Does the Catholic Church have no authority?

Well then through out 1st and 2nd Peter because Peter certainly couldn't have written "infallible" (by your definition, I prefer inerrant) words as he sinned. And the all of Pauls books are alot of nonsense because he said "the good that I would do, I do not, while the EVIL that I would not I do".). Sorry bud but you have the same "double talk" in your system of beliefs. Of course you won't acknowledge it.
</font>[/QUOTE]You make an excellent point, but you don't go far enough. We need to throw out the entire bible, both OT and NT, because every single word in it was written by sinners!

Anybody who says infallibility is impossible must reject the bible as well. Any takers?

 

God said that if anyone is His prophet, every prophecy the person makes must come true. God also gave his instruments signs that supported the fact that they spoke for God.


Does anyone have a comment about who allowed the outside influence on the church during the 60's? </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you guys acknowledge the point. Lack of impecability does not disqualify someone from speaking for God. You guys always slide the "scale of truth" so that it engulfs some other aspect that makes you feel comfortable with where you are at once again. Does sin disqulify one from being God's messanger at an infallbible level? If it does not disqualify Peter and Paul from being infallible then sin MUST NOT be a disqualifyer as Ray implied. Now we can go in to the canon is closed if you would like or these guys perform no miracles if you like but we must first address this issue of impecability and infallibility or we get nowhere. Answer the question and I will be glad to offer you thoughts on your next question.

 

thessalonian,

We believe that all of the apostles and other writers of both the Old and New Testaments wrote down the Word of God without error, even your Apostle Peter that we sometimes have to place among the other apostles, and not as the bishop, par excellence of Rome. The lives of many of the writers, of the Bible, as you know, were men who were flawed. Have you forgot that Peter was among the men around the Cross who ran scared? When he fled from Christ and betrayed Him, was he on his way to Rome?

In I Peter 1:1 he does not start out his epistle by saying, 'Peter, the lead apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ' nor does he say in II Peter 1:1 'Simon Peter, the most sovereign bishop or the most holy Father.' I believe your Douay Version says something like, 'Simon Peter,a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.'

Peter's authority always rested on his apostleship but never via his infallibility. This was and remains the brain child of one of your popes.

We gladly welcome the idea of a 'paper pope.' I am sure you can guess which book serves in meeting all of our spiritual needs.

Apparently all of the apostles were willing to receive this title of apostle, but there is no documentation of an infallible pope. Christ shares his glory and authority with no human being. We are all servants of our Lord.

 

No, God used sinners such as Peter and Paul to write the Bible.
"Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." The Holy Spirit was the One at work. God is the author of the Bible. Are you saying that God is fallible, and therefore the Bible is not infallible?
DHK

 

God said that if anyone is His prophet, every prophecy the person makes must come true. God also gave his instruments signs that supported the fact that they spoke for God.


Does anyone have a comment about who allowed the outside influence on the church during the 60's? </font>[/QUOTE]Why don't you guys acknowledge the point. Lack of impecability does not disqualify someone from speaking for God. You guys always slide the "scale of truth" so that it engulfs some other aspect that makes you feel comfortable with where you are at once again. Does sin disqulify one from being God's messanger at an infallbible level? If it does not disqualify Peter and Paul from being infallible then sin MUST NOT be a disqualifyer as Ray implied. Now we can go in to the canon is closed if you would like or these guys perform no miracles if you like but we must first address this issue of impecability and infallibility or we get nowhere. Answer the question and I will be glad to offer you thoughts on your next question. </font>[/QUOTE]Of course one can speak for God and not be perfect. Even Paul stated that what he does he does not wish to do. Paul did not lay claim to infallibility. In fact he commended the Bereans in Acts 17:11, “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.” I tend to think they examined what he said also.

Acts 18:24-28 says, “Now a Jew named Apollos, an Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, came to Ephesus; and he was mighty in the Scriptures. This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John; and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wanted to go across to Achaia, the brethren encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him; and when he had arrived, he greatly helped those who had believed through grace, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.”

Apollos was instructed by Priscilla and Aquila. Here we see a man who was used by God but had teachings that were not quite in accordance with scripture. He was not infallible but was used by God.

In scripture we see that even a donkey was used. But I certainly wouldn’t claim that any donkey was infallible. At least I haven’t met any yet.

Do you know of anyone today that would lay claim to the idea that his words and writings are on par with scripture? I see that as the main issue here. I have never heard anyone who others say they are infallible ever say that about themselves other than a false prophet. Have you?

The doctrine of infallibility seems to be on par with continuing revelations. If the canon is truly closed then why the need for additional revelations. If those revelations are not necessary for faith and practice then there is no need for new revelations. Revelations are much different than wisdom from God as James talks about in James 1:5. Wisdom is always in accordance with what scripture teaches. I do not see any practice of indulgences in orthodox Christianity that precedes the RCC doctrine of indulgences. The practice of indulgences seems to more closely parallel that of sacrifice in the pagan world today. It seems to be the idea of payment for sin. Jesus paid the sacrifice therefore there is no longer a need for a sacrifice. (Hebrews 9)

Martin Luther didn't think so and wrote the 95 theses. I think it verifies his disagreement. Along with him at the time came many others who disagreed also. So either he was wrong as well as the others. Or the RCC was wrong. Either enough were deceived and the Lutheran Church is stil deceived along with all Protestants or the RCC was wrong. It is one or the other. You either agree or disagree with Luther or you don't.

If you say that the pope is the only perfect person in morality and doctrine. That is quite easy to prove because it is known that there were a few popes who had children without being married.

I am sure you know about some of the popes who are an embarrassment to Rome.

I found the following quite interesting: It is found at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html


Dear Cecil:

I've read that a respectable number of disrespectable popes in the early Roman Catholic Church had illegitimate children. I understand that many of these children became cardinals in the church, some eventually ascending to the papal throne with infallibility. Does the Catholic Church officially acknowledge these transgressions, and, if so, how does it rationalize them? Also, is there any truth to the scandalous story of an ancient pope's bastard daughter disguising herself as a man, becoming a respected cardinal in the church, and finally getting elected pope by his/her peers--only to be stoned to death by an angry Roman crowd that discovered "him" hiding an advanced pregnancy under those heavy velvet robes? --Jeffrey R., Madison, Wisconsin

Dear Jeffrey:

A lot of the rumors about the "bad popes" are true, but let's not get ridiculous. The female pope story is generally regarded as a fabrication. "Pope Joan," who supposedly served from 855 to 858, was said to be an Englishwoman who disguised herself as a monk to be with her cleric boyfriend. She went to Rome, where she so impressed others with her learning that she was elected pope. Her secret was discovered when she gave birth during a procession, whereupon she was slain. The story is false, although it was possibly inspired by actual events, about which more in a moment.

But many other papal horror stories are entirely legit. In many cases, in fact, weaknesses of the flesh were the least of the popes' sins. In the Middle Ages many popes were elevated to office following the murder of their predecessors. During one particularly grim period from 882 to 1046, there were 37 popes, some of whom served only a few weeks.

Leo V (903), for instance, had been pope for only a month before being imprisoned and tortured by one Christophorus, who then enthroned himself. Both men were killed in 904 on the orders of Pope Sergius III (904-911). Sergius later had a son by his teenaged mistress Marozia who became Pope John XI (931-935). In 914, according to one chronicler, Marozia's mother Theodora installed her lover on the papal throne as John X (914-928). (Theodora and Marozia effectively controlled the papacy through their menfolk and may be the source of the Pope Joan legend.) John XII (955-963), who ascended to the papacy at 19, was accused, perhaps falsely, of sleeping with his father's mistress, committing incest with his niece, and castrating a deacon.

Murder gave way to bribery as a route to the papacy in later centuries; some 40 popes are believed to have bought their jobs. But the lax attitude toward celibacy remained unchanged. In large part this was because the Church was an important route to wealth and power. Sons of influential families were pushed into Church careers much as we might send a kid to MBA school, apparently with similar expectations regarding morals. Noblemen with mistresses saw no reason to adjust their life-styles just because they had taken vows.

The spectacle of cardinals and popes putting their "nephews" into cushy jobs was a standing joke in Rome for centuries. Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had a son and daughter who lived with him in the Vatican. The notorious Alexander VI (1492-1503), born Rodrigo Borgia, had at least four illegitimate children while still a cardinal, among them the cutthroat Cesare Borgia and the reputed poisoner Lucrezia Borgia (actually, she probably never poisoned anybody). Clement VII (1523-1534), himself illegitimate, had a son whom he attempted to make duke of Florence. Paul III (1534-1539) had four kids; two teen grandsons he made cardinals. Pius IV (1559-1565) had three children, and the list goes on.

The Catholic Church has been reasonably forthcoming about the bad popes, having opened the Vatican archives to historians in the 19th century. The Church acknowledges that the office has been held by unworthy men, but maintains that their spiritual capacities were unimpaired by their temporal failings--a line that one hears more often these days in connection with politicians. The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only to certain formal pronouncements on faith and morals, so it can be argued that the bad popes did not lead the church permanently astray. But it's not a position I would care to defend before a congressional committee.

The Bible says in Mt. 12:34,35, "You brood of vipers, how can you, being evil, speak what is good? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. " The good man brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil."

"The mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart." One who is immoral speaks the things which agree with his practice. It kind of like the saying, "Your actions speak so loud I can't hear your words."

 

The difference between Catholics and other Christians is in the fact that all of our basic Christian theology comes out of the inerrancy of the manuscripts, the books that make up the Bible. We have no tolerance for add on theology as the decades pass by.

These types of basic theology would include: the Divinity of Christ, Original Sin, Heaven and Hell, the Rapture, the Second Coming of Christ, belief in the miracles of Christ, Redemption, Sanctification, Glorification, and so on. All of our major Protestant denominations believe in these cardinal doctrines.

Catholicism is notorious for new and often illogical theology that has been presented for ingestion via the various popes who have sat in the Vatican. People would do well to question every belief that they are asked to believe. Dr. Hans Kung born in 1928 and professor of Tubingen did just this very thing. At one time he was one of the most influential theologians that the Catholic Church had until the pope removed him as being an official Roman Catholic spokesperson. He refused to believe in Papal Infallibility and wrote his book called, "Apostolic Succession in which he taught that duly ordained teachers, priests and prophets were to claim succession as well.

 

Thess, you point to precisely the phenomenon I have seen since my childhood, preached from the pulpit of my former church affiliation, where a Sunday did not go by that the Catholic Church was dissed, and even my own mother, who once said to me:

"Son, be what ever you want to be, attend what ever church you want to attend, but please, oh please, don't ever become a Catholic."

Something told me I just had to look into this...

I simply had to find out why this church was so maligned...

"And now you know the rest of the story..."

Good job, Thess!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Almighty and eternal God, you gather
the scattered sheep

and watch over those
you have gathered.

Look kindly on all who follow Jesus,
your Son.

You have marked them
with the seal of one baptism,
now make them one
in the fullness of faith
and unite them in the bond of love.

We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Amen. </font>[/QUOTE]As a child I heard from the pulpit that it was sin to attend a protestant church. Even my mother viewed Protestants as a cult. So now she has a Baptist son. Since I became a Christian she has become one along with almost my entire family and their spouses and children.

 

I guess you haven't been in any Baptist churches long enough. I have been in some that have excommunicated memebers. Certainly Charles Spurgeon talks about that in what he has written.

When I was in seminary the professor I had for pastoral leadership talked about what happened in a church he pastored.

 

I believe it is more correct to say that the difference is that Christian non-Catholic organizations hold that all doctrine is to be Judged and proven "sola scriptura". That anything found to be contradictory to scripture is not to be accepted as church doctrine.

The RC model is that tradition trumps doctrine and the frequent vehement attacks on the concept "sola scriptura" is the predictable result of that model.

However man's understanding of Bible doctrine is "progressive". Hence at the start of the 19th century (the 1800's) the most common non-Catholic view of the 2nd coming was not premillenial. In fact, few if any held to that view at the start of the 1800's as the traditions and teachings of the Catholic church in the dark ages had almost wiped it out.

However, today the premillenial view has been revived and is the most common non-Catholic view.

In Christ,

Bob

 

It is still a sin to go to a Protestant church as an active participant and in the place of the Sunday obligation to attend Mass at a Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, the first and the original church founded by Christ has the power to "bind and loose" (Matt 16:19) in such matters, therefore declares that it is a sin.

But I could attend a friend's wedding in a Protestant church as well as a funeral, saying my prayers within myself for the individual in question.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

'But I could attend a friend's wedding in a Protestant church as well as a funeral, saying my prayers within myself for the individual in question.'

Ray is saying, 'Your prayers for the happy couple without doubt will aid the new couple; but in the case of the deceased, your prayers will go no higher than the funeral home ceiling. To believe in Jesus before the hour of death will insure everlasting life. [John 3:18a] And the one who remains in unbelief will but dispatched to Hell [John 3:18b] before you ever got to the funeral home. Save your prayers for weddings.

The Apostle Paul touches on the subject of 'baptism for the dead,' [I Corinthians 15:29] but never on the idea of salvation for those have died without Christ in their hearts and lives.

 

Your doctrinal opinion noted.

Here is some scripture quotes that hints of the existence of purgatory:

Purgatory

The Bible commends the practice of praying for the dead.

2 Maccabees 12:46 "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought
to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."

The following passages indicate the existence of purgatory.

Matthew 12:32 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son
of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come."


Luke 12:58-59 "And when thou goest with thy adversary to the
prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavour to be delivered
from him: lest he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver
thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison. I
say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the
very last mite."

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 "Every man's work shall be manifest; for
the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of
what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built
thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he
shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by
fire."

1 Peter 3:18-19 "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the
just for the unjust; that he might offer us to God, being put to
death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit. In which
also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison."

We can discuss it if you wish, but I have posted these before...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Your doctrinal opinion noted.

Here is some scripture quotes that hints of the existence of purgatory:

Purgatory

The Bible commends the practice of praying for the dead.

2 Maccabees 12:46 "It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought
to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from their sins."

The following passages indicate the existence of purgatory.

Matthew 12:32 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son
of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come."


Luke 12:58-59 "And when thou goest with thy adversary to the
prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavour to be delivered
from him: lest he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver
thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison. I
say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the
very last mite."

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 "Every man's work shall be manifest; for
the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be
revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of
what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built
thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he
shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by
fire."

1 Peter 3:18-19 "Because Christ also died once for our sins, the
just for the unjust; that he might offer us to God, being put to
death indeed in the flesh, but enlivened in the spirit. In which
also coming he preached to those spirits that were in prison."

We can discuss it if you wish, but I have posted these before...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon. </font>[/QUOTE]Sound like 2 Macc is similar to the pagan practice Paul talks about in 1 Cor 15:29, “Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”

Paul is saying even the pagans believe in a resurrection. They have a hope. He is showing that even others believe in a resurrection. Even those who baptize for the dead have a hope in a resurrection.

Bruce Metzger and Roland Murphy (a Catholic scholar) write in their notes on the Apocrypha write, “This is the first known statement of the doctrine that a sin offering and prayer make atonement for sins of the dead.(vs.45), and it is justified by the hope that those who had fallen asleep would rise again.”

In my New American Bible (Catholic version) published by Catholic Bible Press 1987, It says in the notes about 12:45-46, “This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (v 42) and sacrifices (v 43) for the dead are efficacious. The statement is made here, however. only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (7,9.14.23.36). That is, he believed that expiation could be made for certain sins of otherwise good men–soldiers who had given their lives for God’s cause. Thus, they could share in the resurrection. His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

It seems to me that even what the notes say that have the imprimatur on it do not agree with what you cited.

That verse in 2 Macc does not support what Matthew 7:21-23 says, “Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'

Neither does that support Luke 16:19-31, "Now there was a rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day. "And a poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs were coming and licking his sores. "Now the poor man died and was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. "And he cried out and said, `Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame.' "But Abraham said, `Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony. `And besides all this, between us and you there is a great chasm fixed, so that those who wish to come over from here to you will not be able, and that none may cross over from there to us.' "And he said, `Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' "But Abraham said, `They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' "But he said, `No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, `If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'

How would you interpret this passage?


Matthew 12:32 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come."

This passage speaks about Jesus and Beelzebul. They are in effect accusing Jesus as being from the devil. Jesus proves otherwise.

In the verse before in verse 31 Jesus says, "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.

Where does Jesus address the issue of purgatory in the context of this passage?

I see the context of 1 Corinthians 3:13-15 within the context of verses 10-17 as talking about works and the day of judgment. He si encouraging the reader to build upon Christ not hay and stubble such as faith from dead works that are meaningless in terms of spiritual things. It could be like building a bigger business or better machinery. Those may be good things but they are nothing compared to doing the work God has called us to.


Even in my Catholic Bible about 1 Peter 3:18-19 it states it is not clear who the spirits are.

From what I can tell even the Catholic New American Bible disagrees with you.

 

Qb replied:

Are you sure this was a pagan practice? How do you know that?

My bible notes simply say that the comment goes unexplained, not showing if Paul approves of the practice or not. I tend to believe that it was an early custom, not seen today, that has Christians being baptized in the memory of the deceased that God will find them worthy of heaven.

Having the NAB as well, I will nevertheless take your word for it, noting however that this does not detract from the reference to a state of a soul, not yet in heaven, but also not condemned to hell. Why pray for a deceased person if the person is already in heaven, where prayers are no longer necessary or if the person is in hell where prayers would do no good?

The answer is, there must be a state of purgation that exists after death for the soul who is not quite "white as snow" and ready for heaven, where no stain of sin may enter.

Does it not allude to a state of a soul not in heaven but also not in hell as well? The statement in Maccabees does not have to match word for word, the Catholic belief in purgatory (where the Jews saw a different sort of purgation taking place after death) to indicate that such a situation exists.

Non sequitur to the issue of purgatory!

We would both agree that the individuals cited above who give "lip service" to the Lord but is found wanting, with serious sins on the soul, will not see the kingdom of God. Such individuals will not see heave, nor will they see purgatory, but will go straight to hell! The above quote is more in line with a discussion of "Once saved, always saved" and not purgatory.

It describes a man who died in mortal sin that condemns him to hell! On the other hand, what is the "bosom of Abraham" anyway? Some believes it is the "waiting place" whereby those who are righteous, before the sacrifice of the cross, that Jesus comes to and brings them out, when he died and before He ascended to heaven.

In any case, I see nothing in this famous parable that describes purgatory (or the denial of it) and therefore, it is likewise non sequitur.

Now, I notice you do not discount the quote from Maccabees. Most to discuss this subject with me deny that it is scripture…

Notice the final sentence fragment here, "…nor in the world to come." It is a way of saying, "the sin is so serious, that it cannot be forgiven even after you die (the world to come." The obvious implication is that that there are sins that can be forgiven in "the world to come"! Get it?

Did you happen to notice the reference to "someone's work is burned-up (like "wood," "hay" and "straw"), that one will suffer loss (What loss?); the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (Verse 15, Catholic NAB)

Concentrate on the word "prison" here. My NAB has the same notes, but why must it be important to know "who the spirits are" so long as they are in some sort of "prison"?

Actually, this is not so much purgatory as it is, perhaps, the "Bosom of Abraham" we saw in the famous parable you quoted! Before Christ came and gave his life on the cross, the gates of heaven were closed, period. Even Abraham and all the rest of righteous in Old Testament times could not enter! Therefore they were sequestered in this "prison" or a place of waiting. What is shown here is a spiritual state that is not heave and not hell. It is a third state I call "the Vestibule of heaven." It is a place where righteous souls simply wait (before the time of Christ) and also, if they are not quite "white as snow" enough, to be purged!

See how simple that was!

A perception on your part now totally and completely destroyed!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

Are you sure this was a pagan practice? How do you know that?

I know that from my study of extrabiblical materials and practices at the time. Paul was showing in effect that even the pagans believe in a resurrection.

My bible notes simply say that the comment goes unexplained, not showing if Paul approves of the practice or not. I tend to believe that it was an early custom, not seen today, that has Christians being baptized in the memory of the deceased that God will find them worthy of heaven.

Having the NAB as well, I will nevertheless take your word for it, noting however that this does not detract from the reference to a state of a soul, not yet in heaven, but also not condemned to hell. Why pray for a deceased person if the person is already in heaven, where prayers are no longer necessary or if the person is in hell where prayers would do no good?

The answer is, there must be a state of purgation that exists after death for the soul who is not quite "white as snow" and ready for heaven, where no stain of sin may enter.

Does it not allude to a state of a soul not in heaven but also not in hell as well? The statement in Maccabees does not have to match word for word, the Catholic belief in purgatory (where the Jews saw a different sort of purgation taking place after death) to indicate that such a situation exists.

Non sequitur to the issue of purgatory!

We would both agree that the individuals cited above who give "lip service" to the Lord but is found wanting, with serious sins on the soul, will not see the kingdom of God. Such individuals will not see heave, nor will they see purgatory, but will go straight to hell! The above quote is more in line with a discussion of "Once saved, always saved" and not purgatory.

It describes a man who died in mortal sin that condemns him to hell! On the other hand, what is the "bosom of Abraham" anyway? Some believes it is the "waiting place" whereby those who are righteous, before the sacrifice of the cross, that Jesus comes to and brings them out, when he died and before He ascended to heaven.

In any case, I see nothing in this famous parable that describes purgatory (or the denial of it) and therefore, it is likewise non sequitur. I would take that parable to teacxh the issue of heaven and hell. Hell is a real place. Heaven is a real place. It also teaches that if they don’t listen now they won’t listen later. So the opportunity is now not later.

Now, I notice you do not discount the quote from Maccabees. Most to discuss this subject with me deny that it is scripture…

I undrstand where youare coming from. I do not see it as scripture. The intertestamental books are historical books. There are many more that even those who accept the deuterocanonical books would not accept. In the NT there is reference made to some. But that still does not make it scripture. But just the same I am working on the same reference you are. I am using what you consider credible. But in my NAB they notes state that the verse does not support the doctrine of purgatory.

How would you compare the issue of purgatory with Hebrews 9:27, “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.

If purgatory is a waiting place then it would not seem to agree with the following passage.

2 Cor 5:6-8, “Therefore, being always of good courage, and knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord-- for we walk by faith, not by sight-- we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.”

Notice the final sentence fragment here, "…nor in the world to come." It is a way of saying, "the sin is so serious, that it cannot be forgiven even after you die (the world to come." The obvious implication is that that there are sins that can be forgiven in "the world to come"! Get it?

You used that in one of your earlier postings.

“The following passages indicate the existence of purgatory.

Matthew 12:32 "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son
of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak
against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in
this world, nor in the world to come."

Did you happen to notice the reference to "someone's work is burned-up (like "wood," "hay" and "straw"), that one will suffer loss (What loss?); the person will be saved, but only as through fire." (Verse 15, Catholic NAB)

Concentrate on the word "prison" here. My NAB has the same notes, but why must it be important to know "who the spirits are" so long as they are in some sort of "prison"?

Actually, this is not so much purgatory as it is, perhaps, the "Bosom of Abraham" we saw in the famous parable you quoted! Before Christ came and gave his life on the cross, the gates of heaven were closed, period. Even Abraham and all the rest of righteous in Old Testament times could not enter! Therefore they were sequestered in this "prison" or a place of waiting. What is shown here is a spiritual state that is not heave and not hell. It is a third state I call "the Vestibule of heaven." It is a place where righteous souls simply wait (before the time of Christ) and also, if they are not quite "white as snow" enough, to be purged!

See how simple that was!

A perception on your part now totally and completely destroyed!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti - </font>[/QUOTE]

 

gb93433 -

All you did was quote my original message without a comment on your part.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

 

I didn't know how to mix in the comments. So all are bold.