Is Purgatory In Eternity

[reyb]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='23 January 2010 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1264264215' post='2042833']
Hey reyb.

I am moving today, and will be unable to provide you with a sufficient response for at least today, if not for a couple of days as I unpack. Someone else may decide to jump in, but I will surely be able to give you a response in the coming days.

~Kris
[/quote]

Okay. Thank you for your time.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='reyb' date='23 January 2010 - 06:04 PM' timestamp='1264287857' post='2043060']
Okay. Thank you for your time.
[/quote]

No problem. Thank you for your patience.

[quote name='reyb' date='23 January 2010 - 05:15 AM' timestamp='1264241722' post='2042777']
Yes, this is what I am saying



[b]So may question is in what way 'This bread' (in the Eucharist) becomes 'Body of Christ'.[/b]

Since you said the Eucharist is a type of a 'sacrifice offered once' and you are referring to the 'Death of Jesus' on the Cross. If I get you correctly, you are saying 'it is remembrance but this remembrance is not just for the sake of 'remembering' but an 'offering the true body of Christ'. [b]Again my question is in what way 'This bread' become the 'body of Christ' in its real sense.[/b]
[/quote]

Good question. The "way" that the bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ is called "Transubstantiation". Breaking down the word into its stems, we see "trans" -- of course meaning change, and "substance" -- meaning the essence of a thing, or what something is in itself. The physical characteristics of a thing are known as "accidents". For example, I have blonde hair and blue eyes -- these things are aspects of me, but do not contain the whole essence of me. Blonde hair and blue eyes are kinds of accidents, or aspects of a thing. These accidents are of course perceptible to the senses, but the "substance" of me is not -- that singular thing that makes me me, no matter how old I become, or how much I grow, or even what new experiences I have. As John Locke puts it, a substance is "a something, I know not what". For more on substance theory (which predates Catholicism to essentially Aristotle), please confer with the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/

At Mass, the priest echoes the words of Christ at the Last Supper, "this is my body", "this is my blood". Clearly, the accidents of bread and wine remain -- they still look, feel, taste, and smell like bread and wine, not flesh and blood. So, if a change occured, it occured at a substantial level. If a change did not occur, then Catholics made a mistake, and mistook Jesus for speaking literally, when he had meant to be speaking metaphorically. For, if Jesus had been speaking literally, then Jesus whom -- Catholics profess to be God -- would have the power to make such a change in objects as simple as bread and wine.

Before I continue, a summary of the argument so far:

[b]Premise 1[/b]: Jesus is God, and thus has the power to make substantial changes in objects.
[b]Premise 2[/b]: Jesus said "this is my body", "this is my blood".
[b]Premise 3[/b]: "Substance" means the essence of a thing; "accident" means its attributes.
[b]Premise 4[/b]: No observable change occurs at the consecration.
[b]Claim[/b]: Jesus spoke literally when he said "this is my body/blood".
[b]Preliminary Conclusion[/b]: Because Jesus is God, and because Jesus spoke literally, then a change really occured.
[b]Conclusion[/b]: Because a change really occured, yet no change was observable, this change must have been one of substance: a transubstantiation.

For the purposes of this thread, I will not defend Premise 1. Premises 2-4 are otherwise observable. The Preliminary Conclusion follows from an application of the Claim and Premise 1. The Conclusion follows from the Preliminary Conclusion and Premises 3 and 4. Thus, I defend the Claim: Jesus spoke literally when he said "this is my body/blood".

For the purposes of defending my central claim, I will defer to the following excellent article by [url="www.catholic.com"]Catholic Answers[/url], [url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp"]Christ in the Eucharist[/url].

[indent]
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.

John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that "our ancestors ate manna in the desert." Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. "Give us this bread always," they said. Jesus replied, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst." At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.


[b]Again and Again[/b]

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’" (John 6:51–52).

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" (John 6:53–56).


[b]No Corrections[/b]

Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct "misunderstandings," for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?

On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.

In John 6:60 we read: "Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’" These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: "It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life" (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).

But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) "After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him" (John 6:66).

This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.

But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have "to eat my flesh and drink my blood." John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?


[b]Merely Figurative?[/b]

They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: "Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’" They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.

But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, "The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense" (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.

Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 ("I am the door") and John 15:1 ("I am the true vine"). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, "I am the bread of life." "I am the door" and "I am the vine" make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

He continues: "As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me" (John 6:57). The Greek word used for "eats" (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of "chewing" or "gnawing." This is not the language of metaphor.


[b]Their Main Argument[/b]

For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?

Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what "the flesh is of no avail" means? "Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time"—is that what he was saying? Hardly.

The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then "your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished" (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).

In John 6:63 "flesh profits nothing" refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: "You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me." So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.

And were the disciples to understand the line "The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life" as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for "symbolic"? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 "flesh" does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. "The words I have spoken to you are spirit" does not mean "What I have just said is symbolic." The word "spirit" is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).


[b]Paul Confirms This[/b]

Paul wrote to the Corinthians: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?" (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, "Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself" (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). "To answer for the body and blood" of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine "unworthily" be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.


[b]What Did the First Christians Say?[/b]

Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.

Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to "those who hold heterodox opinions," that "they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again" (6:2, 7:1).

Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, "Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66:1–20).

Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. "I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence" (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).

Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ" (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).

In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: "When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord" (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).


[b]Unanimous Testimony[/b]

Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.

Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6? For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.

One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
[/indent]

Edited January 25, 2010 by mommas_boy

[reyb]

But how can you be sure that this ‘Transubstantiation’ is for real (since, you said that this change is in ‘substantial level – a something I know not what’)?

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='reyb' date='25 January 2010 - 04:32 AM' timestamp='1264411927' post='2044091']
But how can you be sure that this ‘Transubstantiation’ is for real (since, you said that this change is in ‘substantial level – a something I know not what’)?
[/quote]

Faith, for one. I believe Jesus to be God, and to have spoken literally, so I take His word for it. You are right to say that since the change occurs at a substantial level, the senses cannot detect a change. It is as the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of the Eucharist in his hymn, Tantum Ergo:

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail;
[b]Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.[/b]

Still, there are many Eucharistic Miracles that have taken place in the past, bolstered by scientific evidence. I recommend this site for more exploration:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

[thessalonian]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 January 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1264134798' post='2042039']
Isn't that pretty much the definition of heaven? A place where you can divide by anything you want......... including zero.

.
[/quote]


If you are serious, no. It is the same question as "can God make a rock bigger than he can lift. The answer is that the question is one of nonsense because it violates the laws God set up for the universe. God cannot do what is contrary to himself. I.e. to sin.

[reyb]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='25 January 2010 - 02:25 PM' timestamp='1264447529' post='2044285']
Faith, for one. I believe Jesus to be God, and to have spoken literally, so I take His word for it. You are right to say that since the change occurs at a substantial level, the senses cannot detect a change. It is as the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas wrote of the Eucharist in his hymn, Tantum Ergo:

Down in adoration falling,
Lo! the sacred Host we hail,
Lo! o'er ancient forms departing
Newer rites of grace prevail;
[b]Faith for all defects supplying,
Where the feeble senses fail.[/b]

Still, there are many Eucharistic Miracles that have taken place in the past, bolstered by scientific evidence. I recommend this site for more exploration:

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
[/quote]

Therefore, the 'effectiveness' of this theory of 'Trans - substance - tion' is faith. No more or less.

[thessalonian]

Purgatory is created but it is not in the physical realm. There are not bodies in purgatory, only souls. Therefore it is outside of time as we know it? The historical references to days in purgatory should be thought of more as a reference to our time without bounding purgatory by time. It may well be that purgatory is an instanteous event, but seems like it has duration because of intensity, such as when one longs for a loved one, the next meeting seems to take forever. The scriptures say we will be changed in the twinkling of an eye. Or it may take longer "time". We simply don't have that information that I am aware of. One might ask, well if puratory happens at the instant of death then they died before we prayed for them. True enough but God knows our future prayers. I think probably that purgatory is a created place however and not eternal. I believe I have heard that it will cease to exist when there is no more sin.

[Guest Shadow of the Almighty]

[quote name='nunsense' date='17 January 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1263788238' post='2039455']
If we are granted indulgences for our "time" in Purgatory, this must mean that Purgatory is not part of Eternity because isn't the concept of "eternal" basically outside of time?

I am interested in what the Church says about this of course, but also what people think.

Ok, scholars, grab your Aquinas and Augustine and let's hear it!
[/quote]


So sad. You want to know what the church says, you want to know what people think, you want to know what scholars think, and last but not least, Aquinas and Augustine.

How about opening your Bible and checking out what GOD says?!

Jesus is our "pugatory" if you must know, as "He has by HImself, [u]purged[/u] our sins" (Hebrews 1:3).

Catholic apologist Tim Staples has recently said:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific." (Tape set, "God's Perfect Plan: Purgatory and Indulgences Explained").

What Mr. Staples has said is absolutely [i]not[/i] the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and cannot be substantiated by one word out of the Bible. Staples is a pristine example of just what happens when the word of God is ditched in favor of the modern, philosophical thinking of the day.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Shadow of the Almighty' date='26 January 2010 - 12:33 PM' timestamp='1264469637' post='2044529']
So sad. You want to know what the church says, you want to know what people think, you want to know what scholars think, and last but not least, Aquinas and Augustine.

How about opening your Bible and checking out what GOD says?!

Jesus is our "pugatory" if you must know, as "He has by HImself, [u]purged[/u] our sins" (Hebrews 1:3).

Catholic apologist Tim Staples has recently said:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific." (Tape set, "God's Perfect Plan: Purgatory and Indulgences Explained").

What Mr. Staples has said is absolutely [i]not[/i] the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and cannot be substantiated by one word out of the Bible. Staples is a pristine example of just what happens when the word of God is ditched in favor of the modern, philosophical thinking of the day.
[/quote]


I am sorry for you that you only have the scriptures to rely on, and not the richness and fullness of the both sacred scriptures and sacred tradition. Everything in the Bible is open to interpretation, and that is why we have a Magesterium to guide us in matters of faith. I don't know how many different variations there are among Protestants, but I see that you are a "reformed prot". I have yet to see any kind of a consensus amongst Protestants regarding interpretation of the Bible, and that is why there is always another sect springing up every day. Without the Magesterium, you are like a ship with no rudder. You may be in the boat and even if you have some idea of where you want to go, you simply can't do it because you end up going around in circles instead.

I respect your right to hold your opinion, but unfortunately you are wrong.

[Guest Shadow of the Almighty]

[quote name='nunsense' date='25 January 2010 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1264472668' post='2044574']
I am sorry for you that you only have the scriptures to rely on, and not the richness and fullness of the both sacred scriptures and sacred tradition. Everything in the Bible is open to interpretation, and that is why we have a Magesterium to guide us in matters of faith. I don't know how many different variations there are among Protestants, but I see that you are a "reformed prot". I have yet to see any kind of a consensus amongst Protestants regarding interpretation of the Bible, and that is why there is always another sect springing up every day. Without the Magesterium, you are like a ship with no rudder. You may be in the boat and even if you have some idea of where you want to go, you simply can't do it because you end up going around in circles instead.

I respect your right to hold your opinion, but unfortunately you are wrong.
[/quote]


You excercised your private judgment and made a very [i]fallible[/i] decision to join the Roman Catholic Church. I did the same thing, only I decided to [i]exit[/i]. What right do you have to pronounce that I am wrong? We have both made what may be calssified as "fallible" decisions to either enter or exit, and the Word of God will be the judge to the correctness of our decision. By the way, no where did Jesus weep over those who were trusting only in His word [u]alone[/u] ---so no need to feel sorry for me as I know they are sufficient to equip the man of God per 2 Tim 3:16-17. The apostles went about preaching the gospel, and no where did they give any indication that people were to join a particular church in Rome 1500 miles away!
As for you saying that you have as yet to see any "consensus" among Protestants, you've got to be kidding. First of all, God does not reveal ALL truth, to ALL people, ALL the time, and sometimes, not at ALL, so the very idea of a "lock-step" consensus in any one denomination is quite ludicrous. You imply that there is such great "consensus" within the Roman Catholic Church? Yet offhand, I can think of quite a few "splinter groups", like, "Catholics for a Free Choice", "RC Gay Priests United", The Liberal C's, the Conservative C's, the New Age C's, the Eclectic C's, the Ultra-traditionalist C's; all culminating in the TIME magazine article from 9/7/87 entitled, "John Paul's Fiesty Flock": U.S. Catholics going their own way."

Indeed, I respect your right to hold your opinion, but unfortunately, you are wrong.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='reyb' date='25 January 2010 - 07:53 PM' timestamp='1264467212' post='2044496']
Therefore, the 'effectiveness' of this theory of 'Trans - substance - tion' is faith. No more or less.
[/quote]

Yes, that is correct. Transubstantiation is an article of faith, not of science, because the substance of a thing is discernable to the senses.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Shadow of the Almighty' date='26 January 2010 - 01:58 PM' timestamp='1264474715' post='2044611']
You excercised your private judgment and made a very [i]fallible[/i] decision to join the Roman Catholic Church. I did the same thing, only I decided to [i]exit[/i]. What right do you have to pronounce that I am wrong? We have both made what may be calssified as "fallible" decisions to either enter or exit, and the Word of God will be the judge to the correctness of our decision. By the way, no where did Jesus weep over those who were trusting only in His word [u]alone[/u] ---so no need to feel sorry for me as I know they are sufficient to equip the man of God per 2 Tim 3:16-17. The apostles went about preaching the gospel, and no where did they give any indication that people were to join a particular church in Rome 1500 miles away!
As for you saying that you have as yet to see any "consensus" among Protestants, you've got to be kidding. First of all, God does not reveal ALL truth, to ALL people, ALL the time, and sometimes, not at ALL, so the very idea of a "lock-step" consensus in any one denomination is quite ludicrous. You imply that there is such great "consensus" within the Roman Catholic Church? Yet offhand, I can think of quite a few "splinter groups", like, "Catholics for a Free Choice", "RC Gay Priests United", The Liberal C's, the Conservative C's, the New Age C's, the Eclectic C's, the Ultra-traditionalist C's; all culminating in the TIME magazine article from 9/7/87 entitled, "John Paul's Fiesty Flock": U.S. Catholics going their own way."

Indeed, I respect your right to hold your opinion, but unfortunately, you are wrong.
[/quote]

Good, now we know where we both stand. We can proceed

We both believe in Jesus. We both think we are right. So, when you come onto a Catholic forum and post that it is sad that I am asking opinions of other Catholics and Aquinas and Augustine etc, and tell me that everything can be found in the Bible, you don't consider this just a little bit arrogant? So, I poked you with a stick and you jumped. Now you are saying that we are both fallible in our judgments, which is true. I have chosen the Catholic Church and you have chosen to exit (as you put it). We will find out who is right one day, but probably not today. We can debate until the cows come home, and this could be fun, but I am not a very good apologist - we do have wonderful ones here though, so fire away!

Purgatory does not seem to be a concept that you agree with, and since we already see that you are fallible (as am I), I don't see that your opinion is going to really help me personally answer a question about a place that I actually do believe in. If you want to make comments about it, fine, but just throwing quotes from the Bible at me telling me that it isn't so, well, this isn't going to do it since I also hold to the teachings of the Magesterium, and they tell me that Purgatory does exist. Their full house beats your two pair.

But as my brother in the love of Christ, I say pax xti, fratre!

PS All faithful Catholics believe in the teachings of the Magesterium - hence the term "faithful". Those who do not believe, are not... even if they call themselves Catholics... easier than Protestantism.

Edited January 26, 2010 by nunsense

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Shadow of the Almighty' date='25 January 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1264469637' post='2044529']
So sad. You want to know what the church says, you want to know what people think, you want to know what scholars think, and last but not least, Aquinas and Augustine.

How about opening your Bible and checking out what GOD says?!

Jesus is our "pugatory" if you must know, as "He has by HImself, [u]purged[/u] our sins" (Hebrews 1:3).

Catholic apologist Tim Staples has recently said:

"The bottom line here is this: Jesus Christ did not suffer and die so that we don't have to. Jesus Christ suffered and died so that our good works offered up in him can be truly pleasing and salvific before God. And indeed, Jesus didn't suffer and die so that we don't have to suffer and die, he suffered and died so that our suffering and death could be salvific." (Tape set, "God's Perfect Plan: Purgatory and Indulgences Explained").

What Mr. Staples has said is absolutely [i]not[/i] the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and cannot be substantiated by one word out of the Bible. Staples is a pristine example of just what happens when the word of God is ditched in favor of the modern, philosophical thinking of the day.
[/quote]

Hi Shadow,

My question to you: what is the difference between life on earth, and life in heaven?

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Shadow of the Almighty' date='25 January 2010 - 08:33 PM' timestamp='1264469637' post='2044529']
Indeed, I respect your right to hold your opinion, but unfortunately, you are wrong.[/quote]

Says who? Your subjective opinion, based on a subjective interpretation of the Scriptures - which were put together by the Church, in case you are unaware.

[Guest Shadow of the Almighty]

[quote name='mommas_boy' date='25 January 2010 - 10:05 PM' timestamp='1264475105' post='2044617']
Yes, that is correct. Transubstantiation is an article of faith, not of science, because the substance of a thing is discernable to the senses.
[/quote]


As a matter of fact, Transubstantiation (or the Real Presence) is a slap in the face to Jesus Christ who emphatically stated that He was making an exit OUT of this world!

[font="Comic Sans MS"]"[/font]I go to prepare a place for you" . . . "Yet a little while and the world seeth me no more." . . . "I go away" . . . "But now I go my way to Him that sent me." . . . "I leave the world and go unto the Father" . . .. "I go to my Father and ye see me no more." . . . "For the poor ye have with you always; but me ye have not always." . . . "Ye shall seek me and shall not find me; and where I am, thither ye cannot come." . .. . "And now, I am no more in the world." . . . {John 14:2, 14:19, 14:28, 16:5, 16:29, 16:10, 12:8, 7:34, 17:11}. And Paul confirmed that, "though we have known Christ in the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him [i]no more[/i] " {2 Cor 5:16}. Paul didn't give any hint that we should be consoled with the Eucharist in view of now knowing Him "NO MORE"......so of course, the RC thesis cannot be true. Also, lest we forget, every single miracle in [color="#000000"]the Bible militates against Tranz because all God's miracles (every single last one of them!) were meant to be SEEN, so that He should be given the glory. Tranz is out of character with our Creator since it is classified as an "unseen" miracle, and therefore, it must be rejected.

If you wish to discuss this issue on another thread, I would be willing to do so, as Tranz is off topic. For example the article elsewhere submitted on here from "Catholic Answers" is a bunch of baloney and there most definitely is an opposite point of view that demolishes the RC position. As my Auntie used to say, "my goooodness gracious" ----The Lord's Supper was never meant to be a sacrifice (!) ---it is a remembrance, just like He said.
l[/color]