Spaz

Actually whether is exists to protestants was the question and what amos thought of an 11 year old girl doesn't matter at all, since that wasn't what the thread was made about. I was asking questions about catholicism because I know nothing about it because I was protestant. Purgatory was never taught to me, there was eternal heaven or eternal hell, the question about that was why would there be a temporal punishment so obviously and then later on only eternal punishment is taught (at least when I went to church that's what I was taught). Adding to that were the other things that protestants don't believe, like magus and others said, that catholics do.

Radorth

OK Spaz, we had a miscommunication. I was wondering why you assumed I did not believe in it from my conversation with Amos.

To me the most fundamental, important doctrine missing from Catholicism is imputed righteousness. It is plainly in the NT. Paul speaks directly of it, and without it, IMO, all you have is another religion.

You know what's so ironic Amos, is that if I ask a Catholic if they know they are going to heaven for sure, so many will say "I hope so." That is because they are bookkeeping good works, going to mass, confessions, hoping they get last rights, and that someone will pay for a mass after they are dead.

But if you deny IR, that is the mentality you are stuck with. I see no great humility in it either because they are entirely dependent on works and a smile from the priest for assurance. The thief on the cross next to Jesus didn't go to purgatory, did he? How was that possible? How do you explain Jesus' parable of the laborers who came at different times and got the same reward? IMO only a truly humble person can see the need for IR. Meanwhile you condemn a billion thieves whom God could save via IR, if he chose to do so. Nothing could or would make him more omnipotent when it comes to saving ignorant souls, you see.

Rad

Sabine Grant

Dear dear dear Amos.... I do agree. Many of my evangelical buddies do focus way too much on the gift of tongues. A pentecostal denomination even believes that if you do not have the gift of tongues, " no way Jose" you have the Holy spirit and therefor you are not saved...arguing with such doctrines is a waste of time. Yes there is a tendency for some born again christians who have that particular gift to boast about it. This is where scriptures become handy... the entire chapter of 1st Corinthians 13.... and the first verse does support your final statement, emphasized again by the last verse (13). Love, love , love... Agape to you.

Sabine Grant

RAD and AMOS... how about a compromise here where both catholics and the rest of christianity realize that only God knows the intent of the human heart way past proclamations and declarations? In other words, if you both have faith that God knows what He is doing, why worry about what men say? The idea is not to get the right doctrine or detain the absolute truth but to trust God's evaluation of the human " heart". " Be still and know that I am". Peace, peace...

the_cave

You folks have finally figured out a way to drive a skeptical Catholic insane...the person I sympathize with most on this forum is believe it or not Biff, whose slamming-his-head-against-the-wall smiley is exactly how I feel right now (for different reasons...) The discussion has veered into an exchange of inaccuracies so glib and bizarre it makes my little head spin...

Ok, first of all, the SIMPLE ANSWER TO THE ORIGINAL QUESTION is:

Catholic practices (and I would argue far more Protestant practices than they admit, but that is my opinion) are based on the collected traditions of the Catholic church, beginning from its very origins in the 1st century. In the Catholic church (and to a lesser degree in high protestant churches, such as the Anglican and Lutheran traditions), such practices are followed specifically because they are assumed to either have been introduced by

a) the apostles themselves, based on either tradition or on early documents of the church, or
b) their ordained successors, the bishops, whom Catholics believe the apostles granted equal spiritual authority to themselves (again, based on scripture, tradition, and the writings of the early church fathers, the leaders of the early church.)

So, a) and b) are essentially the answers to your question; the sources of Catholic practice and doctrine, besides the Bible.

I am NOT here to argue for the validity of one or the other--but they are NOT all medieval inventions (and those that are, were according to the Catholic church validly developed by the spiritual descendants of the apostles and original congregations, as a part of the church's unending efforts to make religious practice relevant to everyday life. They weren't arbitrary decisions; there are documented reasons for them.)

The notion that only scriptural practices have authority for a Christian I would argue is a purely Protestant invention of the 16th century. HOWEVER, that does not deny that scriptural practices have a significant value, as they are practices with an important primacy and history. But that doesn't negate the value of other practices and traditions. Again, this particular point is my understanding; if you disagree, fine.

It would not at all be accurate that Catholicism just "made up" everything that can't be found in the bible (whose canonical books were not declared until the 3rd century, and which still require contemporary interpretation for meaning).

***The MAIN POINT*** is that the difference between Catholicism and Bible-only Protestantism is that Catholicism values early church practice quite highly, and equally values the decisions made by WHAT IT BELIEVES TO BE the valid line of holders of the office of bishop, based on the ritual of the laying on of hands from one bishop to another. I don't want to get into an argument about any of this, but this is the answer to the original question. I have stated facts that any Catholic or Protestant would agree are facts. Whether they think such attitudes are religiously valid is a TOTALLY SEPARATE QUESTION. I just wanted to set the record straight.

(P.S. to those who care--Catholicism is not works-only. Read the Pope's agreement with the German Lutherans if you want a modern document on the subject.)

Amos

That is possible because the Gospels take place in purgatory and I have always claimed that to be so. The birth of Christ unto Joseph foreshadowed the rebirth of modern day Christians who so "enter the race" and become torn in the "saved sinner complex" wherein they must have victory to ascend into heaven.

Amos

Well it kind of dumb to ask sheep where they are going, don't you think? Give them some time and God will take care of the rest.

Amos

No objections at all Sabine but the self righteous born again bible thumbing Jesus freaks deserve to be slapped, and hard. It is not my ambition to find fault with protestants because they are protestant. It is the promotion of their entrapment into the "saved sinner complex" that I object to.

Magus55

Oh yeah, forgot to mention purgatory on my list

Catholics created purgatory - there is no scriptural basis for it whatsoever. Radorth, your point about saved through fire isn't talking about purgatory. Scriptural wise, there is only Heaven and Hell, no purgatory, no limbo.

Luiseach

Did the concept of purgatory derive from Judaism? I'm not sure, but I think 'Sheol' (sp?) might be similar in many ways to both the Christian Hell and Purgatory concepts.