The Reformation

[Clairwil]

Given what someone just posted, I thought people might appreciate reading a little about The Reformation:

Quoting bunNtheoven:

Catholic's aren't Christian, they are Catholic. The Christians were people that did not believe in the Roman Catholic religion, so they broke away from the rule of the Roman Catholics, some even became Protestants (hence the name Protest) ... The early church of Christians started in the book of Acts. Christians do not get their "base" faith or religion from Catholics, they are entirely different. If Christians don't refer to themselves as Catholic, why do Catholic's say they are Christians??

[Clairwil]

Social media in the 16th Century

How Luther went viral

Five centuries before Facebook and the Arab spring, social media helped bring about the Reformation

Dec 17th 2011

IT IS a familiar-sounding tale: after decades of simmering discontent a new form of media gives opponents of an authoritarian regime a way to express their views, register their solidarity and co-ordinate their actions. The protesters’ message spreads virally through social networks, making it impossible to suppress and highlighting the extent of public support for revolution. The combination of improved publishing technology and social networks is a catalyst for social change where previous efforts had failed.

That’s what happened in the Arab spring. It’s also what happened during the Reformation, nearly 500 years ago, when Martin Luther and his allies took the new media of their day—pamphlets, ballads and woodcuts—and circulated them through social networks to promote their message of religious reform.

Scholars have long debated the relative importance of printed media, oral transmission and images in rallying popular support for the Reformation. Some have championed the central role of printing, a relatively new technology at the time. Opponents of this view emphasise the importance of preaching and other forms of oral transmission. More recently historians have highlighted the role of media as a means of social signalling and co-ordinating public opinion in the Reformation.

Now the internet offers a new perspective on this long-running debate, namely that the important factor was not the printing press itself (which had been around since the 1450s), but the wider system of media sharing along social networks—what is called “social media” today. Luther, like the Arab revolutionaries, grasped the dynamics of this new media environment very quickly, and saw how it could spread his message.

New post from Martin Luther

The start of the Reformation is usually dated to Luther’s nailing of his “95 Theses on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences” to the church door in Wittenberg on October 31st 1517. The “95 Theses” were propositions written in Latin that he wished to discuss, in the academic custom of the day, in an open debate at the university. Luther, then an obscure theologian and minister, was outraged by the behaviour of Johann Tetzel, a Dominican friar who was selling indulgences to raise money to fund the pet project of his boss, Pope Leo X: the reconstruction of St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Hand over your money, went Tetzel’s sales pitch, and you can ensure that your dead relatives are not stuck in purgatory. This crude commercialisation of the doctrine of indulgences, encapsulated in Tetzel’s slogan—“As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, so the soul from purgatory springs”—was, to Luther, “the pious defrauding of the faithful” and a glaring symptom of the need for broad reform. Pinning a list of propositions to the church door, which doubled as the university notice board, was a standard way to announce a public debate.

Although they were written in Latin, the “95 Theses” caused an immediate stir, first within academic circles in Wittenberg and then farther afield. In December 1517 printed editions of the theses, in the form of pamphlets and broadsheets, appeared simultaneously in Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel, paid for by Luther’s friends to whom he had sent copies. German translations, which could be read by a wider public than Latin-speaking academics and clergy, soon followed and quickly spread throughout the German-speaking lands. Luther’s friend Friedrich Myconius later wrote that “hardly 14 days had passed when these propositions were known throughout Germany and within four weeks almost all of Christendom was familiar with them.”

The unintentional but rapid spread of the “95 Theses” alerted Luther to the way in which media passed from one person to another could quickly reach a wide audience. “They are printed and circulated far beyond my expectation,” he wrote in March 1518 to a publisher in Nuremberg who had published a German translation of the theses. But writing in scholarly Latin and then translating it into German was not the best way to address the wider public. Luther wrote that he “should have spoken far differently and more distinctly had I known what was going to happen.” For the publication later that month of his “Sermon on Indulgences and Grace”, he switched to German, avoiding regional vocabulary to ensure that his words were intelligible from the Rhineland to Saxony. The pamphlet, an instant hit, is regarded by many as the true starting point of the Reformation.

The media environment that Luther had shown himself so adept at managing had much in common with today’s online ecosystem of blogs, social networks and discussion threads. It was a decentralised system whose participants took care of distribution, deciding collectively which messages to amplify through sharing and recommendation. Modern media theorists refer to participants in such systems as a “networked public”, rather than an “audience”, since they do more than just consume information. Luther would pass the text of a new pamphlet to a friendly printer (no money changed hands) and then wait for it to ripple through the network of printing centres across Germany.

Unlike larger books, which took weeks or months to produce, a pamphlet could be printed in a day or two. Copies of the initial edition, which cost about the same as a chicken, would first spread throughout the town where it was printed. Luther’s sympathisers recommended it to their friends. Booksellers promoted it and itinerant colporteurs hawked it. Travelling merchants, traders and preachers would then carry copies to other towns, and if they sparked sufficient interest, local printers would quickly produce their own editions, in batches of 1,000 or so, in the hope of cashing in on the buzz. A popular pamphlet would thus spread quickly without its author’s involvement.

As with “Likes” and retweets today, the number of reprints serves as an indicator of a given item’s popularity. Luther’s pamphlets were the most sought after; a contemporary remarked that they “were not so much sold as seized”. His first pamphlet written in German, the “Sermon on Indulgences and Grace”, was reprinted 14 times in 1518 alone, in print runs of at least 1,000 copies each time. Of the 6,000 different pamphlets that were published in German-speaking lands between 1520 and 1526, some 1,700 were editions of a few dozen works by Luther. In all, some 6m-7m pamphlets were printed in the first decade of the Reformation, more than a quarter of them Luther’s.

Although Luther was the most prolific and popular author, there were many others on both sides of the debate. Tetzel, the indulgence-seller, was one of the first to respond to him in print, firing back with his own collection of theses. Others embraced the new pamphlet format to weigh in on the merits of Luther’s arguments, both for and against, like argumentative bloggers. Sylvester Mazzolini defended the pope against Luther in his “Dialogue Against the Presumptuous Theses of Martin Luther”. He called Luther “a leper with a brain of brass and a nose of iron” and dismissed his arguments on the basis of papal infallibility. Luther, who refused to let any challenge go unanswered, took a mere two days to produce his own pamphlet in response, giving as good as he got. “I am sorry now that I despised Tetzel,” he wrote. “Ridiculous as he was, he was more acute than you. You cite no scripture. You give no reasons.”

Being able to follow and discuss such back-and-forth exchanges of views, in which each author quoted his opponent’s words in order to dispute them, gave people a thrilling and unprecedented sense of participation in a vast, distributed debate. Arguments in their own social circles about the merits of Luther’s views could be seen as part of a far wider discourse, both spoken and printed. Many pamphlets called upon the reader to discuss their contents with others and read them aloud to the illiterate. People read and discussed pamphlets at home with their families, in groups with their friends, and in inns and taverns. Luther’s pamphlets were read out at spinning bees in Saxony and in bakeries in Tyrol. In some cases entire guilds of weavers or leather-workers in particular towns declared themselves supporters of the Reformation, indicating that Luther’s ideas were being propagated in the workplace. One observer remarked in 1523 that better sermons could be heard in the inns of Ulm than in its churches, and in Basel in 1524 there were complaints about people preaching from books and pamphlets in the town’s taverns. Contributors to the debate ranged from the English king Henry VIII, whose treatise attacking Luther (co-written with Thomas More) earned him the title “Defender of the Faith” from the pope, to Hans Sachs, a shoemaker from Nuremberg who wrote a series of hugely popular songs in support of Luther.

[Clairwil]

A multimedia campaign

It was not just words that travelled along the social networks of the Reformation era, but music and images too. The news ballad, like the pamphlet, was a relatively new form of media. It set a poetic and often exaggerated description of contemporary events to a familiar tune so that it could be easily learned, sung and taught to others. News ballads were often “contrafacta” that deliberately mashed up a pious melody with secular or even profane lyrics. They were distributed in the form of printed lyric sheets, with a note to indicate which tune they should be sung to. Once learned they could spread even among the illiterate through the practice of communal singing.

Both reformers and Catholics used this new form to spread information and attack their enemies. “We are Starting to Sing a New Song”, Luther’s first venture into the news-ballad genre, told the story of two monks who had been executed in Brussels in 1523 after refusing to recant their Lutheran beliefs. Luther’s enemies denounced him as the Antichrist in song, while his supporters did the same for the pope and insulted Catholic theologians (“Goat, desist with your bleating”, one of them was admonished). Luther himself is thought to have been the author of “Now We Drive Out the Pope”, a parody of a folk song called “Now We Drive Out Winter”, whose tune it borrowed:

 

• Now we drive out the pope 
• from Christ’s church and God’s house. 
• Therein he has reigned in a deadly fashion 
• and has seduced uncountably many souls. 
• Now move along, you damned son, 
• you Whore of Babylon. You are the abomination and the Antichrist, 
• full of lies, death and cunning.

 

Woodcuts were another form of propaganda. The combination of bold graphics with a smattering of text, printed as a broadsheet, could convey messages to the illiterate or semi-literate and serve as a visual aid for preachers. Luther remarked that “without images we can neither think nor understand anything.” Some religious woodcuts were elaborate, with complex allusions and layers of meaning that would only have been apparent to the well-educated. “Passional Christi und Antichristi”, for example, was a series of images contrasting the piety of Christ with the decadence and corruption of the pope. Some were astonishingly crude and graphic, such as “The Origin of the Monks” (see picture), showing three devils excreting a pile of monks. The best of them were produced by Luther’s friend Lucas Cranach. Luther’s opponents responded with woodcuts of their own: “Luther’s Game of Heresy” (see beginning of this article) depicts him boiling up a stew with the help of three devils, producing fumes from the pot labelled falsehood, pride, envy, heresy and so forth.

Amid the barrage of pamphlets, ballads and woodcuts, public opinion was clearly moving in Luther’s favour. “Idle chatter and inappropriate books” were corrupting the people, fretted one bishop. “Daily there is a veritable downpour of Lutheran tracts in German and Latin…nothing is sold here except the tracts of Luther,” lamented Aleander, Leo X’s envoy to Germany, in 1521. Most of the 60 or so clerics who rallied to the pope’s defence did so in academic and impenetrable Latin, the traditional language of theology, rather than in German. Where Luther’s works spread like wildfire, their pamphlets fizzled. Attempts at censorship failed, too. Printers in Leipzig were banned from publishing or selling anything by Luther or his allies, but material printed elsewhere still flowed into the city. The city council complained to the Duke of Saxony that printers faced losing “house, home, and all their livelihood” because “that which one would gladly sell, and for which there is demand, they are not allowed to have or sell.” What they had was lots of Catholic pamphlets, “but what they have in over-abundance is desired by no one and cannot even be given away.”

Luther’s enemies likened the spread of his ideas to a sickness. The papal bull threatening Luther with excommunication in 1520 said its aim was “to cut off the advance of this plague and cancerous disease so it will not spread any further”. The Edict of Worms in 1521 warned that the spread of Luther’s message had to be prevented, otherwise “the whole German nation, and later all other nations, will be infected by this same disorder.” But it was too late—the infection had taken hold in Germany and beyond. To use the modern idiom, Luther’s message had gone viral.

From Wittenberg to Facebook

In the early years of the Reformation expressing support for Luther’s views, through preaching, recommending a pamphlet or singing a news ballad directed at the pope, was dangerous. By stamping out isolated outbreaks of opposition swiftly, autocratic regimes discourage their opponents from speaking out and linking up. A collective-action problem thus arises when people are dissatisfied, but are unsure how widely their dissatisfaction is shared, as Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina, has observed in connection with the Arab spring. The dictatorships in Egypt and Tunisia, she argues, survived for as long as they did because although many people deeply disliked those regimes, they could not be sure others felt the same way. Amid the outbreaks of unrest in early 2011, however, social-media websites enabled lots of people to signal their preferences en masse to their peers very quickly, in an “informational cascade” that created momentum for further action.

Where monks came from, in the Lutherans’ view

The same thing happened in the Reformation. The surge in the popularity of pamphlets in 1523-24, the vast majority of them in favour of reform, served as a collective signalling mechanism. As Andrew Pettegree, an expert on the Reformation at St Andrew’s University, puts it in “Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion”, “It was the superabundance, the cascade of titles, that created the impression of an overwhelming tide, an unstoppable movement of opinion…Pamphlets and their purchasers had together created the impression of irresistible force.” Although Luther had been declared a heretic in 1521, and owning or reading his works was banned by the church, the extent of local political and popular support for Luther meant he escaped execution and the Reformation became established in much of Germany.

Modern society tends to regard itself as somehow better than previous ones, and technological advance reinforces that sense of superiority. But history teaches us that there is nothing new under the sun. Robert Darnton, an historian at Harvard University, who has studied information-sharing networks in pre-revolutionary France, argues that “the marvels of communication technology in the present have produced a false consciousness about the past—even a sense that communication has no history, or had nothing of importance to consider before the days of television and the internet.” Social media are not unprecedented: rather, they are the continuation of a long tradition. Modern digital networks may be able to do it more quickly, but even 500 years ago the sharing of media could play a supporting role in precipitating a revolution. Today’s social-media systems do not just connect us to each other: they also link us to the past.

[cathgirl]

For anyone interested in finding out exactly what the Catholic Church believes (and what they have always believed), I suggest going straight to the source. A great website is http://www.catholic.com/. Catholic Answers is a WONDERFUL resource for both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Any question you have about the Catholic Church (or other denominations), church history or even modern practices can be found there. Simply type in the subject. Yes, Catholics are COMPLETELY CHRISTIAN. We are the group of Christians that can trace our origins and teaching authority back to Christ himself. We were not founded by a mere man, but by Christ. We have the writings of the earliest church fathers to show us how the first church was set up, who was in charge, and what the beliefs actually were. We have the councils to show us what the heretics believed at any given time in history, and how the church faught against these heresies. I do alot of reasearch about the Christian denominations. I do not only read books written by Catholic people who discuss their point of view. I read Protestant books by Protestant writers. That way, I get a clear, two-sided view of things. When I research Mormonism, I use the LDS church websites. It is important to get the facts. Catholicism is very in-depth (it's been around over 2,000 years) and can get confusing for some. I trust that if you have a question, you will ask it in a kind manner, and not assume you know what the church teaches. I love answering questions, so hit me up! :) That's my soup box! Thanks!

Oh, and another awesome site is http://www.scripturescatholic.com/ It has all of the biblical references and subjects lined up for easy browsing.

[dlkht]

Ok, I have a few catholic questions. 

Priests prior to Christ had to perform sacrifices for the forgiveness of sin. What changed this practice?

What was the significance of the curtain being torn in two, from top to bottom during the time of Christs death?

Where in the bible does it explain the role of Mary being the mediator between ourselves and Jesus? Or is there anywhere in the bible that says that we should honor Mary in prayer?

Where in the bible does it explain purgatory?

Why doesnt your bible state that no graven images as part of the ten commandments?

How do you explain that the book of titus says that a preacher should be the husband of one wife with children, yet priests dont get married?

What do you do about those indulgences? Was it wrong?

Divorce, birth control, homosexuality...acceptable or not?

Rapture, where do you stand on this?

Mary had other children after Jesus, or forever virgin?

Mary born without sin?

thanks for your time.

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting cathgirl:

For anyone interested in finding out exactly what the Catholic Church believes (and what they have always believed), I suggest going straight to the source. A great website is http://www.catholic.com/. Catholic Answers is a WONDERFUL resource for both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. Any question you have about the Catholic Church (or other denominations), church history or even modern practices can be found there. Simply type in the subject. Yes, Catholics are COMPLETELY CHRISTIAN. We are the group of Christians that can trace our origins and teaching authority back to Christ himself. We were not founded by a mere man, but by Christ. We have the writings of the earliest church fathers to show us how the first church was set up, who was in charge, and what the beliefs actually were. We have the councils to show us what the heretics believed at any given time in history, and how the church faught against these heresies. I do alot of reasearch about the Christian denominations. I do not only read books written by Catholic people who discuss their point of view. I read Protestant books by Protestant writers. That way, I get a clear, two-sided view of things. When I research Mormonism, I use the LDS church websites. It is important to get the facts. Catholicism is very in-depth (it's been around over 2,000 years) and can get confusing for some. I trust that if you have a question, you will ask it in a kind manner, and not assume you know what the church teaches. I love answering questions, so hit me up! :) That's my soup box! Thanks!

Oh, and another awesome site is http://www.scripturescatholic.com/ It has all of the biblical references and subjects lined up for easy browsing.

 

[Yady]

I heard" this before from protestant christian sermons and my dad. They don't see catholics as the same level as them. But my understanding is that catholics are christians.  And that they are a christian denomination like many others. If one looks at the definition of christian it says: one who professes belief in the teachings of JC.  As far as I know they do.  The fact that they might interpret certain things different from the protestant denominations is true for all other protestant denominations as they don't all agree in the same interpretations of the bible either.  I don't think that makes one more christian than the other.  

                                                                 

[Clairwil]

Quoting dlkht:

Ok, I have a few catholic questions. 

Where in the bible does it explain the role of Mary being the mediator between ourselves and Jesus?

Where in the bible does it explain purgatory?

One interesting aspect of trying to show that the modern Bible contradicts Catholic teachings is that the choice of which books were accepted as part of the Bible, and which were rejected as apocrypha, was made by the Catholic church.

If you reject their interpretation, then logically you ought to question too the choice of books in the Bible.  For example, what about the exclusion of the Gospel of Thomas?   Or the inclusion of Revelations?

[cathgirl]

There are many places where purgatory is discussed. Catholic teaching does not claim to know exactly how long people are in purgatory. We've never been there and come back to talk about it! But we do know is that it is a state of purification we go through before being with God. It is for those who are bound for heaven, not those going to hell. This is one belief of the Church that makes perfect sense to me, personally. Scripture talks about how God is like our earthly fathers in the fact that he forgives us, yet keeps us accountable for what we do. He is just. If you threw a ball and it hit the neighbors window, it wouldn't be fair for a father to simply say, "I forgive you." It would be responsible parenting to forgive, then have the child pay for the window or work off the crime. Purgatory gives us a chance to long for God. I haven't posted it, but we have so many writings from the early church fathers that back up the fact that the Church DID believe in purgatory.

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 - Jesus teaches us, "Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny." The word "opponent" (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won't get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This "prison" is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid. 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. Luke 12:47-48 - when the Master comes (at the end of time), some will receive light or heavy beatings but will live. This state is not heaven or hell, because in heaven there are no beatings, and in hell we will no longer live with the Master. Luke 16:19-31 - in this story, we see that the dead rich man is suffering but still feels compassion for his brothers and wants to warn them of his place of suffering. But there is no suffering in heaven or compassion in hell because compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are deprived from God's graces for all eternity. So where is the rich man? He is in purgatory. 1 Cor. 15:29-30 - Paul mentions people being baptized on behalf of the dead, in the context of atoning for their sins (people are baptized on the dead's behalf so the dead can be raised). These people cannot be in heaven because they are still with sin, but they also cannot be in hell because their sins can no longer be atoned for. They are in purgatory. These verses directly correspond to 2 Macc. 12:44-45 which also shows specific prayers for the dead, so that they may be forgiven of their sin. Phil. 2:10 - every knee bends to Jesus, in heaven, on earth, and "under the earth" which is the realm of the righteous dead, or purgatory. 2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him "on that day." Paul's use of "that day" demonstrates its eschatological usage (see, for example, Rom. 2.5,16; 1 Cor. 1.8; 3.13; 5.5; 2 Cor. 1.14; Phil. 1.6,10; 2.16; 1 Thess. 5.2,4,5,8; 2 Thess. 2.2,3; 2 Tim. 4.8). Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory. Heb. 12:14 - without holiness no one will see the Lord. We need final sanctification to attain true holiness before God, and this process occurs during our lives and, if not completed during our lives, in the transitional state of purgatory. 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. 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. Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. These are the souls experiencing purgatory. Rev. 21:27 - nothing unclean shall enter heaven. The word "unclean" comes from the Greek word "koinon" which refers to a spiritual corruption. Even the propensity to sin is spiritually corrupt, or considered unclean, and must be purified before entering heaven. It is amazing how many Protestants do not want to believe in purgatory. Purgatory exists because of the mercy of God. If there were no purgatory, this would also likely mean no salvation for most people. God is merciful indeed. Luke 23:43 - many Protestants argue that, because Jesus sent the good thief right to heaven, there can be no purgatory. There are several rebuttals. First, when Jesus uses the word "paradise," He did not mean heaven. Paradise, from the Hebrew "sheol," meant the realm of the righteous dead. This was the place of the dead who were destined for heaven, but who were captive until the Lord's resurrection. Second, since there was no punctuation in the original manuscript, Jesus' statement "I say to you today you will be with me in paradise" does not mean there was a comma after the first word "you." This means Jesus could have said, "I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise" (meaning, Jesus could have emphasized with exclamation his statement was "today" or "now," and that some time in the future the good thief would go to heaven). Third, even if the thief went straight to heaven, this does not prove there is no purgatory (those who are fully sanctified in this life - perhaps by a bloody and repentant death - could be ready for admission in to heaven). Top

II. Purification After Death By Fire Heb. 12:29 - God is a consuming fire (of love in heaven, of purgation in purgatory, or of suffering and damnation in hell). 1 Cor. 3:10-15 - works are judged after death and tested by fire. Some works are lost, but the person is still saved. Paul is referring to the state of purgation called purgatory. The venial sins (bad works) that were committed are burned up after death, but the person is still brought to salvation. This state after death cannot be heaven (no one with venial sins is present) or hell (there is no forgiveness and salvation). 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 Cor. 3:15 - further, Paul writes "he himself will be saved, "but only" (or "yet so") as through fire." "He will be saved" in the Greek is "sothesetai" (which means eternal salvation). The phrase "but only" (or "yet so") in the Greek is "houtos" which means "in the same manner." This means that man is both eternally rewarded and eternally saved in the same manner by fire. 1 Cor. 3:13 - when Paul writes about God revealing the quality of each man's work by fire and purifying him, this purification relates to his sins (not just his good works). Protestants, in attempting to disprove the reality of purgatory, argue that Paul was only writing about rewarding good works, and not punishing sins (because punishing and purifying a man from sins would be admitting that there is a purgatory).

[cathgirl]

With regards to homosexuality, divorce and birth control...no they are not acceptable. Homosexuality is CLEARLY frowned upon in scripture. It is not procreative in nature, so to me personally, I see that it isn't from God. That is because scripture tells us that marriage is for bringing children into the world. NO type of BC was acceptable in ANY Christian church until the 1930 Lambeth Conference (Anglican) that decided that there would be some instances that would make it permissable. They changed the position that Christians stood for for centuries!!! Basically every church followed suit. Except a few. Even the withdrawal method is wrong and that is discussed in scripture as well (Onan). Marriage is for life. Until death do us part. It's that simple. In cases of abuse for example, the spouse is not living up to the vows they promised before God. An annulment can be given, but these are hard to obtain and much has to looked into.

All of these issues are in the Bible...either explicitly or implicitly. The Catholic Church did not "make up" rules for us to follow. It got them from scripture. The apostles got them from Christ himself.

[cathgirl]

A Fundamentalist Baptist friend wants to know how the Catholic Church views the curtain being torn in half as Christ expires. He says his church views it as proof that it is no longer necessary for God's people to be under an institutional Church or clergy.

Answer

Then how to explain the fact that after the curtain was torn in half--after the Resurrection--Jesus proceeded to appoint clergy and establish a Church? Christ's sacrifice and the tearing of the curtain symbolize several things:

1) The Jewish economy (the Law of Moses or the Old Covenant) has been done away with.

2) Our high priest (Jesus) has the right to enter the heavenly tabernacle.

3) We approach God through Jesus and the Christian economy rather than through the Jewish or Mosaic economy.

4) That heaven has now been opened to receive the saints, who were previously kept at Abraham's bosom.

What it doesn't imply is the demise of all rituals (or else we would not have baptism and the Eucharist) or that there will be no priests in the Law of Christ/New Covenant way of approaching God. It simply signifies the passing away of the Jewish economy.