Purgatory!

[concretecamper]

And I've seen nothing that supports Purgatory or the Catholic idea that there is a mythical place where sinners must go to expiate those sins Christ's blood was insufficient to cleanse.



The RCC loves scripture like O.J. loved Nicole.



You can insult me or you can prove me wrong. Go ahead and show us where Purgatory is found in scripture.



And what verses do you believe prove it from scripture? And how do you reconcile those verses with verses like 1 John 1:7, which tells us that there are no sins left to expiate in Purgatory because they've been cleansed by the blood of Christ? Or Hebrews 10:14, which tells us that there are no imperfections to work off because Christ has perfected those whom He sanctifies?

You keep saying "the Bible says this" and "the Bible says that", but you've yet to show us where the Bible says these things.



Not only have they not shown evidence for Purgatory in scripture, they've been completely unable to refute the Bible's teaching that Christ's atonement was sufficient, that Christ's blood cleanses from all sin, that Christ has perfected those whom He sanctifies.

They don't even agree on what the purpose of Purgatory is. Their own Catechism says it's for the sinner to expiate sin, but they don't even agree on that. Some say it's for the expiation of sin, some say it's not.

They can't even get their own stories straight and yet, they want to insist that they know what the Bible says.



My favorite is when they try to claim that the passage in 1 Cor is about Purgatory, when it's actually about the Bema Seat Judgment.

One poster in this thread cited a verse from a parable about forgiveness and claimed that was about Purgatory. They sure do have a lot of straws to grasp at.

You have finally convinced me....I converting today!

 

[Albion]

They don't even agree on what the purpose of Purgatory is. Their own Catechism says it's for the sinner to expiate sin, but they don't even agree on that. Some say it's for the expiation of sin, some say it's not.

They can't even get their own stories straight and yet, they want to insist that they know what the Bible says.

I agree that this may be the most damaging element in their defense of Purgatory. The RCC's so-called Bible proofs are so remotely related to Purgatory that they really deserve to be considered unrelated. "Fire" for instance does not "prove" a thing about the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, punishment for already-forgiven sin, etc. etc. and all the rest that is part of "Purgatory."

But that concerns a defense of the actual RC doctrine. Our friends here don't want to sign on to a grim Medieval superstition that was made into a doctrine, however. Hardly anyone, Catholics included, believes in Purgatory anymore.

That's why the church itself is giving it a quiet death.

Whether or not the Catholic posters here believe in it themselves would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? But in any case, they feel that they have to remake it into a happy transitory place in order to save it. Whether or not that is credible is debatable, but...

...it leaves them to defend their "cleaned up" vision of a Purgatory (that is more like a celestial vacation than a Purgatory) using the verses that their church has said "prove" the Medieval Purgatory of fire and torment.

 

[fhansen]

I agree that this may be the most damaging element in their defense of Purgatory. The RCC's so-called Bible proofs are so remotely related to Purgatory that they really deserve to be considered unrelated. "Fire" for instance does not "prove" a thing about the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, punishment for already-forgiven sin, etc. etc. and all the rest that is part of "Purgatory."

But that concerns a defense of the actual RC doctrine. Our friends here don't want to sign on to a grim Medieval superstition that was made into a doctrine, however. Hardly anyone, Catholics included, believes in Purgatory anymore.

That's why the church itself is giving it a quiet death.

Whether or not the Catholic posters here believe in it themselves would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? But in any case, they feel that they have to remake it into a happy transitory place in order to save it. Whether or not that is credible is debatable, but...

...it leaves them to defend their "cleaned up" vision of a Purgatory (that is more like a celestial vacation than a Purgatory) using the verses that their church has said "prove" the Medieval Purgatory of fire and torment.

Do you believe that all biblical language is necessarily intended to be taken literally rather than figuratively or symbolically? Do you believe that the punishment of hell necessarily entails fire, rather than the pain inflicted by fire-something we all know and understand in this life- possibly being allegorical to the pain inflicted by, say, experiencing eternal separation from God?

 

[catholichomeschooler]

I agree that this may be the most damaging element in their defense of Purgatory. The RCC's so-called Bible proofs are so remotely related to Purgatory that they really deserve to be considered unrelated. "Fire" for instance does not "prove" a thing about the Treasury of Merit, Indulgences, punishment for already-forgiven sin, etc. etc. and all the rest that is part of "Purgatory."

But that concerns a defense of the actual RC doctrine. Our friends here don't want to sign on to a grim Medieval superstition that was made into a doctrine, however. Hardly anyone, Catholics included, believes in Purgatory anymore.

That's why the church itself is giving it a quiet death.

Whether or not the Catholic posters here believe in it themselves would be interesting to know, wouldn't it? But in any case, they feel that they have to remake it into a happy transitory place in order to save it. Whether or not that is credible is debatable, but...

...it leaves them to defend their "cleaned up" vision of a Purgatory (that is more like a celestial vacation than a Purgatory) using the verses that their church has said "prove" the Medieval Purgatory of fire and torment.

Purgatory is and always has been part of Christian doctrine. This will never change.

Your personal interpretation of scripture is just that.

Your false claim that the Church is somehow abandoning the Christian doctrines it has always believed and taught has no basis in reality.

 

[South Bound]

Do you believe that all biblical language is necessarily intended to be taken literally rather than figuratively or symbolically? Do you believe that the punishment of hell necessarily entails fire, rather than the pain inflicted by fire-something we all know and understand in this life- possibly being allegorical to the pain inflicted by, say, experiencing eternal separation from God?

First of all, no. There are plenty of places in scripture where we're told that something is like something. The Bible doesn't say that Hell is "like" fire. It says that it is fire.

Second, why would somebody who's spent his entire life rebelling against God, hating God, breaking God's laws, cursing God, feel pain at being separated from God? I would think that for an enemy of God to be in the presence of God would be the last thing he would want.

Third, why are things allegorical and metaphorical only when you find them convenient? For instance, why is fire metaphorical, but Jesus' flesh is literal?

Purgatory is and always has been part of Christian doctrine. This will never change.

So you claim, but you still haven't offered any evidence of that. You still haven't shown where it's found in scripture or explained what sins are left to expiate, when 1 John 1:7 tells us that Christ's blood cleanses us from ALL sin.

Your personal interpretation of scripture is just that.

OK. I disagree that it's just my personal interpretation, but just for the heck of it, let's say that it is.

How, specifically, is my "personal interpretation" wrong and what is the correct understanding of the verses I've listed? And what makes your personal interpretation more authoritative than mine?

Purgatory is and always has been part of Christian doctrine. This will never change.

So you claim, but you still haven't offered any evidence of that. You still haven't shown where it's found in scripture or explained what sins are left to expiate, when 1 John 1:7 tells us that Christ's blood cleanses us from ALL sin.

Your personal interpretation of scripture is just that.

OK. I disagree that it's just my personal interpretation, but just for the heck of it, let's say that it is.

How, specifically, is my "personal interpretation" wrong and what is the correct understanding of the verses I've listed? And what makes your personal interpretation more authoritative than mine?

That's why we need an infallible Church to interpret scripture.

First of all, if the Catholic Church is infallible, then why don't Catholics agree on what it says? Why has it changed it's mind so many times? If it's infallible, then why does it contain doctrinal errors?

Second, why do we need an "infallible church" when 2 Tim tells us that scripture is given to individuals?

Incidentally, you might want to consider not citing 2 Peter 1:20-21 in your response.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Third, why are things allegorical and metaphorical only when you find them convenient? For instance, why is fire metaphorical, but Jesus' flesh is literal?

That's why we need an infallible Church to interpret scripture.

Guess what, that's what Jesus gave us!!

 

[Albion]

Do you believe that all biblical language is necessarily intended to be taken literally rather than figuratively or symbolically? Do you believe that the punishment of hell necessarily entails fire, rather than the pain inflicted by fire-something we all know and understand in this life- possibly being allegorical to the pain inflicted by, say, experiencing eternal separation from God?

It isn't a matter of taking "fire" literally or not. If we consider this to be imagery or an analogyl, the situation remains the same.

You are saying that fire represents suffering and pain, right? It sure as anything can't represent calm and comfort.

 

[Albion]

That's why we need an infallible Church to interpret scripture.

Guess what, that's what Jesus gave us!!

Maybe we need an infallible crystal ball or Ouija board to tell us which infallible church is the "real" infallible church that is to tell us, infallibly, what to believe about the word of God. And of course, we then would need to know which crystal ball is the "real one," etc.

 

[catholichomeschooler]

Maybe we need an infallible crystal ball or Ouija board to tell us which infallible church is the "real" infallible church that is to tell us, infallibly, what to believe about the word of God. And of course, we then would need to know which crystal ball is the "real one," etc.

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

 

[fhansen]

First of all, no. There are plenty of places in scripture where we're told that something is like something. The Bible doesn't say that Hell is "like" fire. It says that it is fire.

Second, why would somebody who's spent his entire life rebelling against God, hating God, breaking God's laws, cursing God, feel pain at being separated from God? I would think that for an enemy of God to be in the presence of God would be the last thing he would want.

Third, why are things allegorical and metaphorical only when you find them convenient? For instance, why is fire metaphorical, but Jesus' flesh is literal?

I don't know. Why is Jesus' flesh allegorical to you but fire can't be allegorical? Is Jesus really a vine? He says He is. The point is that many things in scripture are figurative and many are literal. And especially concerning the afterlife where experiences there are presumably totally outside our field of knowledge and understanding, anthropomorphic language is necessarily the order of the day.

You're right that a person who opposes God all their lives would generally not want to be in His presence; that's the essence of pride and all that implies buts it's also the essence of the pain we experience here on earth, halfway between heaven and hell already where both good and evil are experienced-or known. There is no greater evil than separation from God, the ultimate Good. To choose that evil- to choose hell-doesn't mean our misery is diminished just for the choosing; we make our own hell.

 

[Albion]

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

I guess this is the place where I get to ask, "What do you think those verses are saying, as regards the authority of Scripture?" None of them describe any source of divine revelation that is equal to or in addition to the Scriptures.

 

[South Bound]

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Matt 18:17
If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

OK. First of all, am I the only one that sees the irony in the fact that a second Catholic in this thread is now appealing to sola scriptura to make her point?

Two in one thread. The Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura seems to be picking up steam among Catholics. That's a good sign.

Second, am I the only one who sees the irony that the same person who tells me I have to have an "infallible church" to interpret scripture for me is now providing scripture that I must interpret?

You say I have to have an "infallible church" to interpret scripture for me, but if I can't interpret the Bible for myself, how am I supposed to understand the meaning of the verses you just quoted? What's more, you won't even follow the same rules you say I have to follow. You just deemed those three verses acceptable to use in your argument precisely because you interpreted them to agree with your argument.

 

[Albion]

OK. First of all, am I the only one that sees the irony in the fact that a second Catholic in this thread is now appealing to sola scriptura to make her point?

When it serves their purpose, it's authoritative. Otherwise, it has been called "just a book" and the idea of considering it to be authoritative, "Bible worship."

Second, am I the only one who sees the irony that the same person who tells me I have to have an "infallible church" to interpret scripture for me is now providing scripture that I must interpret?

Yes. You'd almost have to conclude that she thinks the Bible is capable of being understood by an ordinary reader!

You just read deemed those three verses acceptable to use in your argument precisely because you interpreted them to agree with your argument.

Possibly. They look to me like 'cut and pastes' from some church website, however.

 

[fhansen]

OK. First of all, am I the only one that sees the irony in the fact that a second Catholic in this thread is now appealing to sola scriptura to make her point?

Two in one thread. The Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura seems to be picking up steam among Catholics. That's a good sign.

Second, am I the only one who sees the irony that the same person who tells me I have to have an "infallible church" to interpret scripture for me is now providing scripture that I must interpret?

You say I have to have an "infallible church" to interpret scripture for me, but if I can't interpret the Bible for myself, how am I supposed to understand the meaning of the verses you just quoted? What's more, you won't even follow the same rules you say I have to follow. You just read deemed those three verses acceptable to use in your argument precisely because you interpreted them to agree with your argument.

The CC has always used scripture to support her doctrines. You're right, though, that it would be a bit absurd to her to think anyone could pick up a bible and be assured of full and accurate knowledge, by that source alone, of God's nature and will. Scripture was never intended to be a sort of point by point run-down on or presentation of Christian theology, while it is nonetheless recognized as being materially sufficient in regards to containing all relevant doctrine.

 

[Albion]

The CC has always used scripture to support her doctrines. You're right, though, that it would be a bit absurd to her to think anyone could pick up a bible and be assured of full and accurate knowledge, by that source alone, of God's nature and will. Scripture was never intended to be a sort of point by point run-down on or presentation of Christian theology, while it is nonetheless recognized as being materially sufficient in regards to containing all relevant doctrine.

If it contains all that is relevant to what God intended to reveal (and therefore all that is necessary to salvation), you are in accord with Reformed teaching on the subject. Congrats.

At this point, the discussion logically should shift to whether or not it is permissible for any church body to make additional doctrines and impose them upon the people.

 

[South Bound]

The CC has always used scripture to support her doctrines.

I'll be sure to remember that the next time a Catholic disparages the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Scripture was never intended to be a sort of point by point run-down on or presentation of Christian theology

16All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. - 2 Tim 3:16-17

When it serves their purpose, it's authoritative. Otherwise, it has been called "just a book" and the idea of considering it to be authoritative, "Bible worship."

Yep. I love the way they repeatedly disparage the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, but the minute it serves their purpose, the very first thing they do is appeal to the authority of scripture.

Possibly. They look to me like 'cut and pastes' from some church website, however.

I'm positive that's what it is. They have to be getting their talking points from the same place because if you read their posts, every time they quote a Bible verse out of context, it's always out of context in the same way. If they were actually studying the scriptures for themselves, you'd think at least one of them would eventually say to themselves, "Hey! What do you know! There are verses that appear before this verse!"

 

[Albion]

Yep. I love the way they repeatedly disparage the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, but the minute it serves their purpose, the very first thing they do is appeal to the authority of scripture.

That raises a related question...WHY do they immediately turn to Scripture, even insisting that some very strange interpretations of it are the answer? The alternative--"Sacred Tradition"-- must seem too weak or even silly to cite.

At least that's what I suspect. Of course, we do occasionally get someone who will try to prove some doctrinal point by saying "St. Somebody wrote the following," but they know that it will immediately be greeted with "So...?" for which they have no reply.

I'm positive that's what it is. They have to be getting their talking points from the same place because if you read their posts, every time they quote a Bible verse out of context, it's always out of context in the same way. If they were actually studying the scriptures for themselves, you'd think at least one of them would eventually say to themselves, "Hey! What do you know! There are verses that appear before this verse!"

 

[fhansen]

If it contains all that is relevant to what God intended to reveal (and therefore all that is necessary to salvation), you are in accord with Reformed teaching on the subject. Congrats.

Catholicism has always held that to be true and so we congratulate others for recognizing such truths, regardless of how late they entered the scene. But the question is whether or not just anyone can pick up the bible and know with certainty exactly what God intended to reveal.

 

[fhansen]

I'll be sure to remember that the next time a Catholic disparages the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura.

Scripture's of God, sola scriptura isn't.

Yep. I love the way they repeatedly disparage the Biblical doctrine of sola scriptura, but the minute it serves their purpose, the very first thing they do is appeal to the authority of scripture.

Scripture's authority is useless unless properly interpreted and understood. The Church uses scripture to support the positions that were in place before the NT was written, which is why she appeals to both scripture as well her lived, historical, tradition.

 

[South Bound]

Scripture's of God, sola scriptura isn't.

Scripture is of God but what scripture teaches is not of God???

Scripture's authority is useless unless properly interpreted and understood.

So, God's Word doesn't have any authority apart from the Catholic Church?

The Church uses scripture to support the positions that were in place before the NT was written

I see. So, what scripture that was in place before the "New Testament was written", does the Catholic Church use to support Purgatory?

which is why she appeals to both scripture as well her lived, historical, tradition.

And, of the two, which is the higher authority?