doctrine of Purgatory as faithfully taught by the Mother Church is included in sacred scripture. Others can deny that until they're blue in the face but it comes off as "You're wrong because Catholic or something!"

I should reiterate, however, that the Catholic view is not necessarily restricted by a given doctrine's inclusion or exclusion from sacred scripture. The Church's teachings concerning Purgatory would still be just as true if sacred scripture did not describe Purgatory (although it does).

 

[Major1]

Speaking of doctrines which aren't "biblical"...

Earlier you wrote:

So you are upset then?

To your actual point though, we call it sacred tradition. Now, based on context clues, a lot of Protestants seem to use "tradition" as a polite euphemism for "making up a bunch of nonsense as we go along". But that's simply not true. Sacred tradition is handed from one generation to the next, a continuity of thought and teaching going all the way back to Our Lord's earthly ministry.

Dei Verbum put it rather eloquently with: "And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes."

This is an important matter to understand because without that insight, it simply isn't possible to understand the purpose of sacred tradition, what it is and, as importantly, what it isn't.

Neither is the Pope, although that didn't stop you from mentioning him in your last post. All I did was correct misapprehension about the Pope's role in the Church in an attempt to bring the discussion back on topic.

Indeed it is. Those passages have been cited before, often by me specifically for you, IIRC. The issue is and has been that Protestants have their own definition of Purgatory and therefore refuse to acknowledge that those passages accurately describe the Catholic view of Purgatory.

Putting aside the gall of a Protestant lecturing Catholics about Catholic doctrines which Protestants don't even believe in anyway, it speaks to a rhetorical challenge where Protestants completely redefine the meaning of a word and then make the claim that sacred scripture doesn't support that doctrine.

Well, scripture doesn't support the Protestant (lack of) understanding about Purgatory. But the actual doctrine of Purgatory as faithfully taught by the Mother Church is included in sacred scripture. Others can deny that until they're blue in the face but it comes off as "You're wrong because Catholic or something!"

I should reiterate, however, that the Catholic view is not necessarily restricted by a given doctrine's inclusion or exclusion from sacred scripture. The Church's teachings concerning Purgatory would still be just as true if sacred scripture did not describe Purgatory (although it does).

You said..........
"I should reiterate, however, that the Catholic view is not necessarily restricted by a given doctrine's inclusion or exclusion from sacred scripture. The Church's teachings concerning Purgatory would still be just as true if sacred scripture did not describe Purgatory (although it does). "

And then may I reiterate that the rift between Protestant and Catholic pretty much rests on that kind of thinking, or lack there of.

No one has to be a Catholic to read their position on any given theological position whether it be a Protestant or JW or Jew or a Buddhist and then make a comment on what is sated.

As for gall, personally, I do not think that you have the ability to determine such a subject, or at least you have not shown the kind of communication skills that would allow you make such a comment my friend.

Even some of your Catholic friends have called you out on your sarcasm and history of "speaking sown" to others and have probably reported you for such an attitude.

Now again, to reiterate, there are NO BIBLE Scriptures to support any theology on Purgatory. Purgatory is strictly a man made teaching and it is not found in the Bible at all and it does not matter how many times you claim otherwise.

 

[thecolorsblend]

No one has to be a Catholic to read their position on any given theological position whether it be a Protestant or JW or Jew or a Buddhist and then make a comment on what is sated.

That's quite true but off-hand I can't remember anybody in this thread claiming that only certain people can read this theological position or that theological position or what have you.

What I personally have said (and am right about) is that your understanding of Purgatory as expressed in recent posts in this thread is so deeply flawed as to border on being off-topic. The reason for that is because the description of Purgatory which you have offered in this thread does not comport with the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject.

Specifically, you have railed against a doctrine which I don't believe in. I believe in Purgatory; I do not believe in the strange brew doctrine to which you have expressed such vocal opposition in this thread.

As for gall, personally, I do not think that you have the ability to determine such a subject, or at least you have not shown the kind of communication skills that would allow you make such a comment my friend.

...

Whaa?

 

[Major1]

That's quite true but off-hand I can't remember anybody in this thread claiming that only certain people can read this theological position or that theological position or what have you.

What I personally have said (and am right about) is that your understanding of Purgatory as expressed in recent posts in this thread is so deeply flawed as to border on being off-topic. The reason for that is because the description of Purgatory which you have offered in this thread does not comport with the Catholic Church's teaching on the subject.

Specifically, you have railed against a doctrine which I don't believe in. I believe in Purgatory; I do not believe in the strange brew doctrine to which you have expressed such vocal opposition in this thread.

...

Whaa?

I do not know what you believe. What I know is from WAT THE RCC says and teaches in the Catechism so I am not sure what you are understanding.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of purgatory is covered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in just three paragraphs on two pages (paragraphs 1030-32; pp. 268-69).

I am sure that you think you are correct and in your own mind you are. However it seems to me that the reality of the Catholic teaching is not what you are espousing.

Now personally, you are free to believe whatever you want to believe but what I understand about Purgatory actually comes from what your own church has produced in writing......

But the truth is that Catholic theology does not accept the final and full sufficiency of Christ’s once-for-all atonement (1 Pet. 3:18). The Catholic soteriological system is fraught with ideas of self-atonement-works that must be done to merit forgiveness for past sins. Purgatory allows for those meritorious efforts (i.e. suffering) to atone for sin after death.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 268-69.)

Second, Catholic doctrine teaches an unbiblical idea of penalty and guilt. It holds that “absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused…he must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance.'” Purgatory is the final act of penance that removes the penalty of sin.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 268-69.)

Third, Catholic doctrine distorts the biblical concept of grace by adding human merit to it: “Moved by the Holy Spirit and charity, we can merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.” Purgatory helps to earn enough merit, over time, to overcome the punishment of God.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 268-69."

Fourth, Roman Catholic theology confuses the biblical doctrine of judgment. It teaches that judgments after death include a remedial judgment that sends some people to purgatory, and a final judgment that occurs at the second coming of Christ. These four notions of self-atonement, penance, merit, and remedial judgment run contrary to the teaching of the New Testament, and they cause the gospel message to pass through a distorted grid that leads only to defective interpretation and understanding of Scripture.
(Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), 268-69.")
http://www.equip.org/article/is-purgatory-a-biblical-concept/

 

[thecolorsblend]

I do not know what you believe.

With respect, I do believe I have articulated that fairly successfully in this discussion.

Still, other members have at various times attempted to tell me what I believe (and, as if that wasn't bad enough, mischaracterized my beliefs in the process) so I do value the fact that you state you don't know what I believe rather than attempt to dictate my own beliefs to me. Thank you, I appreciate that.

What I know is from WAT THE RCC says and teaches in the Catechism so I am not sure what you are understanding.

Failure to communicate appears to be an ongoing challenge in this thread, as I say. Frankly, I find it a little remarkable that the OP hasn't requested that the thread be closed down.

 

[Chris V++]

Sorry I've neglected the thread. I was out of town on spring break and have been catching up at work ever since. One point brought up earlier that I never considered which I found really interesting was that God, standing outside of time, could consider the prayers for those who we know to be already dead should He choose. By that logic couldn't we pray for our younger selves and perhaps modify the course of our lives? Just an interesting thought.

And as for purgatory, do you not pray for the dead confirmed as the tradition of the early church (ie the true faith handed down)? And since Jesus considered the septuagint scripture, since he quoted from it, which contains maccabees, which notes the prayers for the dead... it is there in writings. Coming to which..in 1 peter 3 when jesus died , where did he preach to the spirits of dead?

Could you please give the new testament verses where Jesus quoted from Maccabees. I'm not doubting you I just never heard that before. Or are you arguing that Maccabees should be regarded equally with Genesis, for example, since both were eventually included in Septuagint scripture.

 

[Chris V++]

Seriously though, whether certain Catholic doctrines appear or do not appear in sacred scripture are not a major concern. The Church does not view the scriptures as a foundational constitution, a book of rules/doctrines or any such. The authority belongs to God and it is expressed through the Church.

To me it seems this requires a lot of faith in church Priests, Bishops, and Popes who are mortal and fallible. You say 'authority belongs to God and it is expressed...' Didn't God express Himself directly thru sacred scripture? How can that NOT be a major concern in terms of formulating doctrine or anything else?? Do we want to risk making the same mistakes the Jews made over the centuries by compromising their scriptural doctrines or allowing their spiritual leadership to do so.

 

[thecolorsblend]

To me it seems this requires a lot of faith in church Priests, Bishops, and Popes who are mortal and fallible.

That's a fair point.

However, I would like to mention that mortal, fallible men wrote the scriptures. Mortal, fallible men assembled the scriptures into a single volume. Pretty much all Christians will agree that those things happened. They'll also probably agree that those men were guided in their tasks and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

The issue then is that Catholics simply believe that the same Holy Spirit which inspired those men write the scriptures and which guided different men to recognize and assemble the canon into one volume continues inspiring and guiding the Church today, protecting her from teaching error.

 

[Mountainmike]

I didnt say he quoted from maccabees:

I said he quoted septuagint (in a place where it is sufficiently different from hebrew OT)
An example is quoting Isaiah 29:13 in Mark 7:6
So he regarded septuagint as scripture. And We know that septuagint contained maccabees.
There are more examples where apostles do that.

Sorry I've neglected the thread. I was out of town on spring break and have been catching up at work ever since. One point brought up earlier that I never considered which I found really interesting was that God, standing outside of time, could consider the prayers for those who we know to be already dead should He choose. By that logic couldn't we pray for our younger selves and perhaps modify the course of our lives? Just an interesting thought.



Could you please give the new testament verses where Jesus quoted from Maccabees. I'm not doubting you I just never heard that before. Or are you arguing that Maccabees should be regarded equally with Genesis, for example, since both were eventually included in Septuagint scripture.

 

[Major1]

With respect, I do believe I have articulated that fairly successfully in this discussion.

Still, other members have at various times attempted to tell me what I believe (and, as if that wasn't bad enough, mischaracterized my beliefs in the process) so I do value the fact that you state you don't know what I believe rather than attempt to dictate my own beliefs to me. Thank you, I appreciate that.

Failure to communicate appears to be an ongoing challenge in this thread, as I say. Frankly, I find it a little remarkable that the OP hasn't requested that the thread be closed down.

You never know what has happened to a person.

 

[Major1]

Sorry I've neglected the thread. I was out of town on spring break and have been catching up at work ever since. One point brought up earlier that I never considered which I found really interesting was that God, standing outside of time, could consider the prayers for those who we know to be already dead should He choose. By that logic couldn't we pray for our younger selves and perhaps modify the course of our lives? Just an interesting thought.



Could you please give the new testament verses where Jesus quoted from Maccabees. I'm not doubting you I just never heard that before. Or are you arguing that Maccabees should be regarded equally with Genesis, for example, since both were eventually included in Septuagint scripture.

You are absolutely correct!

I am sure that you know this but just in case, we need to keep in mind that the books of the Apocrypha were already in existence at the time of Jesus.

Yet they were not quoted as Scripture by Him or the apostles, nor included in New Testament. With over 250 quotations from passages in the Old Testament in the New Testament; there is not one quotation from the Apocryphal writings.

So then WHY do Catholic believers want to use them and quote from them??????

The reasons become obvious when you have a conversation with Catholics over the Bible and its doctrines.

When anyone examines the contradictions to the received Bible Scriptures and the Roman Catholic Church it is obvious that they must use the Apochralphal books in order to valid the FALSE Un-Biblical dogma of the RCC because the doctrines they expound on are not found in the Bible at all.

We read in of suicide being commended in 2 Maccabees 14: 41, 42, and the writer apologizes for defects.

2 Maccabees is the only book where prayers for the dead are found, and that contradicts the received Scripture of the Bible. (2 Maccabees 12:44).

The expiatory sacrifice which eventually became the Mass is only found in 2 Maccabees 12:39-46.

Alms giving with expiatory value, and having the ability to deliver someone from death is seen only in Tobit 12:9, 4:10.

The worship of angels is read in Tobit 12:12.

Invocation and intercession of the saints is listed in 2 Maccabees 15:14; Baruch 3:4.

Place of Purgatory; and the redemption of souls after death is only found in2 Maccabees 12:42, 46.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I listened to an episode of Catholic Answers recently which does a pretty good job of teaching what Purgatory is (and, as importantly, what it isn't).

Those interested can find the episode at The Bible Blueprint for Purgatory | Catholic Answers where it can be streamed or downloaded for free. Pretty good episode of the show, I must say.