Discussion with regards to Church history

[lori4dogs]

The Convention is more qualified to speak about what it holds to believe. But that wasn't the debate as well. We are talking About the Catholic Church we both have quoted their sources My contention is you purposely ignore one aspect of what they are saying. period.

. . . and he will continue to ignore it. He doesn't want to hear what he doesn't want to hear.

 

[lori4dogs]

In response to DHK assertion that he doubted that the ECF's held any notion of a state of purgation:

From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages [ e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16]

Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin)....

For Clement of Alexandria, the 'intelligent' fire that enters into the sinner's soul was not a material thing...but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a 'spiritual' fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)....what is involved [in Origen's view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle....Origen's eschatological notions were highly personal...He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day.

Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the 'fire of combustion' is brief; and 'mortal sinners,' who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian's idea of refrigerium and Origen's concept of a purifying fire....Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]...Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen.

[Ambrose] also clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world...[cites Ambrose on the Emperor Theodosius].... (page 60)

Ambrosiaster, if he adds little to what Ambrose has already said, is important because he is the author of the first real exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. As such he had considerable influence on the medieval commentators on this passage, which played a key role in the inception of Purgatory, and in particular on the early scholastics of the twelfth century. Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith...[then quotes Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 3:15].

It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian 'authorities,' to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory....Augustine's importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. 'Purgatorius' figured in the phrase 'poenae purgatoriae': I prefer to translate this as 'purgatorial punishments' rather than 'purificatory punishments,' the latter being too precise for Augustine's way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus's edition of the City of God (21:26).

Now for the Church Fathers on prayers for the dead, purgatory, and the development of the doctrine.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'." (Acts of Paul and Thecla [c. AD 160] or ANF VIII:490)

 

[JohnDeereFan]

. . . and he will continue to ignore it. He doesn't want to hear what he doesn't want to hear.

You know, Lori, you're absolutely right. I do ignore you when you try to tell me what Catholicism teaches because what you say Catholicism teaches contradicts what Catholicism says Catholicism teaches.

I quoted five different Catholic sources that stated that Purgatory is for sinners to expiate their sin and you still insist that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sins.

Why do you and thinkingstuff believe that your opinions on what Catholicism teaches are more authoritative than the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches?

Even though she clearly is better qualified than you to make assertions about what Catholicism teaches.

OK. What makes her "better qualified to make assertions about what Catholicism teaches" than the five Catholic sources I cited?

The Catholic church is not posting, so we are not getting "the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches."

Yes, actually, each of the five sources I quoted are Catholic sources and so do represent Catholic beliefs.

That being the case, both both Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs are more authoritative than you to tell us Catholicism teaches.

But again, I didn't write those things. All five of the sources I quoted are Catholic sources. What makes thinkinstuff and Lori more authoritative than them?

For that matter, what makes them authoritative at all?

Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs, even if they are not Catholic, have clearly
a) been heavily exposed to Catholic materials, written by Catholics for Catholics, and
b) have first-hand knowledge of what happens in Catholic circles.

First of all, how is it that all of the years I spent in the Catholic Church don't count?

Second, do you understand the difference between being exposed to such materials and actually seeing first hand statements from the authorities behind those statements, themselves?

Sorry, but I trust the CCC, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, Karl Keating, and the Catholic priest I cited more than I trust Lori and Thinkingstuff.

Tell me, when you were a child, did you ever play the game "telephone"?

 

[Darron Steele]

[Deleted by me. See next post.]

 

[Darron Steele]

You know, Lori, you're absolutely right. I do ignore you when you try to tell me what Catholicism teaches

Even though she clearly is better qualified than you to make assertions about what Catholicism teaches.

Why do you and thinkingstuff believe that your opinions on what Catholicism teaches are more authoritative than the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches?

The Catholic church is not posting, so we are not getting "the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches." That being the case, both both Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs are more authoritative than you to tell us Catholicism teaches.

Thinkingstuff and Lori4dogs, even if they are not Catholic, have clearly
a) been heavily exposed to Catholic materials, written by Catholics for Catholics, and
b) have first-hand knowledge of what happens in Catholic circles.
You show no sign of either, but they show it clearly and unmistakably.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one needs TS or Lori to tell them what the Catholic church teaches. That information is out for anyone to see. And Lori is less credible because she had the truth at one time and turned to a lie.

 

[Marcia]

So far, there is very little about church history on this thread that I can see.

It became an attack on the rapture and then some fighting over purgatory.

It's a good thing that as someone who does believe in the rapture, I am not turning every thread into an attack on some belief like the amil view, the preterist view, Calvinism, etc. I wonder if it's possible for the group here to discuss the topic rationally.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

In response to DHK assertion that he doubted that the ECF's held any notion of a state of purgation:

From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages [ e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16]

Origen's conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement's. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh....Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin)....

For Clement of Alexandria, the 'intelligent' fire that enters into the sinner's soul was not a material thing...but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a 'spiritual' fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)....what is involved [in Origen's view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle....Origen's eschatological notions were highly personal...He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day.

Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the 'fire of combustion' is brief; and 'mortal sinners,' who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15.

In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian's idea of refrigerium and Origen's concept of a purifying fire....Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]...Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen.

[Ambrose] also clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world...[cites Ambrose on the Emperor Theodosius].... (page 60)

Ambrosiaster, if he adds little to what Ambrose has already said, is important because he is the author of the first real exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. As such he had considerable influence on the medieval commentators on this passage, which played a key role in the inception of Purgatory, and in particular on the early scholastics of the twelfth century. Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith...[then quotes Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 3:15].

It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian 'authorities,' to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory....Augustine's importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. 'Purgatorius' figured in the phrase 'poenae purgatoriae': I prefer to translate this as 'purgatorial punishments' rather than 'purificatory punishments,' the latter being too precise for Augustine's way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus's edition of the City of God (21:26).

Now for the Church Fathers on prayers for the dead, purgatory, and the development of the doctrine.

The Acts of Paul and Thecla

"And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: 'Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous'." (Acts of Paul and Thecla [c. AD 160] or ANF VIII:490)

You know, if you're going to copy and paste somebody else's work, you really should give them credit for it.

 

[lori4dogs]

You know, if you're going to copy and paste somebody else's work, you really should give them credit for it.

You are absolutely right. The source is Phil Porvaznik. He is a Catholic apologist.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

>Which Ecumenical Councils, out of interest, do people here subscribe to?

The Christian Reformed Church officially recognizes the Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed as representing historic Christianity.

The nice thing about creeds is that the every local church doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. I have read many statements of faith that would not meet the test of time. "We only believe the Bible' and "We don't believe in creeds" are creedal statements.

Bill -- my guess is that our denoms are fairly similar. Apostle's Creed & Nicene Creed, and then Westminster Confession. I agree with your comment about local churches.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is a misdirected question

Why do you and thinkingstuff believe that your opinions on what Catholicism teaches are more authoritative than the Catholic Church's opinions on what Catholicism teaches?

Neither Lori or I claimed to be more authoritative than the Catholic Church's opinion on what Catholicism teaches. Both of us have stated that you have not acurately described what it is they teach. This is in effect what you are doing.
The Scripture tells us that Jesus said "an eye for an eye" so from that I can conclude its ok to take vengence out on someone. In this example I've purposely left out "you have heard it said" and later " but I tell you". So no matter how verbatum I've quoted the scripture its still misleading.
As you know my father, Mother, brothers, and sister are still very much devoutly Catholic. My father has some influence in the Church and through him I've come in contact with a Catholic Theologian and Benedictine monk who teaches seminary to priest. I asked him last night on this discussion of purgatory and what the Church teaches about it with regard to my statements this is his reply

Still, our salvation comes only through the Cross of Christ, so our purgation must be a share in (and result of) that sacrifice. Purgatory is not something we do, a payment we make; it's a condition the soul undergoes, part of the process of union with God. We could never begin to approach that union without Christ's Passion, death, and resurrection. He paid the price in our stead.

Despite what some critics claim, there's scriptural basis for belief in Purgatory, and I trust you've looked at those passages.

So I am not off when I compare purgatory to Theosis. However, he like me comes to this conclusion

It's possible, but speculative theology can lead one into an endless maze.

. The difference is I reject purgatory based on its speculative nature. He accepts it because it is doctrine and has been held by the Church Since the ECF that it must, in his mind, be authoritative Tradition. So the things I say are based on a knowledge not a biased opinion of someone else.

Also note that you're referrence to Keating is defeated by his book "Usual Suspects" Page 167 where he says in response to a video he's watching that

But none of them tells the viewer that the Catholic Church does not teach that we “pay for our own sins”

Also in his Fundalmentalism vs. Catholicism he states

Purgatory makes sense only if there is a requirement that a soul not just be <declared> to be clean, but actually <be> clean. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then, for all the protestations that may be given, it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean. A man who has not bathed in a month is not cleansed merely by putting on clean clothes; clean clothes will not remove the dirt. Likewise, "covering" a soul will not purify it; its dirty state is merely hidden from view. Catholic theology takes literally the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a dirty soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and is not fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or purged of its dirtiness. The purging comes in purgatory.

Which is clearly a theosis referrence rather than the paragraph just previous which you quoted. So in context expiation is for the 2nd consequense of sin rather than for the sin its self.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So far, there is very little about church history on this thread that I can see.

It became an attack on the rapture and then some fighting over purgatory.

It's a good thing that as someone who does believe in the rapture, I am not turning every thread into an attack on some belief like the amil view, the preterist view, Calvinism, etc. I wonder if it's possible for the group here to discuss the topic rationally.

Marcia you are quite right. I wanted to speak on the nature of the developement of the Christian Church through history however I did chase rabbits left by JDF which started by him saying this

I learned long ago not to waste time banging your head against the wall by trying to discuss church history with Catholics

to which I replied

I learned long ago not to waste time banging your head against the wall by trying to discuss church history with Catholics

to which he referred to another thread

Then why are you defending their heresies?

which lead into another discussion of purgatory from the other thread and to my attempt to show 1) I did not defend the doctrine and 2) to clarify what the doctrine actually was about.
Yet to prove some point of his JDF then stated this

And that's why you were defending the Catholic heresy of Purgatory?

I suppose your opposition to Catholic heresies also explains why you have a quote from a Catholic theologian for your signature.

Questioning I suppose my attachement to the SBC I attend because use of my signature which I explained by saying my reason for using this particular quote, which by the way I put there from another thread discussing escatology by saying

He wasn't always Catholic BTW. And the reason I like his signature is the subject of the signature. I find it humorous. Note I don't believe in the Rapture

to which he implied that belief in the rapture was necissary for proper Christian belief and that possibly anyone who doesn't believe in the rapture may not be saved by saying

Gee, there's a shock

and later

There are a lot of things the Bible teaches that you don't have to believe in. But if you're going to claim to be a Christian, then why wouldn't you believe what the Bible teaches?

So it wasn't my intent to discuss purgatory here but I didn't back down from the argument because I knew I was right . And it wasn't my intention to attack the rapture but felt I needed to defend my signature.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Both of us have stated that you have not acurately described what it is they teach. This is in effect what you are doing.

OK. Tell me how the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited are not accurate.

The Scripture tells us that Jesus said "an eye for an eye" so from that I can conclude its ok to take vengence out on someone. In this example I've purposely left out "you have heard it said" and later " but I tell you". So no matter how verbatum I've quoted the scripture its still misleading.

Fine. Then go to the sources I cited and you post them in their entirety and explain how I allegedly took them out of context and explain what the correct context is.

As you know my father, Mother, brothers, and sister are still very much devoutly Catholic.

I don't care.

My father has some influence in the Church and through him I've come in contact with a Catholic Theologian and Benedictine monk who teaches seminary to priest. I asked him last night on this discussion of purgatory and what the Church teaches about it with regard to my statements this is his reply So I am not off when I compare purgatory to Theosis.

I'm sorry, but neither one of you have any more authority to speak on what Catholicism teaches than the CCC.

The difference is I reject purgatory based on its speculative nature.

Then why are you defending it?

So the things I say are based on a knowledge not a biased opinion of someone else.

Right. So when you declare what Catholicism teaches, it's "knowledge". But when the Catholic Church declares what Catholicism teaches, it's just their "opinion".

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

OK. Tell me how the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited are not accurate.



Fine. Then go to the sources I cited and you post them in their entirety and explain how I allegedly took them out of context and explain what the correct context is.



I don't care.



I'm sorry, but neither one of you have any more authority to speak on what Catholicism teaches than the CCC.



Then why are you defending it?



Right. So when you declare what Catholicism teaches, it's "knowledge". But when the Catholic Church declares what Catholicism teaches, it's just their "opinion".

Thanks for clearing that up.

Again, I'm not defending it. I'm putting it into its proper context. I will again say upfront that I disagree with Purgatory because its speculative rather than supstantive and in either respect to the Catholic or the Protestant it's not a salvation issue. Here is my proof that you have taken these text out of context.
As for Keating note that you're referrence to Keating is defeated by his book "Usual Suspects" Page 167 where he says in response to a video he's watching that

But none of them tells the viewer that the Catholic Church does not teach that we “pay for our own sins”

Also in his Fundalmentalism vs. Catholicism he states

Purgatory makes sense only if there is a requirement that a soul not just be <declared> to be clean, but actually <be> clean. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then, for all the protestations that may be given, it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean. A man who has not bathed in a month is not cleansed merely by putting on clean clothes; clean clothes will not remove the dirt. Likewise, "covering" a soul will not purify it; its dirty state is merely hidden from view. Catholic theology takes literally the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a dirty soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and is not fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or purged of its dirtiness. The purging comes in purgatory.

Which is clearly a theosis referrence rather than the paragraph just previous which you quoted. So in context expiation is for the 2nd consequense of sin rather than for the sin its self.

Why do I say that? Well in the CCC it states that

1472 To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. 1) Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. 2)On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin,(Christ does this) but temporal punishment of sin remains.(this is the Sanctification of the Christian) While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."85

So with this consept in perspective we come to the main Purgatory quote from the CCC

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

Now as to Trents declaration

Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory,[1] and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils,[2] be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached. The more difficult and subtle questions, however, and those that do not make for edification and from which there is for the most part no increase in piety, are to be excluded from popular instructions to uneducated people.[3] Likewise, things that are uncertain or that have the appearance of falsehood they shall not permit to be made known publicly and discussed. But those things that tend to a certain kind of curiosity or superstition, or that savor of filthy lucre, they shall prohibit as scandals and stumbling-blocks to the faithful. The bishops shall see to it that the suffrages of the living, that is, the sacrifice of the mass,[4] prayers, alms and other works of piety which they have been accustomed to perform for the faithful departed, be piously and devoutly discharged in accordance with the laws of the Church, and that whatever is due on their behalf from testamentary bequests or other ways, be discharged by the priests and ministers of the Church and others who are bound to render this service not in a perfunctory manner, but diligently and accurately.

So with this catagorization of sin into primarily two classifications

Venial sin, on the other hand, while it requires us to do satisfaction for our sin and is deserving of punishment, does not bring us eternal punishment.

the term expiation that you keep refering to is directly related to sanctification by getting rid of our worldly "attachments" we expiate the venial sin which only has "temporal" affects. They are not an eternal matter. Safe that we need to be washed mentally away from them by "purgation". Note again the difference

While venial sin will not land you in Hell, it should nevertheless be avoided and despised. We are all called to Holiness and Perfection. Attachment to any sin, even venial sins, prevents us from attaining those goals.

and

For a sin to be a mortal sin, three things are required:
• the matter must be "grave";
• the sin must be committed with full knowledge; and
• the sin must be committed deliberately.
Thus, the sin must be a serious sin. There is no doubt that matters such as murder, theft, sexual sins (such as adultery, premarital sex and contraception), bearing false witness, etc. are taken sufficiently seriously by the Church to constitute grave matter. Anyone committing these sins, knowing full well that they are grave matters and nevertheless deliberately commits the sin, commits a mortal sin.

it is not the latter for which purgatory deals with but the former. Again note how its differentiated in this catachesial statement

In addition, although we are washed of the stain of Original Sin in our baptisms, we are still left with the "concupiscence" which our First Parents' sin caused to become part of our human condition. Concupiscence is a tendency to sin. That is, without the grace of God, we tend naturally to sin against God. We must therefore call on God's grace to resist sin and choose what is good. Without His Grace, we can do nothing on our own to merit salvation.

And how Br. Bruno Catholic Theologian at a Catholic Semniary - the theologian to whom I referred to previously answers

Still, our salvation comes only through the Cross of Christ, so our purgation must be a share in (and result of) that sacrifice. Purgatory is not something we do, a payment we make; it's a condition the soul undergoes, part of the process of union with God. We could never begin to approach that union without Christ's Passion, death, and resurrection. He paid the price in our stead.

This is the context in which the Catholics view purgatory. In otherwords Purgatory is a step in sanctification through theosis rather than a payment for the sins that Jesus has forgiven us of.

2 consepts. 1) Sanctification not 2) Attonement in the Sense of Jesus making full payment keeping us from condemnation. This is the catholic position. So in order to debate purgatory you are discussing several things. Sanctification, Theosis, classification of Sin from things that keep us from obtaining a Christ like mindedness. Not payment for sins already attoned for but from our venality.

Underlining, brackets, and numbering with brackets are my inclusions.

 

[lori4dogs]

JDF: This is from a person who DISAGREES with the teaching of Purgatory but understands what the Catholic Church actually believes about it.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

JDF: This is from a person who DISAGREES with the teaching of Purgatory but understands what the Catholic Church actual believes about it.

Actually, he's defending the heresy of Purgatory precisely because he does not understand it. The fact that keeps contradicting the Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that he neither knows nor cares what Catholicism teaches.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Again, I'm not defending it.

Yes, you have consistently defended the heresy of Purgatory.

Here is my proof that you have taken these text out of context.

No, that doesn't show that I took it out of context. You're citing a second, unrelated source.

As for Keating note that you're referrence to Keating is defeated by his book "Usual Suspects" Page 167 where he says in response to a video he's watching that Also in his Fundalmentalism vs. Catholicism he states Which is clearly a theosis referrence rather than the paragraph just previous which you quoted. So in context expiation is for the 2nd consequense of sin rather than for the sin its self.

Again, you're citing a second, unrelated source. That's mighty dishonest of you.

Why do I say that? Well in the CCC it states that [/quote]

So, basically, you're citing the CCC stating that Purgatory is for the expiation of sin, in order to make the case that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sin?

I'll be sure to keep that in mind the next time you tell me how stupid I am.

Now as to Trents declaration

Irrelevant. Doesn't contradict the passage I cited from Trent at all.

So with this catagorization of sin into primarily two classifications the term expiation that you keep refering to is directly related to sanctification by getting rid of our worldly "attachments" we expiate the venial sin which only has "temporal" affects.

I'm sorry, but that's just not what the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited for you say.

In otherwords Purgatory is a step in sanctification through theosis rather than a payment for the sins that Jesus has forgiven us of.

The FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited each say that the purpose of Purgatory is for the sinner to expiate his sins.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I cited each say that the purpose of Purgatory is for the sinner to expiate his sins.

and thus you prove my point with you. I've quoted directly from the CCC of the Catholic Church. I've quoted directly from Trent. I've quoted directly from Keating. I've quoted directly from a Catholic Theologian. Each one explains the entirety of their doctrine of Purgatory. Each one supports the Other, Each one is in accordance with the Magisterium of that Catholic Church. And what you have done is contrary to your claim. YOU HAVE NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IN REGARD TO PURGATORY. The very sources you quote are only in part. You ignore the differences in understanding of Mortal and Venial sins. you ignore the differences in the 2 consequences in sin and you have reply in a manner below your education and qualifications. I show you using the same sources you claim how the writers of those sources understand their own documents and you refuse to listen to them. If you were to make the same points to the pope himself, he, being an academic, would say you are wrong. You have shown that you did not read my post in their entirety and thus don't really bring anything to the debate on purgatory save the regurgitation of the same misapplied statements. If you really want to debate purgatory I suggest you stop referring to you own notions and appeal to the actual sources you've misapplied. You again refuse to contract your statements even though I've showed you how you can misquote scripture eventhough be verbatum.
You insist I defend purgatory but I assure you I have not or do not. I only show you what the debate is. Its like you attempting to discuss a lion but only describing a dog. And when you are given an explination of what a lion really is you insist its a dog. But it is a lion that is the subject not the dog.

 

[lori4dogs]

JDF: Cover ears with hands . . . . go la, la, la, la, la!

 

[JohnDeereFan]

and thus you prove my point with you. I've quoted directly from the CCC of the Catholic Church. I've quoted directly from Trent. I've quoted directly from Keating. I've quoted directly from a Catholic Theologian. Each one explains the entirety of their doctrine of Purgatory.

But not one of them contradict what the sources I provided say.

YOU HAVE NOT ACCURATELY REPRESENTED WHAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES IN REGARD TO PURGATORY.

Actually, I quoted directly from Catholic sources.

The very sources you quote are only in part.

You're right. I did choose to quote only the salient parts of those sources. However, each time you've accused me of taking them out of context, I've invited you to reproduce them in their entirity and explain how I took them out of context and you have repeatedly failed to do so.

You ignore the differences in understanding of Mortal and Venial sins. you ignore the differences in the 2 consequences in sin

I did not "ignore" them. I chose not to address them because none of the FIVE CATHOLIC SOURCES I quoted made any such disctinction.

and you have reply in a manner below your education and qualifications.

Gee, another personal attack. Why does that not surprise me?

If you were to make the same points to the pope himself, he, being an academic, would say you are wrong.

Then he would have the responsibility of explaining where these FIVE CATHOLIC sources got it wrong.

If you really want to debate purgatory I suggest you stop referring to you own notions

Actually, I did not write the CCC, the Council of Trent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, nor is Karl Keating my psuedonym.

And, with this post, I will follow the Bible's admonition to not argue with a fool.