How is 2 Maccabees 12:43-46 evidence for Purgatory?

[happilycatholic]

One more thing, anyone who believes that my beliefs of Purgatory are some kind of “warm and fuzzy” or “feel good” theology of Purgatory REALLY needs to look up the definition of atonement and then read Scripture to find out how warm and fuzzy atonement really is. You should first look toward Christ’s atonement on the cross.

Just how warm and fuzzy was that?

I seriously take offense to this accusation.

Just how warm and fuzzy do you think baptism with fire will be??

 

[happilycatholic]

Personally I do not use this passage to argue for or against purgatory and I don’t know many apologists that do anymore either.

I think 1 Corinthians 3:15 and passages referring to God as burning love and a refiners fire give us a better understanding of the Catholic dogma of purgatory while also fitting in better with the current Church’s understanding of purgatory as a period of cleansing as you are drawn closer to God, rather than the more medieval speculation about it being an actual dungeon of sorts…

Wow. Would you look at that…

 

[happilycatholic]

Theological speculation during medieval times can be thanked for the idea of a fiery dungeon, but that is not the understanding the Church seems to be moving towards, and I believe the current understanding is more warranted and more biblical. In essence however, if you didn’t die perfect but you’re still in friendship with God, you are going to take that bath before dinner. It’s only right.

And there’s more…

 

[happilycatholic]

Your own Catechism delineates Purgatory by definition as purification as being different from the final punishment of the dammed. (Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 3, Article 12, SubSection 3 Paragraph 1031) Why couldn’t God by the same token have just put the rich man in Purgatory instead of damming him to Hell?

Here’s another post, this time by Padrej, seemingly agreeing with me on my interpretation of the catechism. Now he claims a different position.

 

[happilycatholic]

You mention that You, “believe what my church has taught for the past 1927 years without change or modification” The doctrine of Purgatory was not decided on until the Council of Florence 1431-45 and finally ratified at the Council of Trent in 1545-1563. (this is referenced in the same section of the catechism listed above) Until that time there had been revisions. Don’t get me started on the number of Popes whose teaching were branded as heretical after their death by church councils (and YES I can list the ones for you to look up) if you want to go the infallibility route. So if the doctrine of Purgatory was not adopted until the Council of Florence it has only been around 548 years not 1927 years. It is interesting that the “Second Vatican Council” Or 21st Church council (1962-1965) was the most controversial for the ambiguous language of the documents opened a Pandora’s Box to allow Church leaders and others to interpret dogma and doctrine in a Protestant light with an emphasis on humanism, ecumenism, religious liberty, and collegiality in an effort to conform to the modern world rather than the world adhering to what the Church had always taught. Do you now go against your own church councils when they clearly have changed direction from council to council?

Wow, there’s more. Here Padrej makes MY EXACT POINT.

Apprently, he likes to argue both sides of the fence.

 

[happilycatholic]

**In 1590 Pope Sixtus V released and authorized version of the Bible that was supposed to have the full authority of the Church. Its preface declared: *“By the fullness of the apostolic power, we decree and declare that this edition, approved by the authority delivered us by the Lord, is to be received and held as true, lawful and authentic and unquestioned, in all public and private discussions, reading preaching and explanations” ***This book was so error ridden with thousands of errors that it had to be revised 2 years later. Based on the preface alone and knowing that the church (Roman Catholic) is believed to be infallible, why would it be so error ridden as to release such a Bible?
If it had the Holy Spirit’s insight would it have released an error ridden Bible?
If there is no “revision” why would Pope Honorius (625-638) be condemned by the 6th general council (680-681) for teaching monothelite heresy (there was only one will in Christ)? Why would Pope Leo II (682-683) further confirm this; if the Popes are guided by the Holy Spirit? If the Papal/church teaching cannot mislead (according to Catholic teaching) how can a Pope (Honorius) be considered to be misleading people? That doesn’t seem like a clarification to me when you go from teaching heresy to good dogma.

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Like I said, everything that comes out of a Pope’s mouth is NOT DOCTRINE OR DOGMA.

 

[happilycatholic]

This is another excellent point hat is NOT often used to “battle” a Protestant in this debate and would come out of left field. I am glad to see personally that this thread is not using the same tired old scriptures that have been used for years. Those are the ones that are expected to come up. I know that some may have been taught to “do battle” this way so to speak. If examples like this are used and the other instances are pulled your stance is all the stronger and cannot be knocked down.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, HA!

I tried refuting “the same ole, same ole” and you wouldn’t have it! What DO you want? I think you just like arguing for the sake of it.

You’ve been all over the place in this discussion. You’ve been on both sides and in the middle. I am literally entertained by reading back through this.

 

[Padrej]

I will address this one last thing though:

---

First of all, I was not the first one to say someone was wrong on this thread. I simply said Purgatory is not punsihment and I believe it was YOU who challenged ME on MY interpretation of the catechism. But I didn’t act all hurt and “painted with a broad brush” about it.

 

[happilycatholic]

Why do you insist on making it “paying a price” when we have stated over and over that it is not. Being dirty because of a stain of sin is a consequence, yes, but the price for the sin has been paid. Period.

A lot of people “refuse” to understand this. If they did it remove a lot of the made up obstacles to Purgatory out there.

NO!!!
Temporal effects, stains, of sin on our soul are not the same thing as sin itself. If our sins were not forgiven and gone we would not even reach Purgatory, it would be impossible. Purgatory is not a punishment for sin. It is a consequence, yes, but where in the Bible does it say that Jesus’ blood relieves us a from all consequences of sin?

Oh, and Padrej:

As much as you would like to place me on the outside of the catholic belief, it appears that I am NOT the only one as you have stated.

I’m still going!

 

[happilycatholic]

Catholics never said purgatory wasn’t punishment, Padrej. We said it wasn’t JUDGEMENT. Please, please stop confusing the two. This, again, has already been covered in the OT examples and my exegesis of Corinthians. We’re starting to go in circles. It’s like you enjoy my points, but don’t want to let the implications set in. God forbid you become CATHOLIC

This is just getting to hilarious.

Okay, I’m going to stop now.

 

[happilycatholic]

happilycatholic;5919465:

**Vatican II. The latter council described purgatory as a place where the souls of the dead make expiation “in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments.” **

According to Vatican II, "in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt

THIS IS NOT IN VATICAN II DOCUMENTS. IT IS A COMMENT FROM ‘WHOEVER’ OUTSIDE THE DOCUMENTS! PURGATORY AND/OR PUNISHMENT IS NEVER MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS. I’VE TOLD YOU, THEY ARE ON THE VATICAN WEBSITE IF YOU’D LIKE TO SEARCH THEM AND POST YOUR QUOTE HERE.

The documents of Vatican two if you read them say that the views of Purgatory have not changed. I do NOT dispute you that Purgatory is cleansing. Vatican 2 has clearly stated it is also punishment.

ohmygoshwhere!!! Are you serious? These documents are on the website. FIND IT PASTE IT. PLEASE!!!

 

[Padrej]

 

[Padrej]

Oh, and Padrej:

As much as you would like to place me on the outside of the catholic belief, it appears that I am NOT the only one as you have stated.

I’m still going!

Actually the Bible does say that Jesus blood does take away the sins.

 

[happilycatholic]

Padrej:

Just so you know, it is said that Vatican II reaffirmed the doctrine (NOT DOGMA) of Purgatory because prayers for the dead are mentioned in the Communion of Saints. Not because “purgatory” is mentioned.

I really wish you would learn the difference.

This is rediculous. I’m out. You guys have a good time with this.

God Bless all here and thanks for the discussion. It’s been well, enlightening on SO MANY levels.

 

[happilycatholic]

happilycatholic;5919679:

Tonya
If you read the first parts of the thread you would see that those in discussion we me stopped using the same classic scriptures to defend Purgatory and picked ones that would not be expected. If you are going to pick on their efforts that is a shame. A discussion in a seminary classroom would be on a similar order to what went on in the earlier part of this thread. I would hold Nathan and Javi up with any of my doctoral level students any day of the week.
It is your choice to poke fun “out of frustration” as you admit being frustrated, but with all due respect, try not to be ignorant about this.

This sad thing is. You are totally serious right now.

Padrej:

God Bless and keep you but I cannot continue to have a discussion with someone who continuously ignores challenges and creates red herrings by claiming to be offended or claiming that I offended someone else.

I haven’t poked ‘fun’ at anyone, I’ve pointed out inconsitencies in your debate. I believe it is you who are not quite up to par with your Purgatory theology.

I leave you to it ‘professor’.

Good Day.

 

[Padrej]

Padrej;5919686:

ohmygoshwhere!!! Are you serious? These documents are on the website. FIND IT PASTE IT. PLEASE!!!

If you had gone to the footnotes you would have found them!!!

51.** This Sacred Council accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) the Council of Florence (21*) and the Council of Trent.(22*) And at the same time, in conformity with our own pastoral interests, we urge all concerned, if any abuses, excesses or defects have crept in here or there, to do what is in their power to remove or correct them, and to restore all things to a fuller praise of Christ and of God. Let them therefore teach the faithful that the authentic cult of the saints consists not so much in the multiplying of external acts, but rather in the greater intensity of our love, whereby, for our own greater good and that of the whole Church, we seek from the saints “example in their way of life, fellowship in their communion, and aid by their intercession.”(23) On the other hand, let them teach the faithful that our communion with those in heaven, provided that it is understood in the fuller light of faith according to its genuine nature, in no way weakens, but conversely, more thoroughly enriches the latreutic worship we give to God the Father, through Christ, in the Spirit.(24)

From
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Thus showing that in NO WAY have they changed poison on what the councils have said.

This Vatican 2 Document labeling what goes in Purgatory as “punishment”

cephas-library.com/catholic_vatican_ii_reaffirms_catholic_heresies.html

“By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven … holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. … The remission of punishment by distribution from the Church’s treasury is incorporated into it. The Church recommends its faithful not to abandon or neglect the holy traditions of those who have gone before. They should be welcomed in a religious spirit as a precious treasure of the Catholic family and esteemed as such. … The Church reminds them constantly of the things which should be given preference because they are necessary or at least better and more efficacious helps in the task of winning salvation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 10,11, p. 82).

AND
Purgatory Necessary to Purge Sin
“The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 1, 3, p. 75).

 

[happilycatholic]

With all due respect, everything that I am reading thus far from my superiors coming from the Vatican does not indicate accepting EVERYTHING. The Orthodox who come in do not except the Assumption nor Purgatory. It is my understanding, to use simplistic terms we are going to be treated more like military chaplains_NOT saying we are. That way we can retain our beliefs and liturgy and not have to 100% accept everything. We would be bound by the catechism in matters of church law. Because of the “chaplain like” status we would have more freedom as we could maintain married clergy, just as the Orthodox who have come in.
We would have to, most, be re-ordained.

I’m just going to have to confess this one cause I just can’t help it…



Seems some folks use the catechism’s vagueness on Purgatory to their advantage when necessary.

 

[happilycatholic]

The *Parish to which I belong teaches a mirror image of this course on Purgatory:

catholicapologetics.org/ap090400.htm

I think our priest was actually a member of the Diocese of which the hosts of this site are/were members. Our father probably didn’t care to reinvent the wheel, so he uses this lesson in our RCIA classes.

 

[Padrej]

The *Parish to which I belong teaches a mirror image of this course on Purgatory:

catholicapologetics.org/ap090400.htm

I think our priest was actually a member of the Diocese of which the hosts of this site are/were members. Our father probably didn’t care to reinvent the wheel, so he uses this lesson in our RCIA classes.

This helps greatly to see where you learned your beliefs.
I am curious if you could explain this paragraph in your own words from what you just brought out and especially the highlighted text.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section 1472
To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the “eternal punishment” of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to 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 punishment” of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. **A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain. **

I know that you have explained Temporal punishment more on the lines of “temporary” punishment. Correct me if I interpreted you wrong here. But I want to know your explanation of the “no punishment remain” comment of this paragraph.

 

[happilycatholic]

Just for the record, this is where I supposedly said “all catholics are wrong”:

“How could “Purgatory free one form what is called the “Purgatory” of sin”? I’m sorry, but you are all incorrect on this one.”

Actually, I apologized for being blunt, stated that you were “incorrect” on “this one” point. I was addressing Javl, NathanWager and Padrej.

So, no I didn’t make a generalized statement that all catholics are ‘wrong’.



~Tonya