RELIGION

[dacs]

The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ.

That now has been proven false.

In truth, it hasn’t really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Rome’s self-assumed primacy.

There are four great Fathers of the East : Athanasius (+373), Basil the Great (+379), Gregory of Nazianzen (+39 and John Chyrsostom (+407). Let's hear what they had to say regarding the papacy:


"It is SUFFICIENT to give this single answer to the heretics: 'These things are not of the Catholic Church; neither did the Fathers think like this'"
Athanasius, Eps to Epictetus III

"In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form 'with the Spirit' has NO written authority, we maintain that if there is not other instance of that which is unwritten, then this must not be recieved. But if the great number of our mysteries are admitted into our constitution without written authority, then, in company with many others, let us recieve this one. For I HOLD IT APOSTOLIC TO ABIDE BY THE UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 'I praise you,' it is said, 'that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I have delivered them to you;' and 'Hold fast the traditions which ye have been taught whether by by word, or our Epistle.' One of these traditions is the practice which is now before us, which they who ordained from the beginning, rooted firmly in the churches, delivering it to their SUCCESSORS, and its use through long custom advances pace by pace with time. If as in a court of Law, we were at a loss for documentary evidence, but were able to bring before you a large number of witnesses, would you not give your vote for our aquittal? I think so; for 'at the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established'. And if we could prove clearly to you that a long period of time was in our favour, should we not have seemed to you to urge you with reason that this suit ought not to be brought into court against us? For ancient dogmas inspire a certain sense of awe, venerable as they are with hoary antiquity"
Basil the Great,Holy Spirit 71

"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church."
Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration, 32:18 (A.D. 380)

"Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who recieved revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey"
John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407)

For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity – the Latin churches - we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, “Primate of All Bishops,� and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III. Wonderful! A self-styled “Vicar of Christ� seeking – not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the “Vicar of Christ.�

The matter has already been established that the primacy of the see of Rome is beyond doubt and is, in fact, apostolic.

Be specific with your accusation about Pope Leo 1 and Emperor Valentinian III. What incident are you referring to? Are you referring to the event on 19 June 445 where Emperor Valentinian III issued - doubtless at the pope's instigation - a stern edict in which the emperor estasblished seven punishments for the Manichæans? Specifics please.

Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord of the Whole Church,� but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down.

You mean canon 28? The twenty-eighth ratified the third canon of the Council of Constantinople (381), and decreed that since the city of Constantinople was honoured with the privilege of having the emperor and the Senate within its walls, its bishop should also have special prerogatives and be second in rank, after the Bishop of Rome. Who then hold primacy even before the Council of Chalcedon?

The bishop of Rome!

Here is also a short article on the Council of Chalcedon.

Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy.

What amazes me is your stubborn denial of what are historical facts. At the closing of the sessions, the council of Chalcedon wrote a letter to Pope Leo I, in which the Fathers informed him of what had been done; thanked him for the exposition of Christian Faith contained in his dogmatic epistle; spoke of his legates as having presided over them in his name; and asked for the ratification of the disciplinary matters enacted, particularly canon 28. Can you discern who has greater authority here?

What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of “apostolic succession� and an “unbroken chain of popes� stretching all the way back to Peter.

The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604.

What can I say? The kind of history you adher to iis your history.

But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:

“I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.�

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (Hefele-Leclercq, "Histoire des Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alios] so that he who calls himself œcumenic, that is, universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth" (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenröther, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance" (Epp., V, xx, in P. L., XXVII, 746, xxi, 750, etc.); he who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself 'servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness" (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "œcumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Œcumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writing to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and the Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stern letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 167). Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cærularius of Constantinople (in 1053): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.

With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalis, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false. (excerpted from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08493a.htm)

Now you know why Pope Gregory I abhor so much the title of Patriarcha universalis. Anymore?

To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:

“profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."

Okay, we have dealth with this one. Onward, please.

No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom.

I have already established that all Christendom recognized the see of Rome as having primacy above all other sees even before this event. Coerced? Here is the excerpt from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02660b.htm:

Emperor Phocas was in Constantinople and Cyriacus was the bishop of Constantinople. Pope Boniface III was in Rome. Pope Boniface III never used that title. He only obtained a decree from the emperor that no one should have any right to that title except the bishop of Rome. Here, the title of Universal Bishop is understood as a primacy, not of jurisdiction unlike how Gregory the Great understood the title.

The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Rome’s claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.

Pope Boniface III ruled only in A.D. 607. So, you are saying that, after this year, no Christian from the East subscribed to the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Let us read some of the Christian writings in the East after A.D. 607:

Consider the witness of St. Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 580-662), considered by the Eastern Orthodox to be among the most brilliant and authoritative of their Fathers, the great opponent of the Monothelite ("one will") heresy. He writes:

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the Popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (St. Maximus, in JB Mansi ed Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, volume 10)

And also

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (St. Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne PG 90)

We also have the prominent Byzantine champion of orthodoxy, St. Theodore the Studite (c. 759-826), head of the most influential monastery in Constantinople, who writes to Pope Leo III, saying:

"Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (St. Theodore, Book I, Epistle 23)

And writing to Pope Paschal:

"Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever. To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this." (Letter of St. Theodore and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal, Book 2, Epistle 12, Migne PG 99:1152-3)

And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by “popes� prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.)

Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals? Ah, the False Decretals! Even Catholics recognize these writings as false. Here's a Catholic webpage discussing the false decretals. Read and be informed.

Anymore?

Also included in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4th century) to Gregory II (8th century) in which are more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion in the decretals was a document entitled, “The Donation of Constantine.� Thought to be authentic for 600 years, and used successfully by bishops of Rome as grounds for their claims to primacy, it actually contained the ultimate proof that popes and the papacy are NOT DIVINELY ORDAINED, but are simply another invention of mere mortals.

Here's a Catholic webpage discussing the donation of Constantine.

Anymore?

On the one hand, Rome teaches that Christ ordained Peter as the head of His Church, the rock on which it was founded, and the first pope. But for 600 years – from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the Donation of Constantine was invoked as the historical event granting to bishops of Rome ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom and its episcopates, and temporal power over Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire.

You should have read by now historical evidences that does not depend on both the False Decretals and the Donation of Constantine. Your assertion simply cannot stand. Sorry, bro.

Allegedly donated by Constantine the Great to Sylvester 1, bishop of Rome AD 314-335, it was used by Nicholas I to dispel opposition to popes and the papacy, and history shows that, from the ninth century to the present, bishops of Rome have been unopposed as exclusive occupants of the office of pope. In AD 1054, Leo IX tried to use the Donation of Constantine to secure control of the eastern as well as the western churches. The patriarch of Constantinople suggested Leo should mind his own business, and the split of the eastern (Orthodox) churches from Rome became permanent thereafter.

I, on the other hand, had never used either the False Decretals nor the Donation of Constantine. Yet, you never disprove my claims. How is that? Simple. I have the truth.

_________________


Permenently secure its position of primacy?

Nearly absolute control over kings and nations for 500 years? Do you really read history? No, not the history you want to make. Real history - without sensationalizing, without hype. Do that, and probably you will have a chance ... nah!

For everything else, shalom.

[dacs]

@Maling:

Atot Maling uy! Kalit man lag sulod. Agree to disagree na pud ta?!

[MrBiddle]

ssuming for the sake of argument that the Big Bad Church did deceived the clergy, you believe that excuses your trickery?

Was I using deception and evasiveness? Or was I just being philsophical?

No it's NOT my history. as long as the prophets like Daniel or John can attest to the Big Bad institution Rome really is and how they are the ones who have and always will be persecuting the elect from Nero to the popes... sadly the elect can never be identified because of naughty evangelicals and those who are consecrated in truth (Jn. 17: 17 - 21 ) will be mixed up by the nonsectorial deceivers and impostors.

It's not realhistory either that you hold... the only reason why you defend the RCC so much because it is indeed an institution that hasn't and never will be toppled down which the Bible also attests to (Rev. 18: 18 ) "the great city".

sorry, misfit but uso man gud ang kilometric posting. I'm trendy... ;-b

anyway,

What is the Christian church supposed to be?

"I write so that you may know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth," (1 Tim. 3:15).

Â* Â* Â*The Christian church should be a reflection of Jesus' love, words, and deeds.Â* Its goal should be to glorify God, make Jesus known, develop godly people, and make disciples of every nation.Â* The church should be a group of believers, on the whole and in part, who live and teach the saving words of Christ.Â* To the extent that Jesus lived truth, so also should the people in the church.Â*
Â* Â* Â*The church is not supposed to be the building or the structure of a ruling body who act in the place of God and dictate to the congregants what is and is not truth.Â* The church is not headquartered at Salt Lake City, Utah, or Brooklyn, New York, or Rome, or Jerusalem, or any other city.Â* The church is not headquartered in a central location -- except to say that the Head of the Church is Jesus who is in heaven.Â* The church is not a convention, a building, a series of meetings, or commitments.Â* The church is the living Body of Christ comprised of the redeemed in Christ.Â* The external trappings of celebrations, rituals, buildings, robes, hymn books, organs, pianos, chairs, pews, windows, etc. are merely those things that give a tangible effect to the invisible reality of redemption.Â* These externals should not be considered the substance of the church.Â* The substance of the church is the redeemed in Christ.
Â* Â* Â*The visible church1 is supposed to be a collection of people who are saved by the blood of Jesus and indwelt by God Himself (John 14:23).Â* The Christian church is comprised of believers, equipped by God with teachers, pastors, etc. (1 Cor. 12:2, who grow in their relationship with Jesus through prayer and the study of God's word and who actively seek to expand God's kingdom through preaching and living the Gospel.
Â* Â* Â*The Christian church is supposed to be a light to the world.Â* It is supposed to fight against wickedness, oppression, poverty, sin, rebellion, adultery, homosexuality, fornication, abortion, etc.Â* It is not supposed to sit idly by and watch the unbelievers go to hell. The church is supposed to be active, living what is right before God and standing against sin.Â* Yet, this resistance against ungodliness is to be done with gentleness, love, patience, kindness, and wisdom.Â* It is this last item, wisdom, which is so often lacking in the church today.

Conduct yourselves with wisdom

Â* Â* Â*The church should be wise.Â* "Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity," (Col. 4:5).Â* Christians should not parade themselves on television as incessant beggars of money, or gaudy over dressed "guides of the blind" who sit in gold chairs and weep at the drop of a hat.Â* They should not display a drastic misuse of charismatic gifts by praying in tongues in public, becoming lost in uncontrollable laughter, or barking like dogs.Â* Christians should not speak of Jesus in one breath and then laugh at a dirty joke in the next.Â* All Christians are in the public eye one way or another and need to be above reproach, not hungry for money, not desirous of possessions, and not addicted to pornography, prostitutes, alcohol, drugs, off-color humor, or taking the Lord's name in vain.Â* Such sin brings mockery to the name of Christ.Â* The Christian church should be an example of propriety, decency, self-sacrifice, servitude, and love, not a money hungry, hypocritical, whining entity that is out of touch with reality as is so often portrayed on television.
Â* Â* Â* The Christian church has great liberty and I am not condemning the right to let financial needs be known nor am I discouraging the expression of the Holy Spirit within the church.Â* There are thousands of godly Christians who are very loving and giving and who honestly desire to honor and serve God.Â* But, the church as a whole needs to act and move in wisdom because the world is watching -- closely.Â* It is the begging, the charismatic chaos, and the chicanery that permeates the high-profile, public church today that needs to be eliminated.Â* We Christians need to clean our own house first before we starting pointing fingers at sinners!Â* Those Christians who are in high public positions should always be mindful of what they do and should ask themselves "How will this appear to the unbeliever?Â* Will it stumble them?"Â* Such was the concern of Paul in 1 Cor. 14.Â* He did not want the church in its freedom to stumble the unbeliever.
Â* Â* Â*Individual Christians should also be mindful of what they do and say in the workforce as well.Â* Remember that for many unbelievers, the only time they encounter Jesus is when they seem Him represented in Christians.Â* Therefore, the Christian should live his life lovingly, from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith (1 Tim. 1:5).
Â* Â* Â*The worldÂ* hears us call ourselves followers of Christ but too often observes us following whatever draws away our interests whether it be money, buildings, or experience.Â* Is this what the church is supposed to be and do?Â* There is nothing wrong with having buildings or asking for money for legitimate needs, but they must not be the reason for the church's existence and they should not be the things looked to for security.
Â* Â* Â*The Christian church is supposed to be a light in the world, a light of love, peace, wisdom, truth, most importantly, it is supposed to bring Glory to God, equip the Christians for the work of the Great Commission, and demonstrate godliness and holiness.Â* That is what the church is supposed to be and do.



There was a time though nga tentative kaayo ang mga simbahan because daghan nagpataka og suwat og feeling sila nga Epistle sad daw ilang gisuwat. These heretics tend to undermine the authority of the apostles by "adding to what is already sufficient"... even before the first century of Christianity uso na daw tong It is written word nga phrase... but as the church grew - in 170 AD onward to 220 AD that tentativeness became certainty when na filter na kasagaran of what is man-breathed and what is truly inspired... until the 3rd century when full-blown na ang final rebellion og ang apostasy of that once faithful city (1). As predicted by the apostles. (2)

1) Is. 1: 21 2) 2 Cor. 11: 3, 4 (wa lang siya ga allude sa mga Gnostics and the like oi... pati mga powers sa RCC nga feeling inspired daw pero gidaman lang sa yawan-ong espiritu 2 Thes 2: 9 - 11 )

[Obese Bo Ricardo]

The doctrine of Purgatory in the Catholic church is explained in this statement from the Second Vatican Council, p. 63, which says,

The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.

The Protestant church has objected to the doctrine of Purgatory by stating that this teaching denies the sufficiency and full efficacy of Christ’s atoning sacrifice. To say that our sins are expiated by our suffering is an insult to the cross of Christ since it says that the cross was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. It says that we must suffer, that we must do something to have our sins fully cleansed. Instead, the Protestants maintain that Jesus’ sacrifice alone is what justifies and removes from us all guilt. We look to the cross and to the cross alone for the complete forgiveness of our sins and, though our works will one day be judged, we have passed out of condemnation (Rom. 8:1). Our works reflect on rewards in heaven, not to get us to heaven. Jesus bore all our sins (1 Pet. 2:24). There are no sins left for purgatory to cleanse because it was all done by Jesus on the cross. This is why Jesus said, "It is finished," (John 19:30). In Greek the term "it is finished" is "tetelestai." It was a term used in legal contexts to state that a debt had been paid in full. "Papyri receipts for taxes have been recovered with the word tetelestai written across them, meaning "paid in full." (Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc., 1983, 1985). Therefore, there is no need for purgatory.
Nevertheless, because the Protestants appeal so much to the Bible, the Catholics have sought to find the doctrine of Purgatory within its pages. One such verse is 1 Cor. 3:15.

"If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire."

As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context. Following is 1 Cor. 3:10-15

According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building upon it. But let each man be careful how he builds upon it. 11For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12Now if any man builds upon the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it, because it is to be revealed with fire; and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If any man’s work which he has built upon it remains, he shall receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as through fire.

The context speaks of Paul having planted the Corinthian church and that another person was building upon that work: Verse 6 says, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." Paul goes on to say that unless a person builds upon the foundation of Jesus, his work will be burned up the in the day of judgment (v. 13). See also, 1 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:2).
Paul is simply using the terms that are familiar with the people of the time. Fire was the tool used to purify metals and to get rid of that which was unwanted, the dross. So too, on the day when our works are examined, the fire of judgment will both purify and remove. This will not affect our salvation, but it will affect our rewards. The theme of fire used as purification is also found in 2 Pet. 3:10-13. But this is not talking about becoming saved or staying saved.
1 Cor. 3:15 does not teach purgatory as a place we go to in order to have some of our sins cleansed from us. It teaches that even though the person is justified by faith and cannot face damnation, his works will, however, be judged on "that day." Those works which are good will survive the fires of judgment the way gold, silver, and precious stones can survive fire. But false works will be consumed the way fire consumes wood, hay, and straw. What is left has no bearing on whether or not we are saved. It has to do with rewards in heaven.
Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 4:5, "Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God."
Note also, 1 Pet. 1:6-7, "In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, 7that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ."
2 Pet. 3:10-13, "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells
Purgatory is a dangerous doctrine that makes the Cross of Christ insufficient by requiring the person to undergo suffering in order to be made worthy of being with God. This is a false teaching and is to be avoided. We are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1), not by faith and works (Rom. 3:2.

[pnoize]

moderator's note

Obviously, most of these posts come from another website. i suggest that you post the link instead of posting the entire article.

[dacs]

moderator's note

Obviously, most of these posts come from another website. i suggest that you post the link instead of posting the entire article.

Whenever and wherever it is more appropriate, I promise to do just that. Unfortunately, some articles are just to long for an ordinary person to have the patience to read it all. At times, an excerpt from that article is more appropriate. I do promise not to quote the whole thing - or even half of it.

Thank you and sorry for the long posts.

[HoundedbyHeaven]

moderator's note

Obviously, most of these posts come from another website. i suggest that you post the link instead of posting the entire article.

If "It is finished"[sic] means "There are no sins left for purgatory to cleanse because it was all done by Jesus on the cross."[sic], then why does St. Paul write in Col 1:24 that

"Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church:"

? Did St. Paul insulted "...the cross of Christ since it says that the cross was not sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. It says that we must suffer, that we must do something to have our sins fully cleansed."[sic]?

You see, anti-Catholics like Obese Bo Ricardo, a.k.a. MrBiddle, throw up bold statements like "As with any verse in the Bible, to fully understand it, we must look at it in its biblical context."[sic], but flunk when measured by the standard they put up. Confronted with contradictory passages like this-- that is contradictory to the doctrine they are trying to smuggle into the text --they usually clash it with their most cherished proof texts or ignore it outrightly (perhaps wishing that line was never written).

And as for 1 Cor 3:15, Obese Bo Ricardo, a.k.a. MrBiddle, is actually covering up something, like he often does with his true identity. He is covering up a very obvious truth in this passage, so obvious that-- unless you have an agenda of reading your own interpretation into the text --even the blind can point it out (Well, pardon the understatement).

And this is the truth he is covering up: the "he" who "suffers loss"-- because "his work burns" --in 1 Cor 3:15 "shall be saved, yet so as by fire". See, his trick pulls off once you either become convinced that "the fire shall try" only the "work" and not the one who did the work, or overlook the fact that the same fire (or maybe another kind) is involved in saving the "he" in that passage. Also, his trick is devised to keep you from asking the question: Why is this fire involved in saving this man who suffered loss because his works were burnt up?

Then again, once you've been had, he can get you drunk you with all of his fancy interpretations of other Bible passages that allegedly prove his arguments. The same tactic people like him used to smuggle Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide into the Bible.

Of course, if you ask Mother Church, She would answer that this fire is a powerful clue to the existence of "Purgatory". And in deference to the Thread Moderator, I hereby post this link as a refutation to Obese Bo Ricardo's attack on Mother Church's teaching on purgatory: http://www.catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp .

[MrBiddle]

Col. 1: 24 refers to what is lacking in Christ's sufferings through us for the sake of the Gospel.

For sin, there is no further question or sacrifice needed for it (Heb. 10: 18 ) it was finished once and for all (Heb. 9: 26 - 28 )

The truth is no good work can offset sin (Gal. 5: 4 ) For people who deny the all sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for sin, they site the same verse Col. 1: 24 without the context of what is to be suffered for (Rom. 8: 17 - 18 ) Again, there is no further question for sin (Heb. 10: 14, 18 ) With this it becomes too certain that Paul was really talking about putting himself on the line for them, for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Risk and persecution of living and spreading the word is inevitable (Luke 21: 12 - 19 )

And this is the truth he is covering up: the "he" who "suffers loss"-- because "his work burns" --in 1 Cor 3:15 "shall be saved, yet so as by fire

loss because of a backslipping member in Christ's body, the whole chapter almost refers to the building up of God's spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3: 16 ) see also Eph. 2: 20 - 22 but since it isn't good works that saves us (Eph. 2: 9, Rom. 3: 28 ) it is merely a loss of a building block, or living stone or rock (1 Pet. 2: 4 - 9, Matt. 16: 18 ) that is part of the building... would it NOT be a loss if a branch is cut off from the vine? Yes but NOT the loss of salvation for the one who planted.

Fire is God's Word (Jer. 23:29 ) for God will judge men's secrets through Christ Jesus (Rom. 2: 10 - 12 ) who is the Word.

From a much wider perspective 1 Cor. 3, building up God's spiritual temple and all that in it's most fundamental essence is still about the work of the Great Commision (Matt. 28: 18 - 20 )

[Obese Bo Ricardo]

Col. 1: 24 refers to what is lacking in Christ's sufferings through us for the sake of the Gospel.

For sin, there is no further question or sacrifice needed for it (Heb. 10: 18 ) it was finished once and for all (Heb. 9: 26 - 28 )

The truth is no good work can offset sin (Gal. 5: 4 ) For people who deny the all sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for sin, they site the same verse Col. 1: 24 without the context of what is to be suffered for (Rom. 8: 17 - 18 ) Again, there is no further question for sin (Heb. 10: 14, 18 ) With this it becomes too certain that Paul was really talking about putting himself on the line for them, for the sake of preaching the Gospel. Risk and persecution of living and spreading the word is inevitable (Luke 21: 12 - 19 )


Quote
And this is the truth he is covering up: the "he" who "suffers loss"-- because "his work burns" --in 1 Cor 3:15 "shall be saved, yet so as by fire

loss because of a backslipping member in Christ's body, the whole chapter almost refers to the building up of God's spiritual temple (1 Cor. 3: 16 ) see also Eph. 2: 20 - 22 but since it isn't good works that saves us (Eph. 2: 9, Rom. 3: 28 ) it is merely a loss of a building block, or living stone or rock (1 Pet. 2: 4 - 9, Matt. 16: 18 ) that is part of the building... would it NOT be a loss if a branch is cut off from the vine? Yes but NOT the loss of salvation for the one who planted.

Fire is God's Word (Jer. 23:29 ) for God will judge men's secrets through Christ Jesus (Rom. 2: 10 - 12 ) who is the Word.

From a much wider perspective 1 Cor. 3, building up God's spiritual temple and all that in it's most fundamental essence is still about the work of the Great Commision (Matt. 28: 18 - 20 )

exactly... putting ourselves on the line for the sake of the Gospel or for those in need for it is written "Those who save their life will lose it but those who lose their life for My sake will keep it. For what good is it for a man to gain the whole world but forfeit his soul?"

And as written in many places in the letters of Paul to the Romans or Hebrews the sacrifice of sin is already complete and there is no further question of that. But there are rather unorthodox doctrinals such as yes, purgatory or the worship of the elements of the Lord's supper and the "Transubstantiation" as defined by the General Council of Trent. These, if compared with what is taught as a whole in the New Testament can be exposed as bare-faced lies and heresy since they deny the all sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice for sins.

Being a Christian is NOT being a hedonist, it is putting ourselves on the line through helping others out of love for God... but NEITHER is it masochism as we no longer need to suffer for sin. By saying that these "indulgences" are expiation for "stains" in the human soul people fail to understand what it means to suffer for sins. It has to be a vicarious suffering, to suffer as a substitute and it must involve DEATH. Because DEATH is the wages of sin. (Rom 6: 23, Ezk. 18: 26 )

But that sacrifice has already been done 2000 years ago...

[MrBiddle]

asa naman to si HoundedbyHeaven? see? you thought I couldnt' get away with Col. 1: 24 right? well there's no getting away, there's only the understanding of it as a whole as to what "lacking in Christ's sufferings" really meant. and undeniable truth that the sacrifice for sin is complete.

ingon si Dacs nga the RCC also rejects "salvation by works" because of that's got "Jewish" written all over it yet di japon assured ang mga RC Christians sa ilang salvation because it depends on many things more esoteric and mystical than the love of God, faithÂ* and obedience...

anyway, Col. 1: 24 is common amongst those who like to quote verses arbitrarily so they can deny the cross. Even Anthony Pezzota prevented kids from being seduced by a man in dusters and chasuble when he illustrated what that really meant.