New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox etc)

[MahogonySnail]

It is often claimed that protestant doctrine and biblical interpretation has changed and different interpretations have come about since the Reformation, which is true. The pre-tribulation rapture idea is one such example. And there's countless others to do with pre millenialism etc.

Yet it should be recognised that the same or similar sorts of doctrinal changes have also occured within the claimed apostolic churches, Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and their variants , Church of England (episcopal/anglican), often with their denial of such changes ever taking place. "We have always believed these things to be so" is the claim. Or it is claimed that doctrine needs to be developed. I see no difference between the development of a Roman Catholic belief in purgatory and indulgences (which are not found in canonical scripture), and the development of a pre-tribulation rapture idea within protestant theology.

A nice list can be found below of the introduction of new traditions , practices, doctrines, observations etc within the Catholic church.

Not all of these may be doctrines, but more traditions or observances. Still, what should be clear is that doctrinal, traditional or observational changes within the Church, whether it be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or whatever, happens over time. Within the apostolic churches in recent times, it has been the issues of homosexuality, evolution, greater acceptance of Muslims and protestants, contraception, abortion, ordination of female priests which have been hot topics. Given the record of history it is hard to deny changes taking place in both doctrine, tradition and practice. The Roman Catholic and pre-tribulation believer alike appear foolish in claiming "these things have always been so" when the historical records are self-evident.


http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm


200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.
257 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.
300 AD
Prayers for the dead
320 AD
Special dress code of the clergy in worship
325 AD
At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.
325 AD
The date for Easter was set.
379 AD
Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)
385 AD
In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.
389 AD
Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.
400 AD
Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)
416 AD
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)
430 AD
Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus
502 AD
Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.
500 AD
The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)
519 AD
Lent
526 AD
Extreme Unction
593 AD
The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great
600 AD
First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I)
Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.
607 AD

First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.
608 AD
Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.
670 AD
Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian
709 AD
Kissing of Pope Constantine’s feet
753 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.
787 AD
Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea)
787 AD
Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.
965 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD
Burning of Holy Candles
995 AD
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
998 AD
Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden
1009 AD
Holy water
1022 AD
Penance
1054 AD
Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church
1054 AD
Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.
1079 AD
Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII)
1090 AD
Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit
1095 AD
Instrumental music
1190 AD
Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed)
1215 AD
Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council
1215 AD
Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council)
1215 AD
Mass a Sacrifice of Christ
1217 AD
Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
1230 AD
Ringing bells at Mass
1251 AD
The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock
1268 AD
Priestly power of absolution
1311 AD
Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)
1414 AD
Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance)
1439 AD
Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD)
1439 AD
Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1480 AD
The Inquisition (of Spain)
1495 AD
Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD
Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola
1545 AD
Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent)
1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent)
1546 AD
Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD
Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD)
1547 AD
Confirmation
1560 AD
Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed
1864 AD
Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned
1870 AD
Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)
1908 AD
All Catholics should be christened into the church
1930 AD
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)
1950 AD
Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)
1950 AD
Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)
1954 AD
Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII
1995 AD
The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties
1996 AD
Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II)

 

[MahogonySnail]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

Now this change in doctrine may appear harmless. But it isn't. It causes division. You have Catholics who believe in modern day catholicism , and then you have more traditional ones who are more pre-15th centuary catholics. Some want female priests, others don't. Some think muslims are brothers and sisters and children of God, others are pretty strict in their definition and that Catholicism is the only way to God. There are many variations in catholic thought and belief. You have pre-15th centuary ones (some even believe the earth is flat), you have evangelical ones, you have charismatic ones. It really comes down to which Pope's words or which church writing the catholic chooses to believe in and follow.

 

[kujo313]

Now this change in doctrine may appear harmless. But it isn't. It causes division. You have Catholics who believe in modern day catholicism , and then you have more traditional ones who are more pre-15th centuary catholics. Some want female priests, others don't. Some think muslims are brothers and sisters and children of God, others are pretty strict in their definition and that Catholicism is the only way to God. There are many variations in catholic thought and belief. You have pre-15th centuary ones (some even believe the earth is flat), you have evangelical ones, you have charismatic ones. It really comes down to which Pope's words or which church writing the catholic chooses to believe in and follow.

But wouldn't that be "picking and choosing" as the catholics accuse the protestants in doing?
Can they do that and not be sinning against the "infallibility" of pope?

I left the rcc years ago.

 

[eric51]

quote=MahogonySnail;66562]It is often claimed that protestant doctrine and biblical interpretation has changed and different interpretations have come about since the Reformation, which is true. The pre-tribulation rapture idea is one such example. And there's countless others to do with pre millenialism etc.

Yet it should be recognised that the same or similar sorts of doctrinal changes have also occured within the claimed apostolic churches, Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and their variants , Church of England (episcopal/anglican), often with their denial of such changes ever taking place. Anglicans are not Apostolic Christians, and they cannot legitimately be included in this thread. They do change their Deposit of Faith, whereas Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, do not. "We have always believed these things to be so" is the claim. Or it is claimed that doctrine needs to be developed. I see no difference between the development of a Roman Catholic belief in purgatory and indulgences (which are not found in canonical scripture), and the development of a pre-tribulation rapture idea within protestant theology.

You see no difference out of a lack of understanding. Doctrine must be based either on Scripture, Sacred Tradition or most commonly, both. If it is not based on either one, it cannot be doctrine, and is not so. Practices, that is, the way the Mass may be conducted, is NOT doctrine, and can change.Such a change does not alter the Deposit of Faith.

A nice list can be found below of the introduction of new traditions , practices, doctrines, observations etc within the Catholic church. After reading your list it is quite bad; a waste of time.

Not all of these may be doctrines, but more traditions or observances. As I said, if it is a practice, that does not violate the Deposit of Faith, and is not an example of a "change" in FAITH. Still, what should be clear is that doctrinal, traditional or observational changes within the Church, whether it be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or whatever, happens over time. Practices change over time, NOT DOCTRINE. Whereas in protestant sects, DOCTRINE changes a great, great deal; worse yet, for protestants, doctrine tends to be INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC: That is not Absolute Truth.

Within the apostolic churches in recent times, it has been the issues of homosexuality, evolution, greater acceptance of Muslims and protestants, contraception, abortion, ordination of female priests which have been hot topics. Views on homosexuallity have not changed at all. Views on evolution has never been part of the Deposit of Faith. Given the record of history it is hard to deny changes taking place in both doctrine, tradition and practice. Very easy to deny inasmuch as Doctrine has never changed. The Roman Catholic and pre-tribulation believer alike appear foolish in claiming "these things have always been so" when the historical records are self-evident.


http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm


200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.

250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.
As I said above this is incorrect. Consult the Didache. Or, produce your "proof". I am dying to see this.

257 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.
Again, incorrect. See above. Did you get this stuff from the Mormons? ROTFL.

300 AD
Prayers for the dead
LOL. Written texts that are the basis of praying to the dead are 2 TIM 1:16-18; 1 Cor 15:29-30;1 Pet 3:18-20; 1 Pet 4:6 AND 2 Maccabees 12:44-46.
320 AD
Special dress code of the clergy in worship
Dress code is a practice and does not involve change in Doctrine.


325 AD
At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

Marriage of clergy is a discipline, not a Doctrine.


325 AD
The date for Easter was set.

Yes, and so? No doctrine is involved.

379 AD
Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)
Praying to Mary and Saints is a part of the Communion of Saints. That communion is referrred to in the Nicene Creed. It is a subset of praying to the dead, which I referred to above. Not only is your date wrong, but the NT repeatedly refers to intercessory prayers by those in heaven. Tob 12:12; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4; Rev 6:9-11.

385 AD
In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

Clerical marriage is a discipline, not a doctrine. See above.
389 AD
Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

No, St. Luke begins Mariolatry, as you so glibly described it. Luke 1:26-56. Better yet, Elizabeth did: "
And how does this happen, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." Mary herself tells you, "all ages shall call me blessed." v.48. Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431AD codified christian belief: Mary is the Mother of God.

400 AD
Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)

Apostolic Doctrine on Salvation has been posted ad nauseum for past couple of weeks. You have my posts with biblical verses, Sacred Tradition, and the posts of others. Whatever,Augustine said, or did not say, in your reference, makes no difference. Salvation is Church Doctrine, and that doctrine has been taught by the Church since first century [time of Apostles].
416 AD
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)
Already discussed baptism, read the Didache.

430 AD
Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus

Indeed, based on Scripture and Tradition. See above.

502 AD
Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.
Forget about dress code. You really are confused about what Doctrine is.
500 AD
The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)
Dress.
519 AD
Lent

Lent involves fasting, a practice, form of Liturgy [how we worship in public]. Moreover, your dates are extremely problematic.

Extreme Unction
593 AD
Blessing of the Sick is based on James 5:15 and Mark 6:13. Again, your dates are problematic. If there was a pronouncement on the date you posted, that simply codified existing belief and practice. It does not constitute the beginning of the belief.
The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great
600 AD

Purgatory is Scriptural and was always a belief of the Church, also a belief of Jews. Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3;15; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 1 Pet 4:6;2 Maccabees 12:44-46.
First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I)

Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.
607 AD

Really, gee, thought our Church began with the Commissioning of Peter by Jesus and Pentecost. Doubt you even belief that silly date you posted. Odd, the NT contains Apostolic doctrines reflected in Catholic/East Orthodx doctrine. Mass, Confession, Salvation as a process, priests [presbyteros] and bishops [episkopos], baptism. NT sure seems Catholic/Orthodox to me.

First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.
608 AD
Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

You are wasting my time with this crap. Was hoping this would be a serious thread. If for a protestant, most of your examples here, are, to put it bluntly: DUMB.
670 AD
Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian

DUMB
709 AD
Kissing of Pope Constantine’s feet
DUMB
753 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.
787 AD
Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea)
Never have worshipped icons or statutes. We only worship God. We use statues and other images to call to mind the holy people they represent. Just the way some protestants use nativity scenes to depict the same holy people. Catholics/Orthodox use statues and images in devotions year around.

787 AD
Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.

Yes, and so? We are not denominations, we are 2 branches of the same Church. Protestants have denominations.

965 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD
Burning of Holy Candles
995 AD
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
998 AD
Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden
1009 AD
Holy water
1022 AD
Penance
1054 AD
Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church
1054 AD
Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.
1079 AD
Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII)
1090 AD
Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit
1095 AD
Instrumental music
1190 AD
Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed)
1215 AD
Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council
1215 AD
Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council)
1215 AD
Mass a Sacrifice of Christ
1217 AD
Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
1230 AD
Ringing bells at Mass
1251 AD
The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock
1268 AD
Priestly power of absolution
1311 AD
Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)
1414 AD
Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance)
1439 AD
Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD)
1439 AD
Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1480 AD
The Inquisition (of Spain)
1495 AD
Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD
Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola
1545 AD
Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent)
1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent)
1546 AD
Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD
Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD)
1547 AD
Confirmation
1560 AD
Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed
1864 AD
Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned
1870 AD
Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)
1908 AD
All Catholics should be christened into the church
1930 AD
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)
1950 AD
Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)
1950 AD
Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)
1954 AD
Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII
1995 AD
The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties
1996 AD
Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II)[/quote]

Evolution, whatever the process, is not part of the Deposit of Fatih. Actually, Holy Father Pius XII in 1946 indicated that He Himself was leaning towards personally believing in evolution as more accurate an explanation than other competing theories. Church never told catholics what to believe regarding evolution, for it is irrelevant whatever the process is. What we must believe is that God is the origin of all creation.


Sorry to say it but your post was a complete disappointment. You simply threw out fundamentalist and other silly protestant trash, that even most protestants probably don't believe. Not researched at all. Bad job.

You confuse Church DOCTRINES with disciplines and practices. A DOCTRINE IS UNCHANGEABLE TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD--SUCH AS THE VIRGIN BIRTH, WHILE A DISCIPLINE IS A CHANGEABLE REGULATION, LIKE A PRIEST FACTING THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE ALTAR DURING THE MASS.

Catholic, and E. Orthodox, Churches teach there can be no new doctrines since the death of the last apostle. The Apostolic deposit of faith was delivered once and for all [Jude 3]. The eternal truths of God must be lieved out in different times, cultures and places. Church disciplines which help us live out these truths are therefore adapted as conditions in the Church change.

You must also remember that doctrines can develop, in the sense of being understood more fully and made more explicit. These fuller insights are passed on by the Church through its teaching office [Magisterium]. This is not invention but proper growth. Whenever fundamentalists such as you, Mahgonoy, insist the Church has changed its doctrines, you can be sure you are wrong and are confusing a discipline or practice with a doctrine, or otherwise are mistaking true doctrinal development for a new invention.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Eric I suggest you do a little bit more study, there is only one point in the long list that I wish to address re: infant baptism to show your lack of evidence, you said:

200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.

250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.
As I said above this is incorrect. Consult the Didache. Or, produce your "proof". I am dying to see this.

First of all, do you have comprehension issues Eric? The Didache is not about infant baptism but about different methods of baptism. The Didache doesn't even mention infants. See for yourself, if you can find a quote from the Didache mentioning infants please quote it. While sprinkling is permitted, sprinkling is a last resort if no water is otherwise available. Yet the Catholic church et al. practices sprinkling as the norm, thus going against the very writings they profess to follow. And how many before baptism fast as it says to do?

Here is the relevant passages in the Didache, now you tell me, is modern day Catholic practice re: baptism follow the Didache? Do they find living water first and do sprinkling only if they find none? Do they fast?


Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.


Now the baptiser and baptised is supposed to fast, how can an infant fast willingly?

I hope you are intellectually honest enough to admit the Didache does not claim what you think it does.

 

[eric51]

quote=MahogonySnail;66562]It is often claimed that protestant doctrine and biblical interpretation has changed and different interpretations have come about since the Reformation, which is true. The pre-tribulation rapture idea is one such example. And there's countless others to do with pre millenialism etc.

Yet it should be recognised that the same or similar sorts of doctrinal changes have also occured within the claimed apostolic churches, Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and their variants , Church of England (episcopal/anglican), often with their denial of such changes ever taking place. Anglicans are not Apostolic Christians, and they cannot legitimately be included in this thread. They do change their Deposit of Faith, whereas Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, do not. "We have always believed these things to be so" is the claim. Or it is claimed that doctrine needs to be developed. I see no difference between the development of a Roman Catholic belief in purgatory and indulgences (which are not found in canonical scripture), and the development of a pre-tribulation rapture idea within protestant theology.

You see no difference out of a lack of understanding. Doctrine must be based either on Scripture, Sacred Tradition or most commonly, both. If it is not based on either one, it cannot be doctrine, and is not so. Practices, that is, the way the Mass may be conducted, is NOT doctrine, and can change.Such a change does not alter the Deposit of Faith.

A nice list can be found below of the introduction of new traditions , practices, doctrines, observations etc within the Catholic church. After reading your list it is quite bad; a waste of time.

Not all of these may be doctrines, but more traditions or observances. As I said, if it is a practice, that does not violate the Deposit of Faith, and is not an example of a "change" in FAITH. Still, what should be clear is that doctrinal, traditional or observational changes within the Church, whether it be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant or whatever, happens over time. Practices change over time, NOT DOCTRINE. Whereas in protestant sects, DOCTRINE changes a great, great deal; worse yet, for protestants, doctrine tends to be INDIVIDUAL SPECIFIC: That is not Absolute Truth.

Within the apostolic churches in recent times, it has been the issues of homosexuality, evolution, greater acceptance of Muslims and protestants, contraception, abortion, ordination of female priests which have been hot topics. Views on homosexuallity have not changed at all. Views on evolution has never been part of the Deposit of Faith. Given the record of history it is hard to deny changes taking place in both doctrine, tradition and practice. Very easy to deny inasmuch as Doctrine has never changed. The Roman Catholic and pre-tribulation believer alike appear foolish in claiming "these things have always been so" when the historical records are self-evident.


http://www.bible.ca/cath-new-doctrines.htm


200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.

250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.
As I said above this is incorrect. Consult the Didache. Or, produce your "proof". I am dying to see this.

257 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.
Again, incorrect. See above. Did you get this stuff from the Mormons? ROTFL.

300 AD
Prayers for the dead
LOL. Written texts that are the basis of praying to the dead are 2 TIM 1:16-18; 1 Cor 15:29-30;1 Pet 3:18-20; 1 Pet 4:6 AND 2 Maccabees 12:44-46.
320 AD
Special dress code of the clergy in worship
Dress code is a practice and does not involve change in Doctrine.


325 AD
At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

Marriage of clergy is a discipline, not a Doctrine.


325 AD
The date for Easter was set.

Yes, and so? No doctrine is involved.

379 AD
Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)
Praying to Mary and Saints is a part of the Communion of Saints. That communion is referrred to in the Nicene Creed. It is a subset of praying to the dead, which I referred to above. Not only is your date wrong, but the NT repeatedly refers to intercessory prayers by those in heaven. Tob 12:12; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4; Rev 6:9-11.

385 AD
In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

Clerical marriage is a discipline, not a doctrine. See above.
389 AD
Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

No, St. Luke begins Mariolatry, as you so glibly described it. Luke 1:26-56. Better yet, Elizabeth did: "
And how does this happen, that the mother of my Lord should come to me." Mary herself tells you, "all ages shall call me blessed." v.48. Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431AD codified christian belief: Mary is the Mother of God.

400 AD
Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9)

Apostolic Doctrine on Salvation has been posted ad nauseum for past couple of weeks. You have my posts with biblical verses, Sacred Tradition, and the posts of others. Whatever,Augustine said, or did not say, in your reference, makes no difference. Salvation is Church Doctrine, and that doctrine has been taught by the Church since first century [time of Apostles].
416 AD
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director)
Already discussed baptism, read the Didache.

430 AD
Exhalation of Virgin Mary: "Mother of God" first applied by the Council of Ephesus

Indeed, based on Scripture and Tradition. See above.

502 AD
Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.
Forget about dress code. You really are confused about what Doctrine is.
500 AD
The "Habit" of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics)
Dress.
519 AD
Lent

Lent involves fasting, a practice, form of Liturgy [how we worship in public]. Moreover, your dates are extremely problematic.

Extreme Unction
593 AD
Blessing of the Sick is based on James 5:15 and Mark 6:13. Again, your dates are problematic. If there was a pronouncement on the date you posted, that simply codified existing belief and practice. It does not constitute the beginning of the belief.
The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great
600 AD

Purgatory is Scriptural and was always a belief of the Church, also a belief of Jews. Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3;15; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 1 Pet 4:6;2 Maccabees 12:44-46.
First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I)

Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.
607 AD

Really, gee, thought our Church began with the Commissioning of Peter by Jesus and Pentecost. Doubt you even belief that silly date you posted. Odd, the NT contains Apostolic doctrines reflected in Catholic/East Orthodx doctrine. Mass, Confession, Salvation as a process, priests [presbyteros] and bishops [episkopos], baptism. NT sure seems Catholic/Orthodox to me.

First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of "universal Bishop" by decree of Emperor Phocas.
608 AD
Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

You are wasting my time with this crap. Was hoping this would be a serious thread. If for a protestant, most of your examples here, are, to put it bluntly: DUMB.
670 AD
Instrumental music: first organ by Pope Vitalian

DUMB
709 AD
Kissing of Pope Constantine’s feet
DUMB
753 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.
787 AD
Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea)
Never have worshipped icons or statutes. We only worship God. We use statues and other images to call to mind the holy people they represent. Just the way some protestants use nativity scenes to depict the same holy people. Catholics/Orthodox use statues and images in devotions year around.

787 AD
Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD.

Yes, and so? We are not denominations, we are 2 branches of the same Church. Protestants have denominations.

965 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII
850 AD
Burning of Holy Candles
995 AD
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
998 AD
Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden
1009 AD
Holy water
1022 AD
Penance
1054 AD
Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church
1054 AD
Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.
1079 AD
Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII)
1090 AD
Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit
1095 AD
Instrumental music
1190 AD
Sale of Indulgences or "tickets to sin" (punishment of sin removed)
1215 AD
Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council
1215 AD
Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council)
1215 AD
Mass a Sacrifice of Christ
1217 AD
Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III)
1230 AD
Ringing bells at Mass
1251 AD
The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock
1268 AD
Priestly power of absolution
1311 AD
Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)
1414 AD
Laity no longer offered Lord's cup at communion (Council of Constance)
1439 AD
Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence (see 593 AD)
1439 AD
Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed
1480 AD
The Inquisition (of Spain)
1495 AD
Papal control of marriage rights
1534 AD
Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola
1545 AD
Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible (Council of Trent)
1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to Bible (Council of Trent)
1546 AD
Justification by human works of merit
1546 AD
Mass universally said in Latin (see 600 AD)
1547 AD
Confirmation
1560 AD
Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed
1864 AD
Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that "Catholic countries" could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned
1870 AD
Infallibility of Pope (Vatican council)
1908 AD
All Catholics should be christened into the church
1930 AD
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII (see 1864 AD)
1950 AD
Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this)
1950 AD
Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)
1954 AD
Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII
1995 AD
The use of girls in the traditional alter boy duties
1996 AD
Catholics can believe in Evolution (Pope John Paul II)

Evolution, whatever the process, is not part of the Deposit of Fatih. Actually, Holy Father Pius XII in 1946 indicated that He Himself was leaning towards personally believing in evolution as more accurate an explanation than other competing theories. Church never told catholics what to believe regarding evolution, for it is irrelevant whatever the process is. What we must believe is that God is the origin of all creation.


Sorry to say it but your post was a complete disappointment. You simply threw out fundamentalist and other silly protestant trash, that even most protestants probably don't believe. Not researched at all. Bad job.

You confuse Church DOCTRINES with disciplines and practices. A DOCTRINE IS UNCHANGEABLE TRUTH REVEALED BY GOD--SUCH AS THE VIRGIN BIRTH, WHILE A DISCIPLINE IS A CHANGEABLE REGULATION, LIKE A PRIEST FACTING THE PEOPLE INSTEAD OF THE ALTAR DURING THE MASS.

Catholic, and E. Orthodox, Churches teach there can be no new doctrines since the death of the last apostle. The Apostolic deposit of faith was delivered once and for all [Jude 3]. The eternal truths of God must be lieved out in different times, cultures and places. Church disciplines which help us live out these truths are therefore adapted as conditions in the Church change.

You must also remember that doctrines can develop, in the sense of being understood more fully and made more explicit. These fuller insights are passed on by the Church through its teaching office [Magisterium]. This is not invention but proper growth. Whenever fundamentalists such as you, Mahgonoy, insist the Church has changed its doctrines, you can be sure you are wrong and are confusing a discipline or practice with a doctrine, or otherwise are mistaking true doctrinal development for a new invention.[/quote]

 

[jaylynn83]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

Did you know that beavers are land AND sea creatures?????

 

[Relient_Hawk]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

ALPHA BEAVER STRIKES AGAIN!!! Is it a plane? is it a bird? is it superman? NO IT'S A CLOUD!! but look in front of you it's Chuck Norris and alpha beaver.

 

[MahogonySnail]

Anglicans are not Apostolic Christians, and they cannot legitimately be included in this thread.

The Anglican faith considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Evolution, whatever the process, is not part of the Deposit of Fatih. Actually, Holy Father Pius XII in 1946 indicated that He Himself was leaning towards personally believing in evolution as more accurate an explanation than other competing theories. Church never told catholics what to believe regarding evolution, for it is irrelevant whatever the process is. What we must believe is that God is the origin of all creation.

So the pope goes against what God's Word says in Genesis. Pity that even the Pope doesn't read his own bible. A 7 day creation is not the same as evolution. Evolution requires humans to have originated from frogs or sludge, but humans were created from dust.

 

[jaylynn83]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

Chuck norris eats beavers ALIVE

 

[Relient_Hawk]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

But alpha beaver is chuck norris' beard how do you think he got such great power!

 

[MahogonySnail]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

If you read your bibles you might have something useful to contribute. Otherwise stop hijacking threads.

 

[jaylynn83]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

Me and beaver read the bible together all the time...........

 

[eric51]

Eric I suggest you do a little bit more study, there is only one point in the long list that I wish to address re: infant baptism to show your lack of evidence, you said:






First of all, do you have comprehension issues Eric? The Didache is not about infant baptism but about different methods of baptism. The Didache doesn't even mention infants. See for yourself, if you can find a quote from the Didache mentioning infants please quote it. While sprinkling is permitted, sprinkling is a last resort if no water is otherwise available. Yet the Catholic church et al. practices sprinkling as the norm, thus going against the very writings they profess to follow. And how many before baptism fast as it says to do?




Now the baptiser and baptised is supposed to fast, how can an infant fast willingly?

I hope you are intellectually honest enough to admit the Didache does not claim what you think it does.

Mahogony,

In your pathetic attempt to do a one up on me, you made yourself look even more foolish than your pathetic post originally made you look. You either tried to rewrite my comment on baptism, or you cannot even paste correctly.

My comment was: quote: Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.End of Quote.

Whereas, you, Mahogony, paraphrased me as saying: Quote:First of all, do you have comprehension issues Eric? The Didache is not about infant baptism but about different methods of baptism. The Didache doesn't even mention infants. See for yourself, if you can find a quote from the Didache mentioning infants please quote it. While sprinkling is permitted, sprinkling is a last resort if no water is otherwise available. Yet the Catholic church et al. practices sprinkling as the norm, thus going against the very writings they profess to follow. And how many before baptism fast as it says to do? End of Quote

You then went further, making yourself look even more foolish: Quote: I hope you are intellectually honest enough to admit the Didache does not claim what you think it does. End of Quote


As you can see, I never mentioned infant baptism with regard to the Didache. Do you have comprehension issues? I think so. There is good reason forthe Apostolic Church not singling out infant baptism. For Apostolic Christians, baptism of infants is not distinct from baptizing anyone else. The Church baptized everyone using any of the 3 methods. Since only in unusual circumstances was immersion possible, sprinkling or pouring are the more common methods. Immersion has the distinction of accurately symbolizing dying and resurrecting, better than the other 2 methods. However, it is difficult to have the accommodations for immersion, and it never has been used as often as the other 2 methods.

You are inclined to expect special mention of baptizing infants because your theology is so awry you find it hard to accept that the Church baptizes infants without considering their baptism any different from an adult being baptized. However, infant baptism without any question has been done from the very beginning. Paul himself alludes to it in Col 2:11-12, in which he tells us that baptism has replaced circumcision [done on the 8th day]. We also know that early christians baptized their infants around the 8th day after birth because the 3rd Council of Carthage decreed in 252AD "that baptism of children need not be deferred until the 8th day after birth but might be administered as soon as possible" [Cyprian, epistle 64 [59]2].

However, Mahogony, the very best part of your reply is: Quote:
I hope you are intellectually honest enough to admit the Didache does not claim what you think it does.
[/quote] ROTFL. Mahogony, they must sell stupid pills dirt cheap where you live. Try not to overdose.

So that is where you stand: a screwed up post. a waste of your time and my time, and a screwed up reply by you to my reply.

Try to do better in the future. Maybe you should find an infant to do your research for you. Afterall, an infant couldn't do any worse.

In Christ

 

[Relient_Hawk]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

eric51 woah calm down no need for insults same going for you snail.

 

[jaylynn83]

Re: New Doctrines Introduced into the (Roman) Catholic Church (and other eg Orthodox

Do you think he coulda used the word pathetic one more time??

 

[MahogonySnail]

In your pathetic attempt to do a one up on me, you made yourself look even more foolish than your pathetic post originally made you look. You either tried to rewrite my comment on baptism, or you cannot even paste correctly.

My comment was: quote: Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.End of Quote.

Whereas, you, Mahogony, paraphrased me as saying: Quote:First of all, do you have comprehension issues Eric? The Didache is not about infant baptism but about different methods of baptism. The Didache doesn't even mention infants. See for yourself, if you can find a quote from the Didache mentioning infants please quote it. While sprinkling is permitted, sprinkling is a last resort if no water is otherwise available. Yet the Catholic church et al. practices sprinkling as the norm, thus going against the very writings they profess to follow. And how many before baptism fast as it says to do? End of Quote

You then went further, making yourself look even more foolish: Quote: I hope you are intellectually honest enough to admit the Didache does not claim what you think it does. End of Quote

No, Eric , you cannot point the finger at me so easily.. if you note, you linked infant baptism with the 200 AD entry in your 250 AD response where you said (I highlight the word above to remind you of what you said)
quote:

"As I said above this is incorrect. Consult the Didache. Or, produce your "proof". I am dying to see this."

You told me to consult the Didache re: infant baptism. So you cannot deny having infant baptism in mind unless you are a liar. Both 200 AD and 250 AD entries are concerning infant baptism, not the method per se.

You also failed to recognise the issue with the 200 AD entry, you addressed the method of baptism ie immersion, pointing me to the didache, when the topic of concern is infant baptism as per the 200 AD entry. I dont think a protestant would have an issue with full immersion. It was the baptism of infants that is the issue re: 200 AD and 250 AD entry, not the method of baptism which you wrongly pointed me to the didache. It is recognised by protestants that full immersion is one of the earliest methods of baptism, so I don't know why you bring up the topic. Lack of understanding on your part.

200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)
Don't know where you got this. If you refer to the Didache, c.80AD, which is our earliest record of baptisms, you will see Immersion, Sprinkling and Pouring, are ALL permitted.

But let's see if the Catholics practice what they preach according to the Didache....

Yes they are all permitted, but in particular order. Sprinkling, is a last resort. How many baptisms by full immersion are done in the catholic church? These days there is plenty of water around and its easy to do. I don't know why it is difficult for Catholics to accomodate immersion, when so many other denominations practice immersion? For these reasons your statement that:
However, it is difficult to have the accommodations for immersion, and it never has been used as often as the other 2 methods.
is quite strange.

How many of the people being baptised and those doing the baptism (the priest etc) fast for 2 days beforehand as it says to do in the Didache?

If anything, the Didache points against infant baptism. Because, how can an infant fast for two days except the parents refuse to feed it? When they baptise infants, does the catholic church demand they not be fed for 2 days prior to the baptism?

If not, then catholics aren't doing it right according to the Didache which they love to quote. They don't practice what they preach.

Else you could point me to your favorite church quotes or early church writings which say that the practice of baptism in the Didache is wrong and should be ignored?

 

[MahogonySnail]

So since we're on this topic (one of many), let us break down what the Didache says for us to do, and which catholics should observe (which they don't, as with many other things in their beloved early church writings that they ignore).


Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

i.e. find a river or something natural living or running water.


But if you have no living water, baptize into other water;

A backyard pool or bath tub is second best. Note, only if there is no natural living water.


and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.


If the last two conditions cannot be met, then pouring (or sprinkling) is ok.


But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.


The baptised and the baptiser (ie priest usually) is supposed to fast beforehand.


Despite the claim that baptism by full immersion is somehow difficult or unnecessary, in reality it isn't.
Thousands of people are baptised by full immersion in churches today, as they were in ancient times.


It seems that modern day protestant churches who baptise by full immersion in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, practice baptism in closer accordance with the Didache than Catholics themselves do.

 

[MahogonySnail]

The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great
600 AD

Purgatory is Scriptural and was always a belief of the Church, also a belief of Jews. Mt 12:32; 1 Cor 3;15; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 1 Pet 4:6;2 Maccabees 12:44-46.

Purgatory is a very specific doctrine which says something like the soul goes through some kind of purification process after death and after enough has been had, the soul reaches heaven. Let's see whether or not Scripture is explicitly clear about this idea.


It is alleged by the Catholic, that Mt 12:32 speaks of purgatory, lets take a look:

Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come.

hmm nope, nothing there about purgatory.

What about:

1Co 3:15 If anyone's work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss. But he shall be saved, yet so as by fire.


Now 1 Co 3:15 may suggest purgatory. But doesn't explicitly say.


1 Peter?
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);
1Pe 3:21 which figure now also saves us, baptism; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into Heaven, where the angels and authorities and powers are being subjected to Him.


Does it speak of purgatory? Could be, but is probably speaking about Hades, place of the dead...

Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Jesus did not preach to spirits in prison in purgatory, Jesus went to hades.


1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
Again, speaking of Hades. Not necessarily purgatory.

So, we see in these scriptures, there is nothing that explicitly says there is some kind of place where souls go through purgatory for purification.



It is claimed by the Catholic that the Jews believed in purgatory

Well, the only scripture to support this is Maccabees 12:44-46,

Firstly, note Maccabees is not part of Jewish canonical scripture The Jews rejected the apocrypha because it had errors, historical and chronological. These same objections caused St. Jerome to refuse to translate them into the vulgate, but was overridden by the council of Nicea. This is quite funny. The best scriptural support the Catholic has for purgatory is in a Jewish non-canonical and uninspired writing.


Yet, let's take a look at whether or not Maccabees supports purgatory, the idea of praying for souls stuck in purgatorial state, to try and speed up their entry to heaven. Here is what it says.

42 7 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

The first question to ask is these passages all about praying for a person's lost soul stuck in a place called purgatory, and does it offer irrefutable proof of such a place?

Short answer, no.

The only real thing Maccabees supports, is not purgatory, but praying for (not to) the dead who are not in purgatory, but in Sheol.

After a battle it was discovered that the dead soldiers had idols hidden under their clothes. The general Maccabeus sent money to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices for them. This was against scripture itself because there is no sacrifice in the law of moses intended for the dead. There is no example in all of canonical scripture of Jews or Christians offering sacrifices intended for the dead. The soldiers were guilty of idolatory, which according to the Catholic , is a mortal sin. According to catholicism, purgatory is for those who die in God's grace and friendship, which is most likely not the case for idolaters. Therefore these men most likely did not go to temporal punishment in hell but something far worse. These passages contradict the very doctrine (purgatory) which the Catholic wishes them to prove. It is very likely they were not in purgatory , but in hell.

The Jews believed in a type of purgatory, but the catholic version is quite different. One difference is that unlike catholicism, the period of punishment that one endures in purgatory is 12 months maximum.

 

[eric51]

Mahogony, we have been here befoe. Discussed these points, they have been answered. Perhaps you are simply playing games? Heh? I hope you analyze Scripture at a higher level than your post here suggests. Otherwise, you really do have serious exegetical problems.


Purgatory is a very specific doctrine which says something like the soul goes through some kind of purification process after death and after enough has been had, the soul reaches heaven. Let's see whether or not Scripture is explicitly clear about this idea.

Scripture is clear about the concept of Purgatory is one interprets in alliance with Sacred Tradition.


It is alleged by the Catholic, that Mt 12:32 speaks of purgatory, lets take a look:

Mat 12:32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this world or in the world to come.

hmm nope, nothing there about purgatory.

Need to employ logic, Mahogony. And build on concepts. I know this is difficult, but if your are over the age of 12, you need to start. Otherwise, all walks of life will prove very difficult for you. Matt. 12:32 – Jesus says, “And anyone who says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but no one who speaks against the Holy Spirit will be forgiven either in this world or in the next.” Jesus thus clearly provides that there is forgiveness after death. The phrase “in the next” (from the Greek “en to mellonti”) generally refers to the afterlife (see, for example, Mark 10.30; Luke 18.30; 20.34-35; Eph. 1.21 for similar language). Forgiveness is not necessary in heaven, and there is no forgiveness in hell. This proves that there is another state after death, and the Church for 2,000 years has called this state purgatory.

What about:

1Co 3:15 If anyone's work shall be burned up, he shall suffer loss. But he shall be saved, yet so as by fire.


Now 1 Co 3:15 may suggest purgatory. But doesn't explicitly say.

No, it doesn't explicitly say. If you are working only with "explicits", I imagine the entire bible isn't worth very much to you. And you need to build with concepts, and see where the construction leads you. That is why Christians have defined the concept of Purgatory. One idea built on top of another leads to a belief in Purgatory. Does this scare you? Poor boy.

1 Cor. 3:15 – “if any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.” The phrase for "suffer loss" in the Greek is "zemiothesetai." The root word is "zemioo" which also refers to punishment. The construction “zemiothesetai” is used in Ex. 21:22 and Prov. 19:19 which refers to punishment (from the Hebrew “anash” meaning “punish” or “penalty”). Hence, this verse proves that there is an expiation of temporal punishment after our death, but the person is still saved. This cannot mean heaven (there is no punishment in heaven) and this cannot mean hell (the possibility of expiation no longer exists and the person is not saved).


1 Peter?
1Pe 3:18 For Christ also once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, indeed being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit;
1Pe 3:19 in which also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 to disobeying ones, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared (in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through water);
1Pe 3:21 which figure now also saves us, baptism; not a putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ;
1Pe 3:22 who is at the right hand of God, having gone into Heaven, where the angels and authorities and powers are being subjected to Him.


Does it speak of purgatory? Could be, but is probably speaking about Hades, place of the dead...

Yes, it does refer to Sheol. 1 Peter 3:19; 4:6 - Jesus preached to the spirits in the "prison." These are the righteous souls being purified for the beatific vision. Heb. 12:23 - the spirits of just men who died in godliness are "made" perfect. They do not necessarily arrive perfect. They are made perfect after their death. But those in heaven are already perfect, and those in hell can no longer be made perfect. These spirits are in purgatory.


Psa 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.


Jesus did not preach to spirits in prison in purgatory, Jesus went to hades.


1Pe 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. See comment above.
Again, speaking of Hades. Not necessarily purgatory.

So, we see in these scriptures, there is nothing that explicitly says there is some kind of place where souls go through purgatory for purification. No, they don't say anything explicitly. So? But logically connected, they point to a concept which is the foundation for Christianity's teaching on Purgatory.



It is claimed by the Catholic that the Jews believed in purgatory

Well, the only scripture to support this is Maccabees 12:44-46,

Firstly, note Maccabees is not part of Jewish canonical scripture Yes, it is part of Jewish canonical scripture. Ethiopian Jews have it in their bible. They have the entire Septuagint. It is only the European Jews that removed it from their bible, because 2nd century Jews were extremely hostile to Christians.

And are you suggesting that Christianity's canon should be controlled by the very people who rejected Christ? LOL.

The Jews rejected the apocrypha because it had errors, historical and chronological. No, they rejected it because they associated it with early Christians. Funny, the earlier Jews had no problem with such "errors". These same objections caused St. Jerome to refuse to translate them into the vulgate, but was overridden by the council of Nicea. This is quite funny. The best scriptural support the Catholic has for purgatory is in a Jewish non-canonical and uninspired writing. No, what is funny is your desperate, not very convincing attempt, to argue the Christian teaching of Purgatory. Jerome didn't refuse, he argued against the deuterocanons because many christians were still hoping to get Jews to convert, and felt including the deuterocanons would be disadvantageous to that cause. Jerome subsequently referred to the deuterocanons in his writings, once the Church made the decision to include them.



Yet, let's take a look at whether or not Maccabees supports purgatory, the idea of praying for souls stuck in purgatorial state, to try and speed up their entry to heaven. Here is what it says.

42 7 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas warned the soldiers to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. 46 Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

The first question to ask is these passages all about praying for a person's lost soul stuck in a place called purgatory, and does it offer irrefutable proof of such a place?

Short answer, no.

The only real thing Maccabees supports, is not purgatory, but praying for (not to) the dead who are not in purgatory, but in Sheol.

After a battle it was discovered that the dead soldiers had idols hidden under their clothes. The general Maccabeus sent money to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices for them. This was against scripture itself because there is no sacrifice in the law of moses intended for the dead. There is no example in all of canonical scripture of Jews or Christians offering sacrifices intended for the dead. The soldiers were guilty of idolatory, which according to the Catholic , is a mortal sin. According to catholicism, purgatory is for those who die in God's grace and friendship, which is most likely not the case for idolaters. Therefore these men most likely did not go to temporal punishment in hell but something far worse. These passages contradict the very doctrine (purgatory) which the Catholic wishes them to prove. It is very likely they were not in purgatory , but in hell.

The Jews believed in a type of purgatory, but the catholic version is quite different. One difference is that unlike catholicism, the period of punishment that one endures in purgatory is 12 months maximum.

2 Macc. 12:43-45 - the prayers for the dead help free them from sin and help them to the reward of heaven. Those in heaven have no sin, and those in hell can no longer be freed from sin. They are in purgatory. Luther was particularly troubled with these verses because he rejected the age-old teaching of purgatory. As a result, he removed Maccabees from the canon of the Bible.

Need to learn how to think, Mahogony.

God be With You

Amen