Does purgatory really exist?

[tiggylou]

What if the RCC is the Church mentioned in 1 Tim 3:15? And if you say poppycock, then what Church is St Paul speaking of? Until you know for certain which particular Church is being spoken of here, then your interpretation of what the Bible teaches will remain just that - your interpretation & opinion, with absolutely zero authority.

The ‘church’ in 1 Tim 3:15, is talking of the people of God who believe in Jesus. It’s the people that make the church not the institution or 4 walls…and the Lord knows who those people are. To make that fit the RCC excludes those who do not take the authority of the pope - but still take the authority of Jesus…which is the criteron of being the people of God - not believing in the pope.

 

[rinnie]

The ‘church’ in 1 Tim 3:15, is talking of the people of God who believe in Jesus. It’s the people that make the church not the institution or 4 walls…and the Lord knows who those people are. To make that fit the RCC excludes those who do not take the authority of the pope - but still take the authority of Jesus…which is the criteron of being the people of God - not believing in the pope.

Not according to the teachings of the RCC tiggylou. It not the People that make the Church the Church is Jesus Christ himself. The RCC is what we believe is the living Christ. Jesus told us that!

 

[tiggylou]

Tiggy if there is nothing we can do to make thing’s right in Gods eyes. Why did he leave us ten commandments to live by. Would that not have been pointless. Why did he leave us the Church, Why the sacraments? I mean if we are getting in anyway what would be the point?

In terms of the law - I think I agree with Augustine’s Spirit and the Letter, where he shows that the law points to grace, becuase we cannot fulfil the law on our own - we need the Holy spirit working through us in grace. for the leter kills, but the spirit gives life. 2 cor 3:6

 

[fhansen]

Thank you for your reply as well. None of us know the truth as well as we’d like to think and if you can lead me to a higher level of understanding then have at it! One way or the other most people are sincere in their beliefs and all Christians should have a love for the truth no matter what so should never fear dialog.

Sanctification is something that is a continual process in this life, but you never get perfect. So are you saying that because you never reach perfection that you have to go to purgatory to get perfect?

**Purgatory isn’t mandatory. The perfection God requires is possible in this life but rare, from my understanding, so purgatory is considered a merciful part of final conversion-as conversion, in Catholic theology, is considered to be a transforming process. **

This explains it well, I do not think that man is able to save himself because of sin. Which is why when a Christian, the works you do are actually Christ working through you. Heb 13:21. And I agree with your teaching that we have a part to play…but only that we choose him and that choose that his will be done. But any other contribution becomes a work, because you cannot merit salvation.

But to choose His will fully is to come to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves-because that is His will for us. And we’re saying that this will must be fulfilled because, being the good father He is, He’ll be satisfied with nothing less for us.

I agree purgatory can be part of the work necessary, but I just can’t get my head around why it needs to be. Because Christ said on the Cross ‘it is finished’, but its not finished if we still have to go though purgatory. I believe that there are consequences to our actions on earth, but once we leave this earth, those who believe in Christ are saved, because he paid the price, so we don;t have to, but it seems that purgatory is still a ‘paying’ to God, and I don’t see why.

**Jesus said we must be perfect as God is perfect, holy as He is holy. Imputed righteousness is an escape clause from that command. **

How – by the work of Christ, because he was totally obedient to God’s will, and it is through Christ that someone is saved and goes to be with Christ – who is God. Why is it not possible that Jesus alone bridged the gap for us?

Jesus restores friendship with God. He reconciles us to Him by proving man wrong about his mistrust of God -a mistrust which He never deserved in the first place-by the righteous actually laying down His life for the unrighteous. He shows us the true face of God in power and love and makes known that we need Him in order to live and have life abundantly, eternally. And that all we need do is ask-Gods’ just waiting to answer- and once that door’s open He begins to pour forth the grace won by Jesus to begin the process of our restoration to beings He deems worthy of eternal life with Him.

And yes I have basically made my mind up about purgatory, because it seems like an option to just have faith in Christ but not really do anything about it. To live as you want now and pay later. Most of my family is Catholic, and I hear them say that it doesn’t matter if they get things wrong and continue in that wrong because they can pay for it in purgatory, rather than do ‘penance’ on earth, but that they are ‘ok’ because they believe in Jesus. So it is not just protestants who think that you just need faith and all is cool. Your good works are proof of your faith, and that is what you are rewarded for…not punished.

**People can abuse the teaching that way. It reminds me of some neighbors who believe in OSAS and are the some of the most awful people I can imagine in terms of terrorizing the neighborhood, selling drugs and committing other crimes, etc
**

 

[tiggylou]

Not according to the teachings of the RCC tiggylou. It not the People that make the Church the Church is Jesus Christ himself. The RCC is what we believe is the living Christ. Jesus told us that!

and those accepted into the RCC must have faith in Christ…so why does that exclude other demoninations that have faith in Christ?

 

[tiggylou]

Purgatory isn’t mandatory. The perfection God requires is possible in this life but rare, from my understanding, so purgatory is considered a merciful part of final conversion-as conversion, in Catholic theology, is considered to be a transforming process.

I have not heard of a single person who has claimed this perfection, which the RCC has not declared a heritic. How does one gain this level of perfection required? By becoming a hermit so that all temptations are taken away? But then you do not do the will of God by going out and spreading teh good news. I cannot see how someone in this life can ever reach the perfection that God requires…because if they did…they would have been able to keep the law in the OT and then there would have been no need for Jesus.

 

[NonCatholic]

The ‘church’ in 1 Tim 3:15, is talking of the people of God who believe in Jesus. It’s the people that make the church not the institution or 4 walls…and the Lord knows who those people are. To make that fit the RCC excludes those who do not take the authority of the pope - but still take the authority of Jesus…which is the criteron of being the people of God - not believing in the pope.

Well said and good point!

 

[FCEGM]

So a difference between imparted and imputed righteousness?

Well, we would say that the difference is between imputed justification (which is Luther’s 16th Century invention) and infused justification, which is the substantial, ancient and Apostolic understanding of how justification in Christ works. Luther’s idea that justification (that is, righteousness) is merely legalistically imputed to the Christian cannot be reconciled with various Scriptural teachings which reveal that righteousness in Christ Jesus is much more than that, i.e., a very real and substantial product of Covenantal intimacy, and not merely a legal technicality. Notable examples of this would be 2 Cor. 3:18, 2 Peter 1:4, 1 John 3:7, 10, etc.

I would also strongly encourage you to read a book by Robert Sungenis called Not By Faith Alone. Sungenis is not the most orthodox or trustworthy Catholic writer in the world (and so I don’t normally recommend him to people), but he did a very good job in this particular book of exposing the untenable and unbiblical nature of the Protestant doctrine of imputed justification - a doctrine which simply did not exist in either Christianity or Judaism before the 16th Century. Luther unquestionably created it.

And if the grace was not finished in this life, but that was a ‘third place’ as Martin Luther refers to it, then why is it not talked of explicitely in the Bible?

A couple points: First of all, the Bible itself does not explicitly address many key and essential doctrines of the Christian Faith. E.G., nowhere in Scripture do we find an explicit or comprehensive explanation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, i.e., the Nicene definition that God is one God in three co-eternal, consubstantial Divine Persons. Likewise, the Bible never gives us an explicit explanation of the Hypostatic Union of Christ - the doctrine that Christ is both fully-God and fully-man, as opposed to “half-God and half-man,” or “God disguised as man,” or “man with an indwelling of God,” etc. Nor does the Bible give us any explicit teaching or instruction as to what Christian books (or OT Jewish books, for that matter) should make up the Bible. Rather, when it comes to these immensely important tenets of the Faith (and there are quite a few others), Christians must rely on the organic traditional understanding of the early Church, which in the cases of the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and the canon of the Bible were eventually clearly defined and clarified (in the intellectual language of the Greco-Roman world) by various Church councils and magisterial statements (e.g. the Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Hippo, and Carthage - as well as the A.D. 382 decree of Pope Damasus, which set the state for our present NT canon, and the A.D. 449 Tome of Pope Leo I, which gave us the final articulation and explanation for the theology of Christ’s Hypostatic Union.).

So, if even central doctrines like these are not spelled out explicitly in Scripture itself, why should you expect the theology of Purgatory to be explicitly presented in Scripture? You will agree that an understanding of the Trinity itself is slightly more important than an understanding of Purgatory, right?. Yet, Scripture doesn’t bother to tackle a direct and explicit explanation of the Trinity; therefore, it would be silly to assume that it would do so for something like Purgatory.

Secondly, the reason that the authors of the New Testament did not bother to explicitly dwell on the mystery known as Purgatory is because neither Jews nor early Christians (most of whom were Jewish) had a problem with the concept that some kind of purification or purgation (that is, a continuation of sanctification) continued for some people after death. Indeed, modern Orthodox Jews still hold to a belief that the soul of a righteous person must undergo a passing experience of “Gehenna” before the soul can enter what is called the “Paradise of the Fathers” (also known as the “Bosom of Abraham”), which is where righteous people (e.g. the saints of the Old Testament) await the coming of the Messiah, for the ancient Jewish understanding both Gehenna (a place of fiery punishment) and the “Paradise of the Fathers” (aka, “Bosom of Abraham”) together make up “Sheol”, i.e., the realm of the dead.

Now, if any of this sounds familiar to you, it’s because it is found in Luke 16 in Jesus’ story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this story, the rich man is sent to a place of fiery punishment (Gehenna) while the poor man Lazarus goes to the “Bosom of Abraham” - a place separated from Gehenna by a huge pit. The imagery that Christ uses here is right out of ancient rabbinical sermons. In these sermons, it is made very clear that the “Bosom of Abraham” (“Paradise of the Fathers”) is not Heaven, i.e., it is not the Heavenly Presence of God (for only the Messiah could open the gates of Heaven; and no one ascended to the Father until Christ Himself ascended into Heaven, i.e., “I go to prepare a place for you”. So, the “Paradise of the Fathers” (“Bosom of Abraham”) was just a temporary state where the righteous awaited their eventual entry into Heaven when the Messiah would come. See 1 Peter 3:19 & 4:6 and Ephesians 4:8-10, which make it clear that Jesus took the OT saints from this temporary state after death and brought them with Him into Heaven (i.e., the Presence of the Father).

continued. . .

 

[NonCatholic]

:flowers:

Thanks for the gifts…yummy pizza and such nice flowers!

 

[FCEGM]

Also, it is very clear from the Jewish record that “Gehenna” was not understood in the sense that we today understand “Hell.” For, in the ancient Jewish understanding, “Gehenna” could be either permanent and eternal (i.e., Hell) or it could be a temporary place of purgation and purification. This is seen quite clearly in Luke 16 itself. The element of this story which Protestants seem to consistently overlook is the fact that the Rich Man, who is being tormented in Gehenna, is (a) still in a Covenental relationship with Abraham (e.g. he still calls Abraham “father” and Abraham still calls him “my child”) and, even more notably, and (b) the Rich Man is deeply concerned for his brothers who are still alive! IOW, the Rich Man is still able to express selfless charity; for he asks Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers when it becomes clear that there is nothing Abraham can do to cease his personal suffering. This alone shows us that the Rich Man is not in hell, for, in hell, it is impossible for a soul to be charitable - to express love for another. This is only possible in and through God and some kind of Covenantal relationship with God. Therefore, the Rich Man must be experiencing a period of purgation and purification, i.e., Purgatory.

As for Luther’s idea that Purgatory is a “third place,” this is not a fitting or mature approach to the mystery, since the Catholic Church has never seen Purgatory in an eschatological sense; i.e., Purgatory is not a kind of “final destination” alongside Heaven or Hell. Properly understood, Purgatory is an “annex” or, more specifically, a “vestibule” of Heaven. It is a state through which a Christian’s soul is fully sanctified (where the process of sanctification is completed, if it is not completed in this life) before the soul is capable of entering Heaven, i.e., the Divine Presence of the Father (see Revelation 21:27). Or, to translate Catholic doctrine into “Protestant-ese,” the souls in Purgatory ARE “saved.” They can NEVER go to hell, and will eventually go to Heaven, guaranteed. In this, both Catholics and Protestants have some common ground, for, even Luther admitted that sanctification (being holy) is not imputed to you legalistically. Rather, most Protestants believe and teach that sanctification is a process which continues throughout the life of a Christian, through which a Christian grows in holiness. If one is not truly or fully holy at the moment of death, Protestants clearly believe (although they have no formally developed theology on this point) that the Christian’s sanctification is somehow “completed” or “perfected” through their experience of Christ at the moment of death. The appreciation of this necessity (the necessity to be perfected in holiness) comes very close to the Catholic idea of Purgatory - keeping in mind that both Catholics and Protestants believe that time as we know it in this world is not applicable to the afterlife. Therefore, we Catholics can concede that Purgatory is not a “temporal” phenomenon, as we understand the passage of time in this world. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (aka, Pope Benedict XVI) explains it in his theological writings prior to becoming Pope, Purgatory may be seen in existential terms rather than temporal terms. IOW, the experience of Purgatory may indeed be an instantaneous thing - judging it from how we approach time in this world. But, it is still a practical reality which is essential to a correct understanding of salvation in Christ.

And to help better appreciate the Biblical witness of this practical reality - a reality that is illustrated through the Biblical imagery of “Gehenna” and the “Paradise of the Fathers,” we would do well to ponder Christ’s words to the so-called “Good Thief” on the Cross in Luke 23:43. Here, notice what Jesus specifically says: “This day, you will be with me in Paradise.” Now, most Protestants (who are ignorant of Jewish and Catholic Christian oral Tradition) assume that, here, Jesus is referring to Heaven. But, there’s a big problem with this, because according to Scripture, Jesus did not go to Heaven on “That day” - Friday. Indeed, even three days later on Sunday morning, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene that she must not cling to Him because “I have not yet ascended to the Father” (cf. John 20:17). Rather, as we know from 1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6, Jesus was in the realm of the dead (Sheol) on the day that He made His promise to the Good Thief. So, when Jesus tells the thief that “This day, you will be with me in Paradise,” it is clear that Jesus is referring, not to Heaven, but to the “Paradise of the Fathers” - the place in Sheol where Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the other saints of the Old Testament awaited the coming of the Messiah, Who alone could take them to Heaven. So, the promise made by Jesus is Luke 23:43 reveals the Biblical nature of what Luther would call a “third place.” However, as with Purgatory for a Christian, it is not a “third place” per se, but a state of preparation for the ultimate “Place”: Heaven.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Because a large amount of RC teaching is on the premise of the existence of purgatory, such as penance and indulgences.

Well, that’s true. However, we would not say that these teaching are based on the premise of the existence of Purgatory as much as they (along with Purgatory) are based on the Apostolic and Biblical principals of how Christian salvation operates, i.e., how both the righteousness of Christ (justification) and the holiness of Christ (sanctification) are truly and substantially shared with the Christian in the context of an intimate and loving Covenant, not merely imputed in a legalistic way. This is the essential difference between Catholicism and Lutheranism.

Lutheranism takes a legalistic approach to salvation, casting God in the role of our Judge. Catholicism, while it of course acknowledges that God is our Judge, upholds the more basic and Apostolic view of God as our Father (understanding that He is only our Judge in a Fatherly capacity). As if it even needs to be pointed out, a Father obviously requires more from His son (or daughter) than a CIVIL Judge requires from a citizen. A Father requires that His child not only obey His laws, but that His child take them to heart and truly be righteous, even as He Himself is Righteous, i.e., Covenantal intimacy. Lutheranism does not require this. Indeed, it makes it irrelevant; and so distorts the very nature and meaning of a Covenant, an “exchange of persons.” It reduces our Covenant with and in Christ to a mere legalistic “contract.” This is why the Catholic Church must reject imputed justification as an error.

Plus, purgatory was only made doctrine at the council of Trent in the 16th century, and the doctrine that it became did not resemble what the early church fathers referred to as a state of purification.

I’m very sorry, but you are grossly mistaken about that. Your first misunderstanding is that you confuse the term “doctrine” with “dogma.” A “doctrine” is a general teaching of the Church, which may be officially binding and an essential element of Apostolic Tradition, or it may be what is called a “theologoumenon” (a “theological opinion”), which is not necessarily binding and can be debated among Catholics. A “dogma,” on the other hand, is a formally binding teaching of the Church, e.g. the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea. It should be noted that all dogmas start out as “theological opinions” and may be debated and refined until the Church speaks formally and declares a particular position to be a dogma. This is what happened at the Council of Trent - but only when it came to the specific Protestant objections to Purgatory.

However, Purgatory itself was dogmatized by earlier Councils, such as the Council of Ferrara-Florence (c. 1439), which preceded Trent, and which addressed, not Protestant objections to Purgatory, but the differences between the Western / Latin approaches to the mystery we called “Purgatory” and the Eastern / Greek approaches to this very same mystery. So, Purgatory was a formally declared dogma for over a century before the Council of Trent.

What also needs to be appreciated is that the Church almost never declares a particular doctrine to be a dogma unless or until it is threatened by some heretical challenge. This, again, is why Purgatory was defined as a dogma at Ferrara-Florence and at Trent, i.e., in response to Greek and to Protestant challenges, respectively. However, as with other Traditional doctrines which were not formally dogmatized until they were challenged, Purgatory was always universally appreciated by the Church since earliest times, and was part of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith. This is very clear in the writings of the early Church fathers (see below).

As I said, the only reason why the Church normally defines something clearly as a binding dogma is when that element of the Faith is challenged by a heresy. Until that happens, the Church is very happy to observe such beliefs in undefined and organic forms, just as it did with its understanding of the Trinity (before the Church was forced to clearly and dogmatically define its organic understanding, in response to the Arian heretics, at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 and the Council of Constantinople I in A.D. 381), and just as it did with its understanding of the Hypostatic Union of Christ (before the Church was forced to clearly and dogmatically define its organic understanding, in response to the Nestorian and Monophysite heretics, at the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451). Before this time, the Church of course believed in the Trinity and in the Hypostatic Union of Christ, but it believed in them in an organic form; i.e., it possessed a deep and comprehensive understanding; but this understanding was not yet in a form where it could be clearly encapsulated into a simple explanation or articulated clearly and unambiguously so that everyone in the Church possessed the same semantic approach. This is what a dogmatic statement does: it takes the comprehensive, organic understanding of the Church and reduces it to a clear and pointed statement which can end a debate and which is binding on all.

So, when it comes to Purgatory, it is very clear that the Church always and universally possessed an organic belief in the doctrine, even if it was not always expressed using the same, specific terms or concepts. Also, what cannot be denied is that Luther’s denial of Purgatory (no matter how the mystery is approached) is totally alien to the early Church. This is because, once again, Luther introduced a 16th Century novelty which is incomparable with ancient, Apostolic Christianity.

continued. . .

 

[cfrancis]

The ‘church’ in 1 Tim 3:15, is talking of the people of God who believe in Jesus. It’s the people that make the church not the institution or 4 walls…and the Lord knows who those people are. To make that fit the RCC excludes those who do not take the authority of the pope - but still take the authority of Jesus…which is the criteron of being the people of God - not believing in the pope.

Ahhhh, you mean the people of God who believe in Jesus and:

• believe Baptism is merely symbolic
• believe Baptism regenerates
• believe one can lose salvation
• believe one cannot lose salvation
• believe the Lord’s supper is merely symbolic
• believe Christ is truly present in the elements of the Lord’s supper

1 Tim 3:15:
but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.

Seems difficult to align Paul’s words to Timothy with the multiple “truths” being supported…

 

[FCEGM]

With this context established, let’s explore some statements from the Church fathers viz. the doctrine of what the modern Latin/Western Church eventually called “Purgatory.” For example, we have The Acts of Paul and Thekla (A.D. 160), which was a very old apocryphal book which several of the Greek fathers included in their early, local Biblical canons. Though a pious fiction, it is almost certainly based on real historical events (that of a female disciple of St. Paul named “Thekla”), and it also gives tremendous insight into the mentality of early, 2nd Century Christians. At one point in the narrative, we are told:

“And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thekla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thekla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’” (Acts of Paul and Thecla [A.D. 160]).

We see here a clear parallel to the narrative in Luke 16:22-26 - the ancient Jewish division of Sheol (the realm of the dead) between Gehenna (a place of fiery punishment) and the “Paradise of the Fathers”/the “Bosom of Abraham.” In regard to the Thekla narrative, it is important to note that the dead girl who asks for Thekla’s prayers was not a Christian, but died as an unBaptized pagan. Thus, in the early Christian understanding, she could not be “transferred” into Heaven, but merely to “a place of righteousness” (e.g. the “Paradise of the Fathers”) where she and other righteous pagans had to await the Last Judgment.

Also, a little later in history, we have some important quotes from Tertullian, who traveled extensively through the ancient Church, spending time in several Apostolic city-churches, such as Antioch, Ephesus, and Rome. Tertullian writes:

“[T]hat allegory of the Lord [Matt. 5:25–26] . . . is extremely clear and simple in its meaning . . . [beware lest as] a transgressor of your agreement, before God the Judge . . . and lest this Judge deliver you over to the angel who is to execute the sentence, and he commit you to the prison of hades, out of which there will be no dismissal until the smallest even of your delinquencies be paid off in the period before the resurrection. What can be a more fitting sense than this? What a truer interpretation?” (The Soul 35 [A.D. 212]).

Here, as in the original Jewish-Christian Tradition, and in the Tradition of Eastern/Greek theology to this day, Tertullian approaches the mystery of Purgatory from the perspective that it represents a kind of submission to “death” - the realm of the dead (Hades/Sheol). This perspective comes from the idea that only those who are fully within the Church (that is, who live as true saints) are truly alive; and so the Christian who dies with lingering attachments to sin and selfishness (i.e., who is not a true saint) will be somehow “outside of” eternal life (i.e., outside of membership in the Church), and so subject to “death” until they are purged from these attachments and may enter the Church in Heaven (per Rev 21:27).

Tertullian also writes:

“Indeed she [a widow] prays for his [her husband’s] soul and asks that he may, while waiting, find rest; and that he may share in the firstresurrection [Heaven]. And each year, on the anniversary of his death, she offers the Sacrifice *.” (Tertullian, On Monagomy, 212 A.D.) *

Here, we see not only a very ancient illustration of belief in Purgatory, but also in the principal of indulgences. The widow has prayers and Eucharists offered for her dead husband’s soul, so that he may experience what Tertullian calls “the first resurrection” - entry into Heaven. Here again, we see Tertullian’s view of Purgatory as a kind of “death” or subjection to death; and thus deliverance from that state is called a “resurrection” - a foretaste of the final resurrection of the body at the Last Judgment when Christ returns in glory.

As for the custom depicted above, Luther of course assumed (wrongly) that offering prayers and Masses for those who have died in Christ was a medieval abuse and corruption. However, here in the early 3rd Century, Tertullian documents it for us. If you read the entire passage, he speaks of it as a long-standing Christian Tradition which is performed universally - which of course, it was. E.G., Tertullian elsewhere tells us:

“We make Oblations (i.e., Sacrifices -Eucharists) for the deceased on the anniversary of their death… If you look in Scripture for a formal law governing these and similar practices, you will find none. It is Tradition that justifies them, custom that confirms them, and faith that observes them.” (Tertullian, De Corona Militis. 3:2-3, before 220 A.D.)

Tertullian also documents the ancient Church’s understanding of Luke 16, writing:

“This place, the Bosom of Abraham, though not in Heaven, and yet above hell, offers the souls of the righteous an interim refreshment until the end of all things brings about the general resurrection and the final reward.” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:34, before 220 A.D.)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Around the same time as Tertullian, we have the documented memoirs of the martyr St. Perpetua (c. 203 A.D.), which were recorded first-hand during her time in prison awaiting execution in the arena, and later incorporated into a document called “The Acts of the Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua.” Here are her words as recorded:

“I saw a vision of Dinocrates going out from a gloomy place, where also there were several others. He was parched and very thirsty, with a filthy countenance and pallid color; the wound on his face that he had when he died. This Dinocrates had been my brother after the flesh, seven years of age, who died miserably with disease. For him I had made my prayer; and between him and me there was a large interval, so that neither of us could approach to the other. And I knew that my brother was in suffering, but I trusted that my prayer would bring help to his suffering; and I prayed for him every day until we passed over into the prison of the camp, for we were to fight in a camp show. Then I made my prayer for my brother day and night, groaning and weeping, that he might be granted to me. Then, on the day that we remained in fetters, this was shown to me: I saw that that place which I had formerly observed to be in gloom was now bright; and Dinocrates, with a clean body, well clad, was finding refreshment. He went away from the water to play joyously, after the manner of children; and I woke from this vision. Then I understood that he was translated from the place of punishment.” (Acts of the Martyrdom of Felicity and Perpetua, Chapters iii-x)

Here, once again, we see the mentality of the early Christians - an understanding which is also clearly rooted in, and draws from, the imagery of Luke 16.

Also, about the same time, but writing on the other side of the known world, we have Clement of Alexandria (c. before 215 A.D.), who writes:

“Accordingly the believer, through great discipline, divesting himself of the passions, passes to the mansion which is better than the former one, viz., to the greatest torment, taking with him the characteristic of repentance from the sins he has committed after baptism. He is tortured then still more - not yet or not quite attaining what he sees others to have acquired. Besides, he is also ashamed of his transgressions. The greatest torments, indeed, are assigned to the believer. For God’s righteousness is good, and His goodness is righteous. And though the punishments cease in the course of the completion of the expiation and purification of each one, yet those have very great and permanent grief who are found worthy of the other fold, on account of not being along with those that have been glorified through righteousness.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata,6:14(post A.D. 202),in ANF,II:504

and also:

"In the other life there will be two fires, a ‘devouring and consuming’ one for the incorrigible, and for the rest, a fire that ‘sanctifies’ and ‘does not consume, like the fire of the forge,’ a ‘prudent, intelligent’ fire which penetrates the soul that passes through it. (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 8.6, c. before 215 A.D.)

Here in Clement’s writing, we begin to see a developing appreciation of the difference between Purgatory and Hell - a distinction that was always implicit in the original Jewish understanding that “Gehenna” was permanent for some (what we would called “Hell”) but temporary for others (what we would call “Purgatory”).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Also, in the early 3rd Century, we have an important archeological piece of evidence: The Tombstone of Bishop Abercius (216 A.D. -the year 300 of the Phrygian calendar)

The bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, Abercius commissioned the following inscription for his grave:

“The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while] living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, * being by name Abercius, the disciple of a holy Shepherd, Who feeds flocks of sheep [both] on mountains and on plains, Who has great eyes that see everywhere. For this [Shepherd] taught me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And to Rome he sent me to contemplate majesty, and to see a Queen golden-robed and golden-sandaled (i.e., the church of Rome); there also I saw a People bearing a shining mark (i.e., the mark of Baptism: Rev 7:3, 9:4, etc.). And I saw the land of Syria (i.e., Antioch) and all [its] cities Nisibis * when I passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I had Paul. . . . Faith everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a Fish of exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy Virgin drew with her hands from a fountain and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having Wine of great virtue, and giving it mingled with Bread. These things I, Abercius, having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of [the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold.” (Abercius, Tombstone inscription)**

Here we see that an ancient Christian bishop arranged to receive prayers after his death from any believer who viewed his tombstone. Why would he need these prayers if salvation is merely imputed? Luther, of course (believing that prayers offered for the dead in Christ were a medieval corruption) denied that we should offer such prayers for the dead in Christ. But, Bishop Abercius, who was a contemporary (if not the immediate successor) of St. Papias of Hieropolis (who was a disciple of the Apostle John and Bishop of Hieropolis before Abercius) would strongly disagree with Luther. So, who is a more reliable source of Christian orthodoxy? An imbalanced German schismatic from the 16th Century or the ancient Bishop of an Apostle-founded city-church?

We also have St. Cyprian of Carthage (250 A.D.), who writes:

“It is one thing to await pardon, another to arrive at glory, one thing to be sent to prison so as not to come out until after the last penny is paid, another to receive immediately the recompense of faith and virtue, one thing to be unburdened and purified of one’s sins by a long suffering in fire, and another thing still to have wiped out all one’s faults by martyrdom, one thing to be in expectation until the day of judgment by sentence of the Lord, another to be immediately crowned by Him” (Letter 55; A.D. 251).

Here we see St. Cyprian drawing from Matt 5:25-26, just as Tertullian (his fellow North African) does above. He also speaks of a purifying fire which is made unnecessary by martyrdom. In martyrdom, of course, one gives oneself over completely to Jesus, eliminating any attachments to sin and selfishness, and being perfected in your Covenant of love with the Lord. But, those who do not love in this perfect and complete way, a purgation is in order, and quite necessary.

Also, on the other side of the known world, we have Origen (before A.D. 253), who writes:

“As John stood near the Jordan among those who came to be baptized, accepting those who confessed their vices and their sins and rejecting the rest … so will the Lord Jesus Christ stand in a river of fire next to a flaming sword and Baptize all those who should go to Paradise after they die, but who lack purgation… But those who do not bear the mark of the first Baptism will not be baptized in the bath of fire. One must first be baptized in water and Spirit so that, when the river of fire is reached, the marks of the baths of water and Spirit will remain as signs that one is worthy of receiving the baptism of fire in Jesus Christ.” (Origen, Commentary on Luke, 24th Homily, before 253 A.D)

What more needs to be said?

We also have St. Ephraim the Syrian (306 A.D.), who writes:

“I conjure you, my brothers and friends, in the name of God, Who commands meto leave you, to remember me when you assemble to pray (i.e., the Mass). Do not bury me with perfumes. Give them not to me, but to God. Me, conceived in sorrows, bury with lamentations, and instead of perfumes, assist me with your prayers; for the dead are benefited by the prayers of the living saints.”

Again, why request prayers for your soul if there is no purgation? Luther denied that this was orthodox.

Also, we have Lactantius (before A.D. 317):

“When God examines the righteous, he will also do so by means of fire. Those whose sins prevail by weight or number will be enveloped by fire and purified, while those made ready by unblemished justice or fullness of virtue will not feel this flame, indeed, there is in them something that will repel the flame and turn it back.” (Lactantius, Institiones 7:21, c. 317 A.D)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

And, likewise, St. Ambrose of Milan (333 A.D.), who writes:

“Blessed shall both of you be [the deceased Gratian and Valentinian], if my prayers can avail anything. No day shall pass you over in silence. No prayer of mine shall omit to honor you. No night shall hurry by without bestowing on you a mention in my prayers. In every one of the Oblations (Masses) will I remember you.” (Eulogy)

And we have St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350 A.D.), who says:

“…we call upon God for …those who have already fallen asleep …for we believe that it will be of very great benefit to the souls of those for whom the petition is carried up, while this holy and most solemn Sacrifice [the Mass] is laid out …For I know that there are many who are saying this: ‘If a soul departs from this world with sins, what does it profit it to be remembered in the Prayer?’ Well, if a king were to banish certain people who had offended him, and those intervening for them were to plait a crown and offer it to him on behalf of the ones who were being punished, would he not grant a remission of their penalties? In the same way, we too offer prayers to Him for those who have fallen asleep, though they be sinners…and thereby propitiate the benevolent God for them as well as for ourselves.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 350 A.D.)

St. Cyril here is, of course, invoking the principal of the Body of Christ in 1 Cor. 12:26, where St. Paul writes: “If one part [of the Body of Christ] suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.” This is the principal upon which Indulgences are based (see also Colossians 1:24).

We also have St. Basil the Great (370 A.D.), who writes:

“…and if they (i.e., departed souls) are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains
or effects of sin, they are detained. If, however, they are found unwounded and without stain, they are, as unconquered, brought by Christ into their rest.” (Basil, Homilies and Psalms, 370 A.D.)

and we have St. Epiphanius of Salamis (374 A.D.), who says:

“Furthermore, as to mentioning the names of the dead, how is there anything very useful in that? What is more timely or more excellent than that those who are still here should believe that the departed do live …who are praying for the brethren as if they were but sojourning in a foreign land? Useful too, is the prayer fashioned on their behalf, even if it does not force back the whole of guilty charges laid to them.” (Panacea Against AllHeresies).

and we have St. Gregory of Nyssa (385 A.D.), who writes:

“…he [the departed soul] is not able to partake of divinity (i.e., 2 Peter 1:4) until he has been purged of the filthy contagion in his soul by purifying fire.” (Sermon on the Dead)

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Of course, we have St. Augustine of Hippo (392 A.D); he writes extensively about the mystery of Purgatory, saying:

“Yet plainly, though, we be saved by fire (1 Corinth 3:15), that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life.” (Explanations of the Psalms)

and:

“But the man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has, in this life, the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life we will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.” (Genesis Defended Against the Manicheans)

and:

“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before that last and strictest Judgement.” (The City of God)

and:

"For some of the dead, indeed, the prayer of the Church * or of pious individuals is heard; but it is for those who, having been regenerated in Christ , did not spend their life so wickedly that they can be judged unworthy of such compassion, nor so well that they can be considered to have no need of it. As also, after the resurrection. there will be some of the dead to whom, after they have endured the pains proper to the spirits of the dead, mercy shall be accorded, and acquittal from punishment of the eternal fire. For, were there not some whose sins, though not remitted in this life, shall be remitted in that which is to come, it could not be truly said: 'They shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, neither in that which is to come." (The City of God, Book 21, Chap. 24)*

Now, Martin Luther was, of course, an Augustinian monk and claimed that his theological understanding was in accord with St. Augustine’s. The reality, however, is that Luther either never read all of St. Augustine’s works or, if he did, he dishonestly ignored those parts which disagreed with his (Luther’s) novel theology. E.G., St. Augustine explains that St. Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 3 is plainly referring to the Catholic doctrine of purgatory:

“Let me not be among those to whom thou wilt say: ‘Depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ nor ‘chastise me in thy wrath.’ Do thou cleanse me in this life and make me such that I shall have no need to pass through the purifying flames prepared for those who will be saved ‘yet so as by fire.’ Why? Is it not because in this world they are building upon a foundation of wood, hay, stubble? If they constructed with gold, silver, precious stones, they would be safe from both kinds of fire, not only from the everlasting fire which will torment the wicked forever and ever, but also from that which will purify those who are to be saved by fire. For we are told: ‘He himself will be saved, yet so as by fire.’ And because of the phrase’s all be saved,’ that fire is not taken seriously enough. Clearly, although they will be saved by fire, yet that fire will be more grievous than anything a man is capable of bearing in this life . . . The evils of this life, then, are far easier to bear; and yet see how eagerly men will do anything you command rather than suffer them. How much better it would be for them, to do what God commands, to avoid suffering those heavier penalties!” (Discourse on Psalm 37,3; A.D. 395)

and also …

“But if this passage (of 1 Corinthians) is to interpret that fire of which the Lord shall say to those on His left hand, ‘Depart from me ye cursed, into everlasting fire,’ so that among these we are to believe that there are those who build on the foundation of wood, hay, stubble, and that they, in virtue of the good foundation, shall after a time be liberated from the fire that is the award of their evil deserts, what then shall we think of those on the right hand, to whom it shall be said, ‘Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you,’ unless that they are those who have built on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones. But if the fire of which Our Lord speaks is the same as that of which the apostle says ‘Yet so as by fire,’ then both, that is to say, both those on the right as well as those on the left - are to be cast into it. For that fire is to try both, since it is said, ‘For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is.’ If therefore, the fire shall try both, in order that (i.e., if the superstructure be not consumed by the fire), he may receive a reward, and that if his work is burned he may suffer loss, certainly that fire is not the eternal fire itself. For into this latter fire only those on the left hand shall be cast, and that with final and everlasting doom; but that former fire proves those on the right hand. But some of them it so proves that it does not burn and consume the structure which is found to have been built by them on Christ as the foundation; while others of them it proves in another fashion so as to burn what they have built up, and thus cause them to suffer loss, while they themselves are saved because they have retained Christ, who was laid as their sure foundation, and have loved Him above all” (The City of God, XXI; A.D. 426).

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

And, in the East at about the same time, we have St. John Chrysostom (398 A.D.), who writes:

“Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for 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 (the Mass), remembrance should be made of the departed …For when the untire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim (Christ in the Eucharist) 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 infaith.” (Homilies on Philippians)

and …

“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” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians 41:5 [A.D. 392]).

So, the idea that the Fathers and the ancient Church did not subscribe to both Purgatory, prayer for the dead in Christ, and the principal of Indulgences is simply the height of historical ignorance. Luther was simply wrong - or just ignoring what he knew to be true, and thus lying. You decide.

Infact, from my reading, the doctrine of purgatory was established from the Indo-European tradition of divine fire from Greece and Rome, and also from the egyptian concept of fire and ice as forms of punishment in hell. It seems to me that he concept is read into the bible in passages, which could be interpreted differently.

Well, given that the Protestant world is currently divided into many thousands of separate sects - all with the same Bible, but all interpreting it differently (contra the demands of 1 Cor. 1:10), it therefore serves to reason that one can project almost any personal disposition into one’s reading of Scripture. However, when it comes to the Catholic reading of Scripture, one must also appreciate the fact that we have 2,000 years of consistent and universal Christian belief backing up how we read the Bible, e.g. the consistent understanding of a post-mortem purgation witnessed to by the fathers above.

As for your impression that Purgatory is pagan in origin, you’ve obviously been exposed to a lot of liberal-modernist revisionism, which of course ignores the authentic Jewish origins of Purgatory -origins which passed validly and naturally into early Christian belief. If there is anything “pagan” about Purgatory, it would merely be a matter of commonality; for the pagans and the ancient people of God frequently borrowed concepts from one another - the point being that, simply because something is “pagan” does not mean that it is untrue or incompatible with Christian orthodoxy. The idea of hell fire (which is clearly a Biblical concept and something that no Protestant rejects) is a notable example. Are we to say that “Hell” is likewise a pagan distortion of Christian orthodoxy simply because paganism presents us with similar concepts??

E.G., in Matt 16:18, Jesus uses (or is presented as using) the Greek term “Hades” (i.e., “…and the gates of hell “hades” in the Greek] will not prevail against it.”). “Hades,” of course, was an element of Greek mythology - the realm of the dead which was guarded by the three-headed dog Cerberus and where Sisyphus spent eternity pushing a boulder up a hill, etc… So, should we reject Matthew’s Gospel because it employs this concept of death --a pagan concept that happened to be compatible with the Jewish concept of Sheol (lit. “the Pit”)? Likewise, in 2 Peter 2:4, the Apostle uses the term “Tartarus,” which was the lowest region of Hades, where the gods of Greek mythology imprisoned the Titans. And St. Peter overlaps the Traditional story of the war in Heaven and the fallen angels with the Greek mythic tradition of the war between the gods and the Titans by saying that God imprisoned the fallen angels in “Tartarus.” So, should we now discard 2 Peter because it draws from Greek mythology or implies a commonality between the Greek pagan tradition and the true and inspired Tradition of the Chosen People?

Likewise, in Acts 17:28, while addressing the Athenian Areopagus, St. Paul quotes from not one, but two, pagan Greek poets -Epimenides of Knossos and Aratus of Soli. So, are we then wrong and unorthodox to claim that in God we “live and move and have our being”? And we can multiply other Scriptural examples of this which clearly and much more substantially draw from pagan ideas, whereas Purgatory does not.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Purgatory, if anything, is a Jewish concept - the idea of a temporary Gehenna. So, beware what information you get from liberal-modernists. These same sort of folks will also tell you that the Virgin Birth is rooted in Greek myth, as is the Sonship of Christ, because Zeus and other gods of pagan antiquity were said to beget sons with mortal women (e.g. Hercules, Perseus, etc). There is also of course a pagan tradition of a dying and rising god (e.g. Tammuz in the Babylonian and Canaanite tradition; Dionysius in the Greek and Roman tradition, etc.).

So, if you want to start accusing orthodox Christianity of borrowing from paganism, how far do you want to go? As J.R.R. Tolkien (a devout Catholic) once said in its early discussions with C.S. Lewis (who was then an unbeliever), Christianity is “the myth that really happened.” This is the statement that opened Lewis’ eyes to the reality of Christianity, and which led directly to his conversion. Like Lewis, you have been severely misled, at least in regard to the origins of Purgatory. If you wish to seriously defend your dissertation (assuming you are attending a decent school and not one that thrives on irrational anti-Catholicism), you will need to do far better than you are doing. To label Purgatory as something pagan is very sloppy scholarship and quite ignorant.

 

[rinnie]

In terms of the law - I think I agree with Augustine’s Spirit and the Letter, where he shows that the law points to grace, becuase we cannot fulfil the law on our own - we need the Holy spirit working through us in grace. for the leter kills, but the spirit gives life. 2 cor 3:6

Tiggy I also agree with that. But let me explain. The rcc teaches the reward which God promises and gives to those who love him and by his grace PERFORM GOOD WORKS.One cannot merrit justification or eternal life this is free gift from God. the source of any merit we have before God is due to his grace. But we can merit because Christ is in us. This is a quote from St Augustine you are glorified in the assembly of your holy ones, for in crowning their merrits you are crowning your own gifts. another wards we can only merit as Christ himself works through us. So do you see now how its our works that can merit anything. look at romans 2:6-7 For he will render to every man according to his works. Is that a little clearer now.