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

[Javl]

I would think that Jesus most certainly DID teach otherwise. Luke 16:19-31 Jesus describes the death of two persons the DO NOT go to a holding place but go straight to their reward. Lazarus goes straight to Abraham’s bosom (Heaven) and the rich man goes straight to Hell. Absolutely no mention of Purgatory.
On the Cross Jesus turns to the repentant thief who tradition calls Dismas and says “THIS DAY you will be with me in Paradise.” Once again, no holding place. No mention of Purgatory.
Just because Jesus does not directly rebuke a teaching or custom did not mean he did not oppose it. The same type of argument is used by those who tout the homosexual agenda to say that Jesus never directly condemned homosexuality so it must be alright.

Your argument against Purgatory is also typical. Did you stop to think that because of Lazarus’ good life and suffering that his temporal punishment may have been remitted? Or that Jesus may have remitted the temporal punishment of the thief ( He had the power to do so ). As for hell, we condemn ourselves by rejecting God and His truths. God does not condemn, He wants all to enjoy eternal bliss with Him, but His justice does demand
payment.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Padrej]

Your argument against Purgatory is also typical. Did you stop to think that because of Lazarus’ good life and suffering that his temporal punishment may have been remitted? Or that Jesus may have remitted the temporal punishment of the thief ( He had the power to do so ). As for hell, we condemn ourselves by rejecting God and His truths. God does not condemn, He wants all to enjoy eternal bliss with Him, but His justice does demand
payment.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

The problem with that argument is that Lazarus in the time of Jesus would have been considered “unclean” because of the sores that covered him and the “dogs that came to lick him.” Now in Jesus’ day the Rich man would have been already considered blessed by God because of his wealth and Lazarus cursed because of the poor health and the fact that dogs licked the sores, an unclean act. So what was Lazarus being punished for is the question. By omission I believe the answer to be nothing. The same as the answer given when the disciples asked Jesus “why was this man born blind? Who sinned the mother or the father?” as if some punishment is being exacted by the disease, which is what your argument implies in saying “temporal punishment may have been remitted.” Jesus replied, “nobody sinned, it was done so that the glory of God could be shown.”

By the same token “If justice demands payment,” as you say, by the same token justice would also reward. As St. Paul says, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Also, no mention of “hold on before you meet God till some people pray for you or some masses are said for you.” Do you find this in the Bible? With all due respect, if you want to make a Protestant listen tie your beliefs more to the verses of scripture than to church tradition and “this is typical.” Defend your faith by the Bible. There are some good Catholic apologetic courses out there that teach how to defend your faith with the Bible not “the church says” or “that is typical” or “I expect you to say that” responses.

 

[Deconi]

The problem with that argument is that Lazarus in the time of Jesus would have been considered “unclean” because of the sores that covered him and the “dogs that came to lick him.” Now in Jesus’ day the Rich man would have been already considered blessed by God because of his wealth and Lazarus cursed because of the poor health and the fact that dogs licked the sores, an unclean act. So what was Lazarus being punished for is the question. By omission I believe the answer to be nothing. The same as the answer given when the disciples asked Jesus “why was this man born blind? Who sinned the mother or the father?” as if some punishment is being exacted by the disease, which is what your argument implies in saying “temporal punishment may have been remitted.” Jesus replied, “nobody sinned, it was done so that the glory of God could be shown.”

By the same token “If justice demands payment,” as you say, by the same token justice would also reward. As St. Paul says, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Also, no mention of “hold on before you meet God till some people pray for you or some masses are said for you.” Do you find this in the Bible? With all due respect, if you want to make a Protestant listen tie your beliefs more to the verses of scripture than to church tradition and “this is typical.” Defend your faith by the Bible. There are some good Catholic apologetic courses out there that teach how to defend your faith with the Bible not “the church says” or “that is typical” or “I expect you to say that” responses.

Was Lazarus in Heaven when Jesus summoned him back? … to live?

IF that is the case, why did Lazarus NOT appear in the ‘pure’ state as they whom Our Lord met with in the presence of The Apostles?

Is it easier to assume that Lazarus was actually whole and complete with his soul in the grave, or that he was NOT in Heaven (Beatific vision) or Hell but someplace else?

 

[Padrej]

Was Lazarus in Heaven when Jesus summoned him back? … to live?

IF that is the case, why did Lazarus NOT appear in the ‘pure’ state as they whom Our Lord met with in the presence of The Apostles?

Is it easier to assume that Lazarus was actually whole and complete with his soul in the grave, or that he was NOT in Heaven (Beatific vision) or Hell but someplace else?

Can you please explain “pure” state"?
If you are eluding to now the raising of Lazarus From John’s Gospel which is a different man than Luke’s Gospel that what we had been speaking about the body and soul are two different entities. We are three part beings Mind, body, spirit. In order for your “whole complete soul in the grave theory” to work you mention you would have to believe in the doctrine of “soul sleep” that the Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in where the soul sleeps in the grave until Jesus calls it back and use this very scripture as one of their main defenses. Last I checked you had yourself listed as Catholic not Jehovah’s Witness.

Going back to St. Paul Lazarus would have been with the Lord (his soul) and would have been called back by Jesus. The reason Jesus waited 4 days is because of the old Jewish belief of the day that held the soul hovered over the body for 3 days in case of a coma like state reversed. Martha’s response to Jesus, “there would be an odor” lets us know that he was DEAD no if’s and or buts. Christ is the only one with the keys to Hell and death so He can transcend and raise whomever He darn well pleases if their soul is in Heaven or not. Do you not believe that part of scripture also?:bible1:

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

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…

 

[Padrej]

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…

I think herein lies the problem of Protestant Versus Catholic on Purgatory. The Roman Catholics would use this verse and those surrounding it to justify Purgatory.
However, The Protestants would disagree that this would never be the interpretation of these verses; they would interpret the verse to mean that your works would be judged to stand the trials of “fire” that the world would dish out to it based on their faith because the passage starts ‘No other foundation can you lay than what has already been laid which is Christ Jesus.’ (basically saying you can’t add to what Jesus has already done) With this in mind a Protestant would look at this passage in its context and say, “oh so the work that I do for Christ is laid on His foundation.” If one backs up further you find a similar thought in St, Paul speaking in verses 5-9, where he speaks of the work he did then Apollos then other ministers implying that we all add our works to what Christ already started. These works are tested. The question then becomes are they tested after death? Or are they tested “in the day” as verse 13 implies? If you take verse 13 alone it is in your lifetime, in its context it is all your life and beyond because St. Paul is also speaking of living persons whose “work” is also presently being tested (his, Apollos’ and those who followed them).
Makes one wonder will we ever stop arguing over the little things and start being what Christ called us to be—His disciples.
As I understand it from reading the Catechism this dogma/ doctrine is not an essential belief to BE considered a Roman Catholic so why is SO MUCH time spent arguing over it? Can anyone answer that???

 

[lookaround]

on the topic of 2 Maccabees
it does not teach Purgatory or prayers for the dead (as the RCC teaches it)

since idolatry is a mortal sin (they died with the idols on them)

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
1 John 5:16

it is possible that some of them repented before they died, but doubtful since it was during a battle.
if I remember correctly the text also says they died because they were idolaters

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The reason we argue for it, is because it IS a dogma of the Catholic faith, we are, in fact, required to believe it. I believe there are good reasons for believing besides simply the fact that the Church teaches it, although that is of course the main reason.

The context of the judgement doesn’t hurt the Catholic belief at all, since the entire context of 1 Corinthians 3:10-17 specifies the three destinations which will be the ultimate outcomes of judgement day for each individual. I assume we can all agree that “The Day” refers to judgement, especially since salvation does appear to be an issue, in fact is highlighted in this passage? And also since God will destroy those who destroy His temple, which also has the loss of salvation, i.e, spiritual death in mind?

Keeping that in mind, the works are judged, but the individual himself suffers loss as well. In other contexts this phrase is used in the form of punishent. The phrase “yet as through” is also translated “in the same way” “likewise”, etc. It’s not just the individual’s works, the individual himself will suffer loss as through fire if he hasn’t enough “gems” in the bank.

Those that have maliciously destroyed God’s temple will be destroyed. The context of judgement, the clarity of the Greek, and the fact that Paul is addressing believers and warning of the possibility of their destruction by God on “the day,” combined with varying degrees of works AND the individual suffering loss through fire, all fit in quite nicely with Catholic dogma on this matter.

I add to the fact that God is a refiner’s fire, a burning love. I add a related, bot non-scriptural nugget that Prior to her wedding, a Jewish woman in the time of Christ was given a cleansing bath to purify her before meeting the groom. Interesting, considering all the very strong Jewish marriage imagery used throughout the Scriptures. Is it something I would hang my entire argument on? No, but it’s interesting nonetheless. It lets me see purgatory less as a bunch of proof texts and more as an organic whole demonstrating Christ’s salvific ways. I also find it interesting that the Temple (according to Rabbinic sources) was also seen as a manifestation of the Spiritual life, and how before drawing close to God, one had to purify oneself.

You have to be actually pure to enter heaven, not imputed, not covered, not anything but the real deal. Every Protestant would seem to inherently understand that he is not perfect like Christ. They seem to instinctively understand that some cleansing is warranted, because they must be perfect. They just really have a problem with their conception of what we believe about Purgatory. Fortunately, according to the Catechism you graciously took the time to read, Purgatory is a dogma, but it is not strenuously defined. 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.

 

[Javl]

The problem with that argument is that Lazarus in the time of Jesus would have been considered “unclean” because of the sores that covered him and the “dogs that came to lick him.” Now in Jesus’ day the Rich man would have been already considered blessed by God because of his wealth and Lazarus cursed because of the poor health and the fact that dogs licked the sores, an unclean act. So what was Lazarus being punished for is the question. By omission I believe the answer to be nothing. The same as the answer given when the disciples asked Jesus “why was this man born blind? Who sinned the mother or the father?” as if some punishment is being exacted by the disease, which is what your argument implies in saying “temporal punishment may have been remitted.” Jesus replied, “nobody sinned, it was done so that the glory of God could be shown.”

By the same token “If justice demands payment,” as you say, by the same token justice would also reward. As St. Paul says, “To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord.” Also, no mention of “hold on before you meet God till some people pray for you or some masses are said for you.” Do you find this in the Bible? With all due respect, if you want to make a Protestant listen tie your beliefs more to the verses of scripture than to church tradition and “this is typical.” Defend your faith by the Bible. There are some good Catholic apologetic courses out there that teach how to defend your faith with the Bible not “the church says” or “that is typical” or “I expect you to say that” responses.

Thank you for your response. I do tie my answers to scripture, but also use logic and the culture of the times in my answers. As for Lazarus being unclean doesn’t mean that he was unclean in the eyes of God. And that the rich man may have been considered blessed by God, but not in God’s eyes. Your remarks consider only what the Jews thought of the situation. Only God knows what the true situation was. If Lazarus was unclean, then why is he in the bosom of Abraham and also if the rich man was blessed by God, then why was he in hell? Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God. I also believe what my Church says since it has taught the same truths for these past 1927 years that Jesus and the Apostles taught, without change or modification. To
try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Steadfast_love]

on the topic of 2 Maccabees
it does not teach Purgatory or prayers for the dead (as the RCC teaches it)

since idolatry is a mortal sin (they died with the idols on them)

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
1 John 5:16

it is possible that some of them repented before they died, but doubtful since it was during a battle.
if I remember correctly the text also says they died because they were idolaters

No, not idolatry. For wearing idols.

They were supposed to

1. sack the town
2. destroy all the idols and
3. keep the jewelry for themselves.

The problem was that some of the stuff they kept was a of gray line – idolatrous jewelry. And since some of the people might have died thinking they were doing the right thing, their sin might not have been done without full knowledge, in ignorance, and therefore not a mortal sin.

Whereas after the post-battle clarification and wholesale destruction of necklaces there was no excuse for ignorance.

 

[Padrej]

Thank you for your response. I do tie my answers to scripture, but also use logic and the culture of the times in my answers. As for Lazarus being unclean doesn’t mean that he was unclean in the eyes of God. And that the rich man may have been considered blessed by God, but not in God’s eyes. Your remarks consider only what the Jews thought of the situation. Only God knows what the true situation was. If Lazarus was unclean, then why is he in the bosom of Abraham and also if the rich man was blessed by God, then why was he in hell? Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God. I also believe what my Church says since it has taught the same truths for these past 1927 years that Jesus and the Apostles taught, without change or modification. To
try to prove otherwise is an exercise in futility. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

To your “Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God” I would ask ARE YOU? 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? It would seem that that was a final punishment of the dammed. The rich man obviously had faith because he asked “father Abraham” to allow Lazarus “to go back and warn his brothers” and the response was “they have Moses and the prophets.” Obviously he had them also in his faith walk but it did not work because he was put into hell. But why not Purgatory? If the Jews of the day believed it as everyone believed, why didn’t Jesus say “Purgatory” or “the holding place” or “the place of departed spirits” but clearly put him in Hell. Jesus only mentioned two places, Heaven and Hell in all of his teachings. Are you saying that Jesus’ words changed after His death to include Purgatory? (Please I am not trying to be argumentative but merely trying to see your logic clearly.)

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?

 

[PJM]

=Padrej;5802477]Many Protestants feel that this verse refers to the moment you die that you face the judgment (one shot) there would be not chance to be cleansed in a holding place such as Purgatory where this verse would not stand up. Purgatory would imply that there is a place where you are judged on sins mortal, venial, or otherwise and then once purged looked at again and judged again to be cleaned hence to a protestant it would seem to be a ridiculous argument. We would side with the Eastern Orthodox and call it heresy to believe such.

I fully understand the Catholic arguments that no unclean thing can enter heaven etc. etc. HOWEVER, one of the first churches I served as an ordained pastor had a person who was a lapsed Catholic who had a letter from her former bishop that claimed that when she died she would never see Purgatory but go straight to Heaven due to the fact that she had taught catechism classes for three years. She firmly believed in her mind that she could live any lifestyle of sin she wanted and it was all because she held this piece of paper from the bishop that she blatantly called her “get out of jail free card.”
I doubt that most Catholics believe this way but I have run into many who have in my 20 plus years in ministry, including ones who believe that kissing a “Pardon Crucifix” daily will get them out of Purgatory also. I hope that this has made my point clearer. If you are going to cling to a doctrine defend it and don’t play with it or play at church either for that matter. That was the purpose of asking to defend in the light of the “appointed once to die and then the judgment” passage.

Hi Pastor, wonderful responce. Thanks!

As trere are Billions of Catholics in the world, and the “second largest group of christians” is "fallen away catholics, it seems fair to claim that catechesis within the Church needs improvement. Clearly there is abundant lack of understanding by some. Some by personal choice and sloth, some by circumstances and some beyond ones itmediate control.

Pastor, if you’ll look at my signiture quote on truth, you will note, that none of this changes what is THE TRUTH.

I am always surprised at what seems to ME [a personal subjective observation] at the apparent lack of undwerstanding of the Divine Nature of God. yes Pastor, we agree that God and man do not think alike. Nor can we ever fully understand the “Mind of God.”

That said, one of the cheif goals of the Incarnation of Jesus, was to permit humanity to know there God in a more real and personal manner, than at any time in world history. In fact it is fair to say that God desires a personal relationship with man, more than man does with God. From callinf Abram, Noah, Moses, David and Solomon, The Prophets, John The baptist, Mary His Mother, and the Apostles and Paul, to me and you, God gives evidence od His desire for a personal relatiuonship with us, His Created.

If fact, God’s desire is so powerful in this regard, that it influenced how we are made "in the Image of God [Gen. 1:26-27.] The gift attributes of maind, intellect and freewill are given specifically to that we can choose to enter into such a personal relationship.

Among God;s many Perfect attributes; “God being all and every good thing perfectly” are the necessary attributes of Divine and perfect Justice and Fairness. Both which we would agree are “good things.” So then, this being an establised fact I ask how can God who must be, and therefore certainly is perfectly “just and perfectly fair” able to judge us all alike? [1 Jn. 1: 8-9, 1 Jn. 5: 16-18, Jn. 20:22-23].

For example, You steal $50.00 from me [It’s not going to take any food off my table] and when I confront you, you refuse to give it back. In anger I kill you. as I am attempting my escape I too am killed by an automobile.

So here we are both with unrepented and unconfessed sin on our souls. Can a Just and Fair God judge us in the same manner? Your’s was a less and minor sin, mine is a “Mortal sin” [1: Jn. 5:16-18]. Can, will God judge us the same? And if one can’t enter into heaven without being “made perfect” [Mt. 5:48, 1 Pet. 1: 15-16] what then happens to you? Or are we free to commit all the “minor sins” we wish with no consequences?

Love and prayers Pastor,

Pat

 

[Padrej]

Hi Pastor, wonderful responce. Thanks!

As trere are Billions of Catholics in the world, and the “second largest group of christians” is "fallen away catholics, it seems fair to claim that catechesis within the Church needs improvement. Clearly there is abundant lack of understanding by some. Some by personal choice and sloth, some by circumstances and some beyond ones itmediate control.

Pastor, if you’ll look at my signiture quote on truth, you will note, that none of this changes what is THE TRUTH.

I am always surprised at what seems to ME [a personal subjective observation] at the apparent lack of undwerstanding of the Divine Nature of God. yes Pastor, we agree that God and man do not think alike. Nor can we ever fully understand the “Mind of God.”

That said, one of the cheif goals of the Incarnation of Jesus, was to permit humanity to know there God in a more real and personal manner, than at any time in world history. In fact it is fair to say that God desires a personal relationship with man, more than man does with God. From callinf Abram, Noah, Moses, David and Solomon, The Prophets, John The baptist, Mary His Mother, and the Apostles and Paul, to me and you, God gives evidence od His desire for a personal relatiuonship with us, His Created.

If fact, God’s desire is so powerful in this regard, that it influenced how we are made "in the Image of God [Gen. 1:26-27.] The gift attributes of maind, intellect and freewill are given specifically to that we can choose to enter into such a personal relationship.

Among God;s many Perfect attributes; “God being all and every good thing perfectly” are the necessary attributes of Divine and perfect Justice and Fairness. Both which we would agree are “good things.” So then, this being an establised fact I ask how can God who must be, and therefore certainly is perfectly “just and perfectly fair” able to judge us all alike? [1 Jn. 1: 8-9, 1 Jn. 5: 16-18, Jn. 20:22-23].

For example, You steal $50.00 from me [It’s not going to take any food off my table] and when I confront you, you refuse to give it back. In anger I kill you. as I am attempting my escape I too am killed by an automobile.

So here we are both with unrepented and unconfessed sin on our souls. Can a Just and Fair God judge us in the same manner? Your’s was a less and minor sin, mine is a “Mortal sin” [1: Jn. 5:16-18]. Can, will God judge us the same? And if one can’t enter into heaven without being “made perfect” [Mt. 5:48, 1 Pet. 1: 15-16] what then happens to you? Or are we free to commit all the “minor sins” we wish with no consequences?

Love and prayers Pastor,

Pat

I do love your quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen, I till like to watch the re-runs of his show on EWTN. I actually wish that they would show him more during the prime time so that today’s Catholics would see what a brilliant mind and theologian that he really was and how he was respected by both Catholics and Protestants alike.

As to your stealing, murdering being killed and we both face God illustration. Let us look at sin from GOD’S viewpoint, not man’s. Man views one sin as greater than another, I stole one paper clip from the office but you embezzled $3,000 so you have the greater sin. You cut me off in traffic and I get angry at you and you cut off another and in road rage she shoots you, who is more guilty? Jesus said if you are so much as angry with a brother you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:22) The book of James chapter 2: verse 10 says that if you are guilty of the smallest point of the law you are guilty of it all. So in your illustration, in God’s eyes all sin is equal, there is no sin that is above another. In our eyes we like to justify ourselves before God by saying, “I am not as bad as he/she is because I didn’t do this,” this is the very thing that Jesus condemned the Pharisee for in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector because the Pharisee was saying that because he didn’t commit this sin he was ok, the tax collector knew he was a rotten low down piece of filth in God’s eyes because of sin.
So Bishop Sheen would agree that Truth prevails still, we are both sinners in God’s eyes.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The book of James chapter 2: verse 10 says that if you are guilty of the smallest point of the law you are guilty of it all. So in your illustration, in God’s eyes all sin is equal, there is no sin that is above another. In our eyes we like to justify ourselves before God by saying, “I am not as bad as he/she is because I didn’t do this,” this is the very thing that Jesus condemned the Pharisee for in the story of the Pharisee and the tax collector because the Pharisee was saying that because he didn’t commit this sin he was ok, the tax collector knew he was a rotten low down piece of filth in God’s eyes because of sin.
So Bishop Sheen would agree that Truth prevails still, we are both sinners in God’s eyes.

What James is saying is that anyone who breaks one part of the law is guilty of breaking the law itself. A person who breaks one law has broken the law as a whole, and he becomes a lawbreaker, which is James’s point, as evident from the next verse: “For he who said, Do not commit adultery,' said also, Do not kill.’ If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law” (Jas 2:11).

And don’t ignore 1 John 5:17: “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Luke 12:47-48 tells us that even the same sin under different circumstances has different weight: “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

John 19:11: “’. . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.’”

Also, one should be attentive to what the early Church believed:

The Didache AD 70
“Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ready, for you know not the hour in which our Lord comes. But you shall assemble together often, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if you be not made complete in the last time” (Didache 16).

Ignatius of Antioch AD 110
“And pray without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God?” (Letter to the Ephesians 10).

Justin Martyr AD 156
“[E]ternal fire was prepared for him who voluntarily departed from God and for all who, without repentance, persevere in apostasy” (fragment in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:26).

Irenaeus AD 189
“[T]o Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ [Phil. 2:10–11] to him, and that he should execute just judgment towards all. . . . [T]he ungodly and unrighteous and wicked and profane among men [shall go] into everlasting fire; but [he] may, in the exercise of his grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept his commandments, and have persevered in his love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their penance, and may surround them with everlasting glory” (Against Heresies 1:10:1).

 

[PJM]

=Padrej;5804581]To your “Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God” I would ask ARE YOU? 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? It would seem that that was a final punishment of the dammed. The rich man obviously had faith because he asked “father Abraham” to allow Lazarus “to go back and warn his brothers” and the response was “they have Moses and the prophets.” Obviously he had them also in his faith walk but it did not work because he was put into hell. But why not Purgatory?

Friend, maybe I can clarify? It seems you are confusing “couldn’t” and “can’t.”

“Could not” would mean that God lacked the power, the ability to do so. This cannot be true of an “all-powerful God.”

"Cannot"on the other hand, implies a matter of Divine “Will.” God can be described as “all Goods things Perfected.” So we ask are Justice and Fairness “good things?” Obviously the answer is yes! Thus we affirm that God literally must be both Just and Fair in His decisions and judgements. Our final judgemt is based on our lifes deeds. [1 Peter 1:17]

The rich man sought and received his reward in the earthly life, and was judged as having loved the false idols of wealth and influence. Thus he chose for himself eternal hell. God only affirmed his decision! Lazurus on the other hand, accepted his fate, never lost sight of God, and he too chose his afterlife reward, which God sffirmed. We should further not that God jusges ones heart and deeds, not ones exterior self. Rather the interior soul!

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.?

BY “revisions” should mean, enligntened by the HS insights. Basic Doctrine of Heaven and hell never changed, but the need for purification became more clear over time, without effecting the basic H and H Doctrine. That friend is not revision, it in clairifucation.

See 1 Peter 1: 15-16, and Mt. 5:48. These are the foundational teachings to the understanding. Also one must go back and look at Mcabees’s chapter 12. Praying for the dead was also a Jewish Tradition.

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Padrej]

What James is saying is that anyone who breaks one part of the law is guilty of breaking the law itself. A person who breaks one law has broken the law as a whole, and he becomes a lawbreaker, which is James’s point, as evident from the next verse: “For he who said, Do not commit adultery,' said also, Do not kill.’ If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law” (Jas 2:11).

And don’t ignore 1 John 5:17: “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Luke 12:47-48 tells us that even the same sin under different circumstances has different weight: “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.”

John 19:11: “’. . . he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.’”

Also, one should be attentive to what the early Church believed:

Are you then saying when Jesus was asked “What is the greatest commandment of the law” and then later he spoke of the least of the commandments (Matthew 5 19) that there are parts of God’s law that should be ignored or not worried about if you don’t fulfill those as well? Jesus said if you do not do even the LEAST you will be called the least. Romans 6:23 tells us plainly that “the wages of sin is death.” Does this mean all sins are NOT equal? Under the law is a gossip equal to a mass murderer? (it clearly says it is) Is a petty thief just as sinful as a child molester? (ditto) Although all sin merits the death penalty, it requires the blood of Christ for expiation; that is what levels the playing field.

Israel’s making of the Golden Calf while Moses spoke with God on Mt. Sinai is an Old Testament example of the sin of idolatry (Exodus 32). When he returned, Moses told the Israelites that they had “sinned a GREAT SIN” (verses 21, 30-31). The sin of idolatry is so terrible that Moses reports the Eternal as saying, “Whoever has sinned against Me, I will blot him out of My book” (verse 33). Being blotted out of the Book of Life may be the most horrible way to end one’s existence.
James writes that if we disobey one commandment, we are guilty of all (James 2:10). One sin breaks the entire code of laws. Yet in some of the worse sins, we find that in one act, multiple sins are actually committed. In this example, by committing this great sin, the Israelites directly disobeyed the first two commandments and in principle the third and fourth. They defied the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before Me” (Exodus 20:2), when they turned from God in His seeming absence and raised up the Golden Calf to represent something they feared and respected more than God.
They disregarded the second commandment, “You shall not make for yourself any carved image, . . . you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” (Exodus 20:3-4), when they made the Golden Calf, placed it in a position of reverence and worshiped it instead of the Eternal God. They broke the third commandment, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” (Exodus 20:7), when they referred to God as “the Golden Calf.” They misappropriated the holy name of God for a profane use. They transgressed the fourth commandment, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8), when Aaron proclaimed a feast day on which to worship the Golden Calf. By this, the Israelites established their own day of worship to their false god.
You mention what Jesus says to Pilate during His trial: “Jesus answered, ‘You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin’” (John 19:11). It is because they had multiple sins together. They had condemned him without proper witnesses, arrested him at night, paid a traitor, looked for false witnesses etc. this is why they had “greater sin.”

 

[Des]

on the topic of 2 Maccabees
it does not teach Purgatory or prayers for the dead (as the RCC teaches it)

since idolatry is a mortal sin (they died with the idols on them)

If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that.
1 John 5:16

it is possible that some of them repented before they died, but doubtful since it was during a battle.
if I remember correctly the text also says they died because they were idolaters

The Catholic Church would today do as they did and pray for people who ‘appeared’ to have died in mortal sin. Why? Because we are not the final judge of their souls and nobody knows what goes on between God and Man with even but a fraction of their life left.
The Church wouldn’t even dare say that Hitler is in Hell.

Many Protestants feel that this verse refers to the moment you die that you face the judgement (one shot) there would be not chance to be cleansed in a holding place such as Purgatory where this verse would not stand up. Purgatory would imply that there is a place where you are judged on sins mortal, venial, or otherwise and then once purged looked at again and judged again to be cleaned hence to a protestant it would seem to be a ridiculous argument.

That verse goes fine with the concept of Purgatory. When we die, we are judged for eternal life or eternal death. Purgatory are for those ‘already’ judged to receive eternal life yet still have imperfections on their soul.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin’" (John 19:11). It is because they had multiple sins together. They had condemned him without proper witnesses, arrested him at night, paid a traitor, looked for false witnesses etc. this is why they had “greater sin.”

I’m pretty sure this is what you would call “reading into Scripture”

 

[Padrej]

=Padrej;5804581]To your “Protestants do not take into consideration the workings of God” I would ask ARE YOU? 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

 

[Padrej]

That verse goes fine with the concept of Purgatory. When we die, we are judged for eternal life or eternal death. Purgatory are for those ‘already’ judged to receive eternal life yet still have imperfections on their soul.

So then you are saying the Blood of Christ does NOT have the power to cleanse ALL sins. That Christ was NOT the perfect Sacrifice for the whole world not was he the perfect sacrifice? Is that what I hear you saying? So then Purgatory cleanses away the sins NOT covered by the Blood of Christ? Is this what the Catholic church really is saying?