K
Kuriakos
Guest
Can someone document for me the Early Church Fathers’ agreement with the RCC doctrine on Purgatory?
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< Can someone document for me the Early Church Fathers’ agreement with the RCC doctrine on Purgatory? >>
No problem, see my James White mega-rebuttal #2859321865321
Arguments Against Purgatory Considered
The doctrine became more clearly understood over time, just as the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, the concept of original sin, etc. If White wants to lay Jacques Le Goff on me, then I have this in response:
Comments by Jacques Le Goff, author of The Birth of Purgatory [University of Chicago Press, 1984]
From chapter 2 “The Fathers of Purgatory” – these I find to be highly relevant passages from this chapter:
“From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16 ]…” (page 53)
“Origen’s conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement’s. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh…Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin)…” (page 54,55)
“For Clement of Alexandria, the ‘intelligent’ fire that enters into the sinner’s soul was not a material thing…but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a ‘spiritual’ fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)…what is involved [in Origen’s view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle…Origen’s eschatological notions were highly personal…He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day…” (page 55,56)
“Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the ‘fire of combustion’ is brief; and ‘mortal sinners,’ who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15…” (page 56,57)
to be continued…
No problem, see my James White mega-rebuttal #2859321865321
Arguments Against Purgatory Considered
The doctrine became more clearly understood over time, just as the Trinity, the canon of the New Testament, the concept of original sin, etc. If White wants to lay Jacques Le Goff on me, then I have this in response:
Comments by Jacques Le Goff, author of The Birth of Purgatory [University of Chicago Press, 1984]
From chapter 2 “The Fathers of Purgatory” – these I find to be highly relevant passages from this chapter:
“From the Old Testament, Clement [of Alexandria] and Origen took the notion that fire is a divine instrument, and from the New Testament the idea of baptism by fire (from the Gospels) and the idea of a purificatory trial after death (from Paul). The notion of fire as a divine instrument comes from commonly cited interpretations of Old Testament passages e.g. Lev 10:1-2; Deut 32:22; Jer 15:14; cf. Luke 3:16 ]…” (page 53)
“Origen’s conceptions were more detailed and far reaching than Clement’s. As we have seen, Origen thought that all men, even the righteous, must be tried by fire, since no one is absolutely pure. Every soul is tainted by the mere fact of its union with the flesh…Origen and Clement agree that there are two kinds of sinners, or, rather, that there are the righteous, whose only taint is that inherent in human nature (rupos, later translated into Latin as sordes), and the sinners properly so called, who bear the extra burden of sins that in theory are mortal (pros thanaton amartia, or peccata in Latin)…” (page 54,55)
“For Clement of Alexandria, the ‘intelligent’ fire that enters into the sinner’s soul was not a material thing…but neither was it a mere metaphor: it was a ‘spiritual’ fire (Stromata 7:6 and 5:14)…what is involved [in Origen’s view] is a purificatory fire, which, though immaterial, is not merely a metaphor: it is real but spiritual, subtle…Origen’s eschatological notions were highly personal…He believed that the souls of the righteous would pass through the fire of judgment in an instant and would reach Paradise on the eighth day after Judgment Day…” (page 55,56)
“Thus, if Origen glimpsed the future Purgatory, still his idea of Purgatory was so overshadowed by his eschatology and his idea of Hell as a temporary abode that ultimately it vanishes from view. Nevertheless, it was Origen who clearly stated for the first time the idea that the soul can be purified in the other world after death. For the first time a distinction was drawn between mortal and lesser sins. We even see three categories beginning to take shape: the righteous, who pass through the fire of judgment and go directly to heaven; those guilty of the lesser sins only, who sojourn in the ‘fire of combustion’ is brief; and ‘mortal sinners,’ who remain in the flames for an extended period. Origen actually develops the metaphor introduced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:10-15…” (page 56,57)
to be continued…
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Jacques Le Goff continued…
"In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian’s idea of refrigerium and Origen’s concept of a purifying fire…Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]…“Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen.” (page 58,59)
“[Ambrose] also clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world…[cites Ambrose on the Emperor Theodosius]…” (page 60)
“Ambrosiaster, if he adds little to what Ambrose has already said, is important because he is the author of the first real exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. As such he had considerable influence on the medieval commentators on this passage, which played a key role in the inception of Purgatory, and in particular on the early scholastics of the twelfth century. Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith…[then quotes Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 3:15]…” (page 61)
“It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian ‘authorities,’ to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory…Augustine’s importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. ‘Purgatorius’ figured in the phrase ‘poenae purgatoriae’: I prefer to translate this as ‘purgatorial punishments’ rather than ‘purificatory punishments,’ the latter being too precise for Augustine’s way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus’s edition of the City of God (21:26)…” (page 61, 63)
Thank you. James White mega-rebuttal #2859321865321 complete. Over and Out.
Phil P
"In this period [of the fourth century] Christian thought concerning the fate of the soul after death was based mainly on the vision of Daniel (Dan 7:9) and on a passage from Paul (1 Cor 3:10-15), and less frequently on Tertullian’s idea of refrigerium and Origen’s concept of a purifying fire…Lactantius (d. after 317) believed that all who died, including the righteous, would be tried by fire, but not until the Last Judgment [cites Instit 7:21 Migne PL 6:800]…“Hilary of Poitiers (d. 367), Ambrose (d. 397), Jerome (d. 419/420), and the unidentified writer known as Ambrosiaster, who lived in the second half of the fourth century, all had ideas on the fate of the soul after death that make them heirs of Origen.” (page 58,59)
“[Ambrose] also clearly stated that the prayers of the living could help to relieve the suffering of the dead, that suffrages could be of use in mitigating the penalties meted out in the other world…[cites Ambrose on the Emperor Theodosius]…” (page 60)
“Ambrosiaster, if he adds little to what Ambrose has already said, is important because he is the author of the first real exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. As such he had considerable influence on the medieval commentators on this passage, which played a key role in the inception of Purgatory, and in particular on the early scholastics of the twelfth century. Like Hilary and Ambrose, Ambrosiaster distinguishes three categories: the saints and the righteous, who will go directly to heaven at the time of the resurrection; the ungodly, apostates, infidels, and atheists, who will go directly into the fiery torments of Hell; and the ordinary Christians, who, though sinners, will first pay their debt and for a time be purified by fire but then go to Paradise because they had the faith…[then quotes Ambrosiaster on 1 Cor 3:15]…” (page 61)
“It was the role of Augustine, who left so deep an imprint on Christianity and who, in the Middle Ages, was regarded as probably the greatest of all the Christian ‘authorities,’ to have been the first to introduce a number of ingredients that later went to make up the doctrine of Purgatory…Augustine’s importance in the history of Purgatory stems first from the terminology he introduced, which remained current through much of the Middle Ages. There are three key terms, the adjectives purgatorius, temporarius, or temporalis, and transitorius. ‘Purgatorius’ figured in the phrase ‘poenae purgatoriae’: I prefer to translate this as ‘purgatorial punishments’ rather than ‘purificatory punishments,’ the latter being too precise for Augustine’s way of thinking (the phrase occurs in City of God 21:13 and 21:16). We also find tormenta purgatoria, purgatorial torments (in City of God 21:16), and ignis purgatorius, purgatorial fire (in Enchridion 69). Temporarius is used, for example, in the expression poenae temporariae, temporary punishments, which is contrasted with poenae sempiternae, eternal punishments (City of God 21:13). Poenae temporales is found in Erasmus’s edition of the City of God (21:26)…” (page 61, 63)
Thank you. James White mega-rebuttal #2859321865321 complete. Over and Out.
Phil P
K
Kuriakos
Guest
There doesn’t seem to be much consensus.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
<< There doesn’t seem to be much consensus. >>
Sure, and before there were 27 NT books in the 4th and 5th century, there were mainly 22 NT books in the 2nd century. James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter were all questioned at some point.
I don’t see any of the Fathers suggesting there is no purification required. It was a growing consensus, with St. Augustine being most explicit at the end of the 4th century.
Phil P
Sure, and before there were 27 NT books in the 4th and 5th century, there were mainly 22 NT books in the 2nd century. James, Hebrews, Revelation, 2 and 3 John, Jude, 2 Peter were all questioned at some point.
I don’t see any of the Fathers suggesting there is no purification required. It was a growing consensus, with St. Augustine being most explicit at the end of the 4th century.
Phil P
N
nasb
Guest
PhiVaz, if Purgatory is a “Apostolic Tradition”, then why doesn’t the Eastern Orthodox accept this Dogma in the way the Roman Catholic Church understands and defines it.
K
Kuriakos
Guest
Phil, I don’t see a view of purgatory-in-development that culminates with Augustine, I see Augustine as simply having yet another opinion.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
nasb << PhilVaz, if Purgatory is a “Apostolic Tradition”, then why doesn’t the Eastern Orthodox accept this Dogma in the way the Roman Catholic Church understands and defines it. >>
Good question! I assume this is James White! Welcome James!
The NASB gave you away. 
To be honest that’s something I would have to look up. Le Goff probably covers that, but the excerpts I typed in were from pages I had copied from his chapter on the Fathers. He probably has a chapter that covers later developments in the east and west as well.
It is my understanding the Orthodox do have a teaching of prayers for the dead and purification after death, but they don’t use the term “purgatory” (which is a Latin term) and have not defined it as dogma since the dogma itself was defined after the east/west split in the 11th century. But that’s off the top of my head.
A quick Google search reveals this article, and the reasons the dogma is rejected by the Orthodox:
The Orthodox Response to the Latin doctrine of Purgatory
The Wikipedia article on purgatory says:
“…[Orthodox] Bishop Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Eastern Orthodox on the topic of purification after death indicating the Catholic view, more than the concept itself, is what is universally rejected. Also there are Orthodox sources that indicate some sins can be forgiven after death, with their rejection of purgatory revolving more around the concept of indulgences and the idea of purgatorial fire.”
Looks like the later explicit Catholic “version” of purgatorial fire is rejected, rather than the concept of purification itself or prayers for the dead. It is clear the same eastern Fathers the Orthodox Church honors has a concept of purification and efficacy of prayers for the dead. Two are St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nyssa:
“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians c. 392 A.D.)
“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them [the deceased] to the extant of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians c. 402 A.D.)
“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he have inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity [2 Peter 1:4] until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, A.D. 382)
These guys are definitely not Reformed Baptists as much as James White likes to quote them on “sola scriptura.”
Phil P
Good question! I assume this is James White! Welcome James!
The NASB gave you away. To be honest that’s something I would have to look up. Le Goff probably covers that, but the excerpts I typed in were from pages I had copied from his chapter on the Fathers. He probably has a chapter that covers later developments in the east and west as well.
It is my understanding the Orthodox do have a teaching of prayers for the dead and purification after death, but they don’t use the term “purgatory” (which is a Latin term) and have not defined it as dogma since the dogma itself was defined after the east/west split in the 11th century. But that’s off the top of my head.
A quick Google search reveals this article, and the reasons the dogma is rejected by the Orthodox:
The Orthodox Response to the Latin doctrine of Purgatory
The Wikipedia article on purgatory says:
“…[Orthodox] Bishop Kallistos Ware acknowledges several schools of thought among the Eastern Orthodox on the topic of purification after death indicating the Catholic view, more than the concept itself, is what is universally rejected. Also there are Orthodox sources that indicate some sins can be forgiven after death, with their rejection of purgatory revolving more around the concept of indulgences and the idea of purgatorial fire.”
Looks like the later explicit Catholic “version” of purgatorial fire is rejected, rather than the concept of purification itself or prayers for the dead. It is clear the same eastern Fathers the Orthodox Church honors has a concept of purification and efficacy of prayers for the dead. Two are St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory of Nyssa:
“Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice (Job 1:5), why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians c. 392 A.D.)
“Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them [the deceased] to the extant of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them. But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf.” (St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians c. 402 A.D.)
“If a man distinguish in himself what is peculiarly human from that which is irrational, and if he be on the watch for a life of greater urbanity for himself, in this present life he will purify himself of any evil contracted, overcoming the irrational by reason. If he have inclined to the irrational pressure of the passions, using for the passions the cooperating hide of things irrational, he may afterward in a quite different manner be very much interested in what is better, when, after his departure out of the body, he gains knowledge of the difference between virtue and vice and finds that he is not able to partake of divinity [2 Peter 1:4] until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by the purifying fire.” (St. Gregory of Nyssa, Sermon on the Dead, A.D. 382)
These guys are definitely not Reformed Baptists as much as James White likes to quote them on “sola scriptura.”
Phil P
S
scylla
Guest
Regardless of the acceptance of the specific word Purgatory, that doesn’t mean it isn’t accepted as a belief. This is very different from rejecting the belief in purification after death, which every Christian must accept since there is no alternative.
The alternative is to deny sin as evil.
Is there another logical explanation which doesn’t insult the divinity of God and the requirement that you must be perfect to enter Heaven?
If one has one, please let me know.
In Christ
Scylla
The alternative is to deny sin as evil.
Is there another logical explanation which doesn’t insult the divinity of God and the requirement that you must be perfect to enter Heaven?
If one has one, please let me know.
In Christ
Scylla
K
Kuriakos
Guest
Are we to assume those fathers who remain silent on the issue must have also had such a belief? I see no reason to, and if Augustine is the lynchpin in the doctrine of Purgatory, why doesn’t the Roman Catholic Church teach predestination as Augustine did?
S
sandusky
Guest
Will you accept the bibilical statement that when He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Father (Heb 1:3), in lieu of a logical explanation?
J
jimmy
Guest
I don’t see how that has to do with the discussion of purgatory. Are you trying to imply that since Christ sat down at the righ hand of the Father after He sacrificed Himself for our sins then that means there must not be purgatory? That does not follow. With that logic you would have to conlude that all people are perfect from baptism. Which I hope you don’t say since all have sinned since their baptism. Purification is a process. Most people don’t die perfect and pure. Therefore they must be made pure in one way or another. Purgatory is an explanaition.
S
scylla
Guest
Amen I believe the Bible 100%.
But this is not an explanation, just a statement that Jesus has made a purification for our sins which I believe 100% and as a Catholic believe this applies to every sin we commit.
Does this apply to sins before\after they are committed? Do we need to repent? You see it states that Jesus has made purification for our sins which is 100% Catholic belief but do we need to accept it and repent?
I don’t have to throw out logic to be Christian, unless I can just make up belief.
In Christ
Scylla
S
sandusky
Guest
What belief are you “just making up?”
S
scylla
Guest
None, every belief must be affirming truth, which is logically consistant.
Which was my point.
Now do you have a consistant explanation toward an unbelief in the existence of Purgatory or just a similar belief that is not called Purgatory.
In Christ
Scylla
S
sandusky
Guest
Your statement and your point are ridiculous.
My statement concerning your statement, and your point are logically consistent, and it may, or may not affirm truth; nevertheless, it is still my belief; belief is not necessarily based on truth, nor does it necessarily affirm truth, but it is based on opinion, and that includes your opinions, and your beliefs as well.
I unbelieve in purgatory.
My unbelief in purgatory is found in the opinion of the writer of Hebrews; said opinion is the inspired truth of God:
There is nothing I can add to that FACT.
J
John_Henry
Guest
Look. God made purification for our sins. OK. Everyone here believes that. Now either one of two things follows.
- You are pure. If so, great. Good for you. No purification remains to be accomplished in you (by Christ). You can happily bypass purgatory and go straight to heaven.
- You are not yet pure. Consequently, the purification that God made for you still needs to be worked out in you in full. If it happens to you before death, again, good for you. If not, then it will happen after death, presuming you are saved. That’s purgatory. You don’t like the word…call it something else. Whatever.
S
scylla
Guest
Ok so your unbelief by your own admission is based on opinion. I believe based upon fact which I conform my life to.
Now lets get back to the subject as you have not answered my question.
Do you have an explanation of your purification. Are you purified regardless of your future sins and is repentance necessary?
In Christ
Scylla
S
sandusky
Guest
I disagree.
The way I see It is HE DID.
So there is no question as to whether or not the believer is pure; HE IS.
It is a matter of faith.
M
MrS
Guest
And the church would disagree with you. While Catholics should make it clear that our belief is in Jesus Christ, not in what we could ever do on our own, we also believe that it is His plan that we cooperate with Him… from pro-creation to salvation.
We must pick up our cross and follow Him… but what for if He does it all?
What if we murder after “being saved”. Will Christ also pay the penalty for that… which is eternal damnation for the unrepentant? Or is there a temporal punishment which is our responsibility.
Finally, do you feel totally clean, totally pure at this moment, that you could enter heaven? (nothing unpure will enter heaven.)
If so, you are not, for you have commited the sin of presumption.
If you are not, be grateful for the Mercy of God to allow you to enter heaven cleaned by the fires of purgation.
.
- Status