Replies

Just so you know- I originally caucused this thread to avoid any continued rancor between Catholic/Protestant. After the spirited Purgatory conversation- it was obvious a few Catholics didnt understand the Church's teaching on this Purification doctrine- or even its lack of explicitness in the Catechism of the Church.
The purpose was to share with those Catholics- who were interested enough to read it - to learn more of their faith. That it was a lengthy read- was intentional, not an accident... those not interested in spending the time- shouldn't. As your lengthy 4 page posts of decoding biblical passages and all - albeit meaningful to you - are not read by uninterested readers either.

Had I realized the word "Protestant" disqualified the ability to caucus the thread- I would have deleted it- The author - a Professor of extensive life long Biblical Scholarship- is a convert- and he used his personal witness to explain the Faith- BUT IT IN NO WAY DID HE REFER TO HIS PROTESTANT UPBRINGING TO DENIGRATE or ATTACK the many Protestant faiths out there. As a treasured CONVERT to the Church- HE DOES NOT DO THAT... now there are some Converts who tend to be more vocal toward the anti-Catholicism spirit they came from- NOT this man- NOt Scott Hahn - he is very respectful of his past faith life and is NOT antagonistic. I've never heard him say ONe negative word against his ppast. He credits his life today, from what he has learned previous.

That you disagree with him - and that he is wrong and you are right- WAS NEITHER SURPRISING OR DESIRED TO BE SOLICITED....
it wasn't meant for you to read- or to scandalize you -or for you to rebut- you have plenty of opportunity for that... and to repeat- it was originally caucused.

"Just so you know- I originally caucused this thread to avoid any continued rancor between Catholic/Protestant."

And just so you now know- you cannot use the caucus lapel to avoid Protestant refutation while you implicitly impugn them.

"The purpose was to share with those Catholics- who were interested enough to read it -"

Which means about 4 RCs responded.

"As your lengthy 4 page posts of decoding biblical passages and all - albeit meaningful to you - are not read by uninterested readers either. "

Posts, plural in response, not one 12,000 word page of prolix propaganda

" he used his personal witness to explain the Faith- BUT IT IN NO WAY DID HE REFER TO HIS PROTESTANT UPBRINGING TO DENIGRATE or ATTACK the many Protestant faiths out there."

Just being a convert from it itself impugns whatever is under that big tent.

"NOt Scott Hahn - he is very respectful of his past faith life and is NOT antagonistic"

He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad. (Matthew 12:30) Hahn promotes distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). And thus attacks evangelical faith.

"That you disagree with him - and that he is wrong and you are right- WAS NEITHER SURPRISING OR DESIRED TO BE SOLICITED...."

I did not even mention Hahn to cite his article but post refutation of the doctrine and arguments for it.

Had I realized the word "Protestant" disqualified the ability to caucus the thread- I would have deleted it-

I don’t believe that altering or “editing” an article to evade RF guidelines is an acceptable practice because the link to which people go still mentions it.

Also, it’s not just Protestants being mentioned. It’s any other religion as well and Jews are also mentioned in this article..

If you are that unfamiliar with the RF guidelines, then you can go to the RM’s homepage. They are all posted there.