Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Purgatory

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    I kinda get the feeling that a lot of this stuff is made up on the fly.
    Well, yeah, cause that's what Mormons.... [looking around] ... nevermind.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      Isn't purgatory right now, not the age to come? It seems to me that at the final judgment, there are only two places to go.
      Oh...yeah....I guess that doesn't work, not sure how I thought that's what it meant in the first place. Never mind then.
      Last edited by TimelessTheist; 05-30-2014, 03:08 PM.
      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

      -Thomas Aquinas

      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

      -Hernando Cortez

      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        so what happens in purgatory? Are you flailed with whips? burn in sulfur? Sit around and watch TV? Get locked in a room and have to pray for forgiveness for a certain period of time?

        Exactly how is the sinfulness "purged" from you so you can go to heaven?
        You could pretty much ask the same questions about what happens in heaven or hell.
        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

        -Thomas Aquinas

        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

        -Hernando Cortez

        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

        Comment


        • #19
          Hey all, thanks for the responses so far. I'm probably going to come up with some follow-up questions, but I may need to think on that some more.

          Would someone mind describing the traditional Catholic view on Purgatory? A link would be ok, too.
          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
            Alright, I'll go. This is something that I'm a bit ambiguous on, however I can certainly see one scripture that makes a very reasonable and justifiable case to draw from, thought it may not be a descriptive of the traditional view of the "Catholic" purgatory as most view it, it is a descriptive of a purgation.
            "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay stubble: Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." 1 Corinthians 3: 11-15. Of course what is most telling in this Scripture is that the work description is that the "work" is revealed on the "day of the Lord" which I take to mean at the Judgement. The better indicator IMO here is that a final sort of "purgation" or cleansing salvation takes place at that Judgement Day, and earthly works are a loss. It does seem to indicate a final purging of what is Holy and what is not, but again, not in the Catholic Holding tank prison sense.

            Which leads me to my next thought, I think the Catholic viewpoint may have evolved out of the lack of understanding of completed grace. Much of Catholicism seems to ride on the continued back of works, punishment and repentance, and it seems that their understanding of purgatory comes from a misunderstanding of what Christ did on Calvary. Not that we don't have to live a Christian life and we ought to challenge ourselves very strongly to behave and for good reason, but the idea of a "prison" appears to result from a very Earthly misunderstanding of justice, rather than a finalization of how God presents himself in Scripture.
            Good thoughts!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I kinda get the feeling that a lot of this stuff is made up on the fly.
              I'm getting the impression that the RCC is sort of trying to fall under the impression of "well we always did it like this...we're just clarifying what we always believed."

              The answer is simply, no they did not always believe that. They believed something and then went further based on a misunderstanding or subtlety and sometimes a political need. (no where is that clearer than the idea of indulgences going from physical to spiritual. at least that would be the political thing) At best we have a Church which by its nature is Christian, and certainly has been able to trace its authority back to Peter via tradition, however it fell so far off the mark, and instead of apologizing and making up for her own arrogance, she has tried to cover her tracks. The Church has fallen and split into many churches. Should the RCC go back and erase what is wrong (which to some extent there seems to be a small effort) rather than try to reinvent what it has done wrong, it may yet still have a claim to "Primacy" As of now, it does not have any claim to primacy, and it will never have ANY claim to infallibility of doctrine faith and morals No one Church has that much power. No apostle had that much power. Infalliblity is indeed a dangerous claim, which belongs to our God alone. Peter made a few documented errors. So can the popes.
              A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
              George Bernard Shaw

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                I'm getting the impression that the RCC is sort of trying to fall under the impression of "well we always did it like this...we're just clarifying what we always believed."

                The answer is simply, no they did not always believe that. They believed something and then went further based on a misunderstanding or subtlety and sometimes a political need. (no where is that clearer than the idea of indulgences going from physical to spiritual. at least that would be the political thing) At best we have a Church which by its nature is Christian, and certainly has been able to trace its authority back to Peter via tradition, however it fell so far off the mark, and instead of apologizing and making up for her own arrogance, she has tried to cover her tracks. The Church has fallen and split into many churches. Should the RCC go back and erase what is wrong (which to some extent there seems to be a small effort) rather than try to reinvent what it has done wrong, it may yet still have a claim to "Primacy" As of now, it does not have any claim to primacy, and it will never have ANY claim to infallibility of doctrine faith and morals No one Church has that much power. No apostle had that much power. Infalliblity is indeed a dangerous claim, which belongs to our God alone. Peter made a few documented errors. So can the popes.
                Okay, this is like, what, the fourth time that you've restated that particular rant? I made a entire thread so you could tell me what problems you have with the Church, doctrine wise. All you did was make a vague assertion saying that the church declaring that masturbation in a sexual context (you never did explain what you meant by that) is a mortal sin was "going too far". I responded, and you never replied back. So far, all of your of problems just seem like arguments from incredulity.
                Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                -Thomas Aquinas

                I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                -Hernando Cortez

                What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                  So far, all of your of problems just seem like arguments from incredulity.


                  I was answering Sparko's observation regarding the "make it up as they go along" you dolt.

                  Now if you want to get into an actual one on one debate you'll have to wait until after I deliver my youngest...... And when I feel up to it as I am prepping to have major surgery.

                  Also please note that I was a very serious and studious Catholic for some time. My objections are more than "fleeting" or out of mere ignorance and gullibility.
                  A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                  George Bernard Shaw

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post


                    I was answering Sparko's observation regarding the "make it up as they go along" you dolt.

                    Now if you want to get into an actual one on one debate you'll have to wait until after I deliver my youngest...... And when I feel up to it as I am prepping to have major surgery. .
                    Ah, well, that would probably be why...

                    Anyway, I'm not really asking for a "one on one" debate, it's just that you keep making the same speeches over and over again about the church being "too arrogant to admit its errors" or something like that, without every stating any reasons why you think this, or even what you're talking about, specifically in the first place. Are you talking about papal infallibility? That masturbation concern you had before? The Immaculate Conception? What?

                    Also please note that I was a very serious and studious Catholic for some time. My objections are more than "fleeting" or out of mere ignorance and gullibility.
                    I don't remember ever saying that, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was implying that.
                    Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                    -Thomas Aquinas

                    I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                    -Hernando Cortez

                    What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                    -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Also....crap, I derailed the thread again. Why does this keep happening?
                      Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                      -Thomas Aquinas

                      I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                      -Hernando Cortez

                      What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                      -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        Hey all, thanks for the responses so far. I'm probably going to come up with some follow-up questions, but I may need to think on that some more.

                        Would someone mind describing the traditional Catholic view on Purgatory? A link would be ok, too.
                        http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm#II

                        There you go.
                        Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.

                        -Thomas Aquinas

                        I love to travel, But hate to arrive.

                        -Hernando Cortez

                        What is the good of experience if you do not reflect?

                        -Frederick 2, Holy Roman Emperor

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TimelessTheist View Post
                          Also....crap, I derailed the thread again. Why does this keep happening?
                          If you want me to answer that offhand, I'd suggest that you're reading apologetic books or learning the ropes by Tim Staples; Pat Madrid; Dwight Longenecker and Possibly Karl Keating as well as diving into some youth apologetics which are very good at answering the most common objections to Catholicism without exception from a Protestant Fundamentalist pov. All of which I've seen and heard myself at some point, none of which I've ever actually really believed. (the objections they answered) However it certainly makes for an interesting read. Your a bit over eager to jump in and find the objections and answer them, and in doing so you end up derailing the thread.
                          A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                          George Bernard Shaw

                          Comment

                          widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                          Working...
                          X