Re: Purgatory?

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 07:51:43 -0500, ":+D"
<<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:27:32 -0500, Joseph Geloso
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote the following funny stuff in Usenet
>News'Froups! :
>>
>>There is no such thing as one among many. The Church is *The* Church.
>>If you say you and I are part of that One Church, I will take you at
>>your word. But there is no *my church* vs *your church*. If we are in
>>*the* Church, we are One in the Lord.
>>
>>>
>True- THE CHURCH is CHRIST's CHURCH - NOT the Anglican, not the
>Baptist, not the Catholic, not the Methodist, Presbyterian, etc..
>which is what I've been saying all along.
>THE CHURCH is not even on this planet.

If "The Church" is not even on this planet, then we're all going to
Hell, regardless of denomination. Care to rephrase?

>At least I have not arrogantly and falsely claimed that the Baptist
>Church is the 'THE CHURCH' like you and others have claimed that the
>roman religion is 'THE CHURCH'.

I say nothing about the Emperor worship of pagan Rome. I correctly
assert that the One Church subsists in the Roman Catholic Church and
in no others. 

>As BELIEVERS IN CHRIST, we are united- NOT in denominational
>doctrines, practices, or traditions.
>Therefore, as fellow BELIEVERS, yes, you and I are in HIS family. BUT-
>that does NOR make me a Roman Catholic any more than it makes you a
>Baptist.

I never said you were Roman Catholic. I sad you were Christian.

>We are a TOTALLY different faith from rc'ism. TOTALLY.

I doubt that. If you were *totally* different, you would be the
"Church of Satan" or something like it. Even they are just an inverted
copy. Do you read the Bible? Do you pray? Are your members baptized?
These are three things you have in common with the Roman Catholic
religion, so you're not *totally* different, after all.

>
>Your comment :
>'And if the Baptist religion were to disappear from the face of the
>Earth, God's Church -- the Catholic Church -- would yet remain.'
>bespeaks NOTHING BUT ARROGANCE and false pride.

How is it arrogant to speak the truth? Just because you don't like
it...?

>Becasue on the last day, if not before then, your catholic
>denomination WILL be torn asunder.

Not according to the Promise of Christ, it won't. He promised the
gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church. That means, in
case you didn't catch it, that the Churc is still on Earth today,
contbrary to your asserion that "THE CHURCH is not even on this
planet."

>>
>>>You're talking through your hat.
>>> The roman religion is NOT the Church fouinded by Christ, and it will
>>>be overturned.
>>
>>It will be overturned? When? Hasn't happened in 2000 years, yet.
>>
>you're not 2000 years old, either. You were not THE CHURCH founded by
>our Lord Jesus Christ.

When did the break in continuity take place? Can you point to a date?

>Joe, I have no time, nor the inclination to repeatedly ARGUE with you.

Then don't.

>Let's just say I will continue to disagree on your view of 'THE
>CHURCH' and leave it at that.

That is your own stubbornness and, yes, arrogance of pride.

>
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! 'properly baptized'???? I most certainly WAS properly baptized,
>>>>>by immersion, as our Lord Himself was also baptized, according to the
>>>>>Bible.
>>>>
>>>>Were you baptized "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the
>>>>Holy Spirit," according to the Commmand of Christ? To be baptized with
>>>>the Baptism of John is not the same thing, and the Scripture attests
>>>>to that fact also.
>>>>
>>>I most certainly WAS, thank you.
>>
>>Good. Then you really are a member of Christ's Body, the Church.
>
>I KNEW ALL ALONG that I am a member of HIS CHURCH.  Why do you
>question this?

Because not all Protestants use the true formula. It was a legitimate
question.

>
>>>And properly by IMMERSION, not merely sprinkling a few drops of water!
>>
>>Pouring is far more common than sprinkling actually. Immersion is the
>>way Our Lord was baptized by John, no doubt. But what is required for
>>the validity of the Sacrament is natural water, and the Trinitarian
>>Formula. So you were really baptized -- a Sacrament of the New Law,
>>which confers grace. You were made the daughter of the Living God, and
>>heir to the Kingdom of God. All your previous sins were washed away,
>>along with all debt of punishment for sin, in that one instant when
>>you were baptized. You were made literally a New Creature in Christ.
>>You received the Gift of the Holy Spirit, and there is imprinted upon
>>your soul, an indelible mark, the Mark of Christ. You belong to Him.
>>
>>
>I already know I belong to Him. But it still DOES NOT 'make me a Roman
>Catholic'. 

I never said it did. I said it made you a member of His One Church,
and there is only one.

> I AM a Baptist Christian.

Got it. I am a Catholic Christian. Not a "Romanist."

>
>>>As for my baptism, I was baptized into CHRIST's Church, not the
>>>romanist one.
>>
>>I am no Romanist. I am Catholic.
>
>You follow a pope; therefore, you ARE roman catholic, or romanist.

The terms are not interchangeable. I am Roman Catholic, or Catholic.
"Romanist" is an insulting term devised by Protestants.


>> Since there is only one Church, we
>>were both baptized into the same One Church. Henceforth no longer say
>>my religion was not founded by Christ. My religion is Christianity.
>
>Fine- SO IS MINE.

Good. That's progress towards understanding each other. Do you
recognize that?

>Henceforth, no longer say the Baptist faith is 'not a church', 

It is not.

>as I
>have been baptized into HIS FAMILY of BELIEVERS.. My religion is
>Christianity.

That's true, and thus every Baptist who has been properly baptized
(and it is not clear that all have been) is a member of the One Church
of Jesus Christ.

>
>> It was founded by Christ. 

>Your DENOMINATION WAS NOT - neither was mine.
>HIS CHURCH WAS.

How can I say this without sounding arrogant? The Roman Catholic
Church has a traceable lineage all the way back to the Apostles. Your
Baptist community does not. Jesus Christ founded one Church, and
promised the Gates of Hell would never prevail. Thus, contrary to what
you have been asserting, that One Church must still be on Earth. The
gate of entrance into that One Church is Baptism, thus we are both
members of the One Church. But Jesus Christ prayed to His Father "that
they all be one." The Infant Church was visibly one, as the Holy
Scriptures bear witness. Over the course of centuries, many groups
splintered off from her unity but they did not, by doing so, make that
unity disappear. That unity still exists among Catholics. 

>>We each practice Christianity in our different
>>ways. But Christ willed for His Church to be One. And God the Father
>>always answers the prayers of God the Son. So it stands to reason that
>>God's Church is already One, and cannot either be divided. You
>>Baptists ought to be worshipping with us, not denouncing our worship
>>as false. 

>I love this 'you Baptists' bit.
>
>Why would we worship with followers of the romish religion? We are
>BAPTIST.

I love this "romish religion" bit -- not.

No apology for creative snippage here:

>Baptists do NOT 

> ... useless 
> ... fondle
> ... useless
> ... fable
> ... tall tale

When have I insulted your community by accusations such as these?
You're still manifestly prejudiced against the Church. I don't know if
it is possible for you to make any further progress in understanding,
with the attitude you have.

>So WHY in the world do you imagine Baptist should be worshiping with
>your denomination? 

There should be no man-made denominations at all. We should all be
one, as Christ asked His Father in prayer. The simple fact that the
Father *always* hears the prayers of His Son, ought to tell you
something, but maybe not something you're willing to hear.

>If we did, that would make us Roman Catholics. 

Exactly.

>We
>ARE NOT RC's. We ARE Baptist Christians.

But that's not God's fault.

>
>>>>Do you believe in One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church?
>>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>>The Roman Catholic religion is not the one and only, and it's obvious
>>>from studying its history, it's FAR FROM holy....
>>>
>>>remainder of coercive comments ignored.
>>
>>Look, it is easy for us to be nice to each other. We both love God.
>>But here we are on our respective religion newsgroups. I did not go
>>out looking for you and you did not go out looking for me. But we both
>>got interested in this thread about Purgatory. Now Purgatory is known
>>to both of us as Catholic Doctrine. The first post I see from you on
>>this thread was a series of five sentences
>>
>>Since I did not address these then, I will do so now.
>>
>>>The place roman catholics call 'purgatory' does not exist.
>>
>>That is a bare assertion. Your thesis, if you will.
>>
>Has long ago been posted..... there is NO mention of any such place in
>the Bible. I believe the BIBLE ..... not mere heresay.

But the Bible says to believe the Church, which you refuse to do.

>
>>>The BIBLE does NOT support it either.
>>
>>It would have been more proper for you to simply say, "The Bible does
>>not support it." That would be you bringing forth evidence in support
>>of your thesis. Adding the word "either" implies your thesis as a
>>priori, which is not valid for the sake of argument unless you are in
>>fact an authority.
>>
>I said nothing about 'being an authority' either....

But you implied it by using the word "either."

>
>>>The Bible clearly states that it is appointed for man to die once,
>>>then face judgement.
>>
>>That is true.
>>
>>>No mention of purgy there.
>>
>>That is also true.
>>
>So--- your argument is futile, correct?

Keep reading. My assertion is that *your* argument is not valid.


>>>The doctrine of 'purgatory' is a man-made doctrine, just as the fable
>>>they call 'transubstantiation' is.
>>
>>If that is the conclusion, it does not follow from the premises. 

The conclusion does not follow from the premises. You can see that,
right? I am trying to help you here, to construct valid, logical
syllogisms.

>You
>>were going along fine until you got to here. There is something
>>missing in your argument. The fact that one verse of the Bible does
>>not mention Purgatory does not lead to the conclusion that the
>>doctrine is man-made. And the stab about transsubstantiation can
>>safely be discarded, as that is a different subject altogether.
>>
>It was no 'stab' - it's FACT. 

It does not support your thesis, and as this is a thread regarding
Purgatory, it is out of place here. If you want to start up a new
thread about transsubstantiation, I'll gladly show you your errors
about that Doctrine, as well. But not here. Let's stick to the
subject.

>Transubby was brought into the game 

You think this is a game?

>by
>pope 'innocent' IIIrd - who was FAR FROM innocent in his life.

"Innocent" is a name.

>Many innocent people were tortured and burned to death at the stake
>for refusing to believe his lie.

Hearsay.

>>But you and I are in agreement as to certain facts. One that the Bible
>>is an authority, in the sense that you appealed to authority in this
>>sentence:
>>>The BIBLE does NOT support it either.
>>The only flaw here is, as pointed out, you are presenting it as if you
>>have two authorities that are in agreement, both you AND the Bible not
>>supporting the doctrine of Purgatory. You are not an authority. 
>
>Like I SAID - I never claimed I was any 'authority'.

But you implied it, as I've pointed out. Just trying to help you
improve your debating skills, is all. If you want to play this game,
you play by the rules, or else people dismiss you as a crock. I'm
trying to help you to be heard more often and dismissed less.

Another thing you might want to try is to keep your emotions in check
when engaging in a logical discussion. No one is impressed by emotion,
here, and emotion, to the point, does not substantiate argument.

>But I DO KNOW the Bible, thank you.
>
>>But the Bible is an authority that we both recognize. So that is progress
>>towards understanding each other.
>>
>I have understood you pretty well all along, Joe. The problem is, you
>are still trying. covertly, yes, but still TRYING to convince me that
>I am supposedly a roman catholic when I AM NOT.

No, I'm not. I am still trying, overtly, to get you to see the flaws
in your arguments against Purgatory. Beyond that, I make no bones
about that my final aim is your conversion to Catholicism. If you fear
that might happen, I think you should face that fear and continue on
anyway. If you do not fear that at all, then stop pretending you have
clevery seen through my motives. There is nothing to see through. My
motives are crystal clear. I want you to convert to Catholicism, and
you are not there, yet.

>That means you are still prosyletizing in this BAPTIST faith's
>newsgroup.

We have already established that we are both answering a cross-posted
thread. I don't read the Baptist newsgroup, at all. If you remove the
roman-catholic group from the list, I will not see anything you post.
And if I remove the baptist group, the same will apply in reverse.
True?

>You are trying to use mind control tactics in desperately trying to
>make me think I'm really a roman catholic when I KNOW I am not.

That is absurd. I know no mind-control tactics beyond what I exercise
on myself in order to develop self-control, and they work, and they
are not sinister. I am 
1. not trying to control your mind at all. You are free.
2. not trying to make you think you're really Catholic already. You
are not.

What I stated, and what I still state, is that we are both baptized
into One Church, and I also state that that one Church subsists in the
Roman Catholic Church. While you are a member of the One Church, you
are not -- yet -- Roman Catholic. You, and those in your faith
community, are separated brethren, imperfectly but truly united to us.

>Please refrain from using such tactics with me, sir. Others have tried
>brainwashing me, and I'm a tough one to try that crap with. I don't
>brainwash well, believe me.

<sigh> No one is trying to "brainwash" you, and Catholics are not
"brainwashed." You sound just like someone who hasn't been conversing
with a Catholic here on these newsgroups for the past several weeks.
You sound, here, like someone who has not made even one iota of
progress towards a mutual understanding. Is that truly the case, or
are you just regressing to a prior state temporarily?

>
>>It is a point worth making, that you are not an authority that anyone
>>should have to recognize. Neither am I such an authority. 
>
>LIKE I SAID, I never, ever have claimed to BE an authority. WHEN will
>you memorize this?

I beg to differ. Everything you have been saying presents you as an
authority. You do not defer to the Church, at all. You may not have
made the claim, and you may deny it when it is presented to you so
clearly, but the fact is, the Church -- my Church, if you like -- has
an authority structure that I do defer to. So does the Baptist
community, but I have never seen you reference it, at all. You have a
pastor, do you not?


>>We are each
>>just human beings, trying to sort things out for ourselves in ways
>>that make sense to us each individually. Part of my understanding of
>>God's Church says that there ought to be, there has to be, some way
>>that will make sense to us both, together, in God's Church. So that is
>>what I am striving for, with you. Are you game?
>
>Game? You're making this into a bet of some sort?

No. Just talking like a human. I have no money riding on this with
anyone. I have no stake in it, other than you. My question is, are you
open to pursuing the possibility of arriving at a mutual understanding
with me about these things?

>I don't play games when it comes to Christianity.

Sure you do. You play word games: "transsubby," "purgy," "romish,"
romanist," "romanism," etc...
You play logic games:
>The Bible clearly states that it is appointed for man to die once,
>then face judgement.
>
>No mention of purgy there.
>
>The doctrine of 'purgatory' is a man-made doctrine, just as the fable
>they call 'transubstantiation' is.
(invalid syllogism)

I'm trying to get you to shed some of your illusions when it comes to
Christianity. I'm trying to get you to play less games than you do,
when it comes to Christianity. Are you up to it? Do you have what it
takes to pursue this with me?

>
>As for discussing POV's, I'm willing to discuss many things. I am NOT
>willing to tolerate being told I am 'rc' when I am NOT.

No one ever said so.

>Leave roman catholicism out of our discussions, and I'll be happy.

How will that be possible? How is it possible to discuss Christianity
while leaving the Roman Catholic Church clean out of the discussion,
*especially* when the one you are discussing it with is a Catholic? I
will bet that your Baptists pastors do not even leave the Roman
Catholic Church out of their sermons. I will bet that they constantly
reinforce in you the idea that the Roman Catholic Church is not *the*
Church. By contrast, the Baptist communities are not the focus of what
we Catholics hear in homilies. The Baptists are barely mentioned. I
doubt you can say the same thing about your community regarding
Catholics. That much appears obvious in everything you say here.