Posted on 03/13/2019 6:40:19 AM PDT by Antoninus
And yet you are outsourcing your mind to a man you never met, who lived long ago, who wasn't authoritative and has no proof of what he claimed.
Have you considered instead obeying Christ and "loving God with all your mind...?"
Yes, to be specific, my understanding of Sacred Scripture in this instance is correct and Greg's is wrong. Therefore, I suggest you call me AMPU the Great from this time on.
Ha! Love it. You believe I'm mistaken, but have no evidence.
As with prayers for the dead by pagans and later some Jews, then there may be some genesis to Purgatory (then the RCs and EOs can fight over which version it supports. However, what you should ask for is anyone in Scripture that actually teaches Purgatory.
The RC recourse is to attempt to extrapolate Purgatory out of texts which simply do not teach it, as dealt with in post 49 , by God's grace, and which relates to the absurdity mentioned, that the Holy Spirit inspires writers who clearly and substantively teach of this life being where faith and hearts are purified, and of the resurrection of the believers, and of the transformative changing our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto the Lord's glorious body at that time, and of the bema seat judgment, and of entering in glory, seeing the Lord, etc. And yet provide nothing but texts which Catholics can only wish actually taught their brand of Purgatory.
But as said, the basis for assurance of RC teaching for the faithful is to be the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, and thus after being frustrated as not being able to show "Bible Christians" that their distinctive Catholic teachings were what the NT church believed, then their recourse usually is the specious "we gave you the Bible" polemical assertion.
I see, so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed they are in their present generation, the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity?
See post 49 and 50 please.
Whom are you referring to? Yourself?
As for after 100AD to the contrary:
http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Purgatory.html
Nice research and write up Daniel.
“However, what you should ask for is anyone in Scripture that actually teaches Purgatory.”
The poster has nothing before 100ad.
The same nothing applies to much of catholic teaching.
In principle anyone. Why do you avoid answering questions?
What crass propaganda.
so have, by necessity, created and continue to create a new religion on the basis of the Bible alone and outside its proper interpretive context. A Which is just what Catholics do. What is the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels)?
Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
Is this where we find distinctive Catholic teachings, NO! Instead, the real argument is that wherever Scripture actually teaches or fails to, yet Rome (or the EOs?) can only be right in any conflict, for , t"here exists a rich, coherent, and unbroken interpretive tradition and understanding of the nature and place of Scripture and of its meaning that predates Protestantism by 1,500 years."
Except for the divisions based on the variant interpretations of what the interpretive tradition and understanding means. Which ebb tide is a manifest part of.
As one poster wryly summed it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
But the attempted appeal to ensured magisterial veracity over Scriptural substantiation in word and in power is nothing new. In the face of laity following some itinerant preachers that were rejected by the historical magisterium:
Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)
I have no interest in "answering" to individuals who consider themselves to be "esteemed ... in their present generation". They are narcissists, and nothing more.
X
“Roman Catholic theology, for example, allows for prayers both to the dead and on behalf of them. But even Catholic authorities admit that there is no explicit authorization for prayers on behalf of the dead in the sixty-six books of canonical Scripture.”
Your point is meaningless - since those same Catholic authorities believe there are more than 66 canonical books.
“Instead, they appeal to the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees 12:45), church tradition, the decree of the Council of Trent, etc., to defend the practice.”
And what explicit scriptural justification do Protestants have for sole fide? None. What explicit scriptural justification do Protestants have for sole scriptura? None.
Says one who presents himself as better than the pope.
The question is not, "so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed daniel 1212 is on FR (though in principle that applies to any of us who have any esteem), the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity"?
But the question you avoid answering is, '
"so it does not matter how compelling the evidence is by itinerant teachers, or how esteemed they are in their present generation, the leaders of historical tradition are always to be believed by the laity?"
Now either you will answer it as the most famous papal reprover on FR, or admit this is another one to avoid but more recourse to ad hominem.
We have the words of Yeshua himself. That is all we need. Period.
..................
+1
I chose to do neither.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.