He is referring to a response I made to one of their members. Let me give you a little background, the thread was about the Staples vs. White debate on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. If anyone is familiar with the Catholic Answers Forum, it is most difficult to keep folks on track and goes astray very easily. Usually, everything from the Trinity to the canon to the ol' "number of Protestant denominations" red herrings are tossed into the mix. Every now and then, someone will hop on the thread with something like this...
Because of the frustration caused by warding off these red herrings and staying on track, I didn't want to wander off the beaten path to indulge philosophical meanderings. It bothers me when purgatory, other than being a later belief and has had multiple understandings in its vague "existence", is given a convenient philosophical coating to bring legitimacy to the doctrine. In my humble estimation, this is sophistry, pure and simple. So, I replied to this post with the following…
Now, although my response is critical of Ratzinger's statement, there is nothing personal about it, let alone any that could be offensive to Catholics. If one provides a statement like the above without there being any evidence of its reality, then we can muse "all the live long day" about it, but it remains nothing but words. At CAF, how often are the statements of Protestant leaders criticized and worse? Yet, is anything done about it by the administrators??? My intent was the statement and not the one making the statement. Getting into these types of dialogues makes the discussion tedious, but it seems that calling sophistry for what it is, gets you warned because of the status of the individual saying it and not for any other reason. I really doubt that there would have been much offense if Ratzinger were still a cardinal and theologian. It is deemed disrepectful of the faith of Catholics to criticize a statement from a pope, at least that's what it seems this moderator is infering. Needless to say, I'm still quite peeved, especially when one considers all the personal nonsense I've endured on that forum. So, I questioned this moderator, asking him if the same thing applies to those who criticize Protestant leaders. What I got was…
Again, remember, the CAF forums is replete with all sorts of personal attacks against Protestants, from past to present, Luther through MacArthur. To back it up, one only needs to read through the threads. Yet, one remark regarding one's own personal musings and I get a warning. Although I have no knowledge of the disciplines given to Catholics on the forum, it is hard to take this moderator's statements seriously when one sees the constant bantering given Protestants. So, I respond once again, explaining that no animosity was intended, but I still had to question him once more if the same standard is enforced for the likes of “John MaArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, James White, etc.” and the ol’ Churchmouse is told…
So, my statement is judged as "contempt for the Catholic faith"??? Calling one's statement "sophistry" (because it is) is ruled "contempt"??? The moderator continued by posting the list of CAF rules, with emphasis (red letters) as to where the violation was committed…
Is calling a statement made by a Catholic cleric "sophistry" disrespectful of the "faith of Catholics"??? How? It seems that one needs an infallible interpreter for these rules because the moderators don't seem capable of grasping a correct understanding. We Protestants can read them ourselves and ascertain what the rules mean without the need for outside sources. If one looks at rule 7 (which is really "8"), does my criticism of Ratzinger's statements compare to “Whore of Babylon, Holy Roller, Christ-killer, or terrorist”? Not at all. If one looks at rule 9 (which, in reality, is number 10 on their website), did I pursue speaking about the mods and their actions on the forum itself? Nope! This applies to those who use the forum to criticize a moderator's actions, of which I didn’t do. Maybe there is another deposit of rules which brings clarity to these rules that I am unaware of (and they cannot provide it for me because it is rooted in the traditions and practices of the forum and not outright). Yet, I am told by this moderator that I must give an affirmative not to break these rules, by midnight, to keep my account open…
I can abide by the rules as they are written. There's no problem there, but the way I see it...it's like this: If I give an affirmative then I would be acknowledging my comments to be "contempt for the Catholic faith and its leader" and that these rules apply to the situation. On another level, to affirm these would imply that Ratzinger's statements aren't sophistical in nature, which is something I cannot do because I believe they are. Please remember, I am not calling Ratzinger a Sophist, but only that his statement is sophistical. The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.
Moral of the story: If you would like to participate on the Catholic Answers Forums, you must read through the rules and understand that words, such as contempt, are always left up to the discretion of the moderator in charge. He or she can interpret the rules in whatever way he or she deems fit. Whether or not it truly defines contempt really doesn’t matter. Furthermore, although the rules forbid any criticism of moderators or their actions on the forums, the moderator can put you under “review” anyway, which negates your posting privileges until you are able to see things their way (and you have until midnight of course). If you dare to disagree, question the fairness of the actions, or critique the process, well, prepare to have your account permanently closed. Sure, you can exercise the option of contacting the administrators if you'd like, but I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you, especially when one sees the liberality practiced by Catholics who do the same to Protestants. They can continue as they please. If you are one who desires to speak freely without having to walk on eggshells, worrying if public statements are going to be deemed dishonestly, well this isn't the forum for you. Biased minds will find loopholes in the rules and you're a goner.
Addendum: Hmmm…maybe it’s contemptuous to refer to the pope as “Ratzinger” and not by his proper title, Pope Boniface XVI. Well, considering that I still view him as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and considering that I reject the concept of papism and its alleged charisms, I choose to refrain from advancing the title. So, if this is deemed “contemptuous”, well, that is something I can live with. You just can't please everyone, especially when it comes down to one's integrity.
Post addendum: I did get one last response from the moderator, which amounted to "see ya!" I mumbled something to the extent of "There is nothing new under the sun", which leads to my final graphic...
By the way, the word is "refusal" and not "refussal", right PRmerger? (<--inside joke).
CM
82 comments:
You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.
Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.
You're banned at CAF.
BARM is almost exclusively Tagalog now.
Gee...now I have no where to go :-)
Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.
Jim's been after me for awhile to become a contributor. However, I have a hard enough time finding "thought" time to use on my own blog. As soon as I can lessen my load (in life), maybe I can do both, that is if the invitation is still open.
As always, nice hearing from you Tinubos.
CM
Well! Churchmouse! PRmerger here from the CAFs. Imagine my surprise that I stumbled over your blog, 6 months later, almost by chance...
(I was surfing the CAFs tonight and came across a "sticky" note about banning/suspensions...and decided to do a google search to see if anyone outside the CAFs had posted comments about having been banned by the mods, and, voila, your blog popped up!)
I enjoyed your sly reference to our discussions about spelling/grammar...(refusal/refussal)
(NB: Joseph Ratzinger is Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Boniface XVI)
Now, I won't comment on your banning, lest my membership on the CAFs be questioned by the mods--and I LOVE being on the CAFs way too much to risk it, even way out here in the blogosphere...but I will say I am sorry that you were banned.
Good luck in your search for Truth. If you seek, you shall find.
Your Sis in Christ,
-PR
Hi PR! Nice of you to stop by. See where searching the WWW lands you :) Pope Boniface??? I didn't realize I called him that (considering that I know he's Benedict). I guess much is to be said for proofreading :).
Yes, I pray that we ALL can come to the Truth of God's Word through the illumination of the Holy Spirit.
Peace,
CM
I was locked out for life for being "impatient". Which was asking if there was an update four days after being told they would look into why I got banned for citing two antisemitic threads.
Boss is:
Catholic Answers
President: Karl Keating..................... (619) 387-7200
2020 Gillespie Way
El Cajon 92020
I am truly sorry about how your situation was handled. I came upon this while dialoguing with PadreJ off-forum, who was also banned from CAF for a seemingly trivial (if not non-existent) reason. I hope that you do not let this incident reflect poorly upon all Catholics. Catholic Answers are a prominent movement within the Catholic Church, but they are not The Church, no matter how strongly some members may present themselves as such. Have a Blessed week.
wow it looks like loads of people get banned, and the admins are out of control over there. They produced one lying post I saw that said only like 12 or so people were banned at any time. Not likely. Catholic Answer forums are really an embarassment to the Church.
Nathan and Anonymous,
I don't fault Catholics for the actions of a CAF moderator. Heck, I don't even fault Catholic Answers. To this day I see it as the actions of a lone gun with an itchy trigger finger. The rules, seemingly, are left to the interpretation of the moderator and, in this case, the moderator seems to take some liberties that are, probably, unbeknownst to the forum powers-that-be. If anything, CAF needs to pay more attention to those they appoint as moderators. Yet, through all the smoke, I know that no one is to blame but those with who take liberties with the authority given them. It's not a religious thing, but rather a personal action from someone who didn't like what I said even though I meant no disrespect. I'm a Protestant. Surely, he shouldn't expect me to behave as if I wasn't.
Thanks for the words of fairness and support.
Peace,
CM
I was posting in Christian Discussion forum a couple months ago when they tossed out all the Catholics, JWs, and Mormons. They give their site a name as broad as "Christian" but all must bow to the bent Protestant and Baptist doctrines, shutting out many other Christians. You have a couple of Christianity's flakey offshoots, breakaways, and tagalongs deciding who else is Christian. But Catholics have to tolerate those people coming into a forum labeled specifically for Catholics bashing our religion? Not.
Sorry, if these other so-called Christian sites can police their boards, so can CAF. Catholics are the oldest Christian religion--2,000 years old. We were here first. Get back in line.
To Anonymous,
Wow! Now THAT was a rant. With that attitude I can see you getting booted from any forum, Catholic, Protestant, or other. If you can just get past your biases for a moment, you will see that even some Catholics, on the CAF forum and in this combox, thought I got a bum deal from the CAF moderator. It isn't a matter of "policing" but of fairness. To compare your forum experience with mine is just a bad comparison overall.
As to the claims of being here "first"? Sorry, some, such as I, don't buy into the premise that the catholic church of yore is none other then the Church of Rome. As you can read here on my blog, purgatory is but one example of a heterodoxy, one such doctrine that cannot be traced to the early "catholic" church. So, your assumption is simplistic at best and proves nothing. How many times have I heard Roman Catholics make the bad assumption that "age = orthodoxy." Believing that "we were here first" means nothing to someone who doesn't believe that you were, let alone teaches doctrines at variance with the early church.
So, you can take your imaginary "line" and keep believing you "were here first." Newman would be proud! Yet, you'll find me following Christ wherever HE leads and not in some makeshift "line."
CM
churchmouse and Nathan,
Very much appreciate your comments, posts, and fairness. I was banned too, never given a reason, but that does not mean that there was not a violation of CAF rules.
The exchanges between Catholics, Orthodox and Prostestants are very beneficial in understanding one another and one's faith.
If CAF focused more on this goal, rather than trying to defend every particular teaching of the Catholic Church it would be a very good medium for representing the Catholic church in her attempts
for unity in the spirit of humility, truth and love.
Especially, in a day and hour when we need to encourage and uphold one another.
Peace, zarthan, byeveryword.
I can sympathize with being banned by the CA forum and I would agree, it seems unfair. There are some moderators there who really do not seem to want to give every poster a fair shake--and know that I am a very faithful Catholic, so this is not about non-Catholics. It seems if one even charitably disagrees there, if by chance the moderator has a different personal viewpoint--and we're not even talking religious belief here--they don't stand a chance. I now go to other forums. BTW, please do check into things like Purgatory and other Catholic beliefs--and remember no where does it say 'everything' is in the Bible--many things are not! I suggest 'Reverend Know-It-All''s website, as well as Relevant Radio to clear up any confusion www.relevantradio.com (can listen online--grean Q&A shows). Thanks, a happy Catholic (though not happy about CA forums)
CA has some absolutely lousy moderators who have over-sized heads and no common sense. It's all about their personal beliefs--not a thing to do with Catholic beliefs--in fact, they make the Church look bad and misrepresent it.
Whoever runs CA should boot out some of the mods--the bad and arrogant ones--and allow someone with a brain who is courteous and respectful of others to take over (note some of the mods are really good, though).
These controlling airheads who are currently the mods (though not all are bad) should get a life. They can't tolerate anyone to disagree with their narrow little minds. What pitiful little 'Barney Fifes' these people are. Sheesh.
C'mon CA, you can do much better. There are many caring and faithful Catholics who could do the mods jobs 100% better!
I was banned from that forum...I could care less. The moderating is horrible over there. They are clearly biased. If you conform with the Church's position and denigrate someone that doesn't, you'll get a pass. And if you respond in kind to that person but you might be perceived are less conforming, bye bye! Those mods act in a very un-Catholic fashion, and are a true embarrassment to the religion that they reputedly support.
To accuse someone of sophistry is the same as accusing them of lying. Look up the definition in a dictionary. If you accused someone of that to their face you'd likely catch a mouth full of knuckles, so how is it not insulting to Catholics (on their own forum no less!) to have you make such a remark about Pope Benedict XVI?
As for all of you that have been banned and badmouth the CAF mods and admins...I've been a member there since November of 2004 and have seen every sort of anti-Catholic attack attack dog that has come along. Some of you have about zero concept of either Christian charity or common civility and the moderation at CAF has prevented it from sinking to chaotic trash levels of CARM and Yahoo's boards.
Oh yeah ChurchMouse...this is "the other CM". That's right...Church Militant from CAF.
Yes, sophistry is deceit as in "subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation," (merriam-webster), which also abounds in Roman Catholicism, and which has made use of substantial forgeries.
However, neither pointing out as sophistry such things as exaggerated Prot. claims of deaths by the Inquisitions, nor attempts to minimize it does not itself mean one is showing contempt for the faith, versus contempt for sophistry.
But it is my experience that RCs are more prone to attack the motive or integrity of any anything that even implicitly impugns their church, even statistics .
Just got banned today, after almost two years, and they let me say pretty much anything, but with charity-how else could one approach them. Forgot to put quotes on a quotation.got suspended. Then a buddy at work joined, just to check it out( same computer)and i couldn't help but help him out with some threads.Got caught and am banned now, for suspension circumvention. Enjoyed it ,learned a lot, but was very addicted. Hi PRmerger-enjoyed the journey. Sorry I wasn't more careful. Blessings
there is ALWAYS 2 sides to the story not saying that you are lying but I'm sure there's more to it than what you are saying. I'm a recent convert from Baptist to Catholic from much studying the New Testament... and it's amazing how many lies I was told about the Catholic Church growing up. pray and Trust in Christ because Christ leads those who love him into all truth!!! :-)
I have no idea of what the lies were, but there are so many unScriptural things Rome has taught (from sanctioning the torture of theological dissidents to hindering Biblical literacy, etc.) but changed on, and does teach (from praying to the departed to purgatory, to declaring herself assuredly infallible etc.) that no lies are necessary.
And Rome herself has made use of extensive forgeries (http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html) to provide what Scripture does not.
What the basis (Scripture, etc.) for your assurance that Rome is the one true church?
When I frist found Catholic Answers several years ago, I was elated. At last a place to go for answers to tough questions. Well I've asked several question over the years and have never gotten a answer! I have one now. What is the feeling toward "One World Order"? I heard that our Pope is in favor of it. Could I get an answer or reply please. You can also contact me at poetranger234@hotmail.com "God Bless"
Well, Rome has spoken many things, much of is open to some interpretation and some change, one example being sanction by papal bull etc., of torture to extract confessions from theological opponents, while another pope later on (after Rome lost her use of the sword of men) utterly forbade it.
As regards a OWO, of course she is in favor of it, as this would be consistent with her history, as Rome claims universal jurisdiction and of coercive power over her own.
And as can no longer do so as before, she writes appeals which leave (true to form) are somewhat vague and provides much that supports a OWO:
ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE
67. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago...
such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties..
They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order,..as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.”
Limerickman here :
I'm a CAF member.
CAF moderators are a trigger happy bunch.
I've exchanged messages with a moderator called Robert Bay.
Robert Bay likes to throw his weight around on CAF website.
As a faithful Catholic who can reason out the very real existence of Purgatory based on Scripture, I too have been "banned" from various "Catholic" sites. Please keep in mind that such vague words as "disrespect" have no bearing in Catholic Theology, and bottom line commercial entities such as Catholic Answers and Catholic Match have no authority to speak officially for the Church. I used to post on Catholic Match forums regarding the limits of Papal infallibility only to get censured by some naive twit for "undermining" Papal authority.
Churchmouse - first of all, the moderators on Catholic Answers Forums do not moderate officially for "the Catholic Faith". No educated Catholic would give them any sense of "infallibility". A lot of them are just as ignorant about the Catholic faith as you are. I have been banned, not from Catholic Answers forums, but from other so-called "Catholic" forums, just for articulating the Catholic faith, as officially preserved from the time of Christ. For example, I could respond to you on Catholic Answers Forums, proved that the teaching on Purgatory has not "evolved" or "changed" as you imply, documented this with the writings of the early Church Fathers, and Holy Scripture quotes specifically referring to saved DECEASED (not dead as in damned) souls still being in a place of purgation (i.e., later referred to as "purgatory") . But if I, on that forum, questioned your interest in coming on a Catholic forum to cast doubt on the Catholic faith (faith does NOT equal the pope, faith equals the doctrines/faith system/ set of truths he preserves from Christ, such as "Purgatory", or a post death place of purgation,) they would probably censor me for not being "ecumenical" enough to you. Keep in mind, this would be just be a sincere question to you, "Why are you doing this?" It would not be a subjective judgement against you. I am really curious - because I have no desire to go on Protestant forums, to question, for example, belief in "Altar Calls" or being "slayed in the Spirit" or "Bible only" "Private Discernment - All scripture is easy to understand" (When did Christ teach any of this?) - unless they are knocking MY Catholic Church on THEIR forum. If you want to stay out of the land of bias, avoid social forums, and learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, go right to official Church documents, Papal encyclicals that carry some weight, not just the fallible meanderings of any Pope. And if its a real, fair, respectful, educated debate you want, most of the apologists on the Catholic Answers website itself get their faith correctly, and then you can have a real debate with them, instead of toying with other so-called Catholics who don't even know their own faith, as if that proves the faith system they don't even know - "wrong". By the way, I have never found anybody on Catholic social forums that calls "all Mormons evil", or says Protestants are "evil whores", or says that "Jews are ALL victims". In fact, I am 49, a cradle Catholic, and NEVER MET a Catholic, of any ilk, ever, who talked like that. That sounds like something out of a reverse anti-Catholic Jack Chick publication, that some protestants spread around ("Nuns are burning babies in ovens.") I have perused CAF quite a bit and am not calling you intellectually dishonest, but not quite getting you - could you please provide evidence?
The moderator needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and open to criticism. That's just the way it is.
But the CA version is that YOU needs to understand that Ratzinger's writings are in the public forum and thus are NOT open to criticism by a Protestant, and to do so makes you subject to the CA Inquisition.
Little Shepherd Girl said,
If you want to stay out of the land of bias, avoid social forums, and learn what the Catholic Church really teaches, go right to official Church documents
But that is just what RCs see formal divisions over. As one poster wryly said,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
And let me also helpfully say that not employing paragraphs in a 500 word post effectively banns them from being read. .
other so-called Catholics who don't even know their own faith, as if that proves the faith system they don't even know - "wrong". By the way, I have never found anybody on Catholic social forums that calls "all Mormons evil", or says Protestants are "evil whores", or says that "Jews are ALL victims". In fact, I am 49, a cradle Catholic, and NEVER MET a Catholic, of any ilk, ever, who talked like that.
Then your posting experience is rather limited or you are ignoring equivalents to your examples, even if sometimes with the qualifier "almost all." I could provide examples that broadly describe Protestantism as,
belief in one’s self,
a bizarre and false religion,
absolutely alien to Christianity, and that,
that completely rejects Christ,
and needs to to take responsibility for same-sex marriages
made up of people that are mostly Biblically illiterate,
intellectually dishonest,
who have no foundation for their understanding of Christianity, and
who have a perpetual guilt trip, and
are evil fruit, who don’t have the Holy Spirit, and
are not part of the Body of Christ, and
that Protestants will not be saved unless they become a member of the Catholic Church, and
are by inclination vandals who should be purged from the face of the earth,
and thanking God that the Spanish Inquisition was up to the job.
But that Catholics never put down or challenge beliefs from protestants, and that,
there never has been a bit of anti-protestant bigotry on the forum (after 15 years),
and that they have never seen a Catholic teaching proven false.
Moreover, i can also attest that RCs are the most reactionary to anything that impugns their church, even charging orgs like Pew research with anti-Catholic bias.
The arrogant immature wannebe Inquisitors at Catholic Answers example the insolent elitism and recalcitrant character of conservative Rome, though CA also banns its most conservative posters who expose the contrasts btwn past and modern RC teaching, though they are both promote damming deceptings that have tragically made Rome as the great gates of Hell for multitudes.
Perhaps its time that you devote yourself to this blog-- or maybe at James Swan's Beggars All.
Or here by God's grace.
Dear Peace by Jesus,
You quote me, then prove my points.
You quote me as saying if you want to avoid the land of bias, avoid social forums, then you go to the land of bias to quote a "poster", as if that person speaks officially for the Roman Catholic Church.
Then, you quoted me as saying I have never met a person on social forums who made gross subjective blanket statements against all Mormons, Jews and Protestants, as if all these people are evil. (Let me add that I have never met any Catholic who did that either, and I am 49 and very social, in and out of the Catholic Church.) When you gave your examples to refute my statement, the examples you used were not blanket condemnations of all people within those groups, and most of the remarks you used are criticism of Protestantism, not Protestants. Hard to tell. They're all out of context. Finally, let me add here, that none of the posts you are using are representative of what the Catholic Church really teaches anyway, which proves my other point, once again, that most of these Catholic posters don't even know what they are talking about, and have probably joined social forums just to argue, rather than learn about their faith or teach it to others. Is that what you do? If I wanted to learn about another faith system, I would not go to a social forum, to find out what that faith system teaches as truth. Catholicism is a set of doctrines,which are not subject to change by individual interpretation, (like Protestantism) or the personal teachings of any priest or pope. For example, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that everybody that is baptized is a member of The Body of Christ, that includes most Protestants, and this is based on the Doctrine of Baptism,( Doctrine = preserved teaching from the time of Christ) not the personal opinion of a Catholic poster on a social forum, or any priest or prelate.
Churchmouse, as well, as Blackie said, to accuse someone of "sophistry", purposely deceptive arguing, is to make a subjective judgement of a person, rather than making any intellectual argument against the doctrines that person is defending. The official apologists on Catholic Answers (not on the social forums) speak only of other religions claims against the Catholic faith, defending the teachings of Catholicism as coming from Christ. Catholic apologists do not attack the character or motivation of individual Protestant leaders, or any individual protestants.
You quote me, then prove my points. You quote me as saying if you want to avoid the land of bias, avoid social forums, then you go to the land of bias to quote a "poster", as if that person speaks officially for the Roman Catholic Church.
Rather then prove your bias point, i refuted your basic premise that going to official Church documents is what the "biased" RCs you censor (as not not even knowing their own faith) do not do, as well as Churchmouse, in contrast to you who articulate the Catholic faith, as officially preserved from the time of Christ.
For as multitudes of traditional RCs as well as their liberal counterparts can show you, their disputes are taken from historical doctrinal RC teaching. It is because of the contrasts btwn past historical doctrinal RC teaching and that of modern V2 Rome then you have SSPX type sects, formal or not,
For example, the Roman Catholic Church officially teaches that everybody that is baptized is a member of The Body of Christ, that includes most Protestants, and this is based on the Doctrine of Baptism,( Doctrine = preserved teaching from the time of Christ) not the personal opinion of a Catholic poster on a social forum, or any priest or prelate.
Actually, that is a classic example of interpretation, as it must be reconciled in the light of past ex cathedra.teaching on EENS which damns at least most Protestants. Thus some read Lumen Gentium as only applying to "invincibly ignorant" souls, not any who know of the claims of Rome to be the one true church, but sincerely do not know them as being true, due to contrary testimony from Scripture.
There is also disagreement over the meaning of other RC teachings to varying degrees. and even which ones are infallible, or parts thereof, as well as the magisterial level other teachings fall under and thus their authority, and whether any dissent is allowed and in what manner.
One Catholic camp sees so much modern RC teaching as being at variance with historical RC teaching, and dissent in part from V2. Seeking to avoiding this, another RC camp holds to historical teaching that the one duty of the laity is that of simply following the pastors as docile sheep, and are not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by their own examination of the basis for it (thus calling traditional RCs "Protestant" who do so and dissent in part from V2). And indeed, the hearers of the word look for its meaning by how the preachers translate it into action.
And Scripturally, what constitutes the reality of one really believes and teaches is not what they say, but what they do and effect.(Ja,. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) And even very liberal RCs as proabortion, prosodmite public figures are treated as members by here in life and in death.
Thus whether RCs admit it or not, the reality is that, while they condemn evangelicals for "private interpretation" (erroneously interpreting 2Pt. 1:20 as censoring that) of their supreme authoritative source (Scripture) of Truth, so do they engage in the same of their supreme authority on Truth, or render implicit cultic submission such as Alphonsus de Liguor advocated for the Religious.
Though RCs are no longer forbidden under penalty of excommunication to engage in public debate over matters of faith, both camps are seen doing so in forums, and which example how interpretative RC teaching can be. And the mods at Catholic Answers can only wish Rome was as censorious as they. Indeed, i think many long for days of the Inquisition, when obedience to the pope could mean torturing suspected "heretics" or witnesses, and exterminating (to be burned) such from the land.
Mr. churchmouse; I 2 have been banned from various Cath. sites that I've never even been on.I start to register & get told that me,Darth Vader & Lucifer are not welcome 2 initiate a conversation. Hows that work, anyway ? Does our reputation precede us or does the robot algorythem consult the Vatican weegie mainframe & decide 2 exclude my genotype because one of my ancestors irritated Pope Boniface and I've been racially profiled as a probable Thought Criminal (how George Orwell {1984}is that?) Didn't some really xcool early Christian say,"REJOICE when men slander U & speak all manner of nastiness about U" Really enjoy UR thinkin' pardner. Pax
Don't know if I have been "banned" from this site, for refuting Peace by Jesus's claims. Let me reiterate, in a more brief way, to insure the publication of my post. Catholicism is a set of unchanging doctrines. There is no point in pointing out the "hypocrisy" or "disagreements" of Roman Catholics, Peace by Jesus, or Churchmouse. To say RC's disagree on public forums, or interpret official dogma differently, does not disprove that Catholicism is a set of unchanging doctrines, only defined in very strict and unchanging terms. Vatican II did not change any unchangeable doctrines, though it's language was more ambiguous. This is because many liberal clerics who sat at the council wanted to make the unchanging faith seem palatable to Protestants. Private interpretation of scripture can only disintegrate and divide, as your religion has, into many different sects, where each person, including all of you, becomes their own "infallible" re- interpreter of Christ's words. The Holy Spirit on the other hand, was only promised to a slect few, a Church, not everyone reading the book that that Church put together, and the Holy Spirit cannot contradict Himself, with different interpretations of scripture, and still be promised to each person of good will sitting in an armchair reading the good book. This would violate the natural law of noncontradiction. If you want evidence for how all the dogmas were originally interpreted by the first Christians, go back to the ancient liturgy of the Mass, which was always the main means for preserving dogma. These interpretations are supported by the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, and taught the same way, only by the Catholic Church. There can only be one way, one truth and one light. If you want to argue against Catholicism, instead of this childish Roman Catholic person bashing, you have to start with this basic premise, that truth cannot change, and prove your relativism as even possible.
Dear shepherd girl,I love Mother Church. I love Jesus & the GOD in Isiah who said "come,let us reason, together". I'm agaist abortion & 4 birth control. Using the one can lower the really grave sin. Vatican policy says shame on me. Honesty & prayer makes me abide w/my opinion.I'll answer to the LORD. So be it. Better a condom than a crack baby with 30 days of pain before it dies of disease & defects.
Oops,sorry ! I'm not anonymous, I didn't know where 2 put my name. I'm pastor marty. Love 2 chat godzonetruth@gmail@com
Anonymous,
I respect your right to be "4" birth control. But that is only YOUR "infallible" opinion. No traditional CHRISTIANITY ever taught that killing a baby through abortion is a "worse" sin then playing God: attempting to change the main reason God created the reproduction system in the first place, to reproduce. All Christian denominations, prior to the early 1900's, believed that creating or not creating life, with a human soul attached to it, through the sexual act He created for that purpose, is God's perogative, and God's perogative alone. The child conceived is never guilty because of the parent's sin, and a condom user can be said to only hide, prevent the evidence, and escape the responsibilities of using a woman he does not wish to marry for his own self gratification. The prohibition against birth control is not "Vatican policy", nor does the Catholic Church cast "shame" on anyone. If the ancient prohibitions against birth control preserved from Christ, that the Catholic Church still follows, shame you, your beef IS with the Lord, not the Catholic Church. If you believe in life after death, those created, conceived aborted babies at least have a home forever with Jesus, as well as all the crack babies who "suffer", yet can experience joy and being loved before they die. Who says you have more of a right to come into existence, to live and love, than a suffering crack baby - what makes you think your protestant soul is more valuable in the eyes of God?
A reality check is, many assumed USA Catholic leaders have a agenda to war, sustaining the USA war machine, in profits and sustaining pet projects, and countries. A repeating story of, in the military, out of the military, and walla, suddenly Catholic. The most intriguing group, the Dulles Brothers. Masters of expeiage, instrumental in over throw of Syria, Iran, and Guatemala which lead to the extermination of mainly Catholics. To gain 40% of Guatemala. Embaresment to Pres. Kennedy, excused, yet tied to the elimination of Kennedy on many angles. Yet their son came Catholic, and first Cardinal of USA.. and the story now a ongoing, repeat.
Catholic and War go together in the USA, in inciting Catholics to condone, support, and demand death, extermination to the poor by todays United States war machine insanity that now rages on. Today the USA, with the coalition of Saudi Arabia and British work to exterminate millions of humans with mere blockade on Yemen preventing other nations from giving relief to Yemen.
In past history, Iran in Aug. 1941 appealed to the USA deemed as the beacon of freedom to all when attacked by Communistic/Socialist Russia. The USA took over Hawaii by military force previous decades back when the marines forced the leader of Hawaii to step down or face war. The USA did nothing to help Iran in 1941 when attacked by Russia, yet had troops itself in Iran during WWII. In 1952, the USA operation AJAX, CIA military over threw the democratic government of Iran, after it had by coup de ta over threw Syria as well. The USA instilled the Shah, King of Iran over the people till 1979. The USA then allied with Saddam of Iraq and supported Iraq in the 1980's. Saddam gave hundreds of thousands to Coptic Catholic churchs in the USA during this time, the USA government gave Saddam millions in arms to incite the Iraq/Iran war that exterminated millions of humans, changed nothing. The USA in the 1950's over threw the democratic government of Guatemala, an attack on Guatemala that secured 42% of the land for United Fruit tied to the CIA, SEC of state. When Kennedy, a Catholic came to be president the same prior people that took over Guatemala tried to take over Cuba. Kennedy excused them from USA power positions. Kennedy himself was then executed, with much pointing to those that had been instrumental in over throw of Middle East and South American governments as tied to his elimination.
Their also has been ties to """"Assumed''''' Catholic leaders and the promotion of much of the past military USA actions and the havoc that is promoted and continues today.
I'd rather B/banned than sentenced 2 burn @ the stake like Gallileo & Coprenicus (what was that 4//oh ya;postulating that the earth wasn't flat and saying the earth revolved around the sun )BIG TIME SINZ ,HUH ???
To accuse someone of sophistry is a personal condemnation, because to be guilty of sophistry is to have *the intent* to deceive. How you would know Ratzinger had the "intent to deceive" just because he gave reference to the constant beliefs of the early Christians since Christ, of a place or time of purgation (whether or not this was codified into a dogma or called Purgatory at a certain time or not)is certainly a personal accusation, in which you are guessing Ratzinger's interior motive.
And although I agree with you about the lack of fair dealing among so-called Catholic moderators in general on online sites, your own statements and views reveal a biased and ignorant knowledge of history and Catholic teachings. If you are going to criticize, get the Catholic teaching you are criticizing correct in the first place.
In Jesus time, the Jewish were getting rich by forcing the poor to pay a temple tax. A tax that often required they borrow money to pay their tax, by mortgage on their farms.. When they couldn't REpay the Loan, they lost their land, to the Jewish money lenders. Jesus stood against that, it was wrong, twice going into Temple and standing against the money changers.
His Fathers house was being used to steal from the people, or make a few rich.
Reformation was much the same, the kings wanted the people to bow to them, not give their fruits of labor to the Church, or Heaven forbid, the Pope.
Cromwell of England force "reformation" on the people in his outlaw of the Mass, elimination of the Catholic church.. All of England, Scott and Ireland faced Death, as Jesus did, in the demand the Catholics bow to the government, not to the Church, to God...Because England want to wage war, colonize the world and make as many people slaves of the British.. India, once the richests of nations, was made the poorest today, by England and Colonization.. Today, the USA and Britian attack Yemen, the poorest of the poor to take oil.. And many a "assumed" Catholic supports the USA arms manufacture to exterminate the poor, as Cromwell exterminated the Catholics for wealth..
Patriotism is on the brain of USA Catholics making them fanatics of bigotry and hate like no other religion on Earth, exactly what Jesus stood against, and most got him nailed to the Cross.. rather amazing, but true, only in America....and England.
I am fascinated with and agree with a lot of your remarks on the politics of the Catholic hierarchy (let's remember, the Vatican is a country in itself and would like to ask your opinion about taxes, and the many real estate investments/private properties the Holy See invests in through its many diocese.
Do you think there is a valid allegory between the money changers of Jesus' time, today's tax/land confiscation scams, local level government corruption & the advancement of the Catholic Church as a country/political/business entity today?
This story sounds straight outa Al Jazeera TV / I saw Jihadi's burn Christian churches w/the people inside/not buyin' yer sad tale !
I notice non Catholics tend to confuse the Catholic Church as an institution with its rules, with the dogmas (truths) it professes, as a system of faith.
It is correct to say that the church today, the visible hierarchy that is, is a corrupt system or business or entity that has done everything from protecting its own sex rings to burning innocents for knowing too much.
The Holy See is in fact a powerful country, which has been charged by the UN for fraudulent concealment, and violating the Rights of the Child, covering up child abuse.
But it is quite another thing to argue nonsense like the dogma of 'purgatory' is inconsistent with scripture, when the very people who wrote scripture believed in a stage of purgation. Purgatory means a cleansing or healing for those who are not *dead* (dead in scriptural language refers to the damned) and those who believe in reincarnation have views consistent with it. Also, Catholic just means universal.
Purgatory is based upon a false premise, that of the need for perfection of character (if by grace) in order to be with God, versus penitent faith which appropriates justification, which purifies the heart (Acts 15:9) and is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and renders one accepted in the Beloved (on His account) and positionally seated together with their Lord in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) from where they await the Lord's return and His final subduing of our "vile body," that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body," (Philippians 3:21)and which is the only transformative change after this life that the Scriptures speak of.
However, this saving justifying faith, is a faith which effects obedience by the Spirit, in word and in deed, in heart and in life, whereby "the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, (Romans 8:4) insofar as we do. And since faith and works go together like light and heat, sometimes they are used interchangeably as to what they effect. And which obedience includes penitent confession when convicted of not pleasing the Object of his faith for salvation, the risen Lord Jesus.
The appeal to the believer is to produce fruit consistent with faith, as a consequence of being accepted in the Beloved (on His account), to be practically (in heart and deed) as they are positionally in Christ, to be as much conformed to the Lord Jesus in this life as we can be, and will be in the resurrection. (Philippians 3:7-21)
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. (Galatians 5:25)
If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory. (Colossians 3:1-4)
But which progressive practical sanctification is not the cause of the sinner's justification and acceptance in Christ, but testifies to such being a believer, evidencing "things which accompany salvation," (Hebrews 6:9) and fit to be rewarded. (Revelation 3:4) For this faith, as manifested in said obedience, God will recompense (Hebrews 10:35) under grace, even though it is God who motivates and enables all obedience, (Philippians 1:12,13) while the only thing we can and must take credit for it our disobedience.
In contrast to this salvation by effectual faith, is salvation by grace thru works, as in Roman Catholicism, in which by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God via the act of baptism, even without the required wholehearted repentant faith. (Acts 8:38; 8:36,37)
However, since the carnal nature remains and few successfully attain to complete victory over any attachment to sin and perfection of character, then most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory.
There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught, but while salvation by grace thru faith as in sola fide means it is effectual faith being imputed for righteousness that justifies, salvation by grace thru works means that by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God, which premise either requires perfection of character in this life (and which merely being made clean in baptism would actually not effect) or postmortem purifying torments.
The Catholic Encyclopedia states that St. Augustine "describes two conditions of men; "some there are who have departed this life, not so bad as to be deemed unworthy of mercy, nor so good as to be entitled to immediate happiness" etc.
And thus by the close of the fourth century was taught "a place of purgation..from which when purified they "were admitted unto the Holy Mount of the Lord". For " they were "not so good as to be entitled to eternal happiness". - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Purgatory
Likewise Catholic professor Peter Kreeft states,
"...we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224
However, wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
In addition, the whole premise that suffering itself perfects a person is specious, since testing of character requires being able to choose btwn alternatives, and which this world provides. Thus it is only this world that Scripture peaks of here development of character, such as "Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations." (1 Peter 1:6)
And even in making the Lord "perfect" as in experiencing testing, being "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin," (Hebrews 4:15) then it was in this world: "For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings." (Hebrews 2:10)
For attempted support in scripture RCs invoke 2 Macc 12;44-46 ( atonement for the dead so that they might be saved). But of what support is that of praying for men whom the text clearly stated were slain for their idolatry, which is a mortal sin? Nor were these souls in RC purgatory, since the atonement was offered in the hope that that see the resurrection, whereas Rome teaches those in purgatory are already saved but can get out earlier.
Meanwhile believing this book was Scripture proper was not required until after Luther died, almost 1400 years after the last book was penned.
Then there is the attempted support of 1 Peter 3:18-20;4:6 ( Peter preaching to the spirits in prison). Which was to the lost souls like those of Noah's day, "wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water," and it is obvious they had not attained to perfection of character. But with His resurrection (Matthew 27:52) the Lord set free those in Abraham's bosom, (Ephesians 4:8,9) which is not purgatory but OT paradise (Luke 23:43) which is now Heaven. (2 Corinthians 12:4)
Then there is 1 Cor 15:29-30 ( baptizing the dead) which is a rather desperate text to resort it. So do the Mormons, and it supports nothing than was it was invoked for, that of their being a resurrection which some ("they," not "we") thought postmortem baptism would effect, but with nothing inferred as purgatory. And which the Holy Spirit would never fail to clearly teach on, if it indeed was of Catholic importance.
But a most primary text RCS invoked for support is that of 1 Cor 3:15 ( saved through fire) which is utterly invalidated as explained above, by God's grace.
Then we have Mt 5:26 (where you will not be released until you pay the last cent) which is much a "dark saying" which the likes of Tim Staples resorts to. Rather than Matthew 5:25-26 being "explicit about Purgatory" as Staples imagines this to be, this either refers to this life, or punishment in Hell, which is the context of Matthew 5:24-25 (Matthew 5:22; Matthew 5:27-29; cf. Mark 9:43), and Caths argue (Mt. 1:25) that "until" need not mean a terminus is inferred.
And here this story cannot be analogous to purgatory, since that is for forgiven souls who have some expiation to make for venial sins, but in Matthew 5:22-26, rather than a mere venial sin, the description here is of a "mortal sin." And neither was this man forgiven, but was damned, and given the vast amount he had to pay, i think "Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing" (Matthew 5:26) is saying he never will come out,
Also we see Mt 12:32 (sin is forgiven in this age or the next ) invoked for support, the invalidation of which simple: Rome rejects the 1,000 year reign of Christ in which there will be sin and forgiveness of sins, as Ezekiel shows in his many chapters which defy then as being mere allegory.
More overreach for attempted support is 1 John 5:16-17 (degrees of sin distinguished). But which refers to apostasy, and there are degrees of sin, and of accountability and guilt, thus degrees of punishment, (Matthew 11:20-24) but which description are only about Hell, not some interim place.
Finally there is Mark 9;49 (all will be salted by fire). Which is simply another example of the egregious extrapolation you must resort to in order attempt to postulate some sort of support for what you can only wish Scripture manifestly taught, but which it does not!
Here the only postmortem reality that is seen in the context is that of Hell: "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched" (Mark 9:48) and otherwise it speaks of salt (Mark 9:49,50; cf. Lev. 2:13; Eze 43:24) which represent holiness, which works for peace, and one either has it or they are good for nothing, (Mt. 5:13) and and there is nothing that infers purgatory in order to get it or more of it, though this would be one of many places we could expect to see it if it were true.
Peace by Jesus, it seems you believe those who call the purgation of healing " place" Purgatory think it's "inhabitants" are working their salvation out. No where is this taught in Catholicism. Like I mentioned before in this thread, the word dead in scripture refers to those who are not saved, and is usually not meant to mean "dead" literally. Those in purgatory have been saved - but are in a stage of purification or healing related somehow to time, though not as we know it. On the other side, everything is outside time. That is why I believe a lot of those in purgatory are really reincarnated, because their souls have not yet learned what they were meant to learn. There is scripture that indicates no soul sees God before accomplishing a certain amount of "years" on earth. If this is against man's doctrine of sola fide (faith alone) than which is no in the Bible,, perhaps it is ones interpretation of scripture that needs to be adjusted.
Sorry about the typos in my previous comment - posting by iPhone...lol
Peace by Jesus, it seems you believe those who call the purgation of healing " place" Purgatory think it's "inhabitants" are working their salvation out. No where is this taught in Catholicism.
Which means you do not do research, since Purgatory can be both called a place or a condition in Catholic teaching, but neither one definitively. :
Thomas Aquinas:
Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory,..It is probable, however,..that there is a twofold place of Purgatory...he place of Purgatory is situated below and in proximity to hell..
Another place of Purgatory is according to dispensation: and thus sometimes, as we read, some are punished in various places - Summa Theologica, (Supplement, Appendix 2, Q1, A2)
The Catholic Encyclopedia:
Purgatory (Lat., "purgare", to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God's grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
So true is this position that prayers for the dead and the existence of a place of purgation are mentioned in conjunction in the oldest passages of the Fathers,
But one has only to read the testimonies hereinafter alleged to feel sure that the Fathers speak, in the same breath, of oblations for the dead and a place of purgation;
Wilpert ("Roma Sotteranea," I, 441) thus concludes chapter 21, "Che tale esaudimento", etc.:
Intercession has been made for the soul of the dear one departed and God has heard the prayer, and the soul has passed into a place of light and refreshment."
This doctrine that many who have died are still in a place of purification and that prayers avail to help the dead is part of the very earliest Christian tradition.
Thus at the close of the fourth century:..those who were helped by the prayers of the faithful and by the celebration of the Holy Mysteries were in a place of purgation; Hanna, E. (1911). Purgatory. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 19, 2018 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm
Your apologist Dave Armstrong states,
The Catholic Church has not defined whether Purgatory is a place or a process, or whether it contains real fire. (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, p. 120).
Now Pope John Paul II states that "the “heaven” or “happiness” in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds," ( General Audience of 21 July 1999)
And
“Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence.” ( General Audience of Wednesday, 4 August 1999)
However, this is not a dogmatic teaching, and Armstrong, whose page (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2017/03/purgatory-place-condition.html) provides some of the quotes above, also notes,
"in the English language, “place” is sometimes used as a synonym for “condition” or “state.”
As for working their salvation, i said in Catholicism, "by grace one is actually made good enough to be with God," "There is some wiggle room as regards the conditions of purgatory since what this suffering actually entails and how long are not dogmatically taught," but that most baptized souls are sent to Roman Catholic (EOs trend to reject Rome's) Purgatory to endure purifying torments to atone for sins they sufficiently failed to provide for while on earth, and become good enough to enter glory."
For “It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA; cp. 1. 1967)
Thus both such error as well as your protests are dealt with.
As for, That is why I believe a lot of those in purgatory are really reincarnated, are you sure you want to criticize me as not teaching what Catholicism (or Scripture) does? And no, John the Baptist was not literally Elijah.
No, sorry Peace by Jesus, I didn't say Purgatory couldn't be thought of as a "place". What I argued was that Catholicism teaches those in Purgatory are already saved (and promised heaven.) Therw is a difference between "expiating" for sins and "working out one's salvation" which, according to Catholicism (and scripture) does happen - but not in Purgatory. So once again yours is a straw man argument.
I see you also confuse the statements and interpretations of random Catholics like the pope and Aquinas with official church teachings, which is common for Protestants - even though in Catholicism they are not held to be equally infallible statements or even little more than an opinion. There is very little (comparatively) in Catholicism held as a teaching or required interpretation one has to believe in to be Catholic.
Please understand my position before you go making even more assumptive errors. I'm a cradle Catholic, my uncle was a priest, I've worked with priests and am best friends with a privately ordained priest, and I've officially taught the Catholic faith at a high school level, but I've reached a place in life where I recognize the visible institution is a fraud (connection to child abuse invalidates even bishops and lines of ordination. Also, the institution's rules keep people away from enlightenment, and are not dogmaticly based.
What are your qualifications to teach *me* what the official teachings are? You've studied critiques by Protestant scripture scholars?
And, as I pointed out earlier, there is also a difference between dogma and doctrine. For example, though some pope somewhere may have *condemned* belief in reincarnation as per the views of some gnostic that means little more than a hill of beans to me, nor does it effect the Dogmas or positive constant truths of the Catholic Church. No where is there a "negative" dogma like one "can't interpret purgatory as reincarnation or you can't believe in reincarnation, though there may be weightless "rules" to that effect.
Thus, I still believe the "Truths"or "Dogmas" of Catholicism (Catholicism just means Universal ) are universally true, amd expressed in valid but different ways in all authentic religions. I believe in the Dogmas, such as there is a "second Person of God" (the Christ) but understand them now in a deeper way. That the men of the church, clerics, might have burnt me at the stake for this view years ago does not mean my views are not Catholic or not in accord with the mystics and saints like Joan of Arc. May everyone realize we are all the children of God and God does not reserve truth for an elitist few. Jesus prayed that we may all be one.
And, Peace by Jesus, it is (your) interpretation of Catholic teaching not Catholic teaching that "by Grace we are made good enough to be with God. " God created souls by His Grace and He created them all innocent. According to Catholic teaching, Original "sin" is a potential weakness or susceptibility we inherit not a crime we personally committed or sinful state which makes us not good enough for God. It is more fundamentalist type Protestant theories that believe in such a thing. In Catholicism the Sacramebts are just outward signs of what is true spiritually and directly from God. That is why for example Catholicism teaches there is a Baptism "of desire" and doesnt "condemn" peoole personally who know God by a different name.
By the way, Peace by Jesus, I totally sympathize. If you don't understand the way Catholicism works, or understand the distinction between a Dogma preserved from the time of Christ by Catholicism, and man made interpretations or rules related to these Dogmas (made up by men, and reiterated in countless council documents and the writings of the Church fathers, who sometimes disagreed with one another ) you're definitely going to choke on and argue these gnats. But that doesn't negate the camel you overlooked, or the forest for the trees.
But to think you're disproving Catholic Dogmas by doing so is naive at best. For example, Aquinas held a lot of errors now disowned by the church, and the Marian beliefs were preserved orally from the time of Christ, as proved at Vatican II to the Protestant observers. The ancient peasants around Christ's time even had a coded way of using flowers to symbolize Mary's virtues during the earliest Christian persecutions.
Also, if you accept only a fundamentalist or literal view of scripture you miss out on all the mysterious, coded and patterned teachings embedded into it, that the world would not have been ready for at that time. The literalists wind up on a self contradictory loop because their literal interpretation of out of context quotes always winds up contradicting itself. Scriptural or spiritual language is not a flat, non dimensional language.
No, sorry Peace by Jesus, I didn't say Purgatory couldn't be thought of as a "place". What I argued was that Catholicism teaches those in Purgatory are already saved (and promised heaven.) Therw is a difference between "expiating" for sins and "working out one's salvation" which, according to Catholicism (and scripture) does happen - but not in Purgatory. So once again yours is a straw man argument.
What? That i was teaching that those in Purgatory are not considered saved in Catholicism is the strawman since i said no such thing. Yet for the RC "saved" means they are not yet ready to enter Heaven since they are not good enough and must atone for sins. For,
"after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (CCC 1030)
The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607 As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608 (CCC 1031)
Tell me how this is not teaching one must become actually good enough to enter Heaven (which their time in Purgatory is promised to attain) by grace?
For while one can be forgiven as to guilt , yet a defiling condition must be dealt with, for,
"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. (CCC 1472)
For,
while in the most Blessed Virgin the Church has already reached that perfection whereby she exists without spot or wrinkle, the faithful still strive to conquer sin and increase in holiness.
Of course, besides the cited support versus about pardoned in the age to come referring to the millennial reign of Christ, this is contrary to the Purgatory in which if for those "whose guilt has already been forgiven" even though further atonement is said to be needed in order to realize the full benefit.
In addition, while the intercession of mortals can obtain mercy for others on earth, and being forgiven washes away sin, yet even being forgiven does not make one holy in character, and Purgatory is imagined to be necessary for souls to "achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." Thus canonized saints are those who are not simply forgiven, but have overcome this "unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified."
In the interest of which Indulgences are provided:
An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven..(CCC 1471)
In the interest of which the 'treasury of the Church' is available:
In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin. (CCC 1475)
the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God...In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body.". (CCC 1476, 1477)
Which treasury is "entrusted it to blessed Peter, the keybearer of heaven, and to his successors, Christ's vicars on earth, that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation." (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA, cp. 4)
And which purifying is linked to making atonement for sin:
the Church...opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. (CCC 1478)
For,
"It is a divinely revealed truth that sins bring punishments inflicted by God's sanctity and justice. These must be expiated either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death,(3) or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying" punishments."' (INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA, cp. 1)
Which seems somewhat more graphic that your place of "healing!"
I see you also confuse the statements and interpretations of random Catholics like the pope and Aquinas with official church teachings, which is common for Protestants - even though in Catholicism they are not held to be equally infallible statements or even little more than an opinion.
I did not realize that official church teaching is that popes are just "random Catholics" or Aquinas for that matter, and that i needed to actually quote from "official Church teachings" (which scope can vary btwn RCs) for a RC who postulates reincarnation, and whose censored me me for believing those who call the purgation of healing " place" when that distinction was made by a "random pope" (Purgatory that Purgatory is not a place but a condition of existence) in a general audience.
Regardless, what i said is substantiated by what is usually considered . official Church teachings.
There is very little (comparatively) in Catholicism held as a teaching or required interpretation one has to believe in to be Catholic.
That is simply your interpretation, and by which you can reject such teachings as ".the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS) and that "a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff." (Casti Connubii) "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Humani Generis)
And in addition to infallible teachings of the pope and councils with him and the assent of faith required, the class of teaching which requires submission of mind and will is quite broad, and forbids public dissent. Yet which class the three (some see four) magisterial levels each one is on is subject to varying interpretations. And the magisterium does not solve this problem by providing an infallible list of where each one falls under.
Thus you have either broad submission to any public papal teaching in order to follow the pastors as docile sheep, or you have Catholics judging what they will submit it. rrr1213: Boy. No disrespect intended…and I mean that honestly…but my head spins trying to comprehend the various classifications of Catholic teaching and the respective degrees of certainty attached thereto. I suspect that the average Catholic doesn’t trouble himself with such questions, but as to those who do (and us poor Protestants who are trying to get a grip on Catholic teaching) it sounds like an almost impossible task. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/30
The response to which is just obey everything:
Well, the question pertained to theology. The Catholic faithful don’t need to know any of this stuff to be faithful Catholics, so you are confusing theology with praxis.
Praxis is quite simple for faithful Catholics: give your religious assent of intellect and will to Catholic doctrine, whether it is infallible or not. That’s what our Dogmatic Constitution on the Church demands, that’s what the Code of Canon Laws demand, and that is what the Catechism itself demands. Heb 13:17 teaches us to “obey your leaders and submit to them.” This submission is not contingent upon inerrancy or infallibility. - https://forums.catholic.com/t/catechism-infallible/55096/31
The alternative essentially makes you to be like a "Bible Christian" insofar as ascertaining Truth, for both you and us ascertain the validity of what is taught by examination of the evidential warrant for it. The main difference is that for you, it is ascertaining what magisterial class a teaching belongs to, and the validity of its meaning based upon historical RC teaching, while for us it is to be based upon a settled canon and receiving the word with all readiness of mind, and searching tthe scriptures daily, whether those things are so. (Acts 17:11)
Please understand my position before you go making even more assumptive errors. I'm a cradle Catholic, my uncle was a priest, I've worked with priests and am best friends with a privately ordained priest, and I've officially taught the Catholic faith at a high school level, but I've reached a place in life where I recognize the visible institution is a fraud (connection to child abuse invalidates even bishops and lines of ordination. Also, the institution's rules keep people away from enlightenment, and are not dogmaticly based.
Please understand my position before you go making even more assumptive errors. I was a cradle Catholic, two of my uncle were a priests to their death. I was a weekly mass and every holy day RC for about 30 years (almost half my life), and was an altra boy with my brothers.
And i was a weekly RC when, thru deep repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus to save me, I became manifestly born again, and realized profound basic changes in heart and life.
Yet as somewhat insecure yet independent and busy working (dairy truck driver/delivery) and not knowing of any "Bible churches" in this heavily RC area that i felt i could trust, and being somewhat ignorant of the contrasts btwn the NT church and Rome, i remained a active RC for about 6 years, during which i served as a lector and CC teacher.
Yet after my true regeneration it was with evangelical-type believers that i found fellowship in Christ, which was rare in my interactions with Catholics, and i was one who sought such, including going to RC charismatic meetings, which had some basically transformed souls i could identify with, with Scripture being a living book and some real heartfelt worship, while the group was soon shackled by hierarchy .
Then i finally humbly asked God "if it by Thy will for me to go to another church then I trust you will show me," which He graciously did the next day, which brought me into evangelical fellowship, never to return to Rome, and to far more light as to NT faith., thanks be to God, not that i have lived up to it all for sure.
but I've reached a place in life where I recognize the visible institution is a fraud (connection to child abuse invalidates even bishops and lines of ordination. Also, the institution's rules keep people away from enlightenment, and are not dogmaticly based.
Meaning you are a better RC than the pope.
What are your qualifications to teach *me* what the official teachings are? You've studied critiques by Protestant scripture scholars?
Apart from a pedigree and resume that is at least comparable to yours, and the advantage of seeing things objectively from both world, the veracity of what i teach must be based upon the weight of evidential warrant.
And while it is I who, by God's grace, have provided substantiation from Catholic sources, and i have lots more, you simply made assertions, and dismissed esteemed Catholic sources without showing they were wrong, and which official teaching does not contradict.
Thus, I still believe the "Truths"or "Dogmas" of Catholicism (Catholicism just means Universal ) are universally true, and expressed in valid but different ways in all authentic religions. I believe in the Dogmas, such as there is a "second Person of God" (the Christ) but understand them now in a deeper way. That the men of the church, clerics, might have burnt me at the stake for this view years ago does not mean my views are not Catholic or not in accord with the mystics and saints like Joan of Arc. May everyone realize we are all the children of God and God does not reserve truth for an elitist few. Jesus prayed that we may all be one.
At least i know i am dealing with a Catholic Protestant.
the Marian beliefs were preserved orally from the time of Christ, as proved at Vatican II to the Protestant observers.
You mean The Assumption of Mary or the rest of thinking of Mary far "above that which is written." (1Co. 4:6)
And, Peace by Jesus, it is (your) interpretation of Catholic teaching not Catholic teaching that "by Grace we are made good enough to be with God. " God created souls by His Grace and He created them all innocent. According to Catholic teaching, Original "sin" is a potential weakness or susceptibility we inherit not a crime we personally committed or sinful state which makes us not good enough for God. It is more fundamentalist type Protestant theories that believe in such a thing. In Catholicism the Sacramebts are just outward signs of what is true spiritually and directly from God. That is why for example Catholicism teaches there is a Baptism "of desire" and doesnt "condemn" peoole personally who know God by a different name.
Again, "after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (CCC 1030) Thus canonized saints are those who are not simply forgiven as to guilt, but have overcome this "unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified."
This what i am talking about by Catholic teaching meaning that by Grace we are made good enough to be with God, for indeed, if those in Purgatory were holy enough and did not need to become more holy than they would not need the "grace of Purgatory.
Also, if you accept only a fundamentalist or literal view of scripture you miss out on all the mysterious, coded and patterned teachings embedded into it,
Yes, i have a large list of things which the NT church missed out on. How deficient your god left them!
Peace by Jesus, your comments make me smile. Just because you didn't feel born again or have a personal relationship with Christ during your years as a "Catholic" doesn't make this faith's teachings untrue, or lacking in validity to bring people to Christ. Even as a child I was already "born again", literally and figuratively (I had a near death experience as a baby) and had a very close personal relationship with Christ. There were no conflicts with the teachings of the Catholic faith and what I knew intuitively and from memory to be true, though there might be disparities in the way the people of the church handled or taught these teachings of Christ to the people.
I am happy you found your way into a closer relationship with Christ. There are many different paths for many different people. But spiritual maturity does not try to reserve God for a select few who follow a certain set of formulas or rules, either by the Catholic Church or any church, evangelical or otherwise. Spiritual maturity recognizes that all religions contain valid interpretations or languages of Truth as well as corruptions of truth, just like they contain good willed people and hypocrites. There are many evangelical cults which are no less hypocritical and compromised than so called Catholic entities if not moreso.
As far as you're statement that then I am "more Catholic than the pope" that makes me laugh as well. So what? That's what I explained to you. You can't call someone who conceals child abuse and protects predators Catholic because the Catholic Church herself wrote their automatic excommunication and spiritual loss of office into what was canon law before the Bible the Catholic Church gave the world ever was codified.
Once again you confuse what the Catholic faith IS and what it ISNT. I suspect you were wrongly taught it, because this straw man version of the Catholic faith is the one to which you object, as if a place of authority automatically means whatever they say is the official Catholic faith. That's fine, but it's irrelevant. If you really want peace, by and through Jesus, you would want everyone to be united in Him, irregardless of the reflections of truth through which He teaches them, including those preserved accurately by the Catholic faith.
Peace by Jesus, you are wrong to assume the catechism of the Church is its Book of Dogmas. The Catechism is someone's interpretation of the Catholic faith, and it's not held to be infallible at all. Whenever you quote ccc to me it's the equivalent of arguing "blah, blah, blah" to make your point. Doesn't work. That we have to believe people are not "Holy enough" to see God when they die and that's why they go to "Purgatory" is just bunk. However, it is not unrealistic to imagine some saved souls would choose to be healed and pass through some kind of "purification" before beholding their Maker face to face. The contrast between their un readiness and overwhelming desire to see God would be the only "torment". This teaching about Purgatory is not one that makes God out to be a mean man in the sky with a stick, no matter who (in any position of Catholic "authority") insisted to you that was true. The Church officially makes no claim on what's outside its jurisdiction and could not know.
"At least I know I'm dealing with a Catholic Protestant" says Peace by Jesus.
Thank you. I do protest to the false interpretations of the Catholic Church, as do you, even though you spread the false version, by your many quotes from catholic sources that are not dogmatic in nature. You confuse "authoritative" with "dogmatic" which is not the same thing. The first usually speaks to the Pharisee, the second to what has been preserved intact (orally or by written word) in the Catholic faith and unadulterated since the time of Christ, like the teaching that Christ rose from the dead, or was incarnated of the Virgin Mary.
At least I know I'm speaking to someone who protests only the false version of Catholicism he or she was taught, or those Truths he or she does not understand.
Nah ! purgatory like hell w/probable parole if we don't blow last chance..'Excellent idea & prayed into existence by early Christians.What GOD has OK'd can't be wished out of time by anyone...sorry Luthor;U were wrong on this one !!! Shalom;pastor marty
Luthor didn't just leave the Caths so's he could open a brewery & start a family.The day a Roman emperor made Catholicism the official state religion it ceased being Christian. Agree w/us or die was a real role model for both the Nazi's and Isis .Admitting your sins 5 or 8 hundred years later seems a rather empty gesture. Were it still legal I'm sure "burning @ the stake",would be the preferred method of dealing w/it's critics...Shalom/pastor marty
Dear Shepardess; U are so rite ! NOW;how do we fix it ?? Shalom,,,,marty
The reality check is the Universal Infalable True Catholic church verse what is thrown out as the USA Catholic church leaves a lot of questions.
The True Catholic church calls for charity to all, malice to none.
Assumed leaders of the USA Catholic church demand malice to the Islamic, ignoring of the poor in the USA, Mexico, Across all of America, with an underlying insanity of a "Patriotic lets murder the poor before anybody recognizes the moral and ethical obligation to stand against the extermination of the poor in Yemen, or Haiti, Mexico and against wars of the rich on the poor the USA wages.
The Catechism is someone's interpretation of the Catholic faith, and it's not held to be infallible at all. Whenever you quote ccc to me it's the equivalent of arguing "blah, blah, blah" to make your point.
All you have are assertions, which are contrary to substantiated evidences, and it is no wonder that you reject even the CCC as "official church teaching" - which is what you asked for - and relegate it to "blah, blah, blah,". If you are going to defend Catholicism then you need to deal with what it teaches.
And if you want to restrict "official church teaching" to infallible teachings (unless you restrict these to only what you agree with) then you need to accept the CCC which is a fulfillment of what infallible teachings require and call for obedience to, versus being restricted to infallible teachings. God knows what your criteria is for "official church teaching" and the basis for it. But i think i already took enough time on this.
You are obviously basing your arguments on widely held assumptions Peace by Jesus, but not *evidence* - by any stretch of the imagination. There was no Catechism, and not even a codified Bible at the time the Catholic Church was established and being called 'Catholic' by the earliest Church fathers - therefore proving one certainly does not have to accept all of man's extraneous extrapolations (and written down assumptions) to hold to the tenants of the Catholic, or 'Universal' faith.
Take marriage for example. According to dogma, marriage occurs by the consent of spouses, and is only between them and God. This is why in the early church people did not get married in a church and no priest was *required*. Yet, modern catechisms give the impression a priest is needed to "marry" spouses in the Catholic Church. It may indeed be a man made rule that couples must get married in front of a priest before they are *recognized* as sacramentally married in the institutional Catholic Church, but it doesn't mean they are not married because Catholic dogma (God marries people, not a priest) teaches the faith. Rules are made up to supposedly support these Dogmas, and words are written in catechisms in attempt to explain these Dogmas, but are not guaranteed to be perfect expressions of the faith. And any canon lawyer or good Catholic apologist would back me up on this.
Evidence is interesting, for Physics or Social Science or the very essence of Education proves God, a reality check is the Beatitudes to living life, the Church.
The Catholic Church exists hand in hand with the Priest. One does not exist without the other. The priest and what is the Catholic church exist together as one, forever. The Structure, or building is not the church, but is confused as the church, a dominate idea in the USA, and Europe.
If we want ""evidence"" of the "importance of God" the Church, we look at Communism that demands a Godless society, atheistical society, and recognize "who" worked for Communism in Russia.
Who wants or assumes they gain from Atheistical society, a godless society, and demand a Godless society, evil to rule over the people be the discussion, in fact of the Consequences to godless society..
In Creation of Russia and socialist rule, atheistic communism and repression, demand all denounce God goes hand in hand that few rule the people, not God. The church structures were burnt, priests were executed, often crucified, and all had to denounce God, with torture and death a consequence.
Today, Russia in alcoholism and social ruin flounders in discord, thanks to a great superstition of evil that was accepted, injected, godless society, a living Hell.
That fact of in lack of "evidence" to believe in Hell, but will when they get there.
Peace by Jesus,
If it wasn't you who repeated the oft repeated fallacy that Catholicism teaches souls earn salvation through punishment in Purgatory, my apologies. This thread is so thick with your irrelevant quotes from the Catechism (that you take pains to misinterpret and or refute, even though they are not dogmatic, or considered infallible) it makes *my* head spin.
And before you go accusing me of being either a stupid sheep who just obeys all or assume I must be like you, who can't understand the nature of the Church, so I must be interpreting the faith by praxis (laughable), educate yourself on what the word "dogma" means, and what the word "infallible" means. I bet you'll stop making so many straw man arguments when you do.
Protestants who want to argue with Catholics who are more stupid than them go to the forums on Catholic Answers. I'm sure you'll find some game there. But Protestants who want to learn what Catholicism actually teaches, might have better luck pulling from the tracts written by the actual apologists on that site.
not me;kiddo;I think purgatory to be hell 4 awile and then parole.2nd. chance 4 sinners like me....
All authentic near death experiences have certain commonalities that substantiate the fundamental concept of a stage of purgatory. These included a life review. God shows man all the years and actions of their life, now that the soul is outside of time, in which the soul is *purged* of habits of judgement and self blame against oneself, as well as those judging others, because we are suddenly enlightened as to the why's of our own motives and other's - who have hurt us - or whom we have hurt with our actions in this life.
Everyone's soul, *purged* of the illusions and brainwashing of the world, now recognizes the fact that every single soul is a perfect speck of divine love, created in the Image and Likeness of God. Our souls are His very thoughts, His creations, His children, and carry divinity within us. This stage is what rids us of the fear of facing God, Who we then recognize as unconditional Love itself - that for which all souls at their deepest level ( *purest* or *holiest* level) long. If souls do not yet know themselves as pure love, their true self, the *longer* their stay (this is just a spiritual analogy because there is no time after we pass into the next realm) in *Purgatory*.
The fact that the asthetics and many of the catechists of the Catholic Church misinterpret its own teachings to assume the *purgation* is a punishment imposed by God, not a purging of self blame and other worldly illusions by which we tend to habitually punished ourselves in this life, and must stop before we are ready to realize unconditional Love Himself, does not negate the logic of this dogma and concept of a stage of *Purgation* right after we pass, preserved through this Catholic (Universal) Church that Christ instituted as well as many other reflections of Truth, in different spiritual "languages", despite religion's many letter of law interpretations, pharasaical members, and how many times Peace by Jesus quotes the "ccc".
Lol.
If you argue using letter of law, you're only arguing against pharisaism *with* pharisaism, to condemn other religions, and the people in them. But you are not proving the fallacy of any of those Truths with which all authentic religions and children of God are inspired and spiritually intuit.
Little Shepherd Girl said...
You are obviously basing your arguments on widely held assumptions Peace by Jesus, but not *evidence* - by any stretch of the imagination. There was no Catechism, and not even a codified Bible at the time the Catholic Church was established and being called 'Catholic' by the earliest Church fathers - therefore proving one certainly does not have to accept all of man's extraneous extrapolations (and written down assumptions) to hold to the tenants of the Catholic, or 'Universal' faith.
Take marriage for example. According to dogma, marriage occurs by the consent of spouses, and is only between them and God. This is why in the early church people did not get married in a church and no priest was *required*.
I see. So you defend Catholicism, and demand official church teaching, but you are the judge of what both are, and no doubt can reject whatever evidence that is presented against you are being valid.
But the subject was purgatory, which i assumed you were defending as that of Rome, but you have your own ideas on it, as do the EOs' with both claiming to be consistent with what early church "fathers" taught, which themselves were likely not uniform .
And in any case, for me what matters is not the uninspired writings of men, but of Scripture, and which as shown, wherever it clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)
The Catholic Church exists hand in hand with the Priest. One does not exist without the other. The priest and what is the Catholic church exist together as one, forever. The Structure, or building is not the church, but is confused as the church, a dominate idea in the USA, and Europe.
Nowhere does the NT teach a distinctive separate sacerdotal class of believers (clergy vs, laity), corresponding to the distinctive Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which the distinctive Greek word "hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit in the NT.
But the Holy Spirit never uses that distinctive word for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. (Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28)
All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
However, since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers then Catholicism translates the distinctive Greek word hiereus for their priests (which is a etymological corruption of the Greek presbuteros) as a denoting this distinctive sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never distinctively using the term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.
Using the same distinctive title for NT ministers as for OT priests is a matter of imposed functional equivalence, since Catholicism believes that offering her erroneous Eucharist as a sacrifice for sins is a unique sacerdotal function for here priests. And which is nowhere seen in the inspired recoerd of what the NT believed,but was a latter development .
You will never even see ordained NT ministers described as conducting the Lord's supper in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed (Acts - Revelation, including how they understood the gospels) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels. Though I am sure they did conduct this, yet they are not seen or charged with this in the epistles as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.
Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with and exampled as preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14
Which is just one of the many Catholic distinctives not manifest in that inspired record.
Which is just one of the many Catholic distinctives not seen in the inspired record of what the church did and how they understood the gospels.
The rest of your rambling posts render you unfit for reasonable exchange.
Thanks for your subjective judgements and questionable interpretations of word translation and etymology, Peace by Jesus. I can see you've studied from Protestant apologists well, and have strong faith in man.
I do not.
The New Testament, however sacred, coded and cryptic, is mainly just a collection of letters from the first witnesses or bishops of the Catholic Church, to priests and to the laity. No authentic scripture *or* secular historical scholar will dispute this. Sacred tradition and the faith is passed down, as Scripture dictates, either by written word or word of mouth (oral Tradition) within the CC. But the Church has always differentiated between Sacred Tradition or Dogma (= things preserved directly from Christ) and traditions of men, which can be anything from secular traditions, to faulty or imperfect interpretations of Dogmas imbedded in the catechisms of councils, even taught by the priests themselves. . (Things you are fond of quoting randomly and irrelevantly).
A good example of Sacred Tradition is that there is a state or place after death of purgation. A good example of traditions of men is that that place is punitive rather than healing.
And Clericalism is a heresy, not the Priesthood, not the Catholic faith, not related to Dogmas, and it's the "sense of the faithful" or "priesthood of the people" to which you refer that is supposed to keep pharasaical concepts, interpretations, letter of law thinking, and corrupt teachers in check.
And Peace, the concept of a Purgatory does not negate that we are always with the Lord. It also does not require I accept man's fallible interpretation of that Purgation no matter what place of authority they supposedly hold with the CC. I accept Purgatory as a stage of healing from the world's illusions before realizing or "seeing" the all Loving God, because it makes sense in my mind (and all those who have had near death experiences) as a truth passed down from Christ, not because some cleric taught it to me!
Do you think for yourself as I do, or do you just rely on those who for whatever reason (their upbringing, parents who taught ithen wrong?) resent the Catholic Church - so they are adamant on insisting the Catholic faith consists of certain things that at core it does not?
Heaven is to be in Communion with God for ever to which their is nothing imperfect in Heaven. Hell is a per·ma·nent·ly separated from God for ever.
Purgatory is to experience the Glory of God, then to be separated till our souls are Healed.
Saints recognized reality of Hell, and the fine line of Hope to being permitted to Purgatory that we might attain Communion with God verse the entry to Hell.
The central defining call of the Catholic faith recognizes religion is more than obedience to laws. Acceptance to struggle and pain, that the Beatitudes are the source to over coming our struggles and pain.
Living the Beatitudes is to rejoice and be glad, for your reward is in Heaven.
Its not what we know and do for ourselves that determines, but we do to others, standing for others, our charity and passion for others. Jesus was charity, love and forgiving to all, we have no exception for ourselves, we are humble servants of God, or we are nothing.
In an objective observation the USA Catholic is devoid of any true resemblance of the demand of Charity to all, Malice to None, like no religion on Earth..
We have an "assumed" leadership itself,, Council of Catholic Bishops that set in Washington DC next to the "power". The "assumed" leadership themselves set an example of looking to a corrupt, and financially defunct government to save US.
We live in a society that demand death to our Brothers and Sister the Islamic, with current ongoing US mass extermination of millions in the Middle East and across Africa.
Total defiance of Charity to all, malice to None is the USA in itself, with full acceptance to war, murder by our "assumed" Catholic leadership...
As we see this blog recognizes Catholic Answers, National Catholic register, and all major Catholic "propaganda" is tied together in the USA to the theme of death to the Islamic...
Death to the poor, yet equally their is malice to Catholic Brothers and Sisters in Mexico, Haiti, and across all of America.
Showing the USA Catholic is more in line as the Devils advocate, than in faith of Jesus Christ and what he calls all to..
In an honest reality, the USA military and religious have joined in evil forces to perpetuate the USA war machine that is the profit Mecca (the HOT Stock markets of today, fueled by the near Trillion Dollars to be borrowed 2018 to manufacture USA arms industry). IN the DEMAND of death to the poor, IS, the Islamic and Catholics in Central and South America, and Mexico. Exterminate the world's poor, so a few who run the US government can come NOT to "rule the World", but to own the World.
Making all others DEBT SLAVES, directly recognized in the TWENTY PLUS and soon to be another TRILLION more shortly, on the backs of the debt slaves of the USA itself...
What is very interesting is, The Catholic religious stands against this Debt Slavery, Jesus himself went into the Temple and ran out the money changers, that made debt slaves of the people.
Does any Catholic leaders or propaganda of today stand against WAR, MURDER, DEBT Slavery, Human slavery. Does any Catholic affiliated leader or Bishop, or Priest call for in the USA call for "Setting the People free today? NO, rather they all chant death to the Poor, our king is the Dollar.. We have no king but, the dollar.
People need to educate themselves to a question of why does the USA government exist, to the people themselves, in a religious stand point. The USA Constitution directly comes from the great minds of ST Thomas Aquinas in life and the Catholic faith, liberty and just for all, every human, military of defense, God is the source of all power. Borrowing of money, unbridled capitalism as the Pope has recognized, enslavement of the people in debt is wrong.
The purpose of to protect the poor from the rich is the soul reason for a government, that recognizes socialism, communism, and unbridled capitalism is all against the Catholic faith.
Todays USA military attacks, war, murder of humans in Iraq, Yemen and Afganistan are all intrisicly evil and against the Catholic faith and all Unjust Wars, murder, defiant to the USA Constitution and the Catholic faith .
Yet USA military and monitary support of Israel (claimed Jewish State), Saudi Arabia (home of the 911 and claimed Islamic State) are corrupt spending of USA taxpayers dollars to make profits from and for USA arms manufactures producing murder for profit spreading misery and discontent, death to the poor. Yet we see USA "assumed" Catholic leaders at the fore front of support for USA military attacks, crimes against humanity, death to the Isalmic, that rage on today.
The World is building One Trillion in arms in 2018 to murder, destroy, and spread misery and discontent to the World, the USA itself is building and contributing near 75% of the Worlds arms production total for the year. With "assumed" Catholic leaders in the USA at the fore front spreading bigotry, hate, revenge to the Islamic to incite and promote the USA war machine of today. As during the Vietnam war that murdered 25% the population of Vietnam that was 90% of those murdered were civilians, none combatants, the "assumed" Catholic leadership supported, in a war that made for great wealth for a few, and brought grave death and misery to our youth of then, as war dose today in the USA. Many a Catholic USA leader, "assumed" catholic leaders claim right to life, life, liberty and justice all, yet they more so support the profit mecca of murder to Poor, the Poorest of the poor, for profit to few, defiant to the Catholic faith itself. A sin they cannot expect God to forgive them for.
We are to fear God, not the terror of man. For Gods mercy and justice will prevail, not ours.
Catholic Answers Forum is moderated by tyrannical lunatics unaware that the sun soon sets.
Post a Comment