Purgatory is Based on a Promise of Jesus

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 11-01-15 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[avenir]

"Inability to discuss the scripture in plain words often leads to silly verbal embellishment."

No offense to you, but in toto is not an esoteric term; it simply means "in whole". Not that I agree with you that a well known term is "silly verbal embellishment", or owe you the simplified form of it, but there it is.

As for Abraham, I will not regurgitate what you can easily read for yourself in the fourth chapter of Romans (the whole letter is awesome!), except to say that by believing in the One He sent, we are COUNTED righteous APART FROM WORKS. Now, Today, and not "maybe". I take from so many statements that Catholics do not believe that. Thus "purgatory".

[Salvation]

No

[Salvation]

Catholics believe that Christ died for our sins. It’s that we, as Catholics, accept responsibility for the reparation (saying “I’m sorry” to someone) that we should have done on earth.

[avenir]

“Catholics believe that Christ died for our sins.”

So you are saved NOW, apart from works, just as Abraham was?

[annalex]

COUNTED righteous APART FROM WORKS

There are no "works" occurring in the purgatory. Those people are dead. DEAD.

[avenir]

Since you do not believe we are counted righteous APART from works, now, Today, forever—CCC forbid!—you NEED Rome’s inventions to make up for the perceived shortfall (see: Pope’s blog post at source). Rome’s Purgatory is a compounded error resulting from NOT BELIEVING ROMANS 4, and it slanders the Promise given to Abraham and suggests the imputed righteousness of God by faith in Christ is not the all-sufficient answer He proclaims it to be in...ROMANS 4.

[Springfield Reformer]

Actually, the "method" of using context to develop an honest understanding of the text is rather essential in any attempt to understand God's word.  To me, it seems the foundational difference in the Catholic versus the Protestant/Evangelical hermeneutic is the starting point:

The Roman Catholic begins, a priori, with the assumption that the Roman Magisterium has provided the dogmatic framework, and it only remains to find passages in Scripture that, however weakly, may be conscripted into support of that dogma.

Whereas the Protestant/Evangelical starts with the belief that Scripture is the very Voice of God to the body of Christ on earth, and so it is necessary to approach such sacred ground with supreme reverence, a humble waiting to see what God will say, even if it does not conform to our a priori expectations, even if we come away convicted of sin or error, because that is how we feed "on every word of God," as Christ instructed us, and that is how we grow.

So if you're taking votes on preferences, I much prefer the latter to the former.  In the case of the specific passage concerning the burning off of unprofitable works (1 Corinthians 3), many of Mr. Rogers' multiple "paragraphs" are just an expansion of the passage cited by NYer, which provides a very helpful context.  That context makes it impossible to read "purgatory" into the text, so I can understand why the typical RC apologist would be apoplectic about using it.

What is always odd to me, though, is the manner in which Scriptures are made to seem to be in competition with each other.  This is bizarre, because all of Scripture is Gold talking. He doesn't contradict Himself, so any two passages which seem to be in opposition to each other simply haven't been understood correctly.  All of Scripture is a coordinated whole.  As Spurgeon once said (in a different context) why set forth as enemies the very best of friends? Our justification, our being transformed from children of darkness to children of light, that is all the work of Christ, completed on our behalf when He took all our punishment for sin onto Himself and became our Lamb of Sacrifice.  

But as those who would build on that wonderful foundation, we are obligated to do the very best we can do to build a worthy structure, something of real value, because everything less than that will indeed be burned away, and we will lose reward if we fail in that regard.  Yet saved as those, not who were purged by fire, but who escaped the fire, but with all their possessions destroyed.  It is an entirely different image than what is represented in the concept of purgatory, and so it is understandable why the full context should be problematic for the would-be RC expositor.

Peace,

SR

[Mr Rogers]

“Riiight, 20 paragraphs or so to explain away 5 simple verses, that speak of burning off imperfections.”

No. That is NOT what the verses say. It is an illustration. Paul and others are building up the church - the CHURCH, NOT THEMSELVES. The passage in 1 Corinthians 3 is obviously and blatantly talking about building up the congregation, and calling the church the field where they labor and plant and harvest, or a building they are erecting.

And if someone builds with shoddy materials, “the quality of each person’s work will be seen when the Day of Christ exposes it. For on that Day fire will reveal everyone’s work; the fire will test it and show its real quality. If what was built on the foundation survives the fire, the builder will receive a reward.”

That isn’t “explaining away”. It is a direct quote.

Paul didn’t leave a need for interpretation, because he GIVES one:

“the quality of each person’s work will be seen when the Day of Christ exposes it. For on that Day fire will reveal everyone’s work; the fire will test it and show its real quality. If what was built on the foundation survives the fire, the builder will receive a reward.”

If anyone wants to know what 1 Cor 3 is referring to, all they need to do is READ IT!

---

“After all, who is Apollos? And who is Paul? We are simply God’s servants, by whom you were led to believe. Each one of us does the work which the Lord gave him to do: I planted the seed, Apollos watered the plant, but it was God who made the plant grow. The one who plants and the one who waters really do not matter. It is God who matters, because he makes the plant grow. There is no difference between the one who plants and the one who waters; God will reward each one according to the work each has done. For we are partners working together for God, and you are God’s field.

You are also God’s building. Using the gift that God gave me, I did the work of an expert builder and laid the foundation, and someone else is building on it. But each of you must be careful how you build. For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid. Some will use gold or silver or precious stones in building on the foundation; others will use wood or grass or straw. And the quality of each person’s work will be seen when the Day of Christ exposes it. For on that Day fire will reveal everyone’s work; the fire will test it and show its real quality. If what was built on the foundation survives the fire, the builder will receive a reward. But if your work is burnt up, then you will lose it; but you yourself will be saved, as if you had escaped through the fire.”

[avenir]

“The Roman Catholic begins, a priori, with the assumption that the Roman Magisterium has provided the dogmatic framework, and it only remains to find passages in Scripture that, however weakly, may be conscripted into support of that dogma.”

Brilliance. I give up. You take over for this poor communicator, lol!

[verga]

As Spurgeon once said (in a different context) why set forth as enemies the very best of friends?

This is exactly what non-Catholics are guilty of in regards to the relationship among the Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, and the Bible.

[af_vet_1981]

we have blessed assurance and peace while we are still here on earth that we can rest entirely in Christ with no fear.

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. Do all things without murmurings and disputings: That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain.

Philippians, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses twelve to sixteen,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness and underline mine

[annalex]

What I believe and need you can only guess; for your information, I fully believe everything in the Holy Scripture because I am Catholic. The question remains: what does Abraham faith and righteousness have to do with the existence of Purgatory?

[annalex]

In the case of the specific passage concerning the burning off of unprofitable works (1 Corinthians 3), many of Mr. Rogers' multiple "paragraphs" are just an expansion of the passage cited by NYer, which provides a very helpful context. That context makes it impossible to read "purgatory" into the text

Wrong. The passage says that the man (or the collective man if Mr. Rogers so insists on this ecclesiological aspect) is purified from his inferior works by burning their presence in him as a building. That is purgatory. You just make your obfuscation long-winded to confuse the reader.

[avenir]

The programming kicked in. Read the whole letter and then try to twist that verse to imply an uncertain salvation. Rinse and repeat with every other book and letter of Scripture, tossing the CCC behind you as you happily skip to freedom.

I have no illusions that you—or hardly anyone else—will do this. Man loves religious bondage.

[annalex]

If what was built on the foundation survives the fire, the builder will receive a reward

That is purgatory: the reward is given the soul (or souls) that is/are purified. All you need to do is read it.

[avenir]

The question remains because you don’t accept righteousness apart from works, as Abraham DID receive through the Promise (he was in a deep sleep by the way). No need for Catholic purgation, only the faith of Abraham.

[af_vet_1981]

The programming kicked in. Read the whole letter and then try to twist that verse to imply an uncertain salvation. Rinse and repeat with every other book and letter of Scripture, tossing the CCC behind you as you happily skip to freedom.

I have no illusions that you—or hardly anyone else—will do this. Man loves religious bondage.

What if it is you that is clinging to your own personal interpretation rather than simply and obediently doing what the Apostle to the Gentiles just told you to do, vicariously through the Phillipians, so to speak ?

[DungeonMaster]

This is a hopeless argument between Catholics and Bible based Christians.

[af_vet_1981]

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Matthew, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses twenty one to twenty six,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
boldness mine

[avenir]

I agree with what HE is saying, not your CCC-taught interpretation of it.