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

[Padrej]

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.

I don’t understand what you are poking at here. The discussion was the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans who come to Rome to not have to accept certain doctrines of the Catholic church to be considered part of the Catholic church. There are “Anglican use” Catholic churches everywhere and there are Eastern Orthodox Churches that fall under Rome everywhere. Because they do not believe in certain doctrines contained in the catechism but yet fall under the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church are you saying they are wrong? I don’t seem to see your point. The Catechism is not Vague at all. If you have a problem with this take it up with your bishops who allow them in with certain caveats; on that thread I was only the person posting the info.

 

[happilycatholic]

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.

Uh, no, I actually defined the difference between “temporal” and “temporary” which is what YOU actually believe (well at least sometimes, depending on the post I read and the mood you’re in and who you’re dealing with and probably a few other factors)

You change your mind quite a lot. Sometimes there is punishment and sometimes there’s not. I’m not really sure what you believe at this point. Frankly, I’ve stopped trying.

 

[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.

Is this not what you said to NathanWager? You are actually arguing with him that you will not have to accept everything in the catechism.

You strike me as odd for a supposed anglican bishop. Do you not know that EVERYTHING in the catechism IS “Church law”? Hence the term: “Canon Law”.

I have my doubts about your claims to be a professor and to be a anglican bishop. But, no offense, it’s just my little old humble opinion.

 

[happilycatholic]

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

I actually quoted the same footnotes from the catechism. Again, read the council docs. Then let me know what you find. You keep posting other people’s interpretation of them. Go ahead, get them off the Vatican website and read them.

Why do you think there are only two basic doctrines? You really should read them. They don’t ‘prove’ what you think they do. This is what makes me really wonder if you are who/what you claim to be.

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*)

Again you quote the Councils. Have you read them? I have.

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”

[
](http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic_vatican_ii_reaffirms_catholic_heresies.html)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](http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic_vatican_ii_reaffirms_catholic_heresies.html) 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).

This dear friend in not a Vatican document. It’s a publication entitled, “*Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences” *It even gives chapter references.

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).

Again with this? And you even highlight my case for me in red. How nice.

The punishment is cleansed or expiated. What by other punishment. Let’s see:

Temporal Punishment is punished thereby removing all punishment.

Yeah, that’s not confusing at all.

 

[happilycatholic]

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

cephas-library.com/catholic_vatican_ii_reaffirms_catholic_heresies.html

This little link you provide here, it’s an anti-catholic site and here’s the title of the paper and the disclaimer:

VATICAN II COUNCIL REAFFIRMS CATHOLIC HERESIES
August 9, 2007 David Cloud WayOfLife.org
While the declarations of the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome’s false dogmas, it actually strengthened them.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author. If you have a problem with the correctness of the information, please contact the author.

…and Javl says you’d make a good bishop in the Church!

 

[happilycatholic]

This little link you provide here, it’s an anti-catholic site and here’s the title of the paper and the disclaimer:

VATICAN II COUNCIL REAFFIRMS CATHOLIC HERESIES
August 9, 2007 David Cloud WayOfLife.org
While the declarations of the Roman Catholic Vatican II Council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome’s false dogmas, it actually strengthened them.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author. If you have a problem with the correctness of the information, please contact the author.

…and Javl says you’d make a good bishop in the Church!

In light of what I posted here, this comment may not have contained a type as I first thought it did:

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

 

[Padrej]

Is this not what you said to NathanWager? You are actually arguing with him that you will not have to accept everything in the catechism.

You strike me as odd for a supposed anglican bishop. Do you not know that EVERYTHING in the catechism IS “Church law”? Hence the term: “Canon Law”.

I have my doubts about your claims to be a professor and to be a anglican bishop. But, no offense, it’s just my little old humble opinion.

Have you read what has been sent to me and my brother Anglicans by the Vatican? I am not talking what has been broadcast via the news. Until you walk in MY shoes madam I would suggest that this judgmental attitude which runs contrary to what the Bible says cease.
I am fully aware of what the Catechism means, I am fully aware that it is cannon law AND that it is church law. The problem here is you are arguing on a point that you know little about and that is what is in the offer of the Vatican to Anglican clergy on what we must accept.

I have also read what the councils say on Purgatory, the way you are acting, is because I seem to disagree with you is that I have not read any of this stuff, why? Is a person not free to disagree with you?

As to the professor status:
ethicscenter.nd.edu/events/fallconfs/sof/documents/091102Schedule.pdf

I will be at the university of Notre Dame on this coming Saturday the 14th as you can see by this schedule session# 3 I will be chairing that session. You are welcome to come and meet me there and I will be glad to chat with you personally. One of my old professors will be speaking at this conference as well and he also knows of my consecration and my credentials, if you are not afraid to have me checked out, I would love to have you meet him as well.

Javi’s comment to me is also based on some private conversations that you are not aware of also so I would not be so hasty to place judgment there either. IF you read his comments they were that I was more conservative than most Catholic bishops today.

 

[happilycatholic]

Have you read what has been sent to me and my brother Anglicans by the Vatican? I am not talking what has been broadcast via the news. Until you walk in MY shoes madam I would suggest that this judgmental attitude which runs contrary to what the Bible says cease.

I am fully aware of what the Catechism means, I am fully aware that it is cannon law AND that it is church law. The problem here is you are arguing on a point that you know little about and that is what is in the offer of the Vatican to Anglican clergy on what we must accept.

 

[happilycatholic]

For those on this thread:

Professor Sean Kelsey is the Chair of Session #3 of which padrej claims to be the personage.

The thing is, Professor Kelsey is a member of the faculty at Nortre Dame and not a visiting speaker there as padre claims to be. Also, Professor Kelsey has a PhD in Greek Philosophy, not theology where padre claims his education to be.

I could say I’m professor soinso too. The internet is a wonderful P.I. tool.

 

[happilycatholic]

…oh, and my prayer list.

 

[Padrej]

If you believe Vatican 2 changed nothing:
From EWTN:
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/VAT-2.htm

“How did a Council which wasn’t dogmatic manage to change so many teachings? The truth is that Vatican II didn’t contradict any official position on doctrine or morals. All that the Church taught when Vatican II began is still Catholic teaching. The changes whether made by the Council or decided upon since, are in practical matters such as the liturgy or discipline, but always leaving doctrine unchanged.”

From Cross reference Blog
thecrossreference.blogspot.com/2009/03/purgatory-since-vatican-ii.html

Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964), nn. 49, 51:

“Until the Lord shall come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him and death being destroyed, all things are subject to Him, some of His disciples are exiles on earth, some having died are [being] purified, and others are in glory beholding "clearly God Himself triune and one, as He is"; but all in various ways and degrees are in communion in the same charity of God and neighbor and all sing the same hymn of glory to our God. ... 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, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.”**

Thus Vatican 2 refers back to earlier councils

Pope Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution on Indulgences Indulgentarium Doctrina (1967), nn. 3, 5:

“That punishment or the vestiges of sin may remain to be expiated or cleansed and that they in fact frequently do even after the remission of guilt is clearly demonstrated by the doctrine on purgatory. In purgatory, in fact, the souls of those "who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but before satisfying with worthy fruits of penance for sins committed and for omissions" **are cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments. **... For this reason there certainly exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth a perennial link of charity and an abundant exchange of all the goods by which, with the expiation of all the sins of the entire Mystical Body, divine justice is placated.”

Notice this is a post Vatican 2 Pope saying Purgatory is “punishment” with the statement “cleansed after death with purgatorial punishments”

Later Catholic writings tend to speak more of only “purification” but yet still speak of it as a place of “pain” albeit “blessed pain”:
Pope Benedict XVI, Encyclical on Christian Hope Spe Salvi (2007), nn. 45-48:

The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. ... Saint Paul, in his First Letter to the Corinthians, [writes]: “Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw—each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:12-15). ... Some recent theologians are of the opinion that the fire which both burns and saves is Christ himself, the Judge and Saviour. ... His gaze, **the touch of his heart heals us through an undeniably painful transformation** “as through fire”. But **it is a blessed pain**, in which the holy power of his love sears through us like a flame, enabling us to become totally ourselves and thus totally of God.

Serious question Tonya, and I am not trying to be flippant by any means so please do not take it this way. Could this progression from Purgatory being described as a place of punishment that was hammered into so many older Catholics, my relatives included, and the later writings of say John Paul II and Benedict XVI that only mention “Cleansing” as its primary focus be where there is a for lack of better words “generation gap” between people like Javi and Nathan and person’s like yourself?
Think about it a minute and do not consider the source of the question (me) as you seem to have hackles up right now. From an outsiders point of view this seems logical.

 

[Padrej]

…oh, and my prayer list.

That is a shame. Didn’t Jesus say, “Pray for your enemies and those who persecute you” and “bless and curse not”
Sorry that you feel that the simple commands of Christ are beyond you.
Be rest assured that I will still pray for you before the Blessed Sacrament. That is what my faith teaches me.
Sorry we could not even agree to disagree.

 

[happilycatholic]

Here is a perfect example of misleading uses of anti-catholic references to catholic doctrine being promoted by an individual on this thread:

This is the comment by said person:

Ok so if I am correct in my assumption according to Tonya, Vatican II thinking is that Purgatory is not punishment but only cleansing.
I would like to submit the following article for consideration:
reachingcatholics.org/purgatory.html

In this article the wording of Vatican II on the matter only seemly changed. Here are the pertinent paragraphs:
“Many modern Catholics think of purgatory as a relic from the Dark Ages, which they would just as soon forget. Some Catholics even believe that purgatory is no longer a Roman Catholic doctrine.

The individual that posted this link and it’s quote is trying to pass this off as a catholic doctrine as stated by a catholic organization. In truth, this article REFUTES Purgatory and is very anti-catholic in nature.

This is what I’ve found, and this is just ONE of this individual’s posts. There are others.

Reachingcatholics.org

Purpose as stated on website:

Reaching Catholics For Christis an association of ministries and individuals having a zeal to share the truth of biblical salvation with Roman Catholics.
RCFC is committed to 1) strengthen and increase the effectiveness of associated ministries which have been called to proclaim the biblical gospel to Catholics, and 2) help such ministries educate the body of Christ as to the unbiblical nature of Roman Catholic salvation.

I would think if this individual was trying to state catholic doctrine, this person would go to a catholic source to do that. Sadly, this person not only goes to an anti-catholic site to prove his point on what Purgatory ‘is’, but he claims to be an Anglican who might convert to catholicism. This is the very thing I’ve been saying throughout this thread. This individual continually posts this sort of thing as catholic doctrine.

I would suggest this person get some serious counseling before making any decision. Obviously, this individual is not only confused about catholic doctrine, but is confused about how to go about making himself knowledgeable about catholic doctrine.

I just wonder if those who’ve said this individual would make a good catholic bishop would think so now. As I’ve stated, if we are not careful we will have our misunderstandings served to us on a silver platter with a side of doubt. I believe this individual is not here to promote catholic teaching, but rather evangelize catholics and while doing so, showing us how our teachings are “unbiblical” just as stated in the above quote.

I believe it’s possible, but not before some serious counseling.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[happilycatholic]

HappilyCatholic, it’s punishment. An inventive reading of the catechism doesn’t change that. Accusing Padrej of Protestant eisegesis was a bit ridiculous as well. Purgatory is an extension of temporal punishment. It has ALWAYS been viewed as such. Punishment by God has a corrective purpose. Trying to get rid of the “negative stigma” to the point where you deny Church tradition and teaching on its nature is self-defeating and I would say dishonest. I think you would find yourself in the minority here.

This comment is not only contradictory to one of your earlier comments, but the part in red has also been found not so rediculous. What is rediculous is the way catholics can be spoon-fed their own faith by those who stand against it.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[FrJohnB]

hello
Being new to this forum I was shocked to see the behavior of people who call themselves Catholic such as the person called happycatholic. As a parish priest for over 25 years I know that what has been said here on the subject of Purgatory by Javi, Nathan, AND even by the Protestant Padrej does not in any way go counter to Catholic doctrine. In fact what they have posted is totally in line with it.
What I am finding appalling is that you would take and judge a person because they quote a site that may be anti Catholic even though the quote pulled may have relevance to what is being discussed on this forum. Does this mean if a person comes into a church you reject them on the basis of one comment or a limb missing or the color of skin? I do not think that is how Catholicism or any form of Christianity works. To say that you would not pray for that person because of something said, is that a Christian act or even the Catholic way? It would seem that peace was offered by padrej to happycatholic to meet and it was refused; this too is far from the way a Christian or Catholic should act. In fact it is more akin to a spoiled child who does not get their way and wants to take their marbles and go home in a snit.
Were happycatholic in my parish I would instruct and council her that what she has posted DOES NOT totally line up with historic Catholic teaching of both Vatican one and two and is clearly her interpretation of the Catechism not the view of the church. In addition, her going off an a tangent like this attacking others who are trying to see their faith in comparison and then going after other Catholics should stop and be reconciled as her soul is in danger by her judgmental spirit and attitude.
Fr John

 

[catholicsuffer]

hello
Being new to this forum I was shocked to see the behavior of people who call themselves Catholic such as the person called happycatholic. As a parish priest for over 25 years I know that what has been said here on the subject of Purgatory by Javi, Nathan, AND even by the Protestant Padrej does not in any way go counter to Catholic doctrine. In fact what they have posted is totally in line with it.
What I am finding appalling is that you would take and judge a person because they quote a site that may be anti Catholic even though the quote pulled may have relevance to what is being discussed on this forum. Does this mean if a person comes into a church you reject them on the basis of one comment or a limb missing or the color of skin? I do not think that is how Catholicism or any form of Christianity works. To say that you would not pray for that person because of something said, is that a Christian act or even the Catholic way? It would seem that peace was offered by padrej to happycatholic to meet and it was refused; this too is far from the way a Christian or Catholic should act. In fact it is more akin to a spoiled child who does not get their way and wants to take their marbles and go home in a snit.
Were happycatholic in my parish I would instruct and council her that what she has posted DOES NOT totally line up with historic Catholic teaching of both Vatican one and two and is clearly her interpretation of the Catechism not the view of the church. In addition, her going off an a tangent like this attacking others who are trying to see their faith in comparison and then going after other Catholics should stop and be reconciled as her soul is in danger by her judgmental spirit and attitude.
Fr John

It seems that you have not committed just a small sin by jumping on happycatholic. Yes, you are new to this forum and I personnaly have been attack from these so called protestants, under a different login-name, who are reaching out to catholics with PM trying to get catholics to believe just a tiny bit against their faith in order to find a soft spot in order to convert them to protestant. You may or may not be a Catholic Priest but I will witness this to you, there are greater and you are not the final judgement on happycatholic behavior. If you wish to abolish the behavior then do it in a PM and not publically. I for one agree with the defense of her own mind against those which wish to misled her. Now, unless you are able to get a Bishop to over-ride my opinion then you are perhaps the problem and not happycatholic, for those who do not guard themselves as happycatholic has are certaintly soon to be found in the same bed as Satan.

 

[FrJohnB]

It seems that you have not committed just a small sin by jumping on happycatholic. Yes, you are new to this forum and I personnaly have been attack from these so called protestants, under a different login-name, who are reaching out to catholics with PM trying to get catholics to believe just a tiny bit against their faith in order to find a soft spot in order to convert them to protestant. You may or may not be a Catholic Priest but I will witness this to you, there are greater and you are not the final judgement on happycatholic behavior. If you wish to abolish the behavior then do it in a PM and not publically. I for one agree with the defense of her own mind against those which wish to misled her. Now, unless you are able to get a Bishop to over-ride my opinion then you are perhaps the problem and not happycatholic, for those who do not guard themselves as happycatholic has are certaintly soon to be found in the same bed as Satan.

You are free to believe such. I am merely stating facts as I see. You point out that the attacks should de “abolished in PM” why if they were done in public manner? Godly admonition and truth has yet to hurt a soul or bring them to the point of death, only to their knees.
IMO padrej needs Purgatory as do other Catholics, 2 Maccabees is our common root to this.

 

[Padrej]

You are free to believe such. I am merely stating facts as I see. You point out that the attacks should de “abolished in PM” why if they were done in public manner? Godly admonition and truth has yet to hurt a soul or bring them to the point of death, only to their knees.
IMO padrej needs Purgatory as do other Catholics, 2 Maccabees is our common root to this.

I don’t have a problem with the doctrine of purgatory as it as HISTORICALLY been taught. I do not prefer modern interpretations of it. Happycatholic is free as far as I am concerned to live in her happy world. As. I said, I am going to continue to pray for her as that is what my faith teaches. I hoped my extending an olive branch so to speak to meet me in person at Notre Dame U would help but it obviously did not.

 

[FrJohnB]

I don’t have a problem with the doctrine of purgatory as it as HISTORICALLY been taught. I do not prefer modern interpretations of it. Happycatholic is free as far as I am concerned to live in her happy world. As. I said, I am going to continue to pray for her as that is what my faith teaches. I hoped my extending an olive branch so to speak to meet me in person at Notre Dame U would help but it obviously did not.

As far as I wold be concerned then padre I would let her answer, you extended the offer of peace it is now up to her to pick it up. Say hello to David Solomon for me at Notre Dame.
He will know Fr John Brandereth.

 

[catholicsuffer]

You are free to believe such. I am merely stating facts as I see. You point out that the attacks should de “abolished in PM” why if they were done in public manner? Godly admonition and truth has yet to hurt a soul or bring them to the point of death, only to their knees.
IMO padrej needs Purgatory as do other Catholics, 2 Maccabees is our common root to this.

I actually meant admonish not abolished. So, your goal is to bring her down to her knees. Perhaps you need to spend more time in prayers and a little less in public forums. God bless you.
Just as you…I am merely stating the facts as I see.