Denial of Purgatory

[RJames]

If one looks at the scriptural passage usually given for purgatory 1 Cor 3: Paul speaks of fire/flames to describe the way a person’s work will be tested on the “Day”.

1 Cor 3:10-15

But each one should be careful how he builds. 11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with** fireπῦρ pyr] , andthe fire** πῦρ pyr] will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up**, he will suffer loss** ζημιόω zēmioō ] ; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through fire. πῦρ pyr]

The meaning of zēmioō

1) to affect with damage, do damage to
2) to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss

i.e. punishment

“fire” in these passages the Greek word is πῦρ pyr] which means literal fire

notice fire destroys, AND also burns away dross without destroying, i.e. it purifies.

So within this passage, you have punishment AND purification being spoken of, wwhen one goes through judgement.

But to your point, I’m not sure the Church insists one way or the other that the fire spoken of here is literal fire, even though scripture talks about literal fire.

True

I think it’s safe to say, given Paul’s description of the process, it’s probably not a walk in the park.

You could try and look this up somewhere; maybe The Catechism Explained or The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma?

 

[steve_b]

You could try and look this up somewhere; maybe The Catechism Explained or The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma?

Purgatory is mentioned 4 times in the Catechism

1:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1031 (721 bytes ) preview document matches
1 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm

2:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1498 (152 bytes ) preview document matches
remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1498.htm

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1475 (556 bytes ) preview document matches
faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1475.htm http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

4:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1472 (838 bytes ) preview document matches
creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1472.htm

Jimmy Akin has the following comments on the nature of Purgatory
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/10/the_nature_of_p.html

If one looks at “FIRE” in the Catechism
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=fire&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

 

[RJames]

Purgatory is mentioned 4 times in the Catechism

1:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1031 (721 bytes ) preview document matches
1 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1031.htm

2:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1498 (152 bytes ) preview document matches
remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in Purgatory
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1498.htm

3:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1475 (556 bytes ) preview document matches
faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1475.htm http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.co....scborromeo.org.master.com/webinator/bar0.gif

4:CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1472 (838 bytes ) preview document matches
creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1472.htm

Jimmy Akin has the following comments on the nature of Purgatory
jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/10/the_nature_of_p.html

If one looks at “FIRE” in the Catechism
ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=fire&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Now also see Denzinger 456 and 570s. By the way, purgatory as a place is de fide as well.

 

[theistgal]

To the OP: Have you spoken to the priest?

 

[RJames]

To the OP: Have you spoken to the priest?

10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid. - St. Paul, Titus 3:2

 

[steve_b]

Now also see Denzinger 456 and 570s. By the way, purgatory as a place is de fide as well.

would you agree It’s hard to describe “place” in eternity, where it’s outside of time and space?.

 

[RJames]

would you agree It’s hard to describe “place” in eternity, where it’s outside of time and space?.

Of course, purgatory will not exist for all eternity, as it will not be needed after the general judgment.

 

[una_fides]

Is the denial of purgatory heretical?

If a Catholic denies this doctrine should he be considered a heretic?

1. yes
2. If a Catholic denied such a teaching, he or she would be at least a material heretic, meaning in substance. To be a manifest heretic (meaning we know the person to be), then he or she would have to be confronted with the Church’s teaching and then reject it despite the fact that he or she now has knowledge that it is a teaching of the Church.

 

[RJames]

1. yes
2. If a Catholic denied such a teaching, he or she would be at least a material heretic, meaning in substance. To be a manifest heretic (meaning we know the person to be), then he or she would have to be confronted with the Church’s teaching and then reject it despite the fact that he or she now has knowledge that it is a teaching of the Church.

A heretic is no longer a Catholic. He is outside the Church.

A Catholic may hold a material heresy but lack obstinancy. He is in error (holding a heretical position), but not a public heretic.

Purgatory is a very well know Catholic dogma, any priest will know this.

 

[mardukm]

Why do you think its fine for a Latin priest to doubt a portion of Latin teaching.

In only meant “fine” as in it will not lead to a charge of heresy.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

RJames you have been asked several times what *specifically *you propose the parishoners should do and you have not answered. I’m genuinely curious.

 

[mardukm]

Are you suggesting that only de fide doctrines are necessary for Catholics to hold? That would be a grave error in itself.

Can you please point out a teaching of the Latin Church that is NOT de fide that Latin Catholics are bound to hold? I’m not Latin Catholic so please forgive me if I am ignorant of such matters.

Also, you stated that you had discussed the topic with your priest twice. Can you tell us exactly what it is about the doctrine of Purgatory that he does not believe, or WHY he does not believe in it?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RobbyS]

What would you recommend as an alternative? You can’t really take the law into your own hands, drive him from the Church and select a new Priest can you?

Of course not. The only possible path of action is to let his superiors know in no uncertain terns exactly what is going on.

Bishops do seem to be more reluctant to replace a priest for either heresy or immorality than they used to. In my home parish, a small parish in East Texas, a priest was ho believed to be consorting with a widow, was tranferred within a few months, after complaints from women parishioners to the bishop. In another case, in San Antonio, a young priest who was too familiar with boys, also quickly was reassigned. My guess is that nowadays, the laity is more tolerant and “nonjudgemental,” and the scandal just grows. Then, too, in the good old days, we had nuns who kept an eye on the priests. He had better stay up on the pedestal where he belonged, or else,

I say this even after the pederasty scandals, because the laity tolerates homosexual priests, for fear of being thought “judgemental.”

 

[thistle]

A heretic is no longer a Catholic. He is outside the Church.

A Catholic may hold a material heresy but lack obstinancy. He is in error (holding a heretical position), but not a public heretic.

Purgatory is a very well know Catholic dogma, any priest will know this.

Only a Catholic can be a heretic. Non-Catholics cannot be heretics.
Heresy is rejection of one of more of the Church doctrines.

 

[RJames]

Only a Catholic can be a heretic. Non-Catholics cannot be heretics.
Heresy is rejection of one of more of the Church doctrines.

I suggest you go look up the definition of heresy and heretic.

Heresy is rejection of one of more of the Church doctrines.

No, dogmas. The rejection is made by a validly baptised person, which are considered Catholics. Or the adherence to a heretical sect.

 

[RJames]

RJames you have been asked several times what *specifically *you propose the parishoners should do and you have not answered. I’m genuinely curious.

He does not preach it. When asked why, he says he doesn’t believe it exists.

 

[ncjohn]

A heretic is no longer a Catholic. He is outside the Church.

I’m pretty sure, but would have to get the references, that this is untrue. A baptized Catholic continues to be a Catholic short of that person specifically rejecting being a Catholic. They may not be in full communion but they are still Catholic by virtue of their baptism.

And the laity does not get to proclaim someone as a heretic though they may believe someone to be a heretic or to be guilty of heresy. Only the Church gets to proclaim someone to be a heretic.

 

[una_fides]

Heresy is not some minor transgression to be taken lightly.

This statement is so true, and it seems that some on here may be overlooking the fact that heresy brings with it excommunication if one is confronted and does not recant. Here is the danger in a priest openly teaching heresy, and I have seen and heard of this happen in various places. The people realize that the priest does not accept all the teachings of the Church, and they in turn, follow the priest, and reject other teachings of the Church. These sort of priests turn many otherwise obedient Catholics into liberal cafeteria “catholics,” and the heresy continues to spread to others. You’ll hear people like this say that the Church no longer teaches x,y, and z, and you can believe what you want now. They also typically possess a spirit of indifferentism thinking that one may be saved in whatever religion he so chooses, which is also heresy. I don’t know this priest, but if he is teaching heresy in denying any dogma of the Catholic faith, he must be first confronted in a spirit of charity and humility, and subsequently, if he does not accept the teaching of the Church, then the necessary appeals to higher authority must be made, for his sake and the sake of his flock.

 

[una_fides]

I’m pretty sure, but would have to get the references, that this is untrue. A baptized Catholic continues to be a Catholic short of that person specifically rejecting being a Catholic. They may not be in full communion but they are still Catholic by virtue of their baptism.

And the laity does not get to proclaim someone as a heretic though they may believe someone to be a heretic or to be guilty of heresy. Only the Church gets to proclaim someone to be a heretic.

A heretic is outside the Church until he confesses and is reconciled to God and the Church. One is not automatically Catholic by baptism, as a willful post-baptismal rejection of any dogma of the Catholic faith that must be believed de fide, places one outside the Church. Perhaps you are thinking about one who is in a state of mortal sin such as for committing a moral offense. In such a case, one might argue them to be a withered branch but still in some way connected to the Vine, but in the case of heresy, one has placed himself outside the Church.

As far as your second statement, you are correct that we cannot pronounce judgment on the soul of the person as being outside the Church and the degree of guilt involved; however, we can gather evidence and make conclusions based on the evidence we have available. If someone is openly teachings contrary to the faith, we have a duty as Catholics to confront such a person in charity and humility, especially if he be a priest.

 

[TheDoctor]

He does not preach it. When asked why, he says he doesn’t believe it exists.

Wait, wait, I am sooo confused.

First, you say he does not preach it. Simply not preaching on a topic does not equal rejection of a Church teaching. I have been at my parish for 15+ years and have never specifically heard any of our priests preach on purgatory, yet when you go to one of their classes you know for sure that they all still believe it exists.

Second, you say that when asked why, “he says he doesn’t believe it exists” yet in post #15 when asked if you have spoken to this priest you threw up that quote from Titus, which I took to mean you have not. So, if you have not spoken specifically to the priest yourself, how do you know what he believes or does not believe? Did someone else tell you? Could they have gotten it wrong?

Yes, priests are human and yes not every one of them is completely in line with all of Church teaching, but they are God’s gift to us and you owe it to them - yes, owe it to them (in repayment for their giving up their life for you) to make sure you are 100% certain of your facts before you accuse any priest of anything, let alone heresy.

Please, unconfuse me and tell me that you spoke to this priest personally and he absolutely told you face to face that he does not believe in the Church teaching of Purgatory.