Just a interesting apologetic that I found.
No idea who Churchmouse really is, as 'he' is not identified on 'his' blog...
The first thing to say is that this is sloppy. What exactly does "according to Rome" mean? Is the statement de fide, an opinion, or what? and "the majority of us" is the majority of whom, please? Certainly we'd guess that the majority of those whose final stop is heaven will spend some time in purgatory, but that's not doctrine.
Scripture evidently speaks of a heaven and a hell, but for purgatory, where the majority will go, it’s odd that the writers can only muster “implications.” That's quite an oversight.
ALL of those who "endure", as churchmouse puts it, Purgatory, will end up in Heaven. Purgatory is an interval, a way station, a pause, and from the point of view of eternity, almost a triviality. SO I think it's tendentious to call it "quite an oversight."
Indeed, it is odd that one could only muster implications considering its importance in the afterlife. Asides from its absence in Scripture, we realize that for almost two centuries there was nothing which even remotely resembled afterlife purgatorial thought, Origen and Clement of Alexandria being the first to indulge a concept of it with its fruition coming in the 12th century.
As a matter of fact, we do not "Realize" that,l and that statement is indicative of the lack of care which characterizes this attempt at a refutation. What churchmouse can reasonably say is that we have no surviving record from before Origen and Clement of "afterlife purgatorial thought". He cannot conclude from that that "there was nothing which even remotely resembled ...." He does not know. (or if He does know, he doesn't show us how he knows.
Succumbing to the temptation to present conjecture as known and demonstrated fact is easy and hard to avoid. In this case it casts doubt on the reliability of the writer.
And that doubt is justified, since we find Tertullian writing in the early 200's about 'sacrifices' for the dead being a custom of Christians. I think that would count as "before Origen" and as remotely resembling.
I wonder what churchmouse thinks of the doctrine of the Trinity and and its mention or lack thereof in the early days.
But I guess it needs to be said yet again that the role of "proof from Scripture" is very different in Orthodoxy and Catholicism from what it is in much of Protestantism.
Excuse typos, etc. In haste here ...
Paul is not asking for mercy for him, but for his house,or descendents, big difference
This is probably an ignorant question, but does the Orthodox church also believe in Purgatory or is it an RCC teaching exclusively?
Any and all discussion about Purgatory, from a scriptural basis, is already moot since the Protestants stacked the deck against any such discussion, when they removed 2 Macc from the Canon of Scripture.
Period. End of story. Although for anyone who knows this historical fact, it should actually end the story in the Catholic’s favor, since it’s intellectual dishonesty in the least to say otherwise.
I see not hint of purgatory in that verse. And if you’re relying on your good works for partial payment good luck with that ...
Where do you make the leap of logic to infer that Onesiphorus was dead? Sounds like Paul was just praying for the Lord’s blessing over his family, since he was a good friend. Then to extrapolate a Purgatory doctrine? oh brother.
Whenever a Protestant insists that something is true "according to Rome," make it a point to say, "and your source is ... ???".
You'll usually discover that they're talking out of their hat.
I'm aware of no passage in the catechism, in Ott's Fundamentals, or in any other Catholic source I know of which asserts what this author claims to know "according to Rome".