Purgatory: An Objection Answered

The Catholic Thing ^ | October 26, 2012 | Francis J. Beckwith

[NYer]

In Catholic theology, Purgatory is a state (or a process, not necessarily a place) to which one’s soul travels if one has died in a state of grace, but nevertheless retains unremitted venial sins and certain ingrained bad habits and dispositions.

That is, Purgatory is a state for the redeemed who are not yet perfected. It is not a halfway house between Heaven and Hell. In Purgatory, you willingly undergo the quality and quantity of pain and suffering that is uniquely prepared for you so that you may enter Heaven unblemished.

But the dead in Purgatory do not go through this alone. Those of us who are living may provide assistance to them by offering prayers, alms, Masses, indulgences, etc. without, apparently, undermining the point of Purgatory. 

Some Protestants, even those who are Purgatory-friendly, have raised an objection to this account. They argue that, if undergoing the pains of Purgatory is necessary for a soul’s purification, then wouldn’t the assistance of the living impair that purification?

That is, if I fast and pray for the poor souls in Purgatory so that they may receive some relief from their suffering, how is that helping their purification if the process requires a particular amount of agony? 

The mistake the critic is making is that he is thinking of Purgatory in terms of distributive justice, that the assistance of the living is a rival to the performance of the deceased as if the entire enterprise were a zero-sum game.

He is, of course, not entirely to blame, since the Church and its theologians sometimes use the juridical language of satisfaction and debt to describe Purgatory, its punishments, and the role that the living play in diminishing those punishments.

Nevertheless, as a technical matter, the Church’s understanding of the justice exacted in Purgatory has always been teleological. “Justice,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, “is so-called inasmuch as it implies a certain rectitude of order in the interior disposition of a man, in so far as what is highest in man is subject to God, and the inferior powers of the soul are subject to the superior.”

        Atonement from the Ship in Purgatory by Joseph Anton Koch, c. 1825

This is why two Church councils – Orange and Trent – employ the metaphor of the vine and the branches (John 15:1-17) in order to express the relationship between the members of Christ’s body, both living and dead, as they assist each other on the journey to Paradise. The Council of Trent affirms:

For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace….

So, however we may assist those in Purgatory – through fasting, praying, almsgiving, masses, indulgences, etc. – it is the consequence of cooperating grace, God working through us so that we may express our love, the virtue of charity, to the entirety of Christ’s body, both living and dead.

Perhaps a concrete example will help. Peter is a child growing up in the midst of a broken home. As a consequence, he develops vices that lead him to a life of crime and debauchery.

Suppose as a young adult he undergoes a conversion experience, though he finds it difficult to change his old habits. He often finds himself tempted to return to his former life, though he knows that it will destroy him.

Fed up with this internal struggle, he pursues a cloistered life of spiritual discipline that includes rigorous fasting, prayer, studying, meditation, devotion to the poor, and self-flagellation.

After many years, he has acquired a level of self-mastery that truly astounds him as well as the numerous friends he has made in the monastery. But then he has an epiphany that causes him to well up with tears of deep gratitude.

For he looks around and sees, really sees for the first time, what he had taken granted for the past decade: the wonderful architecture, the mountains of books, the opulent sanctuary, the scores of friends he now calls family, all expressions of the love and selfless giving that made his journey possible.

Although the donors, volunteers, and fellow monks that contributed to these magnificent surroundings are often described by others as having helped relieve the burdens of its residents, it would not be accurate to think of this assistance in merely distributive terms, and in fact Peter cannot bring himself to see it that way, or at least not anymore.

Yes, there was pain and suffering, all deserved, of course, and Peter knows that if not for this overabundance of charity his agony would have been worse. But he does not, indeed he cannot, view this charity as a mere amelioration of what could have been.

Rather, he sees his experience as an organic whole, ordered toward both his good and the good of those with whom he lives in fellowship. The charity and the suffering worked in concert for a proper end.

If you understand this story, you understand the Catholic account of Purgatory.

[annalex]

Galatians 2:2,9

Here it is.

[2] And I went up according to revelation; and communicated to them the gospel, which I preach among the Gentiles, but apart to them who seemed to be some thing: lest perhaps I should run, or had run in vain. [3] But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Gentile, was compelled to be circumcised. [4] But because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privately to spy our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into servitude. [5] To whom we yielded not by subjection, no not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. [6] But of them who seemed to be some thing, (what they were some time, it is nothing to me, God accepteth not the person of man,) for to me they that seemed to be some thing added nothing. [7] But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. [8] (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) [9] And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision

And what? How is that not written by a Catholic?

[BlueDragon]

In Gal 1:6-9 does Paul confine his preaching to his written word? Doesn't seem to me that he does.

That is exactly the sort of argument the Gnostics brought forth. That they heard or were told things by Apostles that others did not, nor were elsewhere written down. That, and that they received such "secret knowledge" through revelation.

The Early Patristric Fathers smashed them using ---what? Even more "secret stuff"? No, absolutely not. They used the Word. And won those battles!

Go ahead. Place bets on "secret knowledge" given to somebody somewhere, we don't know exactly whom, or where...
I'll pass on that sort of thing...

[Rashputin]

Sorry to slight Wycliffe, but even he didn't advocate individual interpretation with no reference to the chruceh to the same degree Luther did. As for the rest the the bogus noise attached to the same post, thank you so much for illustrating how those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self have piled up one layer of error and garbage after another in the five hundred years since Luther.

[smvoice]

Are you and your church “the circumcision” that Peter promised to confine his ministry to?

[MarkBsnr]

All is well, my friend.

Yes, absolutely, I agree with this first paragraph. There is this blight on humanity called the "sinful nature" which permeates everything we do, think, feel. We are all, as David was inspired to report, "...conceived in sin." Ps. 51:5. Paul echos the same in Rom. 3 as he quotes David. However, if this were solved, we still would not be holy enough to stand in heaven.

The process, however, of adjusting our status from sinful to sinless is, according to the Scriptures, accomplished to solve these two problems. First, we are forgiven by Christ when we are adopted into His family. That is, as Paul wrote in Col. 2:13ff, "And when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumsicision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having cancelled out the 'certificate of debt' consisting of decrees against us and which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross."

This solves the first problem. Our evil nature is forgiven, once for all, just as the sacrifice of the Lamb of God was accomplished once for all. The, ..."death that He died, He died to sin once for all..." Rom. 6:10, Heb. 7:27, Heb. 9:12, Heb. 10:10, IPet 3:18.

Very good. We have accord.

But, it still would not have fit us for heaven. To stand before the Creator of Heaven and Earth, spotless and blameless, AND holy enough to bear the, "...unapproachable light" (ITim 6:16) in which God dwells, we had to be wrapped in the righteousness of His Son. Rom. 3:22. This is the solution to our second problem, not possessing righteousness, not being holy. Again Paul describes this when he tells the Philippians, "..I count all things to be loss in in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, NOT HAVING A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF MY OWN derived from doing the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,..." Phil. 3:8,9.

This fits one for heaven, second problem solved. Again, all done by God.

We both agree. All is done by God.

I think that we might put our differences aside in terms of predestination and simply consider that since we are now sinful and must be sinless to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, there is a process whereby that sinfulness is transformed to sinlessness.

How God makes His choice to elect some to His rescue and leave some lost in their sins, I don't pretend to know. If He has chosen me, it was certainly not due to my character.

We will all face Him. St. Paul said that he was the greatest of sinners. I think that I would be a contender...

[BlueDragon]

You did not answer the question.

Actually, I did give answer "where" it was prohibited, which is what was asked.

It's plain enough to me that for whatever reason, you won't accept it. But instead try to rhetorically "finesse" one's way around the plain fact that the Roman church teaches all manner of things not much supported by Scripture, even frequently to the contrary of Scripture, and the Gospel as related to us all by the words attributed to Christ, testified to by the Apostles, then later much expounded upon by the likes of Paul.

Otherwise, In spite of my own explanations, in my own words, you attempt to tell me "what I believe" (is the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory) so as to argue against that position.

Sorry mister, I won't play along with that game. That's part of the old 'drag it off into the bushes' routine, as far as I can tell.

Try again if you wish, but I think we are done here.

Yet ask yourself this;

What sins are NOT covered by the blood of Jesus?

You may spare both yourself & myself the misery of reading through some version of the Roman religious system "answer", to that question (if there is one) if you wish. By all means do not feel yourself obliged to explain such to ME.

[BlueDragon]

And thank YOu for once again demonstrating how Romish thought has “piled up one layer of error and garbage after another” in the last 2000 years, four times as deep!

[WVKayaker]

Paul wrote to the church at Roman because many were trying to “earn their way” to heaven. He reminded them of their pride in how “spiritual” they were, and made it clear that they were WRONG about their views. They haven’t changed much... but now they have lots of gold and a fellow in a funny hat telling them he speaks for God...

Joseph Smith had Urim and Thummin, Rome has special categories of “saints” and pray to Jesus mother in order to get God’s ear...

Not much different, but at least the RCC doesn’t have magic underwear!

*********

I see God’s grace as a sort of “umbrella”. When we become His, His Blood covers ALL OUR SIN (past and present), and all He sees is that covering umbrella! When we acknowledge His Lordship, He begins the process by giving us the Holy Spirit as our guide! Do we continue to sin...? Yes, but He will help us overcome it, through OUR faith!

2Timothy 1:12 That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him for that day.

*****

Romans 4:1 — What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the one
whose sin the Lord will never count against them.” ....

.........

... Romans 5: 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. ...

.....

...Romans 7: 6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11 Not only is this so, but we also boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. ...

... 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

[PeevedPatriot]

That is exactly the sort of argument the Gnostics brought forth. That they heard or were told things by Apostles that others did not, nor were elsewhere written down.

Consider John 21:25. Doesn't scripture tell us it wasn't possible to write down everything about Jesus? Did Jesus command his apostles to teach or to write? Did they live in a culture where teaching was passed down orally?

Go ahead and pass if you like. It seems you don't have a scripture that prohibits oral teaching or prescribes adherence to written teaching exclusively.

Can you cite a couple scriptures that the early fathers used to disprove oral tradition?

[Iscool]

Then on the third day, the Resurrection, Christ rose from the dead and opened heaven. At least that is what I have always been taught.

Then the people waiting in Paradise could also follow.

And when the gates were opened, they stayed opened..No one is this age will go to Paradise, but to Heaven...

Don't you ever read the bible??? Try it instead of relying on 'what you have been taught'...

[BlueDragon]

Can you cite a couple scriptures that the early fathers used to disprove oral tradition?

Been there, done that. Asked and answered.

What of this "secret" info, though? How to justify it? My, what a pickle.

Rome's Gnosticism. it's So because We Say It's So.

[BlueDragon]

Thank you, for bringing applicable Word, for taking the time to share it.

It is like a breathe of fresh air, or a cooling drink.

[Iscool]

How can anyone who claims to believe in Scripture, Scripture that says we're to be perfect even as the Father is perfect argue that when Paul said we would be purified as if by fire he wasn't serious and explaining that we need to be refined prior to moving on to Heaven?

Whenever I see or hear a Catholic go to a bible to dig up some religious proof text, I get a vision of giving a cat a bath...A cat will get close enough to the water to take a drink but will scram at any threat of getting dunked...And you've given a classic example...

Paul said we would be purified as if by fire

Now Paul didn't say that at all, did he??? Paul said 'our works' would be put thru the fire, but, BUT, BUT we, shall be saved...We will be saved because those bad works don't survive the fire and are burned up...

So why do you misquote scripture and distort it to promote a fallacy???

[PeevedPatriot]

Your examples are speaking of those whom were present with Christ when He walked among us, in the form of a man. Why should this later be extended fully to those whom follow after?

Because Jesus told his apostles three times the night before he died that he would send the Spirit to guide them in the truth (Jn 14:17, 15:26, 16:13). Paul confirms that the Church is the bulwark of truth (1 Tim 3:15). My Bible says that Jesus left his deposit of Truth with his apostles. I also take 2 Pt 1:20 seriously, that scripture is not a matter for me to interpret privately. At the Last Supper, Jesus said that those who accepted his apostles accepted him (Jn 13:20). That's good enough for me.

It is much more prudent to simply stick with the Word as best we can,

I mean no disrespect, but what's prudent for you doesn't seem so to me. If Christianity were a religion strictly by the book, wouldn't the book explicitly tell me so? My reading of the Book says Jesus founded a Church, not a how-to manual.

neither inventing things not found therein,

Something is not necessarily an invention because it's not found in scripture. John himself says not everything about Jesus is or can be written. Furthermore, Jesus said on Holy Thursday that he had more to teach the apostles in the future (Jn 16:12-15). Yet scripture records little Jesus said after the Resurrection.

A new and different Gospel, differing from the original, being a much amended one, is highly suspect.

Yes, it would be. But you haven't yet given me any scripture that says the New Testament contains all of Christ's teaching. Or that it prohibits oral teaching. So you haven't proven that the Catholic Church preaches a "much amended" gospel.

Take it up with the former Catholic, Webster, whom I was quoting.

I have no interest in what Webster thinks. I'm interested in why you'd cite Cyril as a sola scriptura adherent when he taught doctrines you claim are not biblical. Either he's a bad Bible scholar or you're not familiar with what he actually taught!

You may then need address your argument (if you actually have one) to his own cited sources also.

I have no argument with Cyril. His writings comport quite nicely with my beliefs. Not so much with yours apparently.

Peace be with you.

[PeevedPatriot]

Asked and answered.

Nope. But I won't pressure you further to find verses that aren't there.

What of this "secret" info, though?

Jesus promised his Holy Spirit to guide his church. I take him at his word. You are under no obligation to do so. Peace be with you.

[BlueDragon]

Something is not necessarily an invention because it's not found in scripture

Excuse me? This thread is concerning the doctrine of Purgatory. What secret info came to light, given by Christ or the Apostles concerning it?

When? Where? Who?

Another put forth 1 Corinthians 3. We can see the stubble of man's doings being burned --- but do we really SEE fully formed Purgatory in that? One has to stretch the imagination to see Purgatory from that.

I have no interest in what Webster thinks. I'm interested in why you'd cite Cyril as a sola scriptura adherent when he taught doctrines you claim are not biblical. Either he's a bad Bible scholar or you're not familiar with what he actually taught!

Yes, one thing he (and many others) taught was to rely upon Scripture. Warning too that he should not be believed if support for what he was saying could not be found therein.

If we find on the whole he may have been somewhat inconsistent in following his own advice, what would that make him but so typically human?

Otherwise, as you seem to have side-stepped or overlooked, those fighting against Gnosticism (in it's various forms) used Scripture. No where that I know of did they use yet more "gnosticism" --- the claim that somehow they had received from Christ or the Apostles secret knowledge that others didn't. Or if they did, they were not successful nor much supported...

By what other secret methodology, this unrecorded passing of information from Christ and the Apostles, did precepts & doctrines arrive in the Roman church, much of the time surfacing only centuries later?

let's have a chain of custody hearing on those sort of "things"... that "oral tradition" Catholics are taught "was passed down from the Apostles" or the like, concerning first --- Purgatory.

We can approach other controversial subjects later. But I'll need to ping a few here for assistance.

Yes, it would be. But you haven't yet given me any scripture that says the New Testament contains all of Christ's teaching. Or that it prohibits oral teaching. So you haven't proven that the Catholic Church preaches a "much amended" gospel.

No sir, it is not incumbent upon me to prove oral testimony and teachings was prohibited (for it was not).

But what IS called for in light of this, is the RCC to provide documentary record of precisely WHAT "tradition" was passed down in this manner (to only surface hundreds of years later?) and from who it was passed, to whom.

I realize that the RCC has an extensive PR apparatus, and something of a "marketing" wing selling the idea of the "fuzzy infallibles" as part of it's own public, and internal face to the world...

But you tell ME. Where do they get this "secret" info, that is not written in the Scriptures? They won't answer, they just keep changing the subject when it's brought up.

Time, place, persons. Let's track how doctrines developed. After we do that for awhile, it's my guess those whom wish to rely upon "oral tradition" will see that in many cases it most certainly is not traced BACK to "all of those things Christ said and did, not written", or even as direct teachings attributable to the Apostles. Ah, and even then, at those few occasions (Apostle to successor or another, as related by the successor or another) we can see some personality come into play, some of the usual limitations of speech & rhetoric. Leaving their words enough to be at times instructive, but not enough to make it equal to Scripture --- OR THE CHURCH WOULD HAVE DONE THAT more near the time. But What did they (the church) really do when faced with such questions early on?

They said; Rely upon Scripture Foremost.

It wasn't until much later, some centuries later people started elevating "tradition" to be equal, and that's when errors, both subtle and more aggressive, began creeping in.

Like Yogi Berra once said -- "you can see a lot just by observing".

[Rashputin]

'What were those Old Testament references again? Oh that's right...you claimed there were such, but never brought them out."

They're in the subset of Scripture those who those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self have thrown in the trashcan because they mention not only Purgatory but several other things Self Worshipers don't like to admit were in the Scriptures Christ and the Apostles taught from and quoted. Knowing that the Self Alone worshipers avoid anything they don’t have a twisted interpretation for handy, yes, I did leave out the references. Anyone who actually cares, of course, will have no problem at all finding what those references are.

Moving along, the Solas actually do stand alone except for the required Self Worship desire between the ears of the individuals who accept them. When someone decides that whatever spirit happens to be hanging off a nearby tree on any given day is all the help they need in interpreting Scripture, they're elevating themselves above the Church Jesus Christ Himself established and promised to protect from error, they’re saying the prefer to follow Eve rather than Christ, and they’re elevating themselves above the Word of God itself. For the moment I won’t bother with the fact that such folks are blaspheming the Holy Spirit. They are, but anyone who doesn’t even accept the entire Old Testament Christ and the Apostles taught from and quoted won’t understand that they are in fact blaspheming the Holy Spirit every time they elevate themselves above the Word of God. One thing at a time, as they say.

As for J.N.D. Kelly, he also argues that the Trinity isn’t based on Scripture but is an invention of the Catholic Church, so, anyone who is a Christian pretty much dismisses him right off the bat. He also mutilates a great deal of what the Early Church Fathers had to so and claims that anything they didn’t discuss in detail is an invention of the Catholic Church. That, too, is absurd on the face of it since everything the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church Jesus Christ Himself established is based on Scripture and the Traditions handed down from the Christ and the Apostles. Someone might think they see how the Catholic Church misinterprets some Scripture, but no way can they argue that anything the Church teaches isn’t based on Scripture. Well, no way they can argue that unless they first place themselves well above the Holy Spirit who inspired all Scripture.

Of course, since Kelly is a major advocate of holding one’s Self in greater esteem than the Word of God, it's no wonder that he'd have plenty of absurd stuff to say. I don't recall them right at the moment, but I’ve read about several other absurdities Kelly includes among his revisionist interpretations of what the Early Church Fathers believed. It’s safe to say his other works are equally as erroneous given his assertion that the Trinity isn’t based on Scripture. Even any non-Catholics unfortunate enough to pick up one of Kelly’s books sheik in horror and drop it as they flee such bald faced lies. It’s a funny choice of “experts” for anyone other than the anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, who chuckles over the cartoons of He Who Cannot Be Mentioned with their breakfast bowl of YOPIOS.

Maybe the Russelite crowd enjoys him, but at the moment I don’t recall the particular heresies Kelly wallows in well enough to say whether he’s someone the Watchtower bumblers would rely on or not. I do know that for the Self Alone crowd who assert that while His Word may be inspired, it doesn’t hold a candle to their personal authority, Kelly makes a lot of sense. His Self Worship advocacy fits right in with the Self Alone pretense of being Christian while in reality worshiping the Most High and Holy Self. That pretense of being Christian is exactly what makes the Self Alone heresy so popular. Especially since the, “may the Self be with you”, approach makes it so easy to ignore little details in Scripture like that bit about surrendering to Christ, taking up your cross, and following Him.

Unfortunately for such Self Alone folks, no matter how anyone tries to hide the facts, both Scripture Alone and Faith Alone are indeed heresies as is the marketing scam of, "Once Saved Always Saved". Catholic teaching that we must follow Christ and remain in a State of Grace just happens to be exactly what Jesus Christ Himself clearly teaches in the New Testament. It’s also what the Apostles taught and along with the rest of what the Catholic Church teaches is Christianity as Christ established it. Anything that disagrees with Christianity is heresy, it’s that simple. And heresy is a heresy and a marketing scam is a marketing scam, no matter how many of the Self Alone who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self, say otherwise.

[BlueDragon]

I cannot help but to get the impression here that this " Most High & Holy Self meme which you repeatedly, casually, indiscriminately bash others with, is a case of projection. Perhaps from the way your own self was, before converting to Catholicism?

That's not me you see in the mirror...

As far as the Apocrypha is concerned, it was warned of concerning those books, quite early on in the history of the church, that they could be used for edification, but were not to be considered Sacred text, nor used to base doctrine upon -- much less DOGMA with pain of ex-communication attached for disagreement!

All of which has little or nothing to do with myself personally, whether High & Holy or more lowly, near insignificant.

Please, go sneer at someone else. Your posts are full of personal insult and attacks. I merely mirrored them somewhat, hoping you'd get the hint [but having full faith you would not].

Unfortunately, this sort of thing;

"...When someone decides that whatever spirit happens to be hanging off a nearby tree on any given day is all the help they need in interpreting Scripture, they're elevating themselves above the Church Jesus Christ Himself established and promised to protect from error, they’re saying the prefer to follow Eve rather than Christ, and they’re elevating themselves above the Word of God itself..."

Is just a strawman, based as much as anything on your own wind. Is this the projection you are desperately running from?

Look, it's not my fault you may have never received or experienced the baptism of the Holy Ghost, at least before you were Catholic(?).

Others have. For whatever reasons that's what pleased the Lord to do...To give them an immersion of His own Spirit, that particular One whom Christ referred to on one occasion as "the Comforter".

If I myself had not been blessed with such an event (and let me tell you, it IS an event, it's enough to make one stand up and take notice!) then perhaps I would be searching for Him in a Roman Catholic setting (for I have full faith he can be found there also, regardless of the limitations and/or mistakes of man). But then too, I have good reason to doubt I could have or would have physically survived long enough to get into one...

Yet now, there is no pressing need for me to seek forgiveness of my own sins through their official offices. The Lord may well enough be found there, yet He is elsewhere, too, at the same time.

I know there are examples of true Christians to be found within Roman Catholicism. It has been my pleasure to interact with a few of them here on these pages, occasionally. But I sort-of get the impression many freepers stay away from the RF due to the recurrent, near relentless acrimony which can be found on these pages.

It makes it quite difficult to conduct an open and honest, yet in-depth conversation, or discussion, so we don't get much to meet many of the Catholics here, other than in the other forums.

Try discussing the issues on their own merits. If that is too difficult, or if you are mainly here to accuse & sneer (at non-Roman Catholics whom dare attempt to "discuss the issues") then what would that make of you, but a FR RF TROLL?

Which is too bad, for you do have some insightful comments upon occasion, worthy enough, and true enough to both Christianity in general, and Catholicism more specifically (rare as those comments may be).

Just do me one favor. Don't aim that pathetic "it's because of their high holy selves" garbage at me. Nobody is interested in your opinions of themselves, or they would ask. So stow that raffle, or ship out, sailor.

Shape up, or get the ZOT. You're overdue, as it is. How many times must a forum moderator remind to "discuss the issues, but don't make it personal"?

But what do you do? Accuse them of the high and holy thingy, then add to me that I'm blaspheming the Holy Ghost.

Not only is that "making it personal" it is wickedly bad doctrine. But I understand the reasoning behind it. The claim is that ALL Catholic doctrine & dogma is inspired, and closely directed by the Holy Spirit.

But you know what, buddy? It's still second-hand news if all one has is the CLAIM that it is all, every little part of it, pure Spirit.

Unless one actually knows for a certainty that such or someThing/Idea/doctrine/dogma/teaching/opinion/ words spoken among men, is in actuality the Holy Ghost, how could one be guilty of blaspheming?

Sensing His presence taking communion -- does not irrevocably validate each and every little twist & turn of Roman Catholic doctrine & dogma. If that were to be the case, then the Spirit of the Lord would be withholding Himself from those whom actually seek Him with sufficient fulness, but due to some doctrinal misunderstanding, make Himself unavailable. Nor would those some distance away from "Rome" doctrinally, be able to discern that Presence, either, yet Rome says such does upon occasion occur. I bear personal witness that Rome is now at least part-way "right" about that...

...it's sad to see Hardon the Jesuit affecting yet another victim with his own reasonings/erroneous doctrine.

Ive seen where he has written much as you have here. Equating disagreement with peculiar doctrines of Rome, with being blasphemy of the Holy Ghost...the one "unforgivable" sin.

The trouble with that sort of thinking, is that it raises doctrines, including the full set of Roman Catholic Marianism, to not only being equal to Christ, but in a way, even superior to Him, and if not superior, then more than equal to Himself when He walked the earth in the form of a man, and fully equal with the Holy Spirit, thus even the Creator Himself.

Would the Lord, knowing what men are made of, what they are truly like, what their very hearts can be like, with all the trouble which can be found there (which He Himself is the only true master of knowing) trust any group of men to bring forth doctrinal perfection, matching stride for stride in perfection, even the Holy Spirit? When it was mankind, and the sins of mankind even the 'religious authorities' that had Him (who was blameless) literally beaten, tortured, then nailed to a tree?

That is not the Lord I know. He is Just & truly Righteous. He would not leave us to such misery, to be so eternally dependent upon some fallible group of men. That is not the Lord that has in the past shown mercy, and given aid, even unto me. That is not the Lord of The Book, that is not the Lord most often taught of inside even the Roman Catholic church.

Hardon the Jesuit may have had some things going for himself, and perhaps knew a thing or two concerning demonic forces. Yet for him to equate disagreement with a few particular Roman Catholic doctrines & dogma, fully with "blasphemy of the Holy Ghost" goes far too far. The Word itself refutes such an idea.

To stand fully in agreement with that man, is to pronounce damnation upon all but the most select group of "super Roman" Christians, shunting aside most of the Orthodox, Russian, Greek, and others, along with [of course] every single Protestant, Baptist and present-day non-aligned non-denominational.

Is that where you really wish to pitch your tent? All others, guilty of the "heresy of Core"? All the while with your own little 'ol humble self, passing judgement and condemnation out, calling them proud? Too proud for the Lord to save?

Are you the face of Catholicism, or more a poster-boy of why Priests of centuries ago, advised simple congregants, "faithful followers of RCC teachings" to not get into discussions on their own, going under their own steam?

[BlueDragon]

Nope, you say? You claim I didn't answer, by posing the question of "oral tradition"? Oh really? That's an escape valve, huh?

Not so fast Must we repeat,

"if even an Angel comes to you preaching..."

other than what was openly and widely taught, much generally covered in the Synoptic Gospels and the Epistles...

then where oh where did this tradition, this other info coming from the Christ & the Apostles first come to light?

Some of it is pure blarney. (which is quite grevious, being as it is so mixed up with actual Truth)
The fleshly reasonings & imaginations of men, dribbling out over time, over many centuries, "developing", or as those Catholics whom do know the difficult history beyond the usual apologetic put it, "unpacking".

Claiming it "was always there" (but without much credible framework) it just needed to be unpacked, so we could see what's really inside it.

It is quite interesting that this "unpacking' claim is utilized frequently in regards to those questionable, controversial dogmas, which then are of course, said to originate from Christ or the Apostles, but only by oral tradition, much of the time as I've previously noted, only surfacing two-three-four hundred years and more, after the time of Christ.

That is why I follow the lead of another, in calling it "the fuzzy infallibles" whenever "tradition" is relied upon as proof-of-concept for those dogmas not much found in the Word.

You may not realize it, but you have certainly delivered on your end. The typical apologetic. Which sounds good at first, but when poked at a bit begins to sadly deflate...

But not to worry overly much, eh? We still can rest in the assurance that Jesus was and is who He said He is, as deeply mysterious to us as that may be.

[PeevedPatriot]

This thread is concerning the doctrine of Purgatory. What secret info came to light, given by Christ or the Apostles concerning it?

Jewish belief in purification after death predates Christianity. I'm too tired to remember their term for it off the top of my head, but the concept isn't a Catholic invention. It's part of Catholicism's Jewish heritage.

Although you don't consider 2 Maccabees 12:44-45 inspired scripture, perhaps you acknowledge it as evidence of Jewish beliefs prior to Christ. If not, other Jewish literature prior to Christ speaks of atonement after death, which you can verify for yourself if you like. To this day some Jews pray Kaddish for their dead: Why Does A Mourner Say Kaddish?...and how it can help a parent

The concept of expiation for forgiven sins is also not a Catholic invention. You can see in 2 Sam 12:13-14 that God required punishment even though he'd forgiven David's sin. While I understand your disagreement with the doctrine of purgatory (expiation for sin, purification after death), it's incorrect to describe it as a Catholic invention. Catholics don't believe, as many nonCatholics do, that forgiveness of sin means no punishment whatsoever for sin. We see it like the kid who throws a ball through the neighbor's window. The neighbor forgives him but the kid's parents still make him help pay for repairs.

By what other secret methodology, this unrecorded passing of information from Christ and the Apostles, did precepts & doctrines arrive in the Roman church, much of the time surfacing only centuries later?

Often what nonCatholics describe as "surfacing only centuries later" refers to dogma that was formally defined to combat heresy but the basic belief of which has been held since earliest times.

No sir, it is not incumbent upon me to prove oral testimony and teachings was prohibited (for it was not).

It's ma'am, but that's ok. No offense, but now you sound all over the map. You say oral teaching wasn't prohibited but you consider it unacceptable, am I understanding you?

But what IS called for in light of this, is the RCC to provide documentary record of precisely WHAT "tradition" was passed down in this manner (to only surface hundreds of years later?) and from who it was passed, to whom.

OK, do I have this right? You are asking for documentary record (I don't know what 'documentary record' means if not written evidence) for verbal teaching? And you want 2,000 years worth of names and dates, right? As you are unable to provide me with a verse prohibiting oral transmission of the faith, are you able to show me a verse that requires its transmission in writing? If not, how is your requirement for written proof a Bible-based belief?

I realize that the RCC has an extensive PR apparatus, and something of a "marketing" wing selling the idea of the "fuzzy infallibles" as part of it's own public, and internal face to the world...

Snark destroys your credibility :) Anyone who claims to have the truth but fails to demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5) loses his argument. You can do better :) That said, I studied Catholicism for decades before joining the Church. I don't know anything about 'fuzzy infallibles,' but I do know that many things nonCatholics find objectionable tend to become more understandable when seen in the light of our Jewish heritage.

Time, place, persons. Let's track how doctrines developed. After we do that for awhile, it's my guess...

Guess all you want. I already did my research, but if you choose to set out on that journey I will walk beside you. I will not do your homework for you, as I did above with purgatory. But if you wish to explore things further I am agreeable as long as you are respectful to me and others who may join the discussion. I will do my best to do likewise. And I'd ask the same of my fellow Catholics. But be careful. A lot of converts will tell you that to go back in history is become Catholic. You've been forewarned :)

Peace be with you.