A question about Purgatory.

  • Thread starter Thread starter childhoodtimes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello! I thought that when we died, the physical body would end here. Our soul on the other hand would be the new body. As our souls are light and do not need a corporal body. The soul is what goes to purgatory and therefore to heaven.

Since I have read of several Saints visions of purgatory, I have come to believe this. They always talk of the soul, not of a body. I think we have problems wrapping our minds around not needing a corporal body. We think of ourselves as a being with flesh and blood, not as a soul housed within this framework.

Just my thoughts!

God Bless!
Hello,

The spirit/soul is in heaven, purgatory, or hell after death. When Jesus returns at His Second Coming, then we will all be given incorruptible, immortal bodies. We will be able to eat and drink again but we will never get old, sick, or die. I do hope to have vanilla iced coffee in heaven. 😃

See 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 and 1 Corinthians 15:51-53

Pax,
SHW
 
Please, you and I know what Brown taught, but the Papacy could have very well been in the dark? Ratzinger knew/knows Brown’s ideas better than you and I can even fathom. By the way, how is that search for Catholic biblical scholars who interpret the 1 Corinthians 3 in a purgatorial sense coming? Maybe that’s why this thread is slowing down.
 
The Great Biblical Commentary of Cornelius A. Lapide
Ver. 15.—But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Isidorius Clarius wrongly applies this to the “foundation.” Grammatically it is possible, but logically not, for it does not agree with the context. For the Apostle is showing that those teachers who erect an empty and showy structure on the faith of Christ shall be punished with fire. Moreover, the preceding words, “he shall receive a reward,” evidently refer to the builder, not to the foundation. So, too, the opposite clause here must be referred to him who builds and not t the foundation laid.
Notice (1.) that as is a mark of truth, not of comparison. So in S. John i. 14: "We have seen His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten. (2.) That it is possible for as to be the introduction of a comparison here. The meaning then would be, He shall be saved like as one who escapes from a burning house, and passes scorched through the flames, as I said at ver. 12. Hence it appears both that there is a purgatory and that there is fire. Hence Chrysostom (Hom. ad pop. 69) says that “the Apostles ordered that at the sacrifice of the Mass prayer be offered for the departed.” Dionysius (Eccles. Hierarch. cvii. pt. 3) records these prayers, and says that he received them from the Apostles. For, as S. Augustine says (Ps. xxxviii), “Because it is said ‘shall be saved,’ this fire is thought little of, but it will be more than anything that man can endure in this life.” S. Bernard too says (de Obit. Humb.), “What we have neglected here shall there be paid a hundredfold.”
Many think that the fire of purgatory is the same as the fire of hell, which borders on purgatory, but only differs from it in duration. From this Anselm gives the wise advice: “If to escape tortures we obey a king here, let us obey the will of Gos so as to escape that fire which is more terrible than all tortures here.” And S. Chrysostom (de Penit. hom. 5) says: “Now there is space for repentance; let then penitence forestall punishment; let us come before His face with confession; let us extinguish the fore prepared for our sins, not with many waters, but with a few tears.” At all events, it is better and easier to be purged with water than with fire: it is better to spend the life whole in the purgatory of penitence than to dwell for a year in the purgatory of fire.
S. Bernard, in his sermon on “the wood, hay, stubble,” gives a tropological discourse that is much to the point. He says: “The foundation is Christ, the wood is perishable, the hay yielding, the stubble light. They who began stoutly enough, but when broken are not renewed, are the wood. They are the hay who, being lukewarm by reason of the sloth that they should have fled from, are unwilling to touch arduous labours with the tip of their fingers. They are the stubble who, being tossed about by every light breeze, never remain in the same state. For such must we fear, though not despair: for if they have heed to Christ as the foundation, and have finished their life in Him as the Way, they shall be saved, yet so as by fire . . . Fire has three things—smoke, light, heat. Smoke calls forth tears, light illuminates what is near, heat burns. So he who is of this sort ought to have smoke, that is, a smarting as it were in his mind, because of his lukewarmness, his remissness, his fickleness; for as far as in him lies he disturbs and overthrows natural order. So, too, should he have light in his mouth, that he may by confession say and bewail that he is what he knows himself to be; so that his tongue may sharpen his conscience, and his conscience shame his tongue. It is necessary, too, that he feel in his body the heat of the suffering exacted by penitence—in some degree at all events, if not very acutely. Thinkest thou that He who wishes all men to be saved will cast away those who in this way are of contrite heart, who humbly confess, and try to bring under their bodies? . . . There are, too, others who build on this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, who begin ardently, more ardently go forward, and most ardently seek perfection, not paying any heed to what the flesh can do, but what the Spirit wills.”
 
Haydock Catholic Bible Commentary
1Co 3:12-15 Now if any man build, &c. This is a hard place, says St. Augustine, lib. de fid. & Oper. chap. xvi. tom. 6. p. 180. The interpreters are divided, as to the explication and application of this metaphorical comparison, contained in these four verses. St. Paul speaks of a building, where it is evident, says St. Augustine, that the foundation is Christ, or the faith of Christ, and his faith working by charity. The difficulties are 1. Who are the builders. 2. What is meant by gold, silver, precious stones, and what by wood, hay, stubble. 3. What is meant by the day of the Lord. 4. What by fire, how every one’s work shall be tried, and how some shall be saved by fire. As to the first, by the builders, as St. Paul had before called himself the first architect, who had laid the foundation of the faith of Christ among the Corinthians, interpreters commonly understand those doctors and preachers who there succeeded St. Paul: but as it is also said, that every man’s works shall be made manifest, St. Augustine and others understand not the preachers only, but all the faithful. As to the second difficulty, if by the builders we understand the preachers of the gospel, then by gold, silver, &c. is to be understood, good, sound, and profitable doctrine; and by wood, hay, stubble, a mixture of vain knowledge, empty flourishes, unprofitable discourses; but if all the faithful are builders, they whose actions are pure, lay gold upon the foundation; but if their actions are mixed with imperfections, venial failings, and lesser sins, these are represented by wood, hay, stubble, &c. 3. By the day of the Lord, is commonly understood either the day of general judgment, or the particular judgment, when every one is judged at his death, which sentence shall be confirmed again at the last day. 4. As to fire, which is mentioned thrice, if we consider what St. Paul says here of fire, he seems to use it in different significations, as he many times does other words. First, he tells us, (ver. 13.) that the day of the Lord…shall be revealed; or, as it is in the Greek, is revealed in, or by fire; where, by fire, is commonly understood the just and severe judgments of God, represented by the metaphor of fire. Secondly, he tells us in the same verse, that fire shall try every one’s work, of what sort it is. This may be again taken for the examining and trying fire of God’s judgments: and may be applied to the builders, whether preachers only or all the faithful. Thirdly, he tells us, (ver. 14. and 15.) that some men’s works abide the fire of God’s judgments, they deserve no punishment, they are like pure gold, which receives no prejudice from the fire: but some men’s works burn, the superstructure, which they built upon the faith of Christ, besides gold, silver, precious stones, had also a mixture of wood, hay, stubble, which could not stand the trial of fire, which met with combustible matter, that deserved to be burnt. Every such man shall suffer a loss, when his works are burnt, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Here the apostle speaks of fire in a more ample signification: of a fire which shall not only try, and examine, but also burn, and punish the builders, who notwithstanding shall also, after a time, escape from the fire, and be saved by fire, and in the day of the Lord, that is, after life (for the time of this life is the day of men). Divers of the ancient fathers, as well as later interpreters, from these words, prove the Catholic doctrine of a purgatory, that is, that many Christians, who die guilty, not of heinous or mortal sins, but of lesser, and what are called venial sins, or to whom a temporal punishment from the sins they have committed, still remains due, before they can be admitted to a reward in heaven, (into which nothing defiled or unclean can enter) must suffer some punishments for a time, in some place, which is called Purgatory, and is such a manner, as is agreeable to the divine justice, before their reward in heaven. These words of the apostle, the Latin Fathers in the Council of Florence[1] brought against the Greeks to prove purgatory, to which the Greeks (who did not deny a purgatory, or a third place, where souls guilty of lesser sins were to suffer for a time) made answer, that these words of St. Paul were expounded by St. John Chrysostom and some of their Greek Fathers (which is true) of the wicked in hell, who are said to be saved by fire, inasmuch as they always subsist and continue in those flames, and are not destroyed by them: but this interpretation, as the Latin bishops replied, is not agreeable to the style of the holy Scriptures, in which, to be saved, both in the Greek and Latin, is expressed the salvation and happiness of souls in heaven. It may not be amiss to take notice that the Greeks, before they met with the Latins at Ferrara, of Florence, did not deny the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. They admitted a third place, where souls guilty of lesser sins, suffered for a time, till cleansed from such sins: they allowed that the souls there detained from the vision of God, might be assisted by the prayers of the faithful: they called this purgatory a place of darkness, or sorrow, of punishments, and pains, but they did not allow there a true and material fire, which the Council did not judge necessary to decide and define against them, as appears in the definition of the Council. (Conc. Labb tom. xiii. p. 515.) (Witham) — The fire of which St. Paul here speaks, is the fire of purgatory, according to the Fathers, and all Catholic divines. (Calmet) — St. Augustine, expounding Psalm xxxvii. ver. 1, gives the proper distinction between this fire of purgatory and that of hell: both are punishments, one temporary, the other eternal; the latter to punish us in God’s justice, the former to amend us in his mercy.
(To be continued)
 
(continued)
===============================
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In the Council of Florence, which began at Ferrara an. [in the year] 1438. The Greeks at the very first declared they admitted a third place, where souls were punished for a time, which they called a place of darkness and sorrow. See Labb. tom. xiii. Con. p. 20. Græci fatentur pænam temporaneam, quod peccatis obnoxiorum animæ in locum abeunt tenebricosum, in locum mæroris, in quo, ad tempus, versantur in mœrore & pænis, Greek: eis topon skoteinon, kai topon lupes, kai lupountai merikos. — Again, Hæc est inter eos differentia: Græci pœnam, mærorem, & pœnæ locum asserunt, Itali pænam, purgationemque per ignem. See again p. 491. Sess. 25. where the Greeks say of such souls, that they are in a middle state, medias autem esse in loco tormentorum, sed sive ignis sit, sive caligo, sive turbo, sive quid aliud, non contendimus. See also the definition of the Council, p. 515, where it is only defined, eorum animas pœnis purgatoriis post mortem purgari, & ut a pœnis hujusmodi releventur, prodesse vivorum suffragia, which was the doctrine both of the Greek and Latin Church. See on this place of St. Paul, Bellarmine, lib. i. de Purgatorio, cahp. 5; Salmeron disp. 7. in lib. ad Corint.; Estius; a Lapide; etc.​

 
A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture
  1. ‘If any man’s work is burnt down, he will be a loser, though he himself will be saved, but only like something which has been through fire’. He will be like one pulled out of a burning house, scorched but alive. The unworthy teacher will not lose his soul (he is not therefore guilty of mortal sin) but will lose his work and his special reward. The last words clearly imply some penal suffering, and as Paul connects it so closely with God’s judgement, it can hardly be confined to suffering in this world, but seems to include the idea of purificatory suffering after this life, i.e. in purgatory.
 
Hello! I thought that when we died, the physical body would end here. Our soul on the other hand would be the new body. As our souls are light and do not need a corporal body. The soul is what goes to purgatory and therefore to heaven.

Since I have read of several Saints visions of purgatory, I have come to believe this. They always talk of the soul, not of a body. I think we have problems wrapping our minds around not needing a corporal body. We think of ourselves as a being with flesh and blood, not as a soul housed within this framework.

Just my thoughts!

God Bless!
As was mentioned by one responder already, we do not get our glorified bodies until Jesus comes again. But it does say quite clearly that we will be changed. There is nothing to suggest that our soul would become our new body, although that would be a change.

Some OT insight comes from Machabees (I am using the Douay-Rheims translation here).

2 Machabees 7:9-11 *"And when he was at the last gasp, he said thus: Thou indeed, O most wicked man, destroyest us out of this present life: but the King of the world will raise us up, who die for his laws, in the resurrection of eternal life.

After him the third was made a mocking-stock, and when he was required, he quickly put forth his tongue, and courageously stretched out his hands:

And said with confidence: These I have from heaven, but for the laws of God I now despise them, because I hope to receive them again from him."*

This example (from the entire chapter) is referred to in the Hall of Faith discourse in Hebrews 11:35. Paul was very much a believer in the resurrection of the body, not just the spirit, as were all Pharisees. This chapter in Machabees (aka Maccabees) along with one other passage highlights what the Pharisees believed (the Sadducees only accepted the Penteteuch, first five books of the Bible, and rejected the doctrine of the Resurrection.

In verse 11 above, the young man being tortured and killed for his faith expressed his belief that not only would he be raised from the dead but that he would receive his lost limbs back as well. I also included verse 9 as this shows their belief in what was to come, Jesus is the King of the World who will raise them up to eternal life.

I do not know that we need a corporeal body, but Jesus resurrected His mortal body and glorified it. A number of saints have been brought up to heaven bodily, including Mary. If bodies had no part to play in our new glorified condition, why bring them up to heaven in the first place?

I believe in the resurrection of the body, not just a resurrection of the spirit.

In Romans 6:5, while the topic was our present life, we shall also have “the likeness of His resurrection” - His resurrection was bodily and His body was first raised human and then glorified.
 
I go away for a few days, and look at how things build up! There’s a lot here to go over, so I’ll try to be brief. I should begin by reminding CWBetts that this is not a thread on Sola Scriptura, so reminding me that the “Church” does not believe in scripture alone is not relevant. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church looks to Sacred Scripture and Sacred Traditions, and looks to the Magisterium of the Church (i.e. – the Bishops in union with the Pope, or the Pope when he speaks ex cathedra) for a proper interpretation. I understand this is where Purgatory comes from (that is, the official teaching of the Church). I should point out that Sola Scriptura does NOT deny the authority of the Church to teach, but it does hold the Church accountable to the Scriptures (as did Jesus in places like Matt 12:1-6, 19:3-6, 21:15-16, 42, 22:30-32, not to mention similar verses in the other gospels). Jesus tested the Jews’ “Sacred Traditions” against the scriptures and condemned them for their hypocrisy (see Mark 7:1-13). If the “Church” teaches doctrines that are NOT supported by scripture, how can they be anything other than Doctrines of Men? If your “Sacred Tradition” changes over time, how can that be from God, who changes not? I can hear it now, “Our Traditions have been the constant teaching of the Church for 2000 years!” Really? What is the earliest date for any mention of indulgences? Other than spurious or Gnostic works, when is the earliest mention of Mary’s bodily assumption (and what was their source)? I could go on, but I think the point is made (though I expect most will deny it).

It has been asserted that the doctrine of Purgatory is similar to the doctrine of the Trinity (since neither word appears in scripture). To compare the two is worse than comparing apples to oranges. The doctrine of the Trinity is clearly seen throughout the New Testament; at the baptism of Jesus, all three members of the Godhead are clearly and individually seen; in Matt 28:19 Jesus commands His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; the writers of the epistles have no problem mentioning and address all three persons (Acts 7:55, Romans 15:16, 2 Cor 13:13, Heb 9:14, and 1 John 5:7, to name a few). The early Church lived the Trinity! Speaking of God in three persons was a very natural thing to do (as well as writing about it). The word “Trinity” is a convenient way to put this reality into a single word. When someone mentions the Trinity in a religious context, Christians automatically know this refers to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

What clear scriptures do you have to support Purgatory? 1 Cor 3:15 has been offered (“If any man’s work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.”), but it doesn’t work. Read in context (1 Cor 3:9-15), we see that WORKS are being examined to determine REWARDS (surely you don’t think you’re going to receive the same reward as Peter, Paul and Mary?). This has nothing to do with temporal punishment. 2 Sam 12:13-14 has been suggested as a “an illustration of the concept” for purgatory. Excuse me, but I thought purgatory was where I would “pay” for my own (venial) sins? Scripture itself makes it clear why the child died (“because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die.” 2 Sam 12:14). Again, this does not refer to any temporal punishment. 2 Mac was brought up (sorry, I don’t have the exact chapter and verse to quote from). If I remember correctly, there was a battle, and afterwards, as they were going over the dead and preparing them for burial, they found that everyone of their people who had been killed had an idol in their possession. The leader of the Maccabees (sorry if I misspelled it), decided to make sin offerings for them in the hope that when they stood before God in the resurrection, the offering would be remembered. Nice sentiment, but what is the Biblical basis for this? I would suggest that, because they had idols on them , they were engaged in some type of idolatry (which God forbids in no uncertain terms), and therefore God allowed them to be killed as an act of judgment against them. Matt 12:31-32 has been offered as an example of “forgiveness in the world to come” (which, by extension, points to purgatory, I guess). I would suggest that the use of the phrase “neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” would indicate that this is an eternal sin (the one that leads to death, as mentioned in 1 John 5:16-17). (BTW – I’m not sure which translation was used when this was presented, but the Greek word here is ‘qanaton’ (Thanaton), which does not translate as ‘Mortal’, but as ‘Death’.) Mark 9:49 is brought up (not sure why, and BTW, it’s verse 48 in the Douay Rheims). When the whole reading is taken in context, we see that Jesus was talking about the people in Hell. There is nothing to indicate that this verse is referring to anyone else. How does it even hint at purgatory?
40.png
SHW:
Jesus was not in heaven on “this day” either. The comma is in the wrong place. The person who placed the commas (none were in the original manuscript) did not know theology as well as he should.
Not sure what this has to do with Purgatory, or why SHW thinks he knows more than the people who worked on Bible translations (including approved Catholic versions). Maybe SHW should share the “original” manuscript with the world (OK, I’m being facetious. Sorry!)

…continued …
 
.The Greek word should be translated as Paradise, not Heaven. This could easily have been, what in another place (Luke 16:19-31) is called, Abraham’s bosom. In the true story found in Luke (as previously cited), we note that the rich man was able to look into Abraham’s bosom from Hell. It makes perfect sense that this is where Jesus went, with the thief, and preached to all the dead. There was no middle ground, no “in between” place where someone could pay any temporal punishment for their own sins.

I’m noticing that some people are recommending such great Biblical scholars as C.S. Lewis and Thornton Wilder as experts on purgatory. Is this supposed to be serious argumentation? Does this have the official stamp of approval from the Church? I haven’t looked recently, but I doubt anything written by Lewis or Wilder has the Imprimatur or the Nihil Obstat (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
40.png
Shin:
I just want to note that you’ll find purgatory in such examples as one of the earliest Christian female martyr’s writings, the martyrdom of Sts. Felicity and Perpetua, as well as other works. It’s a historical fact.
When did these people write (year), and were they inspired like the other men who wrote the Scriptures? In their writings, did they give any scripture to prove their case?
40.png
JKing:
I believe that these questions will be completely irrelevant when we are looking back from the other side. When we die we leave the river of time. We are in eternity where time is meaningless. All events are present to us. So when we die we have our particular judgment and receive our sentence. If hell, we are joined to our material bodies, witness the general judgment and go to hell. If our sentence is heaven then we are purged, if necessary, joined to our glorified bodies and witness the general judgement and enter into the beatific vision. Time has no impact on these events.
There is a problem with this line of thought, namely, a little thing the Church created called Indulgences. You can “earn” indulgences by doing certain things (such as making a pilgrimage to a shrine, saying certain prayers, even paying the Church a fee (alms giving?). This abuse was a major cause in the reformation). These “indulgences” will grant you specific amounts of time out of Purgatory (like 300 days, 7 years, etc…). If time is irrelevant (which I agree, since the eternal has no clock or calendar), how can anyone benefit from an indulgence of 2 years? How would it be better for someone who got an indulgence for 10 years? These things are not addressed in Scripture, primarily because they are traditions of men, and should not bother a true believer in Jesus Christ. (BTW CWBetts – the $5 stipend for a mass is what is asked for in our time. Go back and see how indulgences have been abused by the “Church”, and consider how much money it has generated over the years. I would also mention that I have listened to a debate between a Catholic apologist and a Protestant apologist on Purgatory (the debate was about 10-15 years ago), and when asked if someone could give alms to avoid purgatory, Fr. Stravinskas (the Catholic apologist) said, “Yeah. It’s pay now, or pay later!”, and that is a direct quote! Seems that the “eye of the needle” has gotten a lot bigger for the rich than when Jesus preached – see Matt 19:24).
 
Originally Posted by SHW
Jesus was not in heaven on “this day” either. The comma is in the wrong place. The person who placed the commas (none were in the original manuscript) did not know theology as well as he should."

Not sure what this has to do with Purgatory, or why SHW thinks he knows more than the people who worked on Bible translations (including approved Catholic versions). Maybe SHW should share the “original” manuscript with the world (OK, I’m being facetious. Sorry!)
You are forgiven. 😃

If Paradise is meant to be heaven, then the comma is in the wrong place, since Scripture states that Jesus did not rise from the dead until the third day after His death, so it is not possible for Jesus to be in heaven with the thief on Good Friday since Jesus was not in heaven on Good Friday. He went to Hades, the abode of the dead; which included hell, purgatory (prison), and Abraham’s bosom:

Acts 2:30-32 “Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses.”

Luke 16:23 “And (the rich man) being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.”

If Paradise is the same as Abraham’s bosom, then it is possible that Jesus was with the thief on that very day. Scripture states that Jesus did not ascend into heaven until Pentecost (40 days after His resurrection) so He could not have been in heaven with the thief until Pentecost. However, Scripture does state that Jesus was in prison preaching during the time between His death and resurrection. I think this prison is purgatory:

1 Peter 3:18-20 “For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.”

So, this debate hinges on what the definition of Paradise is in relation to Heaven. If they are the same, then Jesus could not have possibly been with the thief there on “this day” Good Friday because Jesus was not in heaven until 40 days after His resurrection. If this is true, then the Scripture should read, Luke 23:43 "And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you today, you will be with Me in Paradise.” I think Jesus also taught the persons in Abraham’s bosom while He was in Hades, the abode of the dead.

Original Greek:

kai eipen autw amhn soi legw shmeron met emou esh en tw paradeisw

Latin Vulgate:

et dixit illi Iesus amen dico tibi hodie mecum eris in paradiso
**
As you can see, there are no commas.**

http://www.bellshoalscoc.org/encourager/where_do_you_put_the_comma.htm


I hope this answers your question. 🙂

Until the Church decides definitively, we are free to have our discussions and opinions about the interpretation of individual Scriptures. Once the Church makes a decision, then we are bound by her interpretation, however.

Pax,
SHW
 
There is a problem with this line of thought, namely, a little thing the Church created called Indulgences. You can “earn” indulgences by doing certain things (such as making a pilgrimage to a shrine, saying certain prayers, even paying the Church a fee (alms giving?). This abuse was a major cause in the reformation). These “indulgences” will grant you specific amounts of time out of Purgatory (like 300 days, 7 years, etc…). If time is irrelevant (which I agree, since the eternal has no clock or calendar), how can anyone benefit from an indulgence of 2 years? How would it be better for someone who got an indulgence for 10 years? These things are not addressed in Scripture, primarily because they are traditions of men, and should not bother a true believer in Jesus Christ. (BTW CWBetts – the $5 stipend for a mass is what is asked for in our time. Go back and see how indulgences have been abused by the “Church”, and consider how much money it has generated over the years. I would also mention that I have listened to a debate between a Catholic apologist and a Protestant apologist on Purgatory (the debate was about 10-15 years ago), and when asked if someone could give alms to avoid purgatory, Fr. Stravinskas (the Catholic apologist) said, “Yeah. It’s pay now, or pay later!”, and that is a direct quote! Seems that the “eye of the needle” has gotten a lot bigger for the rich than when Jesus preached – see Matt 19:24).
You do not understand indulgences. Here is some info to help you to better understand:

catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp

catholic.com/library/Myths_About_Indulgences.asp

"One never could “buy” indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: “*t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded.” *

Pax,
SHW
 
Please, you and I know what Brown taught, but the Papacy could have very well been in the dark? Ratzinger knew/knows Brown’s ideas better than you and I can even fathom. By the way, how is that search for Catholic biblical scholars who interpret the 1 Corinthians 3 in a purgatorial sense coming? Maybe that’s why this thread is slowing down.
Brown is American. The world that is under the papacy is much larger than the USA and I doubt very much that the Pope took the time to read all of Brown’s works. He simply does not have the time to do so and I think it is unwise to say that the Pope is aware of every so-called scholar’s “works.” The Pope relies on others to keep him informed. I can’t even keep up with my own mail, newsworthy newsletters, political analysis petitions, etc., that I am interested in. I have to draw the line. I do not see how it is possible, due to other pressing religious concerns, that the Pope would spend his precious time analyzing Brown’s writings.

Pax,
SHW
 
if the man who is in the side of jesus when they are in the cross are a sinner, why jesus brought the thief on heaven instantly without cleansing in the purgatory? because Jesus said “right now I will put you in paradise” the underlined phrase “right now” only means an immediate deliverance to the kingdom of God. Does it mean that Jesus do not consider purgatory to cleanse the sin of the thief?

thankssss for your attention!!:D:thumbsup:👍
Well - should go without saying -but the authority of the Church to grant indulgences comes from Christ. Therefore, it would be inherently contradictory to say the Pope can assign a plenary indulgence whereas Christ cannot. 👍
 
Do Catholics have to believe in Purgatory.?
Code:
  Peace,   Golfjack
The existence of the fires of Purgatory for temporal punishment and venial sins is a Catholic dogma, and so by the way are indulgences.

[See Ludwig Ott’s Fundamental’s of Catholic Dogma, F.X Schouppe’s Purgatory, etc.]
 
Brown is American. The world that is under the papacy is much larger than the USA and I doubt very much that the Pope took the time to read all of Brown’s works. He simply does not have the time to do so and I think it is unwise to say that the Pope is aware of every so-called scholar’s “works.” The Pope relies on others to keep him informed. I can’t even keep up with my own mail, newsworthy newsletters, political analysis petitions, etc., that I am interested in. I have to draw the line. I do not see how it is possible, due to other pressing religious concerns, that the Pope would spend his precious time analyzing Brown’s writings.

Pax,
SHW
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, Fitzmyer and Brown are THE thelogians of the Catholic Church this generation. They’re not small voices. And if the pope is just appointing people with whose writings he was no/little/not complete familiarity to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, then the bureaucracy of the Papacy is as bad as that of the US government. Maybe the popes haven’t had complete knowledge of Brown’s writings, but to suggest that they didn’t even know about his liberal use of the historical-critical method or denial of total biblical inerrancy is to introduce a scary thought about the world of Catholic Church Governance. You know about Brown, but you think the pope doesn’t?

Anyway, this debate about whether or not the pope is aware of Brown’s “liberalism” is unimportant. The point is that the aforementioned scholars’ interpretation of 1 Cor. 3 is in no way heterodox. The church has never infallibly defined the meaning of the verse(s) and therefore any interpretation is valid.
 
if the man who is in the side of jesus when they are in the cross are a sinner, why jesus brought the thief on heaven instantly without cleansing in the purgatory? because Jesus said “right now I will put you in paradise” the underlined phrase “right now” only means an immediate deliverance to the kingdom of God. Does it mean that Jesus do not consider purgatory to cleanse the sin of the thief?
thankssss for your attention!!:D:thumbsup:👍
JL: I have just read the first few posts, so I hope I am not posting a duplicate answer.

[Hb10:1 The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, MAKE PERFECT those who draw near to worship. …2…3… 4 because IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for the BLOOD OF BULLS AND GOATS to TAKE AWAY SINS.] No one went to heaven before the resurrection and ascension of our Lord. Whom as our High Priest entered the Holy of Holies made without hands with his atoning blood Because only the atoning blood of Christ can take away sin and make just men perfect. All spirits=disembodied=souls, just or unjust, were captives in Sheol=Hebrew, Hades=Greek, Hell=English, before the ascension.

They went to one of the chambers of Sheol=Hades=Hell, before the resurrection and ascension of our Lord, who opened heaven for the just spirits when he descended to Hell, and preached to them,1Pt3:18 that he might bring us to God, 1Pt3:18-19 & 1Pt4:6, CCC 634. When he ascended, he led a host of captives, the great cloud of witnesses Hb11:1-12-1, [Acts1:9 After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.] Christ took the just spirits, disembodied, souls, in Hell into heaven, now made perfect by the blood of Christ, that cleanses and takes away sin [Eph 4:8…When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,… Eccl 12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.] The body=dust returns to the earth and the spirit=soul goes back to God who gave it, for immediate personal judgement. [Hb 9:27 as it is appointed for men to die once and after that comes judgment. Hb12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion…the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem,…23 … to a judge who is God of all, and the spirits of just men made perfect… ] After the ascension we see in Hb9:23, the spirits of JUST MEN** MADE **PERFECTt, with our Lord in heaven. The evil spirits are still in Hell, the chamber of torment until the resurrection.

Christ said to the good thief, this day you will be with me in paradise. Where did Christ go, “that day” and for the next three days? Christ and the thief went where all souls went before the ascension of Christ, remember the creed, He decended into Hell. Their souls went to Hell=English. Christ tells us in [Lk 16:22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.] Some theologians say there are several chambers in Hell.

In Lk16:19-31, Christ reveals there are at lest two chambers in Hell, one of torment were the soul of the rich man went. The other chamber was called Abraham’s Side or Bosom, where the soul of Lazarus went, [Lk16:25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now HE IS COMFORTED HERE and YOU ARE IN AGONY.] or as Christ said to the thief, today you will be with me in “paradise”. CCC 631-637, 1021. 1021 CCC Lk16:22 The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 1021 CCC Lk23:43 Jesus answered him, I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.

The thief was circumcised as all Jews were. I think it is taught by the Church the thief had a baptism of desire. In that, he desired to do God’s will, but was unable since he was on a cross dying. Baptism forgives and cleanses of all sin and debt, thru the blood of Christ, rendering one fit to enter heaven, CCC 1263. Unfortunately most people sin, to some degree, after baptism. The thief did not have a chance to sin after repenting and baptism of desire. So I don’t think he would need any purification, although I’m not sure. If he did he would have went to purgatory when Christ ascended.
 
.

There is a problem with this line of thought, namely, a little thing the Church created called Indulgences. You can “earn” indulgences by doing certain things (such as making a pilgrimage to a shrine, saying certain prayers, even paying the Church a fee (alms giving?). This abuse was a major cause in the reformation). **These “indulgences” will grant you specific amounts of time out of Purgatory (like 300 days, 7 years, etc…). **If time is irrelevant (which I agree, since the eternal has no clock or calendar), how can anyone benefit from an indulgence of 2 years? How would it be better for someone who got an indulgence for 10 years?
Re bolded portion. This is not the correct understanding of what was meant by the days/years, etc. assigned to indulgences. Since there are probably many Catholics even who misunderstood what was meant, it’s a good opportunity to clear the matter up. It did not refer to specific amounts of time out of Purgatory. Took me awhile to track down verification of what I was taught - way back when in grade school, 🙂 - but here it is:

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm
(Under “Various Kinds of Indulgences”, 1st paragraph, 2nd last sentence)

To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance.
 
Regardless of whether you agree with them or not, Fitzmyer and Brown are THE thelogians of the Catholic Church this generation. They’re not small voices. And if the pope is just appointing people with whose writings he was no/little/not complete familiarity to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, then the bureaucracy of the Papacy is as bad as that of the US government. Maybe the popes haven’t had complete knowledge of Brown’s writings, but to suggest that they didn’t even know about his liberal use of the historical-critical method or denial of total biblical inerrancy is to introduce a scary thought about the world of Catholic Church Governance. You know about Brown, but you think the pope doesn’t?

Anyway, this debate about whether or not the pope is aware of Brown’s “liberalism” is unimportant. The point is that the aforementioned scholars’ interpretation of 1 Cor. 3 is in no way heterodox. The church has never infallibly defined the meaning of the verse(s) and therefore any interpretation is valid.
I will point out to you an earlier post #108 by Godfollower. Perhaps you missed it. The Church has infallibly defined the meaning of the verse. It uses it as Scriptural support for its doctrine on purgatory.

CCC 1030 All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607

As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608​

606 Cf. Council of Florence (1439) : DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563) : DS 1820; (1547):1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336) : DS 1000.
607 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
608 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4,39:PL 77,396; cf. Mt 12:31.

Since Pope Paul VI was already complaining about the “smoke of Satan” infiltrating the Church in the form of corrupt clerics in the 60’s, I would bet (and win) that there are now many more “wolves in sheep’s clothing” within the Church right now “pretending” to be Catholic, than there ever were in Pope VI’s time.

I know about Brown because I make it my business to learn about “scholars” such as he and his cohorts. However, the ordinary man in the pew has no idea who Brown is or what he teaches and so they would not know to discount his “scholarship.”

You, who do know about Brown et al, do not even know that the CCC teaches that 1 Cor 3:15 refers to purgatory and so we can’t expect others less informed than you are to know that Brown’s teachings are not in accordance with Catholic Dogma. So, this is why I do not believe that the Pope personally knows that Brown is teaching contrary to Catholic dogma.

Pax,
SHW
 
okay! if that is possible, can we invent our own suffering? like for example; I have a friend who dont want to forgive for what i’ve done to her but still she don’t wanted to forgive me . And i confessed it to a priest, and I tried not to eat or watch T.V. for 3 days. do you think i can enter to heaven even without experiencing purgatory is it enough?

:rolleyes: thanks:D:D
What kind of sin did you commit that you would go without food for 3 days and abstain from media for as long?!? Why would you invent your own suffering? And abstaining from food has nothing to do with forgiveness of sin…where are you from? And even if you confess to a priest, it doesn’t mean that you are forgiven those sins. Unless you are truly repentant of your sins no forgiveness can be granted.
In completion of the question… The thief was forgiven when he asked Christ’s forgiveness. There was no need for the thief to go through any more suffering. The thief was with Christ that day, soon after his death on a cross, thieves were crucified back then too. God doesn’t mince words. When God says you will be with Him that day, you will be with Him that day.🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top