Catholics

[aa118816]

I was a Catholic for many years and here are the problems with the RCC:

1. They believe that Mary was born of a virgin. This is false.
2. They believe that you cannot know that you are saved until you are in heaven.
3. They believe that you must have good works plus faith to gain heaven. This is false. As always, the cite James...which is false if you just read a few more lines down. They also talk of the works of Moses as being a proof for works-which completely misunderstands Moses' life and his punishment for losing faith!
4. In Vatican II, they did infer that non-Roman Catholics including Muslims can go to heaven once they land in purgatory and get their sins cleansed. This is a commonly held notion in the RC Church.
5. The Roman Catholic Church believes that Peter was appointed Pope, which is false and they believe that the world would not have the Bible without them because they wrote it.
6. Like the Pharisses, they believe that their interpretation of the Bible and Oral law creates the Scripture. This is false After Revelation, the Canon was closed and please do not add to my words as John stated.
7. They also believe that communion becomes the literal body of Christ-which is bizarre. I debated a RC apologist and showed him how the seder was exposed during the crucifiction...he had no historical knowledge of this, which is so basic.

For a great debate which clearly shows the issues well spelled out, go to Ankerberg and order Mitch Packwa vs Walter Martin. Packwa seems like a really great guy, but he was badly crushed in this debate.

Dan

[Byblos]

The biggest issues with Catholicism are the false teachings of Indulgences and Purgatory. These are NOT in the Bible, and are another gospel.

I beg to differ:

Explaining Purgatory

by Jon Jakoblich

God Himself tells us that nothing imperfect can enter Heaven (Cf. Revelation 21:27). Only the very good immediately enter Heaven and the very bad desrve Hell. Seeing as how, when we die, many of us will not fit in either of those two extreme ategories we must fit somewhere else; somewhere in the middle; this place is called Purgatory.

You see, the majority of people are neither so free from sin as to merit immediate entrance into Heaven, nor so bad as to be punished forever in Hell.

Let us compare human justice with that of divine justice. They are both somewhat similar because our human justice system is modeled after the divine justice system. Without the divine justice system we could have no human justice system.

Human justice recognizes big criminals and little criminals and punishes them accordingly. It has a jail to punish criminals for one, ten, or thirty days, and a penitentiary where it punishes many for several years to lifetimes. For instance, say in your community two men are arrested, one for speeding and one for murder; both are tried and sentenced to the penitentiary for life.

Do you consider that justice when one who speeds commits a lesser crime than the other yet gets the same punishment as the murderer?

If you deny Purgatory, then you are accusing God of dealing unjustly with His disobedient creatures.

Purgatory is the place where those who die with small sin(s) unatoned are punished for an amount of time appropriate to the amount and severity of the sin(s) as deemed by God. It is the final purification. Those who make it to Purgatory, die in the state of grace. They are the friends of God, who before death, were guilty of venial sin(s) or they failed to do sufficient penance for sins already forgiven.

The Catechism describes it as a process and not a place of purification after death for the saved. To claim that you are assured of your salvation and entrance into Heaven because you simply believe in Jesus is blasphemy. For if that were true you would have to be as perfect as God and Jesus which no human is capable of (which we, however, are to strive for). You would have to not have the ability to sin.
Are we all sinners? You bet we are.

Anyone with the least bit of reason must see the necessity of Purgatory especially if they had removed the mists of prejudice form their mental vision.

At heart every Christian believes in Purgatory, no matter how vehemently they might denounce it by word. This is evident from the prayers they say almost unconsciously for their deceased friends and relatives. There is scarcely a Christain funeral without prayer; it is a case of actions speaking louder than words.

If there is no such thing as Purgatory then what is the point of prayer for the dead? If a soul is in Heaven it does not need to be prayed for; if it is in Hell, prayer cannot help it.

A common charge against purgatory is that God does not have us atone, or make-up for, our sins against Him therefore there is no need for purgatory.

This is simply untrue that sins do not need to be atoned. We refer to a story in the Old Testament of when David repented of his sin, but God sent the prophet Nathan to give him a message stating, "The LORD on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (Cf. 2 Samuel 12:13-14).

Forgiving the guilt of sin and purifying the spiritual scar which that disease of the soul leaves by expiation of sacrifice is better than leaving the soul in an imperfect state and forever indebted to God's justice. Any one of us could truly forgive a friend for committing an offense and still expect that the friend makes good the damages.
Where is Purgatory in the Bible?

The Bible does not mention the exact word "purgatory," but instead it makes reference to a place. To claim that it does not exist because of this is a cop out.

You might as well even deny that there is a book called the Bible because no such name is found in the inspired writings.

You also might as well deny the Trinity, Incarnation, etc... because these words are not found in the Bible.

The name does not make the place; the place must exist first, then we give it a name. We call this place "purgatory" because it means "a cleansing place." Therein souls are purged from the small stains of sin, which prevent their immediate entrance into Heaven.

The first mention of Purgatory in the Bible is in 2 Maccabees 12:46: "Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from sin."

Granted 2 Maccabees may not be in Protestant Bibles, but even if it cannot be used doctrinally then it at least has to have some historical worth. In it we can see what the pre-Christian community believed.

In Chapter 12 we can see Scriptural proof for Purgatory and evidence that the Jews had sacrifices offered for those of their brothers who had lost their lives in battle. That the Jews prayed for the dead shows that they believed in a place where they could be helped (now called Purgatory) and that the prayers of their living brothers and sisters could help them in that place.

These words in the book of Maccabees had so clearly favored the Catholic custom, that the whole book was removed from the Protestant Bible. Unfortunately for them, even if the book was not inspired, it still tells us of the practice of God's chosen people.

In Matthew 5:26 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. "Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Matthew 12:32 says, "And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

The same person as in the previously mentioned verse, Matthew, speaks of sin against the Holy Spirit. The implication is that some sins can be forgiven in the world to come. But not in Hell from which there is no liberation; nor in Heaven because nothing imperfect can enter it as we see in the next part. Any remission of sin cannot occur in either of these places because they are a final destination unlike purgatory.

Revelation 21:27: "...but nothing unclean will enter it, nor anyone who does abominable things or tells lies." The place that is to be entered (the place to which this passage refers) is heaven (read the stuff around it for context).

The Bible clearly implies a place for temporary punishment after we die in the many passages which tell that God will reward or punish according to man's works.

Say that there is no such thing as Purgatory. What becomes of us? The Bible declares that nothing impurified can enter Heaven, but yet a careless word can defile the soul (Matthew 12:36); if there is no place of temporary punishment, the one guilty would be damned to Hell!

Who would be saved? Those who teach against purgatory teach an unreasonable doctrine.

So, why do non-Catholics reject a teaching so full of consolation? My guess is that they want to believe that the merits of Christ applied to the sinner who trusts in Him, will remove all sin; hence the believer will go at once to Heaven (also known as the belief called Sola Fide or faith alone).

Nowhere in the Bible dos it say faith alone. This is un-Scriptural, since Christ tells us that to enter into life we must keep the commandments, hear the Church, do the will of His Father and much more with faith. Yes, actions plus faith.

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/life_in_c ... purgatory/

Primer on Indulgences


Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation. They also want to remove stumbling blocks that prevent non-Catholics from taking a positive view of the Church. As admirable as these motives are, the claim that indulgences are not part of Church teaching today is false.

This is proved by the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and 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 punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

Indulgences are part of the Church's infallible teaching. This means that no Catholic is at liberty to disbelieve in them. The Council of Trent stated that it "condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them"(Trent, session 25, Decree on Indulgences). Trent's anathema places indulgences in the realm of infallibly defined teaching.

The pious use of indulgences dates back into the early days of the Church, and the principles underlying indulgences extend back into the Bible itself. Catholics who are uncomfortable with indulgences do not realize how biblical they are. The principles behind indulgences are as clear in Scripture as those behind more familiar doctrines, such as the Trinity.

Before looking at those principles more closely, we should define indulgences. In his apostolic constitution on indulgences, Pope Paul VI said: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church's help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints" (Indulgentiarum Doctrina 1).

This technical definition can be phrased more simply as, "An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." To understand this definition, we need to look at the biblical principles behind indulgences.



Principle 1: Sin Results in Guilt and Punishment


When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment. Scripture speaks of the former when it pictures guilt as clinging to our souls, making them discolored and unclean before God: "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool" (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (cf. Ps. 51:4, 9).

We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin: "I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless" (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Eccl. 12:14).



Principle 2: Punishments are Both Temporal and Eternal


The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: "To the woman he said, 'I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).



Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven


When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, 'I have sinned against the Lord.' Nathan answered David: 'The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die'" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone's car, you have to give it back; it isn't enough just to repent. God's forgiveness (and man's!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).



Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others


In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city's temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).



Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church


God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God's discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one's sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ's ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.



Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christians


From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person's loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner's Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one's purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord's battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ's sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don't understand 'expiation' very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God's eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can't make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another's reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Primer_ ... gences.asp

[puritan lad]

None of the scriptures used in these articles even hint at an idea of "temporal punishment", at least outside of this life.

This is simply untrue that sins do not need to be atoned. We refer to a story in the Old Testament of when David repented of his sin, but God sent the prophet Nathan to give him a message stating, "The LORD on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (Cf. 2 Samuel 12:13-14).

What does punishment for sin in this lifetime have to do with Purgatory? Was David in Purgatory, a place for "temporal punishment"?

In Matthew 5:26 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. "Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Again, what does this have to do with Purgatory (or even Heaven and Hell for that matter)? All Jesus says here is to pay back money when you borrow it, a lesson many people who use credit cards need to learn today.

Indulgences and Purgatory are another gospel, and such teaching is to be "anathema".

[Byblos]

None of the scriptures used in these articles even hint at an idea of "temporal punishment", at least outside of this life.

This is simply untrue that sins do not need to be atoned. We refer to a story in the Old Testament of when David repented of his sin, but God sent the prophet Nathan to give him a message stating, "The LORD on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the LORD by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." (Cf. 2 Samuel 12:13-14).

What does punishment for sin in this lifetime have to do with Purgatory? Was David in Purgatory, a place for "temporal punishment"?

In Matthew 5:26 Christ is condemning sin and speaks of liberation only after expiation. "Amen, I say to you, you will not be released until you have paid the last penny." Now we know that no last penny needs to be paid in Heaven and from Hell there is no liberation at all; hence the reference must apply to a third place.

Again, what does this have to do with Purgatory (or even Heaven and Hell for that matter)? All Jesus says here is to pay back money when you borrow it, a lesson many people who use credit cards need to learn today.

Indulgences and Purgatory are another gospel, and such teaching is to be "anathema".

With all due respect, that's a matter of subjective interpretation, nothing more.

[Fortigurn]

I note in that article on purgatory the typically deceptive manner in which the quote from the Maccabees is carefully misquoted.

It is taken out of context, and selectively quoted, in order to make it appear that the forgiveness being sought for was on account of some reward in heaven, in order to get the men out of purgatory.

This is utterly false. On the contrary, it was to secure their salvation at the resurrection of the dead:

2 Maccbees 12:
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.


45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Not only is it made clear that the purpose of the sacrifice was to benefit the men on their resurrection (when they would face judgment), but it is also clear that as far as they were concerned there was no other reason to pray for them in this way.

[Byblos]

I note in that article on purgatory the typically deceptive manner in which the quote from the Maccabees is carefully misquoted.

It is taken out of context, and selectively quoted, in order to make it appear that the forgiveness being sought for was on account of some reward in heaven, in order to get the men out of purgatory.

This is utterly false. On the contrary, it was to secure their salvation at the resurrection of the dead:

2 Maccbees 12:
42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen.

43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead.


45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

Not only is it made clear that the purpose of the sacrifice was to benefit the men on their resurrection (when they would face judgment), but it is also clear that as far as they were concerned there was no other reason to pray for them in this way.

Once again, I have to strongly disagree with you. Sorry Fortigurn, you are the one who's being deceptive and misleading. You take the part that mentions resurrection and you turn it into the main idea; that is simply not the case. The parts you highlighted and exploded in size most certainly do not clearly show that the purpose of the sacrifice was to benefit them on their resurrection. The only reason resurrection is mentioned here is to emphasize the fact that the prayers would have been useless had it not been for the knowledge that they will eventually be resurrected. It does not in any way shape or form imply that the prayers were due at the resurrection and not now.

The most misleading part about your post is the fact that you neglected to highlight and explode the last part which clearly shows that praying for the dead is beneficial:

45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

[bizzt]

45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

That sounds like to me what Jesus Did for us. If Jesus Delivered us from our Sin then why is there Purgatory?

[aa118816]

Protestants did not cut the book of Maccabees out of the Bible. That is false. The Catholic Church added the book. The book is not included in the Jewish OT Canon because it was not considered to be inspired. Also, your point is completely meaningless because this happened before Jesus came to save people from their sins. Incomplete Jews today do not accept that anyone other than God can forgive sins-which is why they reject Jesus, because they do not think he was God. This is why the said that he was a demon.

I wish there were a place like purgatory...to me, it is just a sales tool to get people to kick money inot the pew and give people wiggle room for a leading a more sinful life than that eaverage person. I live in Catholic central and I commonly hear people say, well, he was not all that religious, so we have to pray for him in purgatory. This is a lie from the devil to capture souls. You either accept Christ or you go to Hell. It is really a very simple formula that is very clearly laid out in the NT and in fact the OT.

Dan

[aa118816]

Man Made ideas like purgatory and indulgences lead to a lazy Christian life and dramatically reduces evangelism.

Dan

[Fortigurn]

Once again, I have to strongly disagree with you. Sorry Fortigurn, you are the one who's being deceptive and misleading. You take the part that mentions resurrection and you turn it into the main idea; that is simply not the case. The parts you highlighted and exploded in size most certainly do not clearly show that the purpose of the sacrifice was to benefit them on their resurrection.

That is one of the most astonishingly desparate efforts I have ever seen from a Catholic apologist. The text says this:

43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

Why did he do it? On account of the resurrection. You claim that he did it 'taking account of purgatory', which is nowhere referred to, and you then claim that 'taking account of the resurrection' does not mean 'taking account of the resurrection'.

The only reason resurrection is mentioned here is to emphasize the fact that the prayers would have been useless had it not been for the knowledge that they will eventually be resurrected.

No, you have it backwards. The point is made that if there was no resurrection, it would have been useless to offer the prayers.

It does not in any way shape or form imply that the prayers were due at the resurrection and not now.

It says 'taking account of the resurrection'. It seems the readers aren't convinced by your claim that it doesn't say this.

The most misleading part about your post is the fact that you neglected to highlight and explode the last part which clearly shows that praying for the dead is beneficial:

45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.

I didn't highlight that because I was pointing out the part which had been omitted from the text (carefully cut out, as Catholics always do when they present this passage).

Certainly it presents the false idea that atonement can be made for the dead (like the Mormons believe). But this idea is found nowhere in Scripture, so I reject it.

Do you have any other 'support' for purgatory, or is that it?

[Byblos]

That sounds like to me what Jesus Did for us. If Jesus Delivered us from our Sin then why is there Purgatory?

Obviously there are deep disagreements between us, one being the issue of salvation by faith alone or by both faith and works. Before I can answer your question in any detail, however, let me ask you a question. What is judgement in your view? Who will be judged and based on what?

[Byblos]

Man Made ideas like purgatory and indulgences lead to a lazy Christian life and dramatically reduces evangelism.

Dan

I've seen the exact opposite. I've seen a flourishing Christian life among Catholics and a 10 fold increase in preaching the bible since Pope John Paul II was elected, particularly among the youth.

[Byblos]

Once again, I have to strongly disagree with you. Sorry Fortigurn, you are the one who's being deceptive and misleading. You take the part that mentions resurrection and you turn it into the main idea; that is simply not the case. The parts you highlighted and exploded in size most certainly do not clearly show that the purpose of the sacrifice was to benefit them on their resurrection.

That is one of the most astonishingly desparate efforts I have ever seen from a Catholic apologist.

Please get off your high holy horse. I simply do not read it the way you do.

The text says this:

43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection.

Why did he do it? On account of the resurrection. You claim that he did it 'taking account of purgatory', which is nowhere referred to, and you then claim that 'taking account of the resurrection' does not mean 'taking account of the resurrection'.

Typical Fortigurn argument, putting words in people's mouths. Where did I say 'taking account of purgatory'. I agree with you he said 'taking account of the resurrection'. I do not agree with you that that means he meant the prayers will be for their benefit at their resurrection. The text simply does not mean that. All it means is that because he knew they will eventually be resurrected, it is worth praying for them now. Period. You are reading too much into the text.

The only reason resurrection is mentioned here is to emphasize the fact that the prayers would have been useless had it not been for the knowledge that they will eventually be resurrected.

No, you have it backwards. The point is made that if there was no resurrection, it would have been useless to offer the prayers.

I most certainly do not have it backwords. And yes, I agree if there was no resurrection the prayers are useless. Yet again, what I disagree with is what you are interjecting into the text, which is the benefit of the prayers will be at resurrection. The text does not say that.

It does not in any way shape or form imply that the prayers were due at the resurrection and not now.

It says 'taking account of the resurrection'. It seems the readers aren't convinced by your claim that it doesn't say this.

Again, I'm not arguing that it didn't say that. I'm arguing what he meant when he said it, which is simply that he's praying for them because he believes one day they will be resurrected. Not that his prayers now will benefit them at their resurrection. The readers might be convinced because none of them believe in purgatory so I'm not surprised they might agree with you (not that there's anything wrong with that).

In any case, this thread has taken on many different lives except the one it was intended. My initial intention was really not to debate Catholicism but to offer glimpses to well-meaning questioners seeking to shed some light on misunderstood practices, even if they deeply disagree with them. I sincerely hope I accomplished that and if not, I'll keep trying.

[aa118816]

JP was an energetic pope who did help get Catholics back to reading the Bible. In fact, that started happening after Vatican 2 when the Mass started being said in the local vernacular. A huge sin of the Catholic hierarchy was to keep the Bible out of people's hands and telling them that only the "Church" could tell them exactly what it said. That rings true of Islam, not true Christianity. Also, please do not go down the path of works or faith because it is very clearly faith and works earn you rewards once you are initiated into heaven through your faith. I recommend that if you do want to go down that path to start a new thread. It is impossible to argue for works to justify you because it is completely anti-Biblical. There are different levels of rewards in heaven, but you can only get into heaven through the work on the cross alone.

Dan

[Byblos]

JP was an energetic pope who did help get Catholics back to reading the Bible. In fact, that started happening after Vatican 2 when the Mass started being said in the local vernacular. A huge sin of the Catholic hierarchy was to keep the Bible out of people's hands and telling them that only the "Church" could tell them exactly what it said. That rings true of Islam, not true Christianity.

Totally agree with you. Lord knows the church's history is fraught with mistakes. That is to be expected from such an old and large organization. But I think the church has come a long way in rectifying those mistakes.

Also, please do not go down the path of works or faith because it is very clearly faith and works earn you rewards once you are initiated into heaven through your faith. I recommend that if you do want to go down that path to start a new thread. It is impossible to argue for works to justify you because it is completely anti-Biblical. There are different levels of rewards in heaven, but you can only get into heaven through the work on the cross alone.

Dan

I did not even state my case and you're already attacking it. You might be surprised as to what my position is but you are correct, that belongs in a different thread. However, I was asked certain questions and in order for me to provide a proper answer, I need to know what the position of the other person is vis-a-vis judgement, that is all.