Does purgatory really exist?

[mmmcounts]

I think you miss the distinction being made.

(T)radition as opposed to (t)radition

• is absolutely authoratative.
• is NOT subordinate.
  Do you know the difference between (T)radition and (t)radition as it is being used by the Catholic Church?

Well, I believe (T)radition probably refers to the historical stuff Hippolytus wrote in 215 in Rome. And if memory serves me right, the canon was closed at this time and he was not divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since it was Hippolytus’ words rather than those of the Holy Spirit, they definitely do not carry as much authority and they are certainly subordinate to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. I call them Holy because their source is the Holy Spirit. I cannot call apostolic tradition Holy in the same sense because it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way. I believe the apostles were Christians who loved God and had the Comforter with them to guide them like all Christians do, but the canon was closed and their writings were not inspired in the same way that the Bible was. That doesn’t make them bad, false, or wrong. It’s still good to use these things as guidelines in terms of how to do normative church practice. But don’t keep telling me it has the same authority as the Word of God, because it does not. As for my reaction to it, I treat it just like I treat any other really good Christian author. I really like St. Augustine. I like a lot of what he says. I value it and find it useful and meaningful to me. However, there are some things he says that I do not agree with. And I feel free to do this because he’s not inspired by God as the authors of the Bible were, so his words aren’t authoritative or infallible in the same way. I do the same thing with C. S. Lewis. I like an awful lot of his books. I even enjoy almost all of Mere Christianity, but there are some things he says in there that I don’t agree with. I also feel that some particular things he says in there contradict the Bible. This Does Not Trouble Me At All, because C. S. Lewis is not writing the words of God- he’s writing the words of C. S. Lewis. Likewise, Hippolytus wrote the words of Hippolytus. His contributions to the Christian faith are very useful and informative, and they come from very close to ground level in terms of the church’s development. It’s good stuff. But the canon was closed then just as it is now, so I don’t regard his words as I do the Bible. They do not come from the same source, and one source carries far more authority than the other. Who can carry as much authority as God? No one, that’s who. Get it straight, please. God is the only absolutely authoritative source, and everything else is secondary and subordinate to its authority.

 

[mmmcounts]

If your salvation is complete - if there’s nothing left to atone for, then explain “death”. Death, according to Scripture, is punishment for man’s sins. Are you saying that you’re saved, but God is going to punish you anyway?

What was that about soteriology again?

Death is eternal separation from God. I won’t experience that. Will you experience the wages of sin? Or has Jesus propitiated that debt?

 

[mmmcounts]

Didn’t you hear? His ways are inscrutable. Keep trying to cram human logic into the ways of God, and I guarantee you’re going to be wrong.

lol The ways of Jesus do not include purgatory. That’s where your faulty logic got you. Why don’t you stop trying to cram things in there between death and life everlasting?

 

[rinnie]

Not quite. Prayers for the dead are recommended in Maccabees. Why? It’s not explicit, but if there were no “Purgatory” proper before the Sacrifice, then those prayers likely aided the dead who would receive the Good News from Christ on Holy Saturday, to accept His mercy and salvation.

If the pre-requisite of heaven is the acceptance of Christ’s mercy, and if the pre-requisite of hell is the rejection of Christ’s mercy (blaspheming the Holy Spirit - the unforgivable sin) then it’s hard to argue that souls were in hell with Lucifer and the fallen angels prior to receiving the Good News on Holy Saturday - where each of the dead could then accept or reject the Paschal Sacrifice - the Lamb standing slain before them. Hell, of course, existed from the time Lucifer fell, but I’ve come to the conclusion that the souls of all the dead were kept in Sheol until the appearance of the Lamb. It’s purely speculative theology, but it resolves a lot of questions.

But now lets look at what you just said for a second. Prayers would be likely aided for the dead who would receive the good news. Now think about this. If you are going to receive the good news, you really don’'t need any prayers. And if you went to hell, well we agree its over. So back to why pray at all. See what I mean. We got middle ground here. Purgatory. Means you got a chance, but you may not be heading for heaven, and they hope you did not go to hell right? So again ( this is so hard to write short) they had to know there is a chance you could go help. And know that their prayers can help them go the right way. See what I am saying? I was led to believe that Job prayed his kids out of purgatory.

 

[rinnie]

lol The ways of Jesus do not include purgatory. That’s where your faulty logic got you. Why don’t you stop trying to cram things in there between death and life everlasting?

We are not trying to cram anything. We are told that we all have to go through the cleansing fires. How do you explain that scripture?

 

[rinnie]

Death is eternal separation from God. I won’t experience that. Will you experience the wages of sin? Or has Jesus propitiated that debt?

Sorry we Catholic’s do not believe in death. Jesus died on the cross to take away death. Death is not eternal separation from God Hell is. If you believe in Jesus Christ you then believe that he took away death. It tells you in the bible. Death has nothing over us. Thanks to Jesus Christ. He beat death.

 

[rinnie]

Death is eternal separation from God. I won’t experience that. Will you experience the wages of sin? Or has Jesus propitiated that debt?

Oh, then I guess you do not believe in judgement day either. Correct, I mean why would Jesus judge us for our sins, if according to you we can sin all we like. What the heck. Because you said Jesus paid for all of our sins, so kick back, enjoy, you can’t fall from that Grace God gave you.

Better guess again!

 

[davidv]

And yes Mickey I am saying confession is not repentance. Repentance is Penance. and penance is a self-punishment. So Mama Mia to you too! I am sorry that is what I am taught.

Penance is not Repentance.
Do you me that Penence is Reparation?

 

[rinnie]

Penance is not Repentance.
Do you me that Penence is Reparation?

No, I mean what I said Penance is to show Repentance. It is a voluntary self-punishment to show repentance for a sin. I know what I said and I mean what I said. To repent is to regret and feel sorry for a sin, the same as confess. And I am sorry Penance is showing that you are sorry, through an act or prayer or do something good. that act is repentance of a sin.

 

[steve_b]

M,

I’ve reformatted your response to me to better respond to your points based on what I think you are saying

Well, I believe (T)radition probably refers to the

• historical stuff Hippolytus wrote in 215 in Rome. And if memory serves me right, the canon was closed at this time and he was not divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. Since it was Hippolytus’ words rather than those of the Holy Spirit, they definitely do not carry as much authority and they are certainly subordinate to the authority of the Holy Scriptures. I call them Holy because their source is the Holy Spirit.
• I cannot call apostolic tradition Holy in the same sense because it was not inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way.** I believe the apostles were Christians who loved God and had the Comforter with them to guide them like all Christians do, but the canon was closed and their writings were not inspired in the same way that the Bible was**. That doesn’t make them bad, false, or wrong. It’s still good to use these things as guidelines in terms of how to do normative church practice.
• But don’t keep telling me it has the same authority as the Word of God, because it does not. As for my reaction to it, I treat it just like I treat any other really good Christian author. I really like St. Augustine. I like a lot of what he says. I value it and find it useful and meaningful to me. However, there are some things he says that I do not agree with. And I feel free to do this because he’s not inspired by God as the authors of the Bible were, so his words aren’t authoritative or infallible in the same way. I do the same thing with C. S. Lewis. I like an awful lot of his books. I even enjoy almost all of Mere Christianity, but there are some things he says in there that I don’t agree with. I also feel that some particular things he says in there contradict the Bible. This Does Not Trouble Me At All, because C. S. Lewis is not writing the words of God- he’s writing the words of C. S. Lewis. Likewise, Hippolytus wrote the words of Hippolytus. His contributions to the Christian faith are very useful and informative, and they come from very close to ground level in terms of the church’s development. It’s good stuff. But
• the canon was closed then just as it is now, so I don’t regard his words as I do the Bible. They do not come from the same source, and one source carries far more authority than the other. Who can carry as much authority as God? No one, that’s who. Get it straight, please. God is the only absolutely authoritative source, and everything else is secondary and subordinate to its authority.

I’m sure glad I asked the question because it identified the problem. Thanks for being so specific and honest on what you know. You really DON’T know the difference between

1. • (T)radition and (t)radition.
   • Nor do you know how we got the bible
     I’m on my way to the gym. But I’ll get back to you today. I’m sure in the meantime, others will beat me to it.

 

[davidv]

No, I mean what I said Penance is to show Repentance. It is a voluntary self-punishment to show repentance for a sin. I know what I said and I mean what I said. To repent is to regret and feel sorry for a sin, the same as confess. And I am sorry Penance is showing that you are sorry, through an act or prayer or do something good. that act is repentance of a sin.

It might show it but penance in not repentance. To equate the two words is confusing at best. The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Penance defines:

Repentance, i.e., heartfelt sorrow with the firm purpose of sinning no more, is thus the prime condition on which depends the value of whatever the sinner may do or suffer by way of expiation.

It also says that penance is:

a work of satisfaction enjoined upon the recipient of the sacrament.

We owe it to ourselves and our non-catholic brethern to speak of these things accurately.

 

[rinnie]

What is the difference between what the church says and what I said. By ways of expiation. to makes amends for the sin we commited. I do not understand where I have misled the teachings of the Church?

Again to repent is to admit you sin, confess it. And to do Penance is to show repentance for that sin. I don’t get it!

 

[steve_b]

M,

I’ve reformatted your response to me to better respond to your points based on what I think you are saying

:

Originally Posted by mmmcounts

M,

Okay, I’m back. I’ve been thinking how best to start.

(emphasis mine)

"God chose you from the beginning * to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit * and belief in the truth. 14 To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15* So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. " [2 Thes 2:15]

(T)radition is both oral AND written. The written portion we call scripture.

• both are authoritative teaching, with neither trumping the other. We stand firm to BOTH. And that is what is commended by the apostle
• Both oral and written (T)raditions came from the apostles. We distinguish those (T)raditions from the (t)raditions of men.
• Notice the oral (T)radition is mentioned 1st before the written? That’s because it came first before anything was writte down.
  May I suggest a short quick read. It’s a booklet condensing much history into 58 pages. What you’ve said above has many errors in it and will take time to respond to you properly. But first you need to recognize where we got the bible. It didn’t drop out of the sky all neatly bound up with chapter and verse.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/wbible.htm

When you read this then let’s talk

 

[davidv]

What is the difference between what the church says and what I said. By ways of expiation. to makes amends for the sin we commited. I do not understand where I have misled the teachings of the Church?

Again to repent is to admit you sin, confess it. And to do Penance is to show repentance for that sin. I don’t get it!

Since this really not on topic, if you would like me to explain my reasoning further, please PM me.

 

[mmmcounts]

Actually, Scripture is a subset of Tradition, both part of the deposit of Faith. God’s word was Jesus Incarnate.

On what authority do you claim that Scripture is God-breathed? Is there a verse in the Bible that uses those words?

2 Timothy 3:16.

This might be fun.
biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg1343.htm

 

[mmmcounts]

When you read this then let’s talk

This guy seems really confused about how the Apocryphal books were identified as such. That wasn’t a result of “picking and choosing.” It’s true that Luther wanted to get rid of a few other books just because they didn’t sit well with him, including a lot that started with J, it seems like. However, he didn’t get away with throwing out any books based on his discomfort with them, and the damage done to the Lutheran Bible is minimal. Of course, I’m not a Lutheran, so it’s not a problem in my Bible. I have the ESV, which stands for Extra Special Version. That’s because it’s the divinely inspired translation. (Kidding, only kidding). There is something unique about the Apocryphal books, though, and Rev. Graham misses it. Do you know what it is? I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with his description of the Old Testament books that would be accurate if it did not include the Apocrypha, but it is not accurate if it does include the Apocrypha. Here’s one more hint: It’s something that makes these books different from all the other ones included in the Septuagint. You see, the main defense of Catholics for including these books with the rest of them is to pretend that they are exactly the same as all the others (lie number one) and hope that Protestants don’t figure out what’s different. (Can you?) The second defense is to present the Protestant rationale as one of “picking and choosing” based on their whims, on weak/unspecified rationale, or on nothing at all. This is a straw man, and I’m going to call it lie number two. The argumentative form is one of “How dare you chuck seven books just because they don’t fit with your personal beliefs!” If you were ever to exclaim such a thing, step one would be for you to immediately retract it and apologize. Step two would be to properly understand the rationale for calling these books apocryphal and stop pretending they’re no different from the rest of the Old Testament. Now let’s see if you can come up with the appropriate answers. Just so it’s easier for you to quote me:

There is something unique about the Apocryphal books, though, and Rev. Graham misses it. Do you know what it is? I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with his description of the Old Testament books that would be accurate if it did not include the Apocrypha, but it is not accurate if it does include the Apocrypha. Here’s one more hint: It’s something that makes these books different from all the other ones included in the Septuagint.

Well, actually, there’s two things that make them different from all the other books in the Septuagint. But the first one is basically the same thing as the answer to the first question. See if you can get them both.

 

[Mickey]

That’s a very liberal inferrance. The author of the Gospel of John refers to himself several times, too, but never reveals his own name (it was attributed to John by others). Does that mean the author of the Gospel of John is not in the book of life?

Liberal? LOL! It is a patristic interpretation. Read the parable in context.

Your analogy to the Gospel of John is strange. Is this Gospel a parable? Do we not know who is the beloved of Christ?

 

[Mickey]

It might show it but penance in not repentance. To equate the two words is confusing at best. The Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Penance defines:
Quote:
Repentance, i.e., heartfelt sorrow with the firm purpose of sinning no more, is thus the prime condition on which depends the value of whatever the sinner may do or suffer by way of expiation.
It also says that penance is:
Quote:
a work of satisfaction enjoined upon the recipient of the sacrament.
We owe it to ourselves and our non-catholic brethern to speak of these things accurately.

Amen, David.

 

[fhansen]

When Jesus says we must be holy as he is holy and that this must be a genuine interior transformation, he’s talking about something that happens right here right now and it’s also something we can’t do on our own. The transformational power of the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son causes this transformation in our lives. We cannot contribute much of anything to the process, except to surrender ourselves to God. This is really what being a Christian is all about. It’s not a transformation that God wants to begin when you die. He wants to do it right now. Again, it’s not something we achieve at all. It’s something that God does in us that is totally contrary to our nature.

Now if it’s something God is doing in us, why exactly do you think God can’t be faithful to “complete the good work in us” before death? It is a process- God is the one who begins the good work, and He will be faithful to complete it. But why is it that it takes so long in your version of the story? Once we’re dead, there’s nothing more we can do in life, and the work being done in us wasn’t generated by us anyway. It’s all God. So why would He choose to putz around when he doesn’t have to? Are you imagining that it’s necessary to undo past sins before entering heaven? I don’t know about you, but mine are forgiven. They’re gone, baby. Cast away. I am good to go. Progressive sanctification will happen for the rest of my life, however long that may be, but my salvation is complete. If you think you’re not completely saved yet, your soteriology needs a little work.

Whether or not a person is saved is known only by God-and certain Protestants who think they know what He knows. Your confusion comes from correctly stating that we must be interiorly changed/transformed/perfected in a process of sanctification but then also thinking that it’s all done right now/my sins are forgiven/there’s nothing more to be done. Either we must be perfected prior to entrance into heaven, however God wishes to accomplish this, or we don’t need to be.

And if you think that this perfection doesn’t imply something very different from what we are now-a change so complete as to cause us to be totally sold out to God, loving Him with our whole hearts, souls, minds, and strength and our neighbors as ourselves, then you’re limiting Gods’ vision for us. In His wisdom and always for our own good He only wants whats best -what He’s wanted all along-for people and all creation to be as He’s ordered them to be. Read 1Cor 6:9-10 and Rev 21:8

But it sounds like you might agree with that last paragraph-that our sins must not be merely non-imputed but truly done away with prior to heaven-that our wills must be one with His. If so, then our only dispute lies in how God accomplishes this and Catholics maintain that the refining process to achieve His ends may need to extend past death. If we’ve already demonstrated the love we’ve gained for Him with the help of His grace but we’re still attached to any ungodly things-if there’s anything left which could stand in the way of us and Him, vying for our attention, then we’re not quite where He wants us-we can’t yet see or experience Him until we’ve exhausted every notion remaining within that anything not Him is worthy of any of our devotion.

And, being the merciful God that He is, He’s provided a “place” for this final perfecting of our wills and of our love. When you get to heaven you’ll have to ask Him why He did it that way.

But I should add that either way a decision must be made within a persons heart to follow Jesus, to choose life, to love God. If a Catholic were to think that purgatory’s a magical “way out” of doing this-an excuse to put off seeking and loving God here and now as we should, then they’re missing the point in a similar way to some Protestants I’ve known who believe in OSAS/the non-imputation of sin and then take this to mean they can pretty much sin without hell to pay.

 

[paul_c]

This guy seems really confused about how the Apocryphal books were identified as such. That wasn’t a result of “picking and choosing.” It’s true that Luther wanted to get rid of a few other books just because they didn’t sit well with him, including a lot that started with J, it seems like. However, he didn’t get away with throwing out any books based on his discomfort with them, and the damage done to the Lutheran Bible is minimal. Of course, I’m not a Lutheran, so it’s not a problem in my Bible. I have the ESV, which stands for Extra Special Version. That’s because it’s the divinely inspired translation. (Kidding, only kidding). There is something unique about the Apocryphal books, though, and Rev. Graham misses it. Do you know what it is? I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with his description of the Old Testament books that would be accurate if it did not include the Apocrypha, but it is not accurate if it does include the Apocrypha. Here’s one more hint: It’s something that makes these books different from all the other ones included in the Septuagint. You see, the main defense of Catholics for including these books with the rest of them is to pretend that they are exactly the same as all the others (lie number one) and hope that Protestants don’t figure out what’s different. (Can you?) The second defense is to present the Protestant rationale as one of “picking and choosing” based on their whims, on weak/unspecified rationale, or on nothing at all. This is a straw man, and I’m going to call it lie number two. The argumentative form is one of “How dare you chuck seven books just because they don’t fit with your personal beliefs!” If you were ever to exclaim such a thing, step one would be for you to immediately retract it and apologize. Step two would be to properly understand the rationale for calling these books apocryphal and stop pretending they’re no different from the rest of the Old Testament. Now let’s see if you can come up with the appropriate answers. Just so it’s easier for you to quote me:

There is something unique about the Apocryphal books, though, and Rev. Graham misses it. Do you know what it is? I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with his description of the Old Testament books that would be accurate if it did not include the Apocrypha, but it is not accurate if it does include the Apocrypha. Here’s one more hint: It’s something that makes these books different from all the other ones included in the Septuagint.

Well, actually, there’s two things that make them different from all the other books in the Septuagint. But the first one is basically the same thing as the answer to the first question. See if you can get them both.

Instead of giving us riddles, why don’t you just tell us what you think?