Bad News for Protestants

[ornryactor]

Sounds like a pro "wrestling" event-

'Tonight, the fight of a lifetime! Three challengers put aside their differences to face a common foe! Will they be able to stand against... The Pope?! Find out on Cage Match 6,439: Unholy Takedown!'


But yeah, I'm not even Catholic and I thought JP2 was a rock star, as did basically everyone on the planet. Benedict is just scary and mean, and a little bit stupid.

 

[kcbob79clone]

As a member of a team that guides adults into the Catholic faith, and an amateur apologist, let me attempt to briefly address this topic. When I say briefly I may only use one Bible verse when there are many, it may be difficult and because this thread sprouted quite a few topics that could be a thesis. But first let me say although this has been a teaching for a long time I am dismayed in the spirit of ecumenism that it was brought up again. A lot of efforts with the Lutherans for example that joint statements are issued on certain topics where Catholics and Lutherans believe the same thing work to strengthen our ties but this only serve to weaken our ties. At this time when more Christians are being martyred than at any time in history we should be concentrating on our commonality and not our differences.

Infallibility – discussed pretty well if you read the entire thread but I think some key points were missed. When the Pope speaks infallibly it is really just a confirmation of what we have believed. Infallibility has been a doctrine since the beginning, Matthew 16, “on this rock I will build my church†and “what you bind on earth is bound in heavenâ€. Do not confuse infallibility with impeccability, the Pope is human and does sin but the “gates of hell will not overcome itâ€, by it Jesus the Christ meant the Church that he established, the one true Church can never pass out of existence. If the Church taught incorrectly then it would cease to be Jesus’ Church and it would cease to exist. Catholics believe that this entire verse establishes Peter as the first Pope and “I will be with you until the end of time†and "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" establishes the Church as God’s own spokesman and Apostolic Succession, that is Pope Benedict is a descendant of Peter. In a recent book Pope Benedict states that this is just my opinion, a great teaching tool that not everything the Pope says or writes is infallible.

Rome – although not stated in the Bible Catholics believe that Peter was martyred in Rome and when a location was sought for the Vatican legend caused them to pick the current location. Excavations recently uncovered a tomb inscribed with Peter directly under the Vatican and Catholics believe that “on this rock I will build my Church†carries much significance. Early Christians believed Rome is where Peter was martyred so it became the center of the early Church. One of the earliest Councils, in fact the one where the Church established the Bible, was in ROME in 392. There have been a lot of schisms or splits since then: Orthodox, Luther, etc., but yes, all Christian denominations did start from Church first led by Peter that at the time did include the East and the West.

The term ‘catholic’ is from Greek and was part of the Nicene Creed developed at the Council at Nicea in 325 and approved at the Council of Constantinople in 381. While most of the Bishops at Nicea were from the East the Council was presided over by a Bishop from the West, further proof that the center of the Church even at the earliest time was Rome. The West adding the filioque clause (“and the Sonâ€) to the Nicene Creed, without a Council to decide the wording was the beginning of the schism between Rome and the East. The major cause as I see it was Rome’s total lack of support for the East dealing with the Muslim problem until Jerusalem was conquered.

Finally, I am sure the Pope is a member of CycloneFanatic and is reading this thread because everyone knows that God is a Cyclones fan!!

 

[Skyh13]

In the Nicene Creed it's "catholic" with a lower-case c. It's not refering to the Catholic Church. It just means a belief in one universal church.

Edit: Looks like johnsonjj beat me to it.

Exactly.

After reading the other posts, it seems as though everyone took me to confuse lower-case catholic with upper-case Catholic. My apologies, everyone, for not being clear on that.. I do recognize the different. I was just trying keep it with the whole "uniting all Christians" thing.. which essentially would have all Christians under one universal or united ("catholic") church.

This, aside from the fact that the "universal" part of the definition means that it would be for anyone and everyone.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that most Protestant churches that still recite the Nicene Creed no longer say "holy catholic church," but now say "holy Christian church" because they don't want to be confused with being Catholic?

 

[ornryactor]

Does anyone else find it highly ironic that most Protestant churches that still recite the Nicene Creed no longer say "holy catholic church," but now say "holy Christian church" because they don't want to be confused with being Catholic?

I wouldn't consider that irony, no. I can certainly understand changing the word; after all, I can guarantee you that most people don't know that little-c catholic is a completely different word from Big-C Catholic. Even if someone did know the difference, you can't distinguish between the two verbally, so since most people will assume the Big-C word, I can see why they changed it. Sometimes it's just easier to go with the flow.

 

[larrysarmy]

Peter was married. How could he be Pope then?

"The rock" upon which the church was to be formed was Jesus Christ, the cornerstone. The rock in the verse mentioned can be translated to a "peeble" or "small stone", hardly a foundation. Not to mention, building an entire theology off this verse is hard to grasp.

Also, wasn't Christ addressing all of the Apostles in that verse? Peter was the more or less the spokesman of the group.

How come Peter's letters don't speak to his new found authority? It seems his letters speak to a direct faith in CHRIST alone.

Doesn't the Bible clearly teach that ...CHRIST...is the only way, not in upholding Church doctrines (see Colossians). Doesn't the early church (Book of Acts) preach repentance and faith in Christ?

Just some questions I have had.

 

[cycloneworld]

The pope sounds like an Iowa fan..."You root for our team or you suck".

But seriously, this is the problem I have with organized religion. If in the Bible it says the way into heaven is by accepting Christ as your savior, why do people say well it meant "accepting Christ as your savior only through the Catholic church"?

If you think politicians have agendas, types of religions have them even more.

 

[thakeepa14]

Rome – although not stated in the Bible Catholics believe that Peter was martyred in Rome and when a location was sought for the Vatican legend caused them to pick the current location. Excavations recently uncovered a tomb inscribed with Peter directly under the Vatican and Catholics believe that “on this rock I will build my Church” carries much significance. Early Christians believed Rome is where Peter was martyred so it became the center of the early Church. One of the earliest Councils, in fact the one where the Church established the Bible, was in ROME in 392. There have been a lot of schisms or splits since then: Orthodox, Luther, etc., but yes, all Christian denominations did start from Church first led by Peter that at the time did include the East and the West.

Nice summary, but I wanted to clear some things up.

The Vatican did NOT originate in that location. It first started at St. John in Lateran (San Giovanni in Laterano) but because of location (St. J in L is way out away from the heart of the city and difficult to defend) and percieved significance to St. Peter that they moved it to this site. There were 2 St. Peter's basilicas, I can't recall what happened to the first....I believe fire. They were both built over an old circus (chariot track) similar to Circus Maximus only a lot smaller. It was legend that St. Peter was crucified upside down in one of these somewhere on that side of Rome, but outside of that they didn't know much. Most people think that the little bin below the balderchino contains his bones. But if you go underneath the church to the excavations of the ancient cemetery, you can see a plexi-glass box about the size of a toaster with bones that they think are his. (We had to be put on a month long waiting list to see it, very difficult for an outsider.) These are by the way not directly under the dome but a little off to the side, something I thought to be quite interesting. There have been many tests done and the Vatican likes to keep it all hush-hush as they are very mixed. But the bones they have cannot be proven to be his; they do know that they fit his description (older man who was crucified). One could surmise that Church officials jumped at the chance upon "finding" St. Peter's bones and ancient graffiti (markings) by ancient pilgrims coming to pay homage to Peter or they could be right on and they have the site they wanted.

 

[kcbob79clone]

Peter was married. How could he be Pope then?

The celibacy issue is canon not dogma that has evolved over the years but is not universal even in the Catholic Church, i.e., the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church allows married clergy.

"The rock" upon which the church was to be formed was Jesus Christ, the cornerstone. The rock in the verse mentioned can be translated to a "peeble" or "small stone", hardly a foundation. Not to mention, building an entire theology off this verse is hard to grasp.

A popular but innacurate translation from the Greek version, however, Matthew was originally written in Aramaic and kepka in Aramaic is a rock, a foundation. Aramaic was translated to Greek and then to ... this is where the translation issues come up. The entire theology is the Bible and Tradition in the Catholic faith, the primacy of the Pope is just but one piece.

Also, wasn't Christ addressing all of the Apostles in that verse? Peter was the more or less the spokesman of the group.

You are correct in that some was given to all but Peter was set apart in many instances as the 'first among equals' and this is the most prominent of those instances, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church". The other verse I originally mentioned was to all the Apostles which is why the Bishops meeting in Councils holds great meaning in the Catholic Church.

 

[larrysarmy]

"The entire theology is the Bible and Tradition in the Catholic faith, the primacy of the Pope is just but one piece"

>>I guess I have my views of the catholic faith mixed up. The entire theology of the catholic church has always puzzled me. Church doctrines, purgatory, Mary, literal Lord's supper have had me searching the scriptures to find support. There are many other questions as well.

I guess my reasoning is because the Bible speaks of these very issues. Again see Colossians 1 & 2 that warn against this. Also, the book of Hebrews screams that Christ is the way. Through HIM, not a priest, Pope, John, Peter, Paul or holding up certain Church traditions. Repentance and Faith. A complete dying to your "old man" per Paul. Being born again (John 3:3) and having the holy spirit indwell you. Growing in holiness. It's by grace, through faith (Esp 2 8:9). It's Free...nothing you can do to help it, no works, no nothing. This way...God get's ALL the glory.

Am I completely off here...

Again..please don't take this as I'm judging any catholics salvation, it's just the Catholic church has raised many questions.

 

[kcbob79clone]

Nice summary, but I wanted to clear some things up.

The Vatican did NOT originate in that location. It first started at St. John in Lateran (San Giovanni in Laterano) but because of location (St. J in L is way out away from the heart of the city and difficult to defend) and percieved significance to St. Peter that they moved it to this site. There were 2 St. Peter's basilicas, I can't recall what happened to the first....I believe fire. They were both built over an old circus (chariot track) similar to Circus Maximus only a lot smaller. It was legend that St. Peter was crucified upside down in one of these somewhere on that side of Rome, but outside of that they didn't know much. Most people think that the little bin below the balderchino contains his bones. But if you go underneath the church to the excavations of the ancient cemetery, you can see a plexi-glass box about the size of a toaster with bones that they think are his. (We had to be put on a month long waiting list to see it, very difficult for an outsider.) These are by the way not directly under the dome but a little off to the side, something I thought to be quite interesting. There have been many tests done and the Vatican likes to keep it all hush-hush as they are very mixed. But the bones they have cannot be proven to be his; they do know that they fit his description (older man who was crucified). One could surmise that Church officials jumped at the chance upon finding St. Peter's bones and ancient graffiti (markings) by ancient pilgrims coming to pay homage to Peter or they could be right on and they have the site they wanted.

Mostly true, but, the Vatican DID originate in that location. St. John in Lateran was originally a Roman building given to the Church of Rome by Constantine. The building's bascilla was converted and eventually became the Cathederal of the Bishop of Rome, officially the title of the Pope. After Peter's crucifixation and burial his successor built a small chapel over the grave site (about 80) in the pagan cemetery of Nero's Circus. This place was a huge attraction even during the persecuctions. Constantine condemned and tore down the Circus so the first Vatican could be built, actually digging the foundation with his hands in about 324. The huge bascilla was planned to be over the cemetery and the main altar right above Peter's grave, requiring about half the hill to be removed. In about 1500 the Vatican had to be rebuilt and St. John in Lateran is also not the original building. The main altar of the new current Vatican is also supposed to be above the grave site. I am not sure but I don't think the main altar is directly below the dome.

Tour of St. Peter's Basilica

Basilica of St. John Lateran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[thakeepa14]

Mostly true, but, the Vatican DID originate in that location. St. John in Lateran was originally a Roman building given to the Church of Rome by Constantine. The building's bascilla was converted and eventually became the Cathederal of the Bishop of Rome, officially the title of the Pope. After Peter's crucifixation and burial his successor built a small chapel over the grave site (about 80) in the pagan cemetery of Nero's Circus. This place was a huge attraction even during the persecuctions. Constantine condemned and tore down the Circus so the first Vatican could be built, actually digging the foundation with his hands in about 324. The huge bascilla was planned to be over the cemetery and the main altar right above Peter's grave, requiring about half the hill to be removed. In about 1500 the Vatican had to be rebuilt and St. John in Lateran is also not the original building. The main altar of the new current Vatican is also supposed to be above the grave site. I am not sure but I don't think the main altar is directly below the dome.

Tour of St. Peter's Basilica

Basilica of St. John Lateran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

kcbob,

I am clearly out of my league in Catholic knowledge, (I am not myself a Catholic) but I do think the comment on the successor's altar immediately built after is speculative. The site was hugely popular but not right away especially because of ongoing persecution, even though Constantine made it legal by the 300's. The graffiti found obviously cannot be dated and so this I think is an assumption not too widely regarded as fact.

 

[kcbob79clone]

"I guess I have my views of the catholic faith mixed up. The entire theology of the catholic church has always puzzled me. Church doctrines, purgatory, Mary, literal Lord's supper have had me searching the scriptures to find support. There are many other questions as well.

I guess my reasoning is because the Bible speaks of these very issues. Again see Colossians 1 & 2 that warn against this. Also, the book of Hebrews screams that Christ is the way. Through HIM, not a priest, Pope, John, Peter, Paul or holding up certain Church traditions. Repentance and Faith. A complete dying to your "old man" per Paul. Being born again (John 3:3) and having the holy spirit indwell you. Growing in holiness. It's by grace, through faith (Esp 2 8:9). It's Free...nothing you can do to help it, no works, no nothing. This way...God get's ALL the glory.

Am I completely off here...

Again..please don't take this as I'm judging any catholics salvation, it's just the Catholic church has raised many questions.

No way we can address all of these in one reply and I do have to get some work done today I do not think anybody is judging Catholicism but they may be judging Catholicism for what they mistakenly believe Catholicism stands for. It is my job to be willing to tell everyone about my reason for joy.

Some terms might be useful: Dogma - revealed by Jesus and the Apostles thus cannot be changed; Canon - rules and regs established by man thus can change over time. One example of Dogma to Catholics is the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist which is what I think you are calling the literal Lord's Supper. One example of Canon is celibacy.

Some of the Protestant forefathers, including Luther himself, took a single quote from the Bible and ignored other passages. A good example of this is Faith alone, or solo fidei, completely ignoring numerous passages in Revelation and James and elsewhere that distinctly say Faith AND Works and that there is something you can do about it.

I will make a bold statement that ALL of Catholic theology is based upon the Bible although not specifically called what the Catholic Church names it. The best example of that being Purgatory which is not named that in the Bible but it is in there.

I will have to get to work now and check back tonight at home to see what responses I get. I enjoy this when we can have a dialogue without diatribe.

 

[thakeepa14]

Some of the Protestant forefathers, including Luther himself, took a single quote from the Bible and ignored other passages. A good example of this is Faith alone, or solo fidei, completely ignoring numerous passages in Revelation and James and elsewhere that distinctly say Faith AND Works and that there is something you can do about it.

Undoubtedly, Luther took single passages and ignored others, but remember to Luther, faith was the most important thing and the church's structure, dogma, canon's and so on didn't mean a thing if you didn't have the first. When Luther visited Rome and saw all the corruption within the church, he gathered that the church no longer valued both and that the second became more important than the first. Now it's fine to say that these individuals were corrupt and would recieve their due punishment, however the thing I have a problem with is that the Catholic Church still justifies their lineage back to St. Peter on these very same corrupt individuals. Thus for protestants, faith first, everything else second.

 

[jdoggivjc]

I will make a bold statement that ALL of Catholic theology is based upon the Bible although not specifically called what the Catholic Church names it. The best example of that being Purgatory which is not named that in the Bible but it is in there.

Give me book, chapter, and verse of the location of what you consider is the "unnamed" purgatory. No one has ever been able to prove to me that purgatory exists. If purgatory did exist, there would be no need for Jesus to die on the cross for our sins because we could just "wait them out."

 

[Clone9]

Give me book, chapter, and verse of the location of what you consider is the "unnamed" purgatory. No one has ever been able to prove to me that purgatory exists. If purgatory did exist, there would be no need for Jesus to die on the cross for our sins because we could just "wait them out."

Yeah, I'd like someone to prove that purgatory exists as well. That might be difficult.

 

[larrysarmy]

"Some of the Protestant forefathers, including Luther himself, took a single quote from the Bible and ignored other passages. A good example of this is Faith alone, or solo fidei, completely ignoring numerous passages in Revelation and James and elsewhere that distinctly say Faith AND Works and that there is something you can do about it."

>>First off...the books and verses you are referencing do speak of faith and works. But it's all about the order. The books are addressing believers! Once saved by grace, good works should flow out out of the believer as a testomony of God's good grace. The judgement seat of Christ will reveal how strong our works hold up to the fire. But the key is, we are believers first. Humble, low before the cross, sinful man is the start, cry out to God in forgiveness and he will grant you a new heart and new desires. You'll want to do good...for his GLORY. Not some of yours and some of God's. All HIM!
It should not be good works once in a while, then go to church and practice the sacraments. Believe me, I'm not totally killing all of those practices, but as a mean of tally for salvation...I would disagree if that is the true motive. It's a difference between imputed and infused rightouesness.

"Unless a man is Born Again, he will not see the Kingdom of God." John 3:3
A complete death to self, repentance of sin, confession to Christ and faith in Christ. That is the good news of the gospel.

I would agree with the other posters about purgatory, the verses that Catholics use to build that theology is very stretched. I would also agree in that it takes away from Christ's sacrifice once and for all for sin. Why bother, I'll just go to the holding tank instead.
Repentance and faith. Repentance and faith.

 

[kcbob79clone]

Yeah, I'd like someone to prove that purgatory exists as well. That might be difficult.

Actualy quite easy if you quote chapter and verse from the Bible I researched this so I would be ready to answer questions about Purgatory.

[FONT=&quot]To understand Catholic Doctrine of Purgatory and its basis in Sacred Scripture you first need to understand a few Christian principles.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is a purification after death, i.e., there is punishment for sin even after one has received forgiveness.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; Nothing unclean, that is nothing tainted with sin, will enter Heaven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 3[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is a process for the spirits of just men to be made perfect.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is a place other than Heaven or Hell, this place involves suffering and loss, and you will remain until no longer “tainted with sin†or “uncleanâ€.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There are two judgments.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

BASIS IN SCRIPTURE[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 1[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is punishment for sin even after one has received forgiveness, i.e., purification after death.[/FONT]

2 Samuel 12:13-18 David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die." Then Nathan went to his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uri'ah's wife bore to David, and it became sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in and lay all night upon the ground. And the elders of his house stood beside him, to raise him from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. On the seventh day the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead; for they said, "Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spoke to him, and he did not listen to us; how then can we say to him the child is dead? He may do himself some harm."

David sinned, confessed and was forgiven, but there was still punishment in that the child still died. David besought God and fasted but still the child died. There is more,

Numbers 20:12 But the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, because you have not believed Me, to treat Me as holy in the sight of the sons of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land which I have given them.

God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the “land of promiseâ€.

The analogy that Scott Hahn, a former Protestant minister and now a leading Catholic apologetic, uses is that of someone breaking their neighbor’s window. The neighbor might "forgive" them, but you would still need to replace the window (the damage caused by your deed).

[FONT=&quot]Principle 2[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; Nothing unclean, e.g., nothing that is tainted with sin, will enter Heaven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Revelation 21:27[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“Nothing unclean shall enter itâ€, “it†being the New Jerusalem (or Heaven), nothing unclean, nothing tainted with sin will enter Heaven. There is more,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Matthew 5:48 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

“You, therefore, must be perfectâ€, reinforces Principle 2 that nothing unclean will enter Heaven. But God wants us to be perfect. If we are not perfected by the time we die, we will be perfected in purgatory. He loves us too much to allow us to be less than what he created us to be. Purgatory is not about an angry God inflicting punishment upon his creatures. It is about a loving Father who "disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12:10). There is more,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Habakkuk 1:12-13[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; and You, O Rock, have established them to correct. Your eyes are too pure to approve evil, and You can not look on wickedness with favor[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

God’s “eyes are too pure to behold evil†and “cannot look on wickedness with favorâ€. Whosoever comes into God’s presence must be perfectly pure and any sin is a stain of evil and wickedness reinforcing that we cannot enter Heaven if tainted with sin.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 3[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is a process for the spirits of just men to be made perfect. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Hebrews 12:22-23[/FONT][FONT=&quot] But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

How are the “spirits of just men made perfect� There has to be a way, a process for the “spirits of just men†to be made “perfect†because of Principle 2 you must be “perfect†to enter Heaven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 4[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There is a place other than Heaven or Hell, this place involves suffering and loss, and you will remain until no longer “tainted with sin†or “uncleanâ€.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1 Corinthians 3:13-15 [/FONT] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.[FONT=&quot]

Where is this place that you will suffer loss and still be saved? Is it Heaven? You will not suffer loss in Heaven. Is it Hell? You cannot be saved once in Hell. There is more,

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Matthew 12:32[/FONT][FONT=&quot] And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Where is this place that there is forgiveness in the “age to come� Is it Heaven? You will not need forgiveness in Heaven. Is it Hell? You cannot be saved once in Hell. Or put another way, if there is no purification after death then this passage doesn’t make much sense. Just before this passage in Matthew Jesus had been casting out demons. He announced that the kingdom of God had come so there is no way Matthew 12:32 could be interpreted as saying the age to come was the New Covenant. There is more,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1 Peter 3:18-19[/FONT] For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit; in which he went and preached to the spirits in prison,
[FONT=&quot]
Where are the “spirits in prison� Heaven in no way could be considered a “prison†and the spirits in Hell cannot be redeemed. There is more,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Matthew 18:32-35[/FONT] Then his lord summoned him and said to him, `You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you besought me; and should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord delivered him to the jailers, till he should pay all his debt. So also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother from your heart."
[FONT=&quot]
You will not get out of this place until you have paid all of your debts, until all of your sins have been purified. There is more,[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Hebrews 12:9-11[/FONT] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.
[FONT=&quot]
In summary, there is a place that you will suffer loss and still be saved. It is not Heaven or Hell. There is forgiveness in the “age to comeâ€. This forgiveness does not take place in Heaven or Hell. If there is no purification after death then these passages don’t make much sense. Where are the “spirits in prisonâ€? Heaven in no way could be considered a “prison†and the spirits in Hell cannot be redeemed. This “discipline seems painful rather than pleasant†but later yields the “fruit of righteousnessâ€.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 5[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; There are two judgments.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

When we die, we undergo what is called the particular, or individual, judgment. Scripture says that "it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27). We are judged instantly and receive our reward, for good or ill. We know at once what our final destiny will be. At the end of time, when Jesus returns, there will come the general judgment to which the Bible refers, for example, in Matthew 25:31-32: "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats." In this general judgment all our sins will be publicly revealed (Luke 12:2–5). It is between the particular and general judgments, then, that the soul is purified of the remaining consequences of sin: "I tell you, you will never get out till you have paid the very last copper" (Luke 12:59). [/FONT][FONT=&quot]

Principle 6[/FONT][FONT=&quot]; God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

James 5:15 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]The prayer of faith will save the sick man and the Lord will raise him up again; and if he has committed any sins, he will be forgiven.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

The following passages make no sense in a Heaven and Hell only theology.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

James 5:20[/FONT][FONT=&quot] let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

1 Peter 4:8 [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Above all hold unfailing your love for one another, since love covers a multitude of sins.[/FONT]

So far Principles 1-6 are based on Sacred Scripture that the Catholics and Protestants agree upon. The next passage comes from the Septuagint.

2 Maccabees 12:44-45 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin

In the Septuagint in 2 Maccabees 12, in which Judah Maccabee and his men pray for their fallen comrades who had "fallen asleep in righteousness" so that they may be "freed from their sins" in the afterlife, and it was a "holy and pious thought" for them to do this. Thus 2 Maccabees endorses praying for the dead that they may be loosed from the consequences of their sins (for it must be the consequences of sin that are in mind since the saved are not sinning in the afterlife). Since it is not pleasant to be bound to the consequences of one's sins, we can infer some kind of pain or discomfort, and thus the full doctrine of purgatory—a purification (freeing) after death, which involves some kind of pain or discomfort, and which can be assisted by the prayers of the living.

Protestant Theology

However, while 2 Maccabees 12 certainly teaches the doctrine of purgatory, the doctrine is in no way "based on" that passage but based upon the principles derived from the numerous passages from our common books listed above, but more fundamentally, it can be derived from the principles of Protestant theology alone.

Protestants are very firm (in fact, insistent) about the fact that we continue sinning until the end of this life because of our corrupt nature. They are equally firm about the fact that we will not be sinning in heaven because we will no longer have a corrupt nature. Thus between death and glory there must be a sanctification—a purification—of our natures whether they admit to it or not. To put it in more Protestant terms, "the final sanctification" or "the last rush of sanctification" is what we Catholics call Purgatory.

Conclusion – Catholic Theology

Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared to be clean, but must actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered" if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean.

Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered" remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Paul also tells the Corinthians at the Judgment Day “they would be changed and prepared for Heavenâ€. At the Judgment Day this “change†occurs instantly. Indeed, the necessity of the purging is taught in other passages of Scripture, such as 2 Thessalonians 2:13, which declares that God chose us "to be saved through sanctification by the Spirit." Sanctification is thus not an option, something that may or may not happen before one gets into heaven. It is an absolute requirement, as Hebrews 12:14 states that we must strive "for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

 

[kcbob79clone]

kcbob,

I am clearly out of my league in Catholic knowledge, (I am not myself a Catholic) but I do think the comment on the successor's altar immediately built after is speculative. The site was hugely popular but not right away especially because of ongoing persecution, even though Constantine made it legal by the 300's. The graffiti found obviously cannot be dated and so this I think is an assumption not too widely regarded as fact.

Merriam-Webster defines faith as, firm belief in something for which there is no proof

This is legend but to excavate and find a tomb inscribed Peter almost 2000 years later tells me it is a pretty good legend.

 

[everyyard]

No where does it say Protestants are going to hell.

That being said, it seems pretty arrogant of the church to take this position. However, I'm not a catholic so it's really not my place to tell the church what to do.

This has always been the position of the catholic church I believe.

It is just one more case of a religion being used to tear people apart and foster resentment rather than unite people and bring them together. All religions and evangelists are the ultimate hippocrites. You want to spend time with God go outdoors and enjoy the planet he created not some pricey building built to self sustain the beauracracy and power that is the organized religions of the world.