Re: Purgatory?

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:21:38 -0800, John W
<john_weatherly47<no>@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>BTW, why are you in here? 

By the way, why do you anti-archive your posts? Afraid something will
come up later to hauint you?

>>
>>This is a cross-posted thread, and I am posting only from the Catholic
>>newsgroup. I am here because this is a discussion about Purgatory, one
>>of the Doctrines of the Catholic Church. You said you can disprove the
>>Doctrine with two passages from Scripture. I am waiting to see that.
>>
>>>We have a dozen more Catholic "missionary"
>>>wannabees in here already.
>>
>>There is only one me!
>>
>>>And if you haven't learned by now, Baptists do NOT make good
>>>Catholics.
>>
>>More accurately, Batists *are* not good Catholics. One of them who
>>converted would make just as good a Catholic as anybody, and then that
>>one would make an excellent missionary to the Baptists, having known
>>what it is like to be a Baptist from the inside.
>
>You have dishonestly sidestepped my point, then reshuffled my words to
>say something not true and counter to the point i was making. 
>
>My point WAS that Baptists know the Bible to well to be fooled by your
>cult.

I did not side-step anything, contrary to your dishonest assertion. I
answered you quite clearly, and you even address the parts of my
answer below. 

Here is the answer, uncut, to refresh your memory:

"Bible readers don't make good Catholics (we know too much)" is a
crock. Bible readers make the very best Catholics. Bible reading alone
won't necessarily make you a Catholic, because the Bible, contrary to
what some like to think, is not a self-interpreting Book. The Bible,
in fact, can be used to support many different and contradictroy
notions of the truth. God designed it that way, in order to "confuse
the proud in their inmost thoughts."  And the Bible itself, finally,
contains a warning about just that. You've read it, in the Second
Epistle of Peter. right? It's right there at the end of the Epistle.

No need to address this again here, you have already addressed it
below.

>
>>
>>>We read our bibles, and I've heard since my childhood, "Bible readers
>>>don't make good Catholics (we know too much), and Catholics aren't
>>>Bible readers."
>>
>>Well it is obvious that you have been inculcated with anti-Catholic
>>prejudice since your youth.
>
>Not at all  I have studied what the Roman Catholics believe in light
>of scripture, and since we believe in the Bible's final authority, a
>teaching right from the Bible, when you deviate, which you do almost
>every pate, we reject your apostasies and heresies.

1. "The Bible's final authority" -- a.k.a. "Sola Scriptura" -- is a
man-made, extra-biblical doctrine, and a false doctrine at that, a
heresy foisted upon Protestants by one Martin Luther.

2. There is no contradiction between anything the Roman Cahtolic
Church teaches and anything written in the Holy Scriptures. In order
to present the appearance of a contradiction, Protestants invariably
have to add their own interpretations, which itself violates their own
principle of "Sola Scriptura."

>
>The Bibles was literally believed by its authors. So why would we need
>to redefine everything in Roman terms when the original meaning is
>intact and makes perfect sense.  My pastors have been the scholars of
>Christianity.
>
>All translators, all with multiple Ph Ds, Th Ds, etc.
>
> So at least I know what I'm dealing with
>>here. 
>
>You may know Catholicism; you do not know 1st Century, classical New
>Testament Christianity. 

You identify one entity by two names, here.

>I know both well enough to separate the wheat
>(Bible) from the chaff, the Roman heresies and apostasies.
>
>You are under (at least) two distinct misimpressions, and if you
>>allow me, I can help you to clear them up. 
>
>By all means.  I LOVE to learn from a more knowledgable person.

I do not promise to be that. But if God helps me, I will at least give
you food for thought.

>
>>"Bible readers don't make good Catholics (we know too much)" is a
>>crock.
>
>YOUR problem is a false sense of superiority

I don't think I'm superior to you, at all. I just know that God's
Church is supreme over the competition. The doors of His Church are
just as open to you as they are to me, or anyone.

>
> Bible readers make the very best Catholics.
>
>If you read it, why don't you obey it?

Of course the same could be asked of you by me.

>
> Bible reading alone
>>won't necessarily make you a Catholic, because the Bible, contrary to
>>what some like to think, is not a self-interpreting Book.
>
>On the contrary. I have, as a missionary and Bible student in
>seminary, left a Bible with some 50 people who expressed interest. I
>have gone back to the 50 and 45 of them had found the gospel and
>prayed to receive Christ, with no help from anyone but the Holy
>Spirit. I bet YOU a Roman Catholic have never heard of THAT
>phenomenon. 

Um, actually, I myself participated in a similar phenomenon. I was not
left on my own, but neither was I being guided at the time by any
Catholic priest. I was simply told that Jesus Christ is my personal
Lord and Savior, and it's right there in the Bible, and I should
commit my life to Him. Which, I then did. So by your standards, I am
saved, Hallelujah, Praise the Lord!

> In seminary, it was a test, a "field experiment."
>
>Once I learned this technique, I was bring 2 - 3 or more people
>forward at church to give their lives to Christ 3 Sundays a month.
>
>Can YOU claim that?

The Church can only claim 6,000 per day over a period of more than ten
years, in the case of the Azteca people. That is the most striking
example of mass conversions that I can come up with. You can find out
lots more about it here:

http://www.sancta.org/

It is interesting to note how this dwarfs the mass conversion in the
Book of Acts, which was "only" 3,000 in one day.

As I was unable to find the statistic on the above link, I researched
it some more for you, and found it here:

http://www.catholicism.org/pages/guadalupe.htm

"By 1541, just ten years after the apparitions, there were ten million
Indians who had been converted from paganism."

10,000,000 / 3650 = 2739 -- this estimate is conservative, I have read
statistics that indicate closer to what I said above. But even if
"only" ten million converted, that is still a lot of conversions!

>
>. The Bible,
>>in fact, can be used to support many different and contradictroy
>>notions of the truth. 
>
>True. However, 95 % of all non-Roman Catholics can sit down together,
>regardless of affiliation, and we'll agree on 95 % of our doctrines
>and Theology.  The oddball? The one that doesn't fit?   The Roman! [Catholic]

That would depend on which doctrines you were talking about. As to the
Lordship of Jesus Christ, for example, the rest of the Christians
would be in agreement with the Catholics. But as to the Eucharist,
Purgaory, Mary, the Papacy, it is more or less the defining
characteristic of Protestantism to reject all of these, so it is not
too surprising that you would disagree with the Catholic on these.
There are other doctrines that are controversial among the different
stripes of Protestantism, as well. 

>
>The Bible, contrary to your mis-training, is QUITE capable of speaking
>for itself, because it comes with the Holy Spirit attached. And He is
>the best teacher of all; even better than your priest!

Of course He is. But He does not lead different men into contradictory
notions of truth. He is One, and the Church is One. The Catholic
Church manifests this unity, whereas the various flavors of
Protestantism do not.

>
>God designed it that way, in order to "confuse
>>the proud in their inmost thoughts."  
>
>Meaning YOU, who thinks you have a lock, not only on Truth, but on the
>Bible, which you reject 9/10s of.

I willingly admit that I have committed sins of pride in the past, and
unless God prevents me, in the future as well. He did confuse me, in
order to convert me from my pride. But the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church are not confused, nor are they confusing, since the
God of Peace, not confusion, has revealed them.

>
>
>And the Bible itself, finally,
>>contains a warning about just that. You've read it, in the Second
>>Epistle of Peter. right? It's right there at the end of the Epistle.
>
>True. But if one takes the words LITERALLY right off the page, there
>is no "private interpretation." AGAIN, if one reads mindfully, and
>merely asks the Holy Spirit to teach us, who can improve upon the Holy
>Spirit's teaching?

Are you seriously going to attribute all the various denominations of
Protestantism to the One Holy Spirit? Obviously, men cannot agree on
the interpretation of Scripture, even when they all claim to be
relying on God the Holy Spirit. And the reason is, God did not intend
it that way. He founded a Church, One Church, and entrusted unto her
the task of leading all men to the truth.

>
>(you're in WAY over your head!  I've had my stomach filled with
>counter-RCC evangelism/training)  50 years worth. 

Must make you sick to your stomach. You have my sympathy.

>At any rate, I don't
>need to know the RCC inside and out. All I need is to know my Bible
>inside and out.  I do.

God's Holy Scipture is Infinite, as it is the Word of God Himself, Who
is Infinite. No human creature knows it "inside and out."

>
>>
>>"Catholics aren't Bible readers" is equally a crock. I am a Catholic
>>and a Bible reader, so that disproves that right there. 
>
>Ok. You win one point.  So why aren't you living the Bible? If you
>were, you could not be Roman Catholic.

There is no contradiction between anythiing written in the Bible, and
anything the Church teaches. The way to live the Bible is to practice
Catholicism!

Before I address your laundry list below, I will only reiterate that
it is the Church, not the Bible, that was given to men by God to lead
them into the fulness of the truth. The Bible, in its turn, was given
to the Church, for many reasons that God has, but one of those reasons
is to aid her in this task.

>
>Pray tell me, here is "purgatory" mentioned in the Bible?

This has already been shown to you. Here is a web site that will both
reiterate to you what you have already seen, and expand upon what has
already been presented here.

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ300.HTM

>Where is Mary worship?

Not in the Catholic Church, so why would it need to be shown in the
Bible?

>Where is "beatification?

"we shall see Him face to face."

>Where are "indulgences?

The link I gave above also convers that topic

>Where is idol worship said to be acceptable?

Not in the Catholic Church, so, not in the Bible.

>Where are "graven images" in church acceptable?

Exodus 25:18

>Where is Mary, the Mother of God?

Luke 1:43 -- for one who claims to know the Bible inside and out, you
didn't know this?

>Where is the Eternal Virgin Mary  mentioned?

Canticle of Canticles (a.k.a. Song of Songs) 6:9. 
Apocalypse (a.k.a. Revelation) 12:1

>Where is the Virgin Mary's Mother mentioned?  (Immaculate Conception)

Good, that you understand to whom the title "Immaculate Conception"
refers. Many -- even some Catholics -- erroneously think it refers to
Jesus. But Mary was not conceived without sex, only without sin. Her
mother is Saint Anne, and she is not metioned in the Bible, but of
course we know she existed.

>Where is confession to a priest?

John 20:22-23

>Where is "excommunication" mentioned?

Matthew 18:17

>Where is the pope mentioned?

Matthew 16:18-19
John 21:15-17

Come on, Mr. Bible expert -- you know all this stuff already!

>Where does God tell the church to murder all those who refuse to
>become Christians ?   (the Inquisitions, the Crusades)

Deuteronomy 20:10-18

>Where does the Bible order the Roman Church to become the richest
>organization on the planet? 

1 Timothy 5:17-18

> "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures
>on earth"

"The laborer is worth his wage."

>Jesus said, "If you will follow me, go, sell all that you have, give
>to the poor, and come after me." Why do you hoard BILIONS of dollars
>in the Roman coffers, contrary to Christ's commands?
>I find no mention of canonizing saints. Please give me the Bible
>reference for that.
>The Bible in fact says that all born again Christians are "saints", so
>when are you going to start worshipping me?

Catholics do not worship the Saints.

> I'm a saint.

Hardly. You are not even in full Communion with Christ's Church.

>The Bible says NOTHING about "apostolic succession". The one time the
>apostles tried to "replace an apostle", they elected Matthias. God
>said, "no", and He chose Paul instead. the apostles got the message
>loud and clear, and no more apostles were appointed.

Saint Timothy was/is a bishop.

>The Roman cult claims to be 1st. 

Correction: The Roman Catholic Church claims, rightly, to be the
first. The Roman Cult went out the window with Nero -- God's Church
defeated it.

>Yet there are no 1st C Roman cult
>churches. 

There are no Roman Cult Churches at all, anywhere or in any time. The
Roman Cult is emperor worship. The Roman Catholic Church is worship of
God in spirit and in truth.

>What we DO have are the churches Paul built. And I know
>they're there because I've been to one. 1st C AD church with a 1st C
>AD cornerstone.
>
>Shall I continue?

Are you seeking the truth?

>
>
>In fact, the
>>study of the Holy Scriptures is encouraged by the Church.
>
>LOL!!!  But ONLY with a priest supervising, as Cathy has already told
>us.
>
>  Pope Leo
>>XIII wrote an encyclical about it, entitled "Providentissimus Deus."
>>You can read it here:
>>http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
>>You may find it enlightening. At the very least, it may clear up some
>>misconceptions you have had about Catholic Biblical Scholarship.
>
>WHAT Catholic Biblical Scholarship?  Your scholarship is so poor you
>put the Gnostic A in the Bible!

What is your reference here?

>
>>
>>There is even a plenary indulgence attached to reading the Sacred
>>Scriptures for one-half hour. Since we're on the subject of Purgatory,
>>the subject of indulgences comes right into play. 
>
>There is no purgatory.

God's Church teaches otherwise.

>
>The ordinary
>>conditions for receiving a plenary indulgence are, the state of
>>Sanctifying Grace, the work prescribed, prayer for the intentiions of
>>the Holy Father,
>
>What Holy Father? You mean God, right?

I mean the Pope. 

>John Paul farts and pisses and sneezes and burps just like I do.

So did Jesus.

>There's nothing holy about the guy!

If you judge holiness by pissing and sneezing and burping, then Jesus
cannot have been holy either. Humna nature is human nature, and it is
not an impediment to holiness, as you seem to imagine.

However, the title "Holy Father" in reference to the Pope, refers to
the exaltation of his office rather than personal holiness. Many Popes
have been very holy men indeed, but that is not why we call the Pope
"Holy Father."

>
>And he qualifies as an anti-Christ. He's in fact, a leading candidate.

So are you Seventh-Day Adeventist now?

>
> the Sacrament of Confession, 
>
>There are no sacraments. The word does not appear in scripture. 

There are a lot of words that do not appear in Scripture. "Trinity"
comes to mind. "Sola Scriptura" and "Sola Fide" are two concepts that
are nowhere in the Scriptures.

> The
>only thing that transmits grace is the blood of Christ . "Sacraments"
>merely mean that Christ's blood is ineffectual (heresy) and you need
>something else to get you to purgatory. Heresy!

On the contrary, the Blood of Christ is itself one of the Sacraments!
And true, all the Sacraments derive their efficacy from the Sacrifice
of Calvary. Sacraments are the means Our Lord devised for the
transmission of grace.

>
>And why did you choose to steal Joseph's wife, and thus his marital
>rights? The nativity story is CLEAR that after His birth, Mary and
>Joseph began normal marital relations (sexual intercourse).

That is not written in the Scriptures, anywhere. You are making it up.

<snip>

>So, when are you going to teach me something and clear up my
>misunderstandings?

I've been. Just because you don't receive it, doesn't mean I am not
teaching it.

>you must answer each of my list of questions.

Actually I am under no oblication from anyone to answer you at all. I
choose to answer you, when I do, because others may be edified. I do
not think you are receiving anything I say, but there are others who,
possibly, are following this thread


>BTW, why can I not find ANY of your teachings in the Bible?

I don't know. Have you lost your ability to read?

> I thought
>you said you were a Christian!   ????????

You were right.

Now I have a much shorter list for you becausde frankly, long lists of
questions -- especially when you are no way prepared to receive the
answers -- are rude.

Pleae show the following concepts in the Scriptures:

1. Sola Scriptura, i.e., the Bible as the *sole* rule of Faith, to the
exclusion of Holy Tradition.

2. Sola Fide, i.e., Salvation by *faith alone,* apart from good works.