Biblical Defense of Purgatory

[RyanL]

kaycee:

… the passage isn’t enough of a basis upon which to build a doctrine such as Purgatory, especially when so many other passages contradict the doctrine…

I was re-reading, and I can’t find any passages you have cited that say “Purgatory does not exist”. Perhaps I’m just not that observant. Would you please show us which passages contradict the concept of Purgatory?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[kaycee]

RyanL:

I was re-reading, and I can’t find any passages you have cited that say “Purgatory does not exist”. Perhaps I’m just not that observant. Would you please show us which passages contradict the concept of Purgatory?

God Bless,
RyanL

Glady. Jesus spoke repeatedly of heaven, and even more often referred to hell; but He never once mentioned a middle state or place of spiritual purging after death. Matthew 25:5-10; Luke 16:26-31; Revelation 3:15, 16

Luke 23:43 Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross next to Him that “today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” If there was ever a candidate for purgatory, the thief was it.

II Corinthians 5:5-8
5 Now He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who also has given us the Spirit as a guarantee. 6 So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. 7 For we walk by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord.

1 Cor 15:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. Corruptible to incorruptible in the twinkling of an eye, no purgatory here.

1Thessalonians 4:15-17
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ will rise first: Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: AND THUS we SHALL always be with the Lord.” Those taken alive are with the Lord, no one goes to purgatory.

Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, “By one sacrifice he has made **perfect ** for ever those who are being made holy.” Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further “purging” is necessary. First John 1:7 says, “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Jesus took care of “purging” our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Jesus provided full purification for our sins.

**Paul’s expectation was that on leaving this life he would go into the presence of the Lord ** (Philippians 1:21-24, 2 Corinthians 5:1-9). The book of Hebrews teaches the once-for-all sufficiency of what Christ did on the cross to atone for the sins of believers (e.g., 10:12-14) and tells Christian worshipers that the church on earth is already spiritually united with the heavenly Jerusalem, with all the angels, God the Father, Christ our redeemer, and "the souls of righteous men made perfect" (12:22-24).

Rom 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 6:11 “You were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God”

1 John 1:7 The Word of God teaches that “the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” The blood of Christ is thoroughly effective and purifies from all defilement. His blood really and actually cleanses “from all sin.”

Nobody will ever be heard boasting that he succeeded to enter heaven because of his penances and sufferings. Heaven will be populated by those who trust completely in the Son of God. This is the song that they joyfully sing: “To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen” (Revelation 1:5,6). This is the Christians’ confession about their Lord Jesus Christ: “When He had by Himself** purged** our sins, [He] sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (Hebrews 1:3).

I am sure there are many more I could cite but time is limited.

**Roman Catholic theologian Richard McBrien concedes ** that: “There is, for all practical purposes, no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it.” Nowest thou more than this one?

 

[Genesis315]

**Roman Catholic theologian Richard McBrien concedes **that: “There is, for all practical purposes, no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it.” Nowest thou more than this one?

Let’s just say Fr. McBrien has a bit of a reputation for being slightly less than orthodox…

 

[kaycee]

[Perhaps you should read http://webpages.marshall.edu/~trimbol3/4thcup4.htm”]
The Fourth Cup

, so that you might better understand what was finished.

God Bless,
RyanL Think I’ll pass on that read. Probably the only time i agree with Bob Sungenis.

"As for the Fourth Cup idea, I don’t subscribe to it. There is a trend to buttress Christian doctrine by means of Jewish practices and typology, but it is all very speculative. Scott has a bad habit of ‘reading into’ Scripture all kinds of speculative theological ideas. Sometimes I think he does this to impress people that he has some secret knowledge to interpreting Scripture. (I know, because I used to do it myself many years ago). But more than often it tends to get one into exegetical trouble, since the speculations invariably run up against established doctrine (as is the case with Hahn’s treatment of the Holy Spirit and the sin of Adam and Eve). " catholicintl.com/qa/2005/qa-jul-05.htm#Question%2048

 

[kaycee]

Genesis315:

Let’s just say Fr. McBrien has a bit of a reputation for being slightly less than orthodox…

hmmm, thought the RCC did away with all that messy differing interpretation stuff.

Peace <><

 

[Didi]

kaycee:

Scott has a bad habit of ‘reading into’ Scripture all kinds of speculative theological ideas. Sometimes I think he does this to impress people that he has some secret knowledge to interpreting Scripture.

Typology is far from the invention of Scott Hahn; the early Church fathers were teaching typology! And Scott will be the first to admit that the content of his books has little original material – it is based on thousands of years of Church teaching! Seems to me by your comments that you haven’t read much of his material at all, or heard him speak or you would know this.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

The classic no-win scenario.

Uberpope non-Catholic: “There is no Scriptural support for x Catholic doctrine!”

Catholic: “Yes there is. Here, here and here!”

Uberpope non-Catholic: “You are reading into Scripture!”

No wonder they poo-poo the pope. They are running around in his miter.



Scott

 

[kaycee]

RyanL:

Romans 4:25

Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

If it was finished on the cross, what difference does the resurection make?Ro 6:4 - Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin. 8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.

Isaih 53:44 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierce through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being {fell} upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him. … That He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke {was due} …10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting {Him} to grief; If He would render Himself {as} a guilt offering, He will see {His} offspring, He will prolong {His} days, …**By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities . …Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors. **

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is lacking in the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:

If we cannot add to the work of Christ in any sense, what does this verse mean?
Rather, I now rejoice. My sufferings for your sake. He was a prisoner and a sufferer because he preached the gospel to the Gentiles. And fill up, etc. Christ endured afflictions for us. We must have a fellowship of his sufferings (1 Peter 4:13). Paul also suffers that he might share the afflictions of Christ. Not only did he suffer with Christ, but Christ suffers with his afflicted people. See Acts 9:4. Hence, afflictions suffered for Christ may be called his afflictions.

 

[Milliardo]

kaycee:

Rather, I now rejoice. My sufferings for your sake. He was a prisoner and a sufferer because he preached the gospel to the Gentiles. And fill up, etc. Christ endured afflictions for us. We must have a fellowship of his sufferings (1 Peter 4:13). Paul also suffers that he might share the afflictions of Christ. Not only did he suffer with Christ, but Christ suffers with his afflicted people. See Acts 9:4. Hence, afflictions suffered for Christ may be called his afflictions.

Interesting–a very Catholic explanation I should say.

 

[kaycee]

Didi:

Typology is far from the invention of Scott Hahn; the early Church fathers were teaching typology! And Scott will be the first to admit that the content of his books has little original material – it is based on thousands of years of Church teaching! Seems to me by your comments that you haven’t read much of his material at all, or heard him speak or you would know this.

Using an allegorical hermeneutic has led to many errors in the thousand years you refer to.

bible.org/page.asp?page_id=402

In the latter part of the second century, the church was beset by Gnostic critics who challenged the continuity between the Old and New Testaments. For example, the heretic Marcion rejected the Old Testament in toto. In response, Justin Martyr expanded the “functional hermeneutic” of the early fathers to include a "typological hermeneutic."37 He linked the Old Testament and the New by adopting the view that the Old Testament in its entirety pointed to Jesus. **Almost any person or event in the Old Testament profitably could be used to foreshadow the life or work of Christ.**38 In fact, Justin saw the Old Testament as being "a specifically Christian book, belonging to the church even more than to the synagogue."39 This approach paved the way for the allegorical interpretive method suggested by Clement of Alexandria and perfected by his successor, Origen.

Clement became the leader of the Alexandrian school in AD 190. He saw the literal meaning of Scripture as being a “starting point” for interpretation. Although it was “suitable for the mass of Christians,” God revealed himself to the spiritually advanced through the “deeper meaning” of Scripture. (gnostic?) In every passage, a deeper or additional meaning existed beyond the primary or immediate sense.40 "The literal sense indicated what was said or done, while the allegorical showed what should be believed."41

**Origen, Clement’s successor, took his approach to new levels. ** Origen (along with Augustine) has been considered the most nimble, creative mind of the early church.42 Schaff called him "the greatest scholar of his age, and the most gifted, most industrious, and most cultivated of all the ante-Nicene fathers."43 Origen was a pious man. He "rarely ate flesh, never drank wine; devoted the greater part of the night to prayer and study, and slept on the bare floor."44 He was tortured and condemned to the stake in the Decian persecution, and was saved from martyrdom only upon the death of the emperor.45 For his faith, then, Origen is to be commended. For his theology, however, he is to be severely castigated.

Schaff’s delicate suggestion that Origen’s “great defect” was the “neglect of the grammatical and historical sense and his constant desire to find a hidden mystic meaning” in the text of the Bible is sheer understatement.46 While Origen did not deny the literal meaning of the text, that most certainly was not his emphasis. Rather, he taught that Scripture has three different, yet complementary meanings: (1) a literal or physical sense, (2) a moral or psychical sense, and (3) an allegorical or intellectual sense.47

To Origen, much of the Bible, if read literally, was intellectually incredible or morally objectionable. An allegorizing interpretation was used to make objectionable passages palatable.48 However, as Bruce has observed: “**this approach was largely arbitrary, because the approved interpretation depended so largely on the interpreter’s personal preference, and in practice it violated the original intention of the Scriptures and almost obliterated the historical relatedness of the revelation they recorded.”**49 Farrar similarly declared:

When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter. . . .

Unhappily for the Church, unhappily for any real apprehension of Scripture, the allegorists, in spite of protest, were completely victorious.

 

[sandusky]

5 or 6 verses? Here’s over 30. Enjoy.

In addition to what Kaycee said, all of the verses cited on your link are allegorical in their interpretation.

Using allegory, I’ll add Job 1:7 as a support for purgatory:

Satan struck Job with painful boils.
Heat boils water, so the heat of the purgation must be in view, and is illustrated by God through the boils on Job.

I think that verse fits in nicely with the hermeneutic used in the other 30. Now you have 31 verses.

 

[Didi]

From “That Moses Thing” by Mark J. Kelly (whole article available at: catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109fea2.asp )

*Scripture is best viewed as an organic, connected whole. “Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart” (CCC 112).

The individual books of the Bible may seem disparate and unrelated. So might the organs of a dissected frog. We may lay out all its organs and say, “Look—there is the liver, there is the stomach, there are the intestines. These things constitute a frog.” The problem is, a dead frog catches no flies. We need to look at the living amphibian in order to see how the organs work together in order to give it life. Typology is the ancient and ever-new, organic way of looking at unified Scripture.*

St. Augustine said it even more simply: “The New Covenant is concealed in the old, while the Old Covenant is revealed in the New.”

 

[Milliardo]

In answer to kaycee would be this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=74968 Strange as well that the article kaycee posted objects to typology and allegorical views, when much of the Bible is written in allegory. As posted, St. Augustine himself observed, the Old reveals the New while the New is concealed in the Old. A wonderful summation of how a literal interpretation of Scripture would be untenable. Indeed, to be too literal in interpretation would lead to a departure from ancient Christianity–something again that kaycee’s article shows us aptly.

 

[RyanL]

kaycee:

Glady. Jesus … never once mentioned a middle state or place of spiritual purging after death…

As you might guess, I disagree. Luke 16:23, the story of Lazarus. What, praytell, is “the bosom of Abraham”? Is it heaven? Did faithful Jews go to heaven before Christ’s salvific work? Is it hell? Then why isn’t it called “Gehena”, where the fire ever burns and the worm dieth not? Why would Abraham call Lazarus “child” instead of “you reprobate demon”? Could it be because Lazarus was not a reprobate? Could it be because Lazarus was still a child of Abraham?

kaycee:

Luke 23:43 Jesus told the repentant thief on the cross next to Him that “today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.” If there was ever a candidate for purgatory, the thief was it.

Says who? What sins did the thief commit after being born again on the cross that would warrant Purgatory? Wouldn’t the cross be enough suffering to atone? I certainly wouldn’t want to atone like the thief did unless God Himself asked me to. You aparently don’t know Catholic theology, however, if you would contend that the good thief’s spiritual rebirth was not perfect. Look into the Council of Trent, 6th session.

Also, who says Purgatory takes any time at all?

kaycee:

II Corinthians 5:5-8
…We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord…

Saying “I wish I was absent from the body and present with the Lord” does not discount Purgatory. You’re reading is a bit strained.

kaycee:

1 Cor 15:… in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed… Corruptible to incorruptible in the twinkling of an eye, no purgatory here.

Twinkling of an eye. Right. AFTER THE DEAD ARE RAISED. Again, you’re stretching.

1Thessalonians 4:15-17
“… Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: AND THUS we SHALL always be with the Lord.” Those taken alive are with the Lord, no one goes to purgatory.

Right. AT THE SECOND COMING. No mention as to what happens now…

kaycee:

Hebrews 10:14 emphatically declares, “By one sacrifice he has made **perfect ** for ever those who are being made holy.” Hence, those who believe in Christ are "made perfect" forever; no further “purging” is necessary. First John 1:7 says, “The blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” Romans 8:1 says, “Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.”

Nothing unclean enters heaven. Period. Are you perfectly sanctified, within and without? Are you free from all sin? Are you immaculate; sinless? Is that what your theology teaches? Any man who says he is without sin is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

kaycee:

Jesus took care of “purging” our sins by His work of salvation at the cross. Hebrews 1:3 affirms, “After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.” Jesus provided full purification for our sins.

I agree, 100%. The application of Christ’s purifying work is what is at issue, not whether or not He “did enough”.

Paul’s expectation was that on leaving this life he would go into the presence of the Lord…

As for your scriptures, I say Amen. The “expectation” you’re talking about, however, is a bit of a stretch. I have moral assurance that when I die I will go to heaven. I love the Lord and keep his comandments, in faithful submission to His bride, the Church, and His Holy Word, the Scriptures. My expectation is that I will go to heaven. Does this discount Purgatory? No. I also believe that while I can rest and hope in the Lord, I should not consider that I have won the race. Heb 12.

kaycee:

Rom 8:1 “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Again, at issue is not whether there is condemnation, but what it means to be perfectly “in Christ Jesus”. Sin separates you, the greater the sin the greater the separation. Purgatory is the mercy Christ shows us and the manner by which He brings us back into perfect unity with Him.

**Roman Catholic theologian Richard McBrien concedes ** that: “There is, for all practical purposes, no biblical basis for the doctrine of purgatory. This is not to say that there is no basis at all for the doctrine, but only that there is no clear biblical basis for it.” Nowest thou more than this one?

I’ve already talked enough about McBrien for the month. Please search the Apologetics Forum for the most recent thread.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

kaycee:

Using an allegorical hermeneutic has led to many errors in the thousand years you refer to…

When once the principle of allegory is admitted, when once we start with the rule that whole passages and books of Scripture say one thing when they mean another, the reader is delivered bound hand and foot to the caprice of the interpreter. . . .

Again, it’s too bad someone didn’t tell the authors of the New Testament…

There are several words used in the Greek New Testament to denote what we have just defined as a type. First, there is the term tupos (the basis of our English word “type”). Though this word is variously employed in the New Testament, it is certainly used in our present sense in Romans 5:14 where Paul declares that Adam “is a figure (tupos) of him that was to come”, i.e., Christ.

Second, there is the word skia, rendered “shadow.” In Colossians 2:17, certain elements of the Mosaic system are said to be “a shadow of the things to come” (cf. Heb. 8:5; 10:1).

Third, there is the term hupodeigma, translated “copy,” and used in conjunction with “shadow” in Hebrews 8:5 (cf. Heb. 9:23).

Fourth, the Greek word parabole (compare our English, “parable”) is found in Hebrews 9:9, where certain elements of the tabernacle are “a figure for the present time” (cf. Heb. 11:19).

Finally, one should note the use of antitupon, rendered “figure” (KJV) or “pattern” (ASV) in Hebrews 9:24, and “like figure” (KJV) or “true likeness” (ASV) in I Peter 3:21. This word, as used in the New Testament, denotes “that which corresponds to” the type; it is the reality which fulfills the prophetic picture.

Adam is a type of Christ in that as the former introduced sin into the world, even so, through the latter a system of righteousness was made available for mankind (Rom. 5:19).

Melchizedek, who was both king of Salem and a priest of God - at the same time (Gen. 14:18-20), was a type of Christ - who, at his ascension, began to reign on David’s throne and to simultaneously function as our high priest (cf. Psa. 110:4; Zech. 6:12,13; Heb. 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:1-17).

Moses, in his noble role of prophet, leader, and mediator for Jehovah’s people, was typical of the Lord Jesus who functions in a similar, though more exalted, capacity (cf. Deut. 18:15; Acts 3:22; 1 Cor. 10:2; Gal. 3:27; Gal. 3:19; 1 Tim. 2: 5).

Egypt represents a state of bondage such as holds the sinner prior to his conversion (Gal. 4:2; Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 10:lff); Jerusalem or Zion typifies the church and finally heaven (cf. Gal. 4:25,26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 21:2)
The brazen serpent, lifted up in the wilderness, through which the people found physical healing (Num. 21:8) was a type of the lifted-up Christ (John 3: 14; 12:32), through whom spiritual healing comes (Isa. 53:5).

The miraculous water from the rock in the wilderness (Ex. 17:6) was a preview of the life-sustaining water provided by our Lord (John 4:14; 1 Cor. 10:4).

The manna from heaven in the wilderness (Ex. 16:14-16) was a type of that spiritual Bread who came down from heaven to nourish humanity (John 6:32).

The deliverance of Noah’s family from a corrupted world, by means of ”water,” prefigured our salvation, through baptism, from the power of darkness into the kingdom of Christ (cf. I Pet. 3:20-21; Col. 1:13).

The Passover with its spotless lamb (Ex. 12:5) which was slain “between the two evenings” (12:6, ASVfn), i.e., between 3:00 and 5:00 P.M., without any bones being broken (12:46). It was a type of the death of Jesus (cf. I Cor. 5:7), who was without spot or blemish (I Pet. 1:19), who died at about 3:00 P.M. (Matt. 27:46), and who had none of his bones broken (John 19:33ff).

The evidence is clear - the Holy Spirit inspired the allegorical sense. Certainly, there are guidelines to follow (Sacred Tradition, the plain meaning of scripture, etc.), but the allegorical should never be discounted as a whole. I personally consider a rejection of the allegorical as a rejection of God’s word.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

 

[kaycee]

RyanL:

Again, it’s too bad someone didn’t tell the authors of the New Testament…

The evidence is clear - the Holy Spirit inspired the allegorical sense. Certainly, there are guidelines to follow (Sacred Tradition, the plain meaning of scripture, etc.), but the allegorical should never be discounted as a whole. I personally consider a rejection of the allegorical as a rejection of God’s word.

May God bless you and keep you,
RyanL

You are confusing Biblical Type and Allegory.

Type “the preordained representative relation which certain persons, events, and institutions of the Old Testament bear to corresponding persons, events, and institutions in the New” (quoted in: M. S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics, p. 246).

Allegory; A story or account whose obvious meaning also carries symbolic meaning, lending itself to another interpretation once the symbolism is understood. For example, in the story of Adam, Eve, and the serpent, the literal meaning concerns two people, a snake, and a garden; the allegorical meaning is of the Father and Mother of humankind tempted by the devil in Paradise. A story can be true on both levels.

Certainly Old Testament types are valid (blood on the doorposts. etc…). Obviously the New testament writers used types liberally and correctly. However, they did not engage in fanciful allegory, where the literal meaning was lost.

Unfortunately many church fathers did go off the deep end and lost the proper historical grammatical meaning.

 

[Mickey]

kaycee:

Unfortunately many church fathers did go off the deep end and lost the proper historical grammatical meaning.

…and so, who has restored the proper historical grammatical meaning?

 

[RyanL]

kaycee:

You are confusing Biblical Type and Allegory.

… However, they did not engage in fanciful allegory, where the literal meaning was lost…Unfortunately many church fathers did go off the deep end and lost the proper historical grammatical meaning.

I would disagree that there is an imperical distinction between typology and allegory. I would assert, with good reason, that the typological sense is a subset of the allegorical. Furthermore, as you have defined allegory, all of Christ’s parables fit within the definition. As is painfully obvious, the allegorical sense is indeed biblical.

You are correct in stating that some in the early Church went too far (BTW, those who did are not properly called “fathers”), and were rightly condemned. The question is, by whom were they condemned? By the Catholic Church. Why were they condemned? By what standard? They were condemned because their interpretations fell outside of Sacred Tradition (used in the broadest sense here, including Sacred Scriptures and the literal sense). If their interpretations ran counter to Sacred Tradition, they were condemned. One need look only so far as the multiplicity of Protestant interpretations of the book of Revelations to see how a rampant disregard for Sacred Tradition can lead to a twisting unto destruction of God’s word through the allegorical sense.

Which brings us back on point. Is Purgatory included in the allegorical sense as understood by Sacred Tradition? Clearly, the answer is yes. You have asked for “proof citations” from the early Church (prior to 233 A.D.), and they have been provided. You have asked for “proof texts” for Purgatory from Scriptures, and they have been provided. You have shown what you believe to be texts which contradict Purgatory, and they have been shown to be either irrelevant or entirely compatible.

I’m having trouble discerning by what reasons, beyond a visceral reaction, you object to the teaching. Would you please clarify? Helpful would be an early citation of who agreed with your objections…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[sara888]

** “According to the Holy Fathers of the Church, the fire of Purgatory does not differ from the fire of hell, except in point of duration.” “It is the same fire” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “that torments the reprobate in hell, and the just in Purgatory. The least pain in Purgatory” he says, “surpasses the greatest suffering in this life. Nothing but the eternal duration makes the fire of hell more terrible than that of Purgatory.”

You see, the majority of people are neither so free from sin as to merit immediate entrance into Heaven, nor so bad as to be punished forever in Hell
To claim that you are assured of your salvation and entrance into Heaven because you simply believe in Jesus is blasphemy.

For if that were true you would have to be as perfect as God and Jesus which no human is capable of (which we, however, are to strive for). You would have to not have the ability to sin

.If a soul is in Heaven it does not need to be prayed for; if it is in Hell, prayer cannot help it.

Sara**

 

[TNT]

RyanL:

I would disagree that there is an imperical distinction between typology and allegory. I would assert, with good reason, that the typological sense is a subset of the allegorical. Furthermore, as you have defined allegory, all of Christ’s parables fit within the definition. As is painfully obvious, the allegorical sense is indeed biblical.

You are correct in stating that some in the early Church went too far (BTW, those who did are not properly called “fathers”), and were rightly condemned. The question is, by whom were they condemned? By the Catholic Church. Why were they condemned? By what standard? They were condemned because their interpretations fell outside of Sacred Tradition (used in the broadest sense here, including Sacred Scriptures and the literal sense). If their interpretations ran counter to Sacred Tradition, they were condemned. One need look only so far as the multiplicity of Protestant interpretations of the book of Revelations to see how a rampant disregard for Sacred Tradition can lead to a twisting unto destruction of God’s word through the allegorical sense.

Which brings us back on point. Is Purgatory included in the allegorical sense as understood by Sacred Tradition? Clearly, the answer is yes. You have asked for “proof citations” from the early Church (prior to 233 A.D.), and they have been provided. You have asked for “proof texts” for Purgatory from Scriptures, and they have been provided. You have shown what you believe to be texts which contradict Purgatory, and they have been shown to be either irrelevant or entirely compatible.

I’m having trouble discerning by what reasons, beyond a visceral reaction, you object to the teaching. Would you please clarify? Helpful would be an early citation of who agreed with your objections…

God Bless,
RyanL

These are all excellent points.
I will add that KAYCEE’s insistence on the absence of purgatory, and denial of the Catholic reasons for it, is a form of promoting DISBELIEF in the Catholic Faith.
For that reason he is NOT really here to understand Catholic belief, but to spend all his posts on promoting Catholics and those sincerely inquiring about same to discard the Catholic Faith.
From that standpoint, he is violating the Forum and should be banned.
This is not a Forum for Proselytizing Catholics, yet that is exactly what he is doing.
Therefore, I will not longer engage in this thread.