Featured Catholics please share how you feel….

You should give this a watch.

 

Good on them. They have been a bit of a thorn in the old mans side. Do not agree with much that comes out of RCC but perhaps the rot has not gone as deep in some areas.

 

Well what I said was about our PM but Ya it does seem to fit our esteemed leaders on both sides of the 49th.

Do hope your wife was wrong on that. I think the trouble in the mid east is going to blowup. To many hotheads looking for blood. But then again it could be setting it up for that "special person" to come up with a 7 yr peace plan.

I just know that no matter how bad it get we know who is in control an His plans never fail.

 

The problem I have is, I know Purgatory exists. So people telling me their personal opinions of scripture, to proof text it doesn’t is ridiculous.

Unless it is given by Grace, people have to find out by experience,

It’s normal now for private interpreters of scripture, to interpret what they think and feel, and what they think and feel is what is true to them.
The highest level of truth they will ever have is their own opinion.

It makes people immune to the true meaning of Scripture, yet makes them think they are following scripture.

 

Wisdom from Paul Harvey

 

@Cathode you claim to believe scripture buy clearly you do not. The context of 1Co 3:4-15 shows that it is rewards that are in view not mans sins. The fact that you will not even trust the bible over your RCC says a great deal about you and it is not good.

The RCC bases it's claim of purgatory on just a few words "yet so as through fire" taken out of context.

 

If that had not been Paul Harvey in 1965 I would say that was spoken today. Chilling.

 

There is a lot in a few words. Like “ this is my Body “, the truth can be won or lost by misunderstanding them.
That’s why private interpretation is so dangerous.

 

That is why context destroys your false idea of purgatory.

1Co 3:14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

The rewards we will receive in heaven will be in accordance to the work we have done for the kingdom.
We are judged on how we, with our abilities & position, stood for the truth of God's word.
Did we compromise the inspired word or hold true to what the Holy Spirit inspired, that is the question.

The concept of purgatory is I'm paying for sin and I'm being changed purged of iniquity within me. That's not the concept here.
The concept of purification doesn't occur, the transformative work inside a person is not even in view in the passage. 1Co_3:3-15

 

You are putting your own interpretation to the words, you are not understanding it as it was understood originally.

Apostolic Tradition is like having Saint Paul next to you explaining the scriptures as he preached by the power of The Holy Spirit.

Not you deciding what the words mean to you.

 

Do you think those words meant something different it Paul's time, has the definition of any of those words changed. If so which ones? The question is what the words mean to you. You do not want to accept clear English words as they are written

1Co 3:14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
1Co 3:15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

If a man's work endures he will get a reward if it is burned up he will suffer loss but even then he will be saved through that fire. There is nothing in those words that relate to having sins purged. You have to read that into the text. Which as I have said before the RCC seems quite comfortable doing.

You keep speaking of the baseless Apostolic Tradition in support of your errant views. I speak of the word of God that we have in our hands in support of what I say. I will stick with scripture.

 

Agreed!!!

 

All Bible aloners say they stick with scripture, yet look at all the conflicted interpretations of scripture come up with.

Baseless? it’s in the Scripture you keep ignoring.

“ Hold to the traditions we taught you, either by word of mouth, or by letter “

You say you only hold to the letter, the written part, which is against the scripture.

Catholics hold to both the Oral Tradition of the Apostles and the written, the Oral Tradition of the Apostles explains the written Tradition of the Apostles.

Again you deviate from the scripture, reject the Oral Tradition of the Apostles and interpret the scripture in further error.

 

The only oral tradition that the RCC holds to is those that your pope's have brought into your church.
"Mary worship, transubstantiation, prugatory, papal infallibility, works salvation, confession to priests" These are not found in the bible are they so why do you say they are?

These are some of the ways the RCC has departed form scripture.

451 Baptism regenerates

500 Sacrifice of the Mass

1190 Indulgences

1215 Transubstantiation

1438 Purgatory

1545 Tradition equal to Bible

1854 Immaculate conception of mary

1870 Papal infallibility

1950 Assumption of mary

So it is not tradition you follow but a man, your pope.

 

And who decides what the oral tradition is? Oh, right, that flawed group pf men in the RCC headed by a flawed man the pope.

What we do know:
There is no evidence that any of the RCC traditions were given by the apostles. Actually just the opposite.
We have all that is necessary for salvation in the written word.

 

No, we follow both the scripture and Oral Tradition as scripture states, you don’t follow either.

 

The written word doesn’t say that, you aren’t following the written word when you reject the Apostolic word of mouth Tradition.

See one deviation from the scripture, leads to many more.

Scripture doesn’t teach scripture alone, which leads to opinion alone.

I’ve seen two baptist pastors condemn each other over their interpretations of scripture, let alone the other scripture alone denominations that condemn each other’s interpretations of Scripture.
Yeah, they all say they follow Scripture alone.

More like, Ego alone.

Well that’s the beauty of Tradition, all you do is maintain the same ancient understanding.
Tradition remains the same.

Bible alone Traditions don’t remain the same, each person interprets by what it means to him, so you get tens of thousands of traditions of men each with their own changing interpretations.

So the Bible alone religion began with Luther and his new interpretations, then it metastasised with others privately interpreting more and more till Luther’s interpretations seem alien to private interpreters today.
Even more alien to them is the Original singular Ancient interpretation of Scripture in Apostolic Tradition.

So modern private interpreters of scripture, being used to making scripture fit their opinions (what the words mean to me ), when they encounter the ancient and true interpretation of Scripture, they reject it, calling it unscriptural. Sound familiar.

“ What the words mean to me “ is the whole of the Law to Bible Alone private interpreters. Not the Truth.

 

Psychologically, the Bible alone heresy appeals to very particular pathologies, and attracts them. To the know it all narcissist nothing sounds and smells like truth more than his own opinion.

In fact egocentrism carries the newer heretical innovations forward. Private interpretation is an extension of the ego, so generally you don’t see retractions or apologies, or concessions, because that would harm the ego.

So because of ego they become more ardent, even in deep error. Thus another distinctive Bible alone denomination gets founded.

 

By your own words you follow oral tradition but since you have no way of knowing anything about oral tradition except what the bible tells us I will stick with scripture.

Col 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

And we know that none of your doctrines that are based on oral tradition are actual biblical doctrines but rather are traditions of men. They are false.

Actually those that trust the scriptures would hold to "what the scripture's say". Whereas the RCC uses the "what we want the scriptures to say" approach. We already know that the RCC abuses scripture by removing text or miss reading it. So why would a Christian trust what the RCC says? You teach a salvation of works and follow all these RCC rules which is unbiblical, so you really do not believe the bible.

The fact Luther, an inside man, pointed out many of the abuses of the RCC is why you rial against him so much. But the main reason most people reject the RCC is that they, while claiming to be the fount of truth, have shown themselves to be anything but that.

I do find it funny that you keep with this "what the words mean to me" line when you refuse to actually trust scripture !Co 3:4-15 that shows your purgatory view is error. You just read what you want to find.

 

Well, we see all the Bible alone privately interpreted traditions as the traditions of men. All human founded traditions founded on “ what do the words mean to me “.

Each with all the novel and strange interpretations and doctrines that have been fabricated from private opinions.

There are more extinct privately interpreted traditions of men as well.