Wondering

[Julie L]

now... suppose I repent?

After all, I'm Catholic. We teach that if you sin, any sin at all. You must repent of that sin immediately.

[Guest Guest]

Right... well' date=' since I am all those things... than I deserve Hell! then of course the Lake of Fire is next![/quote']
Indeed, ma'am. We all deserve that.

But it is possible for us to be saved from it. Do you know how that happens, ma'am?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[1Timothy115]

Not that I agree with Julie, but anyone looking for the truth is badly misguided by relying on wikipedia. It is a major faux pas to reference that website in academic debate.

What academic debate? Also, I would have agreed with you many years ago however...please give reference examples before discounting.

[1Timothy115]

After scanning the page, and since none of this is scientific, I'll stand by it as a reference.

[1Timothy115]

you lost me here.... are you saying that the Early christian churches are separate from the church of Rome?

What church of Rome are you talking about?

You transliterated what I said. I said church at Rome not church of Rome. I am saying there was NO church at Rome during Christ's ministry and that catholic was coined long before the church at Rome ever attepted to legitimize itself with "catholic."

[war_eagle]

Can you give me one example so I can better understand what you are talking about?

I can give you more than one.

In one instance, I said that the Catholic church teaches that Purgatory is for the expiation of sins and was told that they do not. When I cited the CCC, I was told that I was lying.

Then, I stated that the Cathoilc church declared us to be anathema because we hold to certain Biblical doctrines. They said the Cathoilc church did not declare us anathema. I cited the Council of Trent for them. Once again, I was told that I was lying.

[Julie L]

I can give you more than one.

In one instance, I said that the Catholic church teaches that Purgatory is for the expiation of sins and was told that they do not. When I cited the CCC, I was told that I was lying.

Then, I stated that the Cathoilc church declared us to be anathema because we hold to certain Biblical doctrines. They said the Cathoilc church did not declare us anathema. I cited the Council of Trent for them. Once again, I was told that I was lying.

Well, first... Purgatory IS for the expiation of sins. So the Catholic you were talking to either didn't understand you or just didn't understand their faith's belief in Purgatory. Either way, you are right.

Second. the word "anathema" is used a lot in the text of the Council of Trent. Which verse did you quote?

Julie

[Julie L]

Rejecting Satin and sin, and following God.

[HappyChristian]

Well, first... Purgatory IS for the expiation of sins. So the Catholic you were talking to either didn't understand you or just didn't understand their faith's belief in Purgatory. Either way, you are right.

Second. the word "anathema" is used a lot in the text of the Council of Trent. Which verse did you quote?

Julie

So, Julie, if purgatory is for expiation of sins, what's the blood of Jesus for? Could you cite scripture that supports the idea of purgatory? I'd be really interested to read them, thanks!!!

[Julie L]

You transliterated what I said. I said church at Rome not church of Rome. I am saying there was NO church at Rome during Christ's ministry and that catholic was coined long before the church at Rome ever attepted to legitimize itself with "catholic."

You are right, there was NO church at Rome during Christ's ministry. St. Peter went there and established a church there later. After Pentecost.

St. Ignatius of Anitioch (second bishop of Anitioch, a center for christianity) was the first writer we have proof of using the words "the Catholic Church"

St. Ignatius was later martyred in Rome maybe around the year 107.

So that tells you about how early the words "the Catholic Church" were in use.

That's pretty early to me.... after all St. John is believed to have only died in the year 100 or so (making him about 87 ish)

[Julie L]

So' date=' Julie, if purgatory is for expiation of sins, what's the blood of Jesus for? Could you cite scripture that supports the idea of purgatory? I'd be really interested to read them, thanks!!![/quote']

This is a hard teaching to believe in if you don't first understand that God can forgive us our sins.... BUT still require punishment for those sins.
An example would be King David. In 2 Sam 12:13-14, where David tells Nathan he has sinned. And Nathan tells David that God has "put away his sin; and he shalt not die" BUT... then Nathan tells David that because of his sin, his son will have to die.
God forgave the guilt of David's sin, but He still required reparation in the form of suffering. And boy did David suffer.
(A man might forgive a teenager for breaking his window, but still insist that he repair the damages.) This is how Purgatory can be viewed. If we die in the perfect state of grace without any sin at all or reparation due to sin, then that person would go straight to paradise. IF a person died in the state of unrepented mortal (deadly) sin... they would go directly to Hell. But what about the person who is like David?
Someone who dies and they have repented of their sins, BUT they have not yet suffered for them?
That person does not merit hell... but they died before they could suffer for the sins they have committed. Purgatory is where that soul would go and they would suffer there until they have paid every penny. Then they would go to paradise.

Mt 12:32 "And whosoever speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speak against the Holy Ghost, is shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."
Jesus implies that "some" sins can actually be forgiven in the world to come. The example here is that if we speak a word against the Son of man, it will be forgiven us, even in the world to come. Which world is that? Not Hell, no one is forgiven in Hell. And it can't be Paradise? There is nothing to be forgive of if we made it to paradise. So there must be a place where souls are at some point forgiven.

1 Cor 3:15 "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire."
Again, this can not be Hell, no one can suffer in Hell and through this suffering then be SAVED. And this can not be Paradise, because no one suffers in Paradise. So there MUST be a place where souls suffer a loss, but are then saved.

1 Peter 3:18-20 & 1 Peter 4:6 talk about the spirits in prison, who formerly did not obey, and yet they were "saved" when Jesus preached to them.
Again, where are these "spirits"? Not in Hell, no one can be saved from Hell. And not in Paradise, they are already saved there. So there MUST be a place where souls were preached too by Jesus, and then Saved!

Here is a good example of prayer for the dead (souls in Purgatory) in 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 (this can be found in the Greek Septuagint: the Old Testament Scriptures that were in use when Jesus was preaching.)
"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."
Praying for the dead presumes that there are souls in a middle state where atonement for sin can be made.

[Guest Guest]

Rejecting Satin and sin' date=' and following God.[/quote']
To a point, ma'am, that is correct. But I want a more specific answer.

Let me ask you this, then: If you were to stand before God today, and He were to ask you, "Why should I let you into My Kingdom?", what would you say?
In Christ,
Crushmaster.

[1Timothy115]

You are right, there was NO church at Rome during Christ's ministry. St. Peter went there and established a church there later. After Pentecost.

St. Ignatius of Anitioch (second bishop of Anitioch, a center for christianity) was the first writer we have proof of using the words "the Catholic Church"

St. Ignatius was later martyred in Rome maybe around the year 107.

So that tells you about how early the words "the Catholic Church" were in use.

That's pretty early to me.... after all St. John is believed to have only died in the year 100 or so (making him about 87 ish)

Can you show me in scripture where Peter made a trip to Rome?

[ptwild]

Can you show me in scripture where Peter made a trip to Rome?

And herein lies another enormous burden to this conversation. Those who are not a part of the ancient Church believe that if it is not in the Bible, it absolutely, without a doubt, did not happen. On the other hand, most of the ancient Churches accept the history and teachings of the early Christians (who didn't yet have the Bible themselves) as just as accurate and authoritative as the Bible. This assertion also assumes that Peter must have personally traveled to Rome to start a church, which we know was not how it always happened. Additionally, Peter did not "start" a church in Rome. He carried the same Church which was already in existence in Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessolonia, Collasae . . . to the capital of the Roman Empire. Whether he did it personally, or through a proxy is irrelevant. Again, I'll disagree with Julie on a great deal of her theology, but history alone shows us that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, just as Ignatius was the first Bishop of Antioch.

[1Timothy115]

And herein lies another enormous burden to this conversation. Those who are not a part of the ancient Church believe that if it is not in the Bible, it absolutely, without a doubt, did not happen. On the other hand, most of the ancient Churches accept the history and teachings of the early Christians (who didn't yet have the Bible themselves) as just as accurate and authoritative as the Bible. This assertion also assumes that Peter must have personally traveled to Rome to start a church, which we know was not how it always happened. Additionally, Peter did not "start" a church in Rome. He carried the same Church which was already in existence in Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessolonia, Collasae . . . to the capital of the Roman Empire. Whether he did it personally, or through a proxy is irrelevant. Again, I'll disagree with Julie on a great deal of her theology, but history alone shows us that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, just as Ignatius was the first Bishop of Antioch.

I know of others who are better able to toss in some doubt from hear say and speculation but, even in the court of man those things are inadmissible.