Purgatory: Purifying Fire or Fatal Fable?

Proclaiming the Glory of Jesus Christ in Mexico ^ | 10/29/2011 | Mike Gendron

[Iscool]

Certain German princes of the Holy Roman Empire coveted the wealth and holdings of the Church and set about to fabricate a doctrinal fig leaf to give themselves cover for rejecting the authority of the Church and with it the legitimacy of the ownership of significant accumulated land and wealth.

This just seems to be so,,,anti-bible...

[RnMomof7]

And the fuse for REFORMATION was lit.

Exactly.. they had a pope that had the position bought for him

Some of the indulgences and sale of relics went to build St Peters..the rest went to the pope for his use...

[paladinan]

All right... a few more moments to think (hopefully) and to type.

First of all: forgive me for saying so, but those (including the OP) who are attempting to argue against the Catholic Church (and the doctrine of Purgatory, in particular) have shown some rather... imperfect understanding of the doctrine itself. I don’t think it’s asking too much for critics to *understand* the *actual* doctrine, as the Catholic Church actually teaches it (e.g. one commenter confused it with Limbo, another claimed that it’s a substitute for Hell, and the confusions go from there), before presuming to attack it. Otherwise, they will be fighting a phantom enemy, and they will leave the real doctrine untouched.

Let me summarize, as best I can, the actual doctrine of Purgatory (especially since some of the critics declined to read the long quotes which did a more fulsome job):

Purgatory is the temporary state of being (though some translations may have slight differences in that word) in which those who are saved (i.e. die without being in a state of unrepented mortal sin), if they are still impure in any way (either through any lingering attachment to sin, or due to any temporal punishment which has not yet been satisfied, etc.), are purified... after which they enter Heaven straight-away.

Purgatory is not a substitute for Hell; those who are damned, are damned, and they never see or experience Purgatory at all.

Purgatory is not limbo; the former is a solemn truth of the Catholic Faith whic describes the state of being of those who are saved, but are not yet fully clean, while the second was a mere hypothesis about the fate of those who died in a state of original sin (i.e. unbaptized), but without personal, actual sin.

I won’t even dignify some of the more shallow anti-Catholic canards (e.g. Purgatory = money-making scheme, etc.) with an answer, save to say that such play-ground taunts could easily be turned back on their makers (with equal illogic). E.g. “The Bible is simply a money-making scam used to (a) get $$$ as the best-seller of the world, and (b) get gullible Christians to “tithe” on their income to their pastor/worship-leader/favourite televangelist, etc.” I trust we can keep the discourse above such cheap nonsense as that, what?

I’ll reply to a few of the other posts, in a moment.

[paladinan]

RnMomof7 wrote, in reply to my comment:

NO ONE SAID PURGATORY IS A REPLACEMENT FOR HELL...

(??) Pardon me, dear lady, but... YOU said it, yourself, in your original post! I quote:

"Purgatory is the safety net, when you die, you don't go to hell. You go [to Purgatory] and get things sorted out and finally get to heaven if you've been a good Catholic.

Does that clarify my claim, at least? (I also note that this was pointed out to you, as early as comment #14...)

[RnMomof7]

Indeed HUMAN life is in the blood.. blood is necessary to carry oxygen to our organs.. it is necessary to fight infections.. but neither of these uses are needed in heaven..

In the sacrificial ritual that prefigured Christ the lamb was 'bled out" ..blood was always considered 'unclean ' in the OT...

We know that when the sword was placed in the side of Christ water came out..

So I believe we can be assured 3 hours of bleeding on the cross.. and the scripture telling us that we are saved by the blood shed on that cross indicates there was no blood left in the corpse of Christ.. when he arose on Easter morning... and that the glorified body that rose in the ascension had no need for blood.. His work was finished

Luk 24:39 — Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

[RnMomof7]

That was speaking of the "saved' as defined by the RC

..as i finished that sentence I said and get things sorted out and finally get to heaven if you've been a good Catholic.

Sorry if that was confusing ...

[RnMomof7]

Purgatory tells us Christ could not complete His work..that we need to finish it.. it gives comfort to those that tell "little white lies" or have their palms read.. or that were disrespectful to their parents or that cursed .. ..it tells people that the Holiness of God is not so offended by "small" offenses and He will allow you to pay for them yourself.. you do not need Christ for that ..what a comfort to those that love their sin...

Can you tell me what Christ accomplished on the cross?? Were any saved? Or did Christ make heaven a possibility for men again ??

[j.argese]

I was quite surprised to see the author didn’t refer to them as Papists ...

[paladinan]

RmMomof7 wrote, in reply to my comment:

NO ONE SAID PURGATORY IS A REPLACEMENT FOR HELL...

(I addressed this, above.)

it is however a replacement for the atonement of Christ ..it is man cleaning up himself so he can be worthy of standing before God.

But... how can you say this, when the Catholic Church clearly teaches the very opposite of what you say?

First: the merits of Christ Himself, bought by His atonement for us, ENABLE Purgatory's flames to do their "work" of purification in the first place, so I fail to see the basis for your first comment about "replacement"; it is no more a "replacement" for Christ's atonement than an electrical outlet in a home is a "replacement" for the power plant which supplies it electricity! ("I don't need to pay my electric bill: I'll still have a wall outlet to use!") The Church has always proclaimed that every last justification and final salvation of every last man--whether he is pure enough to enter Heaven immediately, or whether he needs to be purified fully, first--is due completely to the grace of God, through Our Lord Jesus Christ. It's really of very little use for you (and others) to cry, "The Catholic Church denies the atonement", when the atonement is proclaimed by the Church to be the "power" behind every last justification and salvation! Call the authors of the Catechism liars, if you must (though the Religion Moderator might not take kindly to that, given a previous comment of his), but do not say that the Church does not teach what She most plainly and obviously DOES teach.

Second: no one "cleans himself up" in Purgatory; the fires of God's love (assisted by any prayers and sacrifices made on his behalf, by those who are on earth or in Heaven) do so, for him, since he is powerless to do anything for himself. Is that quite clear?

When one believes in purgatory one makes the cross of Christ of no effect...

You'll really need to explain why you think this is the case. And I'll add, madam, that you seem to have a rather odd penchant for "grabbing catch-phrases" from Scripture (e.g. "makes the cross of Christ of no effect" [cf. 1 Corinthians 1:17], etc.), for the apparent purpose of "connecting the dots" and stretching the current situation to "fall under the particular Biblical indictment" (whether it does, or not); is that really helpful?

[paladinan]

Carl,

I’ll reply to your salient points later, if you like; but in the meantime, could you address the earlier (and logically precedent) point of showing me where “sola Scriptura” is taught in the Bible? (This completely side-steps another important point of “how did the Bible get compiled, and how were the Canonical Books selected without error?”, but I’ll set that aside, for the moment.)

Since “sola Scriptura” ultimately reduces itself to saying, “If it isn’t in the Bible, then don’t trust it for matters of salvation”, wouldn’t it be good to know if “sola Scriptura” is, ITSELF, in the Bible? If not, then sola Scriptura would recommend that we not trust sola Scriptura, would it not? That would seem to be a problem...

[RnMomof7]

: the merits of Christ Himself, bought by His atonement for us, ENABLE Purgatory's flames to do their "work" of purification in the first place,

Ummm and just who DISTRIBUTES these merits??? HUH.???? Hey kiss a relic..say a pray ..send some money to Rome.. ...

The authors of the catechism are mislead and spiritually blind..

Asking again..what was accomplished at the cross? Was anyone saved or did it open up the possibility of man being saved??

[Carl from Marietta]

An example is found in 2 Timothy 3, 4. Here Paul writes to his younger brother in the faith, Timothy. He writes that Timothy — who was instructed in the faith by his mother and grandmother — has also learned all about Paul’s teaching (3:10). Timothy has been mightily helped by all sorts of oral teaching, some of it apostolic. Yet Paul writes these words to Timothy:

And indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them; and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry. (2 Timothy 3:12; 4:5)

You see paladinan, Paul reminds Timothy that the Scriptures are able to make him wise unto salvation in Christ Jesus (3:15). He teaches that the Scriptures are useful for teaching, reproof (rebuking), correcting, and training in righteousness (3:16). Because the Scriptures have this character, they thoroughly equip the man of God for every good work (3:17). So Paul tells Timothy that he must preach this Word, even though the time is coming when people will not want to hear it, but rather will want teachers to suit their fancy, or the middle ages church’s pocketbook which is what this doctrine was meant to enhance. Not any religious significance, just a device to make fat monks fatter.

[Mad Dawg]

We know that when the sword was placed in the side of Christ water came out..

spear, BLOOD and water. Jo 19:34.

blood was always considered 'unclean ' in the OT...

When I wrote "the blood is the life" I was referring to the covenant with Noah, which permitted eating animals but not "the flesh with the blood," which is its life. SO, yes, I kind of knew that blood is treyf.

I never thought that what IHS said in the upper room was meant to be an exhaustive inventory. HE didn't mention teeth and gullet, yet he ate before them.

We're not going to get far on the physiology of the resurrected body, I suspect. He is palpable, has the ability to eat, but not the need. I can see his having blood though not the need for it.

IN any event, I didnot think Cromwell blasphemed when heinvoked the bowels of Christ, I do not think this saints blasphemes when she invokes his blood, especially because such stuff, to me, always seems to be figurative and not literal language.

[paladinan]

Re: the "Purgatory replaces Hell" issue: all right, I'll take that as good enough. (I'd note that a few other commenters made the same claim, but without your qualifier; but that's their issue, and not yours.) Thank you for clarifying!

You wrote:

Purgatory tells us Christ could not complete His work.

I don't see how that follows from any accurate portrayal of Purgatory. Every "work" completed in Purgatory (i.e. each soul purified) is made possible by Christ, and Christ alone! Did you suppose that the Church assumed Purgatory to have "power" of its OWN, apart from God?

that we need to finish it..

Not in the sense of Purgatory; as I mentioned earlier, the souls in Purgatory are utterly unable to "help themselves" in any way at all (unlike us, on earth, who--through the merits earned by Christ and given to us, so long as we cooperate with them, and do not merely bury them in a handkerchief [cf. Matthew 25:14-30]--can cooperate with Christ's grace and appropriate His Mercy). Those in Purgatory must rely on the "slow" purifying action of the flames, or else on the prayers and sacrifices of the rest of the Communion of Saints which were offered on their behalf.

it gives comfort to those that tell "little white lies" or have their palms read.. or that were disrespectful to their parents or that cursed ..

Yes, and no. On the one hand, God's Mercy (whether in general, or in its manifestations--such as Purgatory) is very comforting, indeed; it assures us that God can forgive even the worst of our sins, that "He remembers we are dust" [Psalm 103:14], that He knows our weakness enough to pray, "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do!" [Luke 23:34, etc.], and that some sins are more severe than others (cf. 1 John 5:15-17). No, in the sense that it does not "excuse sin" or make it any more pleasing to God; if I, as a child, had slit my own throat with a knife, it would have been far worse than had I slashed my face with the same knife... but I'd be a fool to think that my mother would have been blase, nonchalant, or (God forbid) "pleased" with what I did. The fact that a sin is not necessarily mortal does not mean that it does not offend Him; the fact that a thoughtless insult to a friend does not break the friendship does not erase the wound in the friendship, thereby. Does that clarify? It seems as if you worry that the very idea of Purgatory would allow people to be casual about sin; and that is not so, any more than Protestants believe that "assurance of salvation" is God's permission to sin with abandon! Some individuals may presume thusly, but that is their particular sin, not the fault of the doctrine.

..it tells people that the Holiness of God is not so offended by "small" offenses

Well... can you see how common sense, in addition to 1 John 5:15-17, Luke 12:47-48, etc., makes this plausible... and without minimizing sin, itself? All sin is evil, but some crimes are worse than others.

and He will allow you to pay for them yourself..you do not need Christ for that ..

That is impossible. See above.

what a comfort to those that love their sin...

That's hardly the purpose of Purgatory, friend; anyone with that sinful attitude would need to be purified of THAT, as well (providing that the love of sin did not translate directly into a hatred of God... for which Hell would be the only destination, unless repentance followed). One could easily say the same of "once saved, always saved" (i.e. "what a comfort for those who love their sin!"), with equal illogic. (Martin Luther even taught variations of that: "sin boldly, but believe more boldly still!")

Can you tell me what Christ accomplished on the cross??

I can try... though I have some guesses as to where you'd like to lead me, given your apparent "once-saved-always-saved" views...

When Christ died on the cross, He atoned for every sin of every man from every time; the infinite debt which we owed, the infinite breach in our relationship with the infinite God, was paid and healed and restored. The gates of Heaven, which Adam's sin closed, were opened to us again.

There's only one point I'd like to anticipate: while Christ opened the gates, He bids us to walk through them... and He will not force anyone thither. If I fail to use my talents, if I fail to love my neighbour, etc., I can expect My Lord, standing at those open gates, to say to me: "Depart from Me, you accursed! For I was hungry, and you gave Me no food, etc." Good works are utterly necessary for our necessary participation in our salvation; it isn't given to us DESPITE what we might do. If we reject it, or if we even neglect it to excess, we will lose it. Knowing that a gift can be ignored or thrown away does not deny the fact that a gift was given, after all.

Were any saved?

Yes, in the sense that salvation was no longer closed to them. But if they reject or neglect that gift, they can lose it.

[smvoice]

:( about your "carnal purgation". Sometimes that's the ONLY WAY to feel better..

Ya' know that conversation we were having yesterday regarding NT Scripture and if Paul knew he was writing Scripture (or any of the NT writers,for that matter)? Here's something that I came across as I was studying. It is amazing to me what God shows us at certain times.

"Even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you, as also in ALL HIS EPISTLES, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [twist], as they do also the OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction." 2 Peter3:15,16.

Now, I've read this passage probably a hundred times, but the words I put in bold make one very important point: Peter acknowledges Paul's writing to be Scripture.

The NT canon, exactly like the OT, was accepted and recognized by a consensus of the believers as it was being written, as the testimony of Peter proves.

This time frame was about 66 A.D. "The other Scriptures" Peter speaks of by that time, 66 A.D. would have included most of the remainder of the NT. They must have been readily available and well-known by then, because Peter doesn't even need to name them.

Just thought I would give you something to chew on. Besides an Immodium tablet the size of a plate...:)

[RnMomof7]

When Christ died on the cross, He atoned for every sin of every man from every time; the infinite debt which we owed, the infinite breach in our relationship with the infinite God, was paid and healed and restored. The gates of Heaven, which Adam's sin closed, were opened to us again.

So the cross did nothing more than make salvation possible..

[Mad Dawg]

False alternatives,owing to an excessively mechanical and legalistic view of theology.

[RnMomof7]

So the cross did nothing more than make salvation possible..

Please tell us what Jesus did on the cross..another poster says the cross "opened the gates of heaven'.. so that man may choose to walk through them.. seeming to say He atoned for original sin..and the rest is up to us.. so what say you?

[Mad Dawg]

too tired even to try. ANY writing was a scripture, γραφη, and no writing was readily available. As to purgation, I was laughing and asking God if there were any other thoughts on humiliation he'd like to share. Today I'm pretty clear on the "I am not a god" stuff.

[bibletruth]

IF a person is a true Christian, and saved by the Grace of God without works of the Law, then that person's FINAL FATE is SEALED at the moment of death: Heaven bound without anything in between.

IF a person is not a true Christian, and rejects the Grace of God without works of the Law, then that person's FINAL FATE is SEALED at the moment of death: Hell.

That is exactly what the Bible teaches. Anything that adds to or removed from these truths in the Bible alone does not teach what Christ Jesus and God the Father desires for us to learn regarding Heaven and Hell and Grace salvation.