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

[happilycatholic]

padrej:

I just realized I didn’t really answer the part of your question about indulgences. What I was saying about punishment plays a huge role in the concept of indulgences.

If one believes that Purgatory is a place where we are punished, then one must believe that indulgences somehow are bargaining chips paid to the Lord for His mercy.

Well, Scripture clearly tells us that His mercy is free. So what of indulgences?

If you think back to what I’ve been saying about atonement and purification, you will quickly be able to reconcile indulgences with these. Instead of bargaining with the Lord for lesser punishment, you are cleansing your soul by serving the Lord.

One simply cannot serve the Lord and themselves at the same time. Everything we do must be to one simple end, to worship God. So if I serve soup at the Mission to “work off” my time in Purgatory because I believe it to be punishment, how does that serve anyone but myself? There’s too much wiggle room there.

However, if I know that because of the things of this world and the things I’ve done to disappoint God, I must be cleansed in order for me to stand in His presence, I would do anything to be with God.

Now this is what happens, I want to be with God so I serve God’s people. OR I want to avoid punishment and be with God so I serve God’s people.

With the punishment theory of Purgatory, serving God becomes also serving myself. Atonement however serves only God’s will and that is for us to love one another and to be with Him in Heaven.

God is merciful but He also tells us that sin is painful and unclean to our souls. He forgives us but we still have the stains of this world to remove. If we are saved by Baptism, we are forgiven and only need to be purified for the sins for which we did not atone.

Purgatory is not pain-less but it is not the fire and brimstone doctrine of the early Church and Protestant religions.

Side Note: Earlier it was mentioned that we must accept all the teachings of the Early Church and its councils, but our faith as catholics evolves. It does not change en toto, but it does evolve. The way the Church carries out God’s will changes and evolves to accommodate the times. Take for instance the Church’s view on Protestants, it has softened to the point that the Church no longer officially states that anyone outside of the Church cannot be saved. To the contrary, the Church teaches that all human beings have the potential to be saved, even without Baptism. The Church teaches that we cannot rightly know who God chooses and who He doesn’t. That is left to God.

The point is this, not all catholic teaching is “Dogma”. This is very important. If you plan to convert and attend RCIA, ask this question first: What is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma? Dogma is Truth revealed by God, it is infallible and not questionable and does not change. Doctrine are truths revealed by the Church, are not infallible, and binding while propagated (depending on certitude) and open to change. Not every pronouncement at a Council is proclaimed Dogma. Of the 800 pages of documents contained in Vatican II, not one single infallible declaration was made. In other words, no new Dogma was revealed. Yes, javl is right it all comes under the teaching of the Magesterium, but it is not necessarily Dogma. This is where many, many folks fall prey to error in matters of the catholic faith, even catholics. It’s like putting limitations on God’s will. God’s will has never changed, but the ways he effects His will has. i.e. Old Testament and New Testament. So to say that the Church cannot change the way it effects God’s will under the direction of the Holy Spirit Himself, is to limit God and His will for us.

There are lots of good books out there about doctrine vs. dogma.

The differing views on Purgatory doesn’t mean Dogma has changed, it means that the Church has grown into a fuller understanding of God’s will for us and His Church and doctrine has changed. And if we believe that the Church reveals the full Truth, we should change with it and not hold on to old moldy ideas.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[Padrej]

padrej:

I just realized I didn’t really answer the part of your question about indulgences. What I was saying about punishment plays a huge role in the concept of indulgences.

If one believes that Purgatory is a place where we are punished, then one must believe that indulgences somehow are bargaining chips paid to the Lord for His mercy.

Well, Scripture clearly tells us that His mercy is free. So what of indulgences?

If you think back to what I’ve been saying about atonement and purification, you will quickly be able to reconcile indulgences with these. Instead of bargaining with the Lord for lesser punishment, you are cleansing your soul by serving the Lord.

However, if I know that because of the things of this world and the things I’ve done to disappoint God, I must be cleansed in order for me to stand in His presence, I would do anything to be with God.

Now this is what happens, I want to be with God so I serve God’s people. OR I want to avoid punishment and be with God so I serve God’s people.

With the punishment theory of Purgatory, serving God becomes also serving myself. Atonement however serves only God’s will and that is for us to love one another and to be with Him in Heaven.

God is merciful but He also tells us that sin is painful and unclean to our souls. He forgives us but we still have the stains of this world to remove. If we are saved by Baptism, we are forgiven and only need to be purified for the sins for which we did not atone.

Purgatory is not pain-less but it is not the fire and brimstone doctrine of the early Church and Protestant religions.

Side Note: Earlier it was mentioned that we must accept all the teachings of the Early Church and its councils, but our faith as catholics evolves. It does not change en toto, but it does evolve. The way the Church carries out God’s will changes and evolves to accommodate the times. Take for instance the Church’s view on Protestants, it has softened to the point that the Church no longer officially states that anyone outside of the Church cannot be saved. To the contrary, the Church teaches that all human beings have the potential to be saved, even without Baptism. The Church teaches that we cannot rightly know who God chooses and who He doesn’t. That is left to God.

The point is this, not all catholic teaching is “Dogma”. This is very important. If you plan to convert and attend RCIA, ask this question first: What is the difference between Doctrine and Dogma? Dogma is Truth revealed by God, it is infallible and not questionable and does not change. Doctrine are truths revealed by the Church, are not infallible, and binding while propagated (depending on certitude) and open to change. Not every pronouncement at a Council is proclaimed Dogma. Of the 800 pages of documents contained in Vatican II, not one single infallible declaration was made. In other words, no new Dogma was revealed. Yes, javl is right it all comes under the teaching of the Magesterium, but it is not necessarily Dogma. This is where many, many folks fall prey to error in matters of the catholic faith, even catholics. It’s like putting limitations on God’s will. God’s will has never changed, but the ways he effects His will has. i.e. Old Testament and New Testament. So to say that the Church cannot change the way it effects God’s will under the direction of the Holy Spirit Himself, is to limit God and His will for us.

There are lots of good books out there about doctrine vs. dogma.

The differing views on Purgatory doesn’t mean Dogma has changed, it means that the Church has grown into a fuller understanding of God’s will for us and His Church and doctrine has changed. And if we believe that the Church reveals the full Truth, we should change with it and not hold on to old moldy ideas.

God Bless,

~Tonya

Tonya
Thank you for responding to my post. I wanted to also let you and others in on a deeper Protestant perspective on this area of forgiveness that tends to be why we question the need for Purgatory in the first place. Keep in mind we think in language.

I want to look at 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
In Greek:
9εαν ομολογωμεν τας αμαρτιας ημων πιστος εστιν και δικαιος ινα αφη ημιν τας αμαρτιας και καθαριση ημας απο πασης αδικιας

Consider this, John was the beloved disciple and knew intimately the teachings of Jesus so we know that what he says would be spot on. When I was growing up, I thought the first part of this “confess our sins” meant either go to a priest or go to God with the laundry list of sins so that the appropriate penance/ punishment could be dished out. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that a soul searching inventory is not good for you because it is very good. BUT, the original Greek, the second word, “Homologomen” literally means “to come into agreement with” or “to be at one word with.” So to confess, as soon as you say, “I am out of line with what God’s words says,” THAT is the moment according to this passage that you are forgiven. The rest of the passage in Greek that gets translated “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” literally means you are cleansed as if the sin never happened and there is no consequence whatsoever, the debt is totally paid, period. This is where Protestant thought does not like Purgatory and its “cleansing fire” because the Original Greek says, if we confess those sins they are gone there is no punishment left, no stain, no punishment. Now do we pay for the sin on earth? Yes because we life in the flesh, but the spirit and soul are clean.
I hope that explains the difference .

 

[happilycatholic]

Tonya
Thank you for responding to my post. I wanted to also let you and others in on a deeper Protestant perspective on this area of forgiveness that tends to be why we question the need for Purgatory in the first place. Keep in mind we think in language.

I want to look at 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
In Greek:
9εαν ομολογωμεν τας αμαρτιας ημων πιστος εστιν και δικαιος ινα αφη ημιν τας αμαρτιας και καθαριση ημας απο πασης αδικιας

Consider this, John was the beloved disciple and knew intimately the teachings of Jesus so we know that what he says would be spot on. When I was growing up, I thought the first part of this “confess our sins” meant either go to a priest or go to God with the laundry list of sins so that the appropriate penance/ punishment could be dished out. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that a soul searching inventory is not good for you because it is very good. BUT, the original Greek, the second word, “Homologomen” literally means “to come into agreement with” or “to be at one word with.” So to confess, as soon as you say, “I am out of line with what God’s words says,” THAT is the moment according to this passage that you are forgiven. The rest of the passage in Greek that gets translated “cleanse us from all unrighteousness” literally means you are cleansed as if the sin never happened and there is no consequence whatsoever, the debt is totally paid, period. This is where Protestant thought does not like Purgatory and its “cleansing fire” because the Original Greek says, if we confess those sins they are gone there is no punishment left, no stain, no punishment. Now do we pay for the sin on earth? Yes because we life in the flesh, but the spirit and soul are clean.
I hope that explains the difference .

Good one! This is an excellent challenge for the discernment of the full Truth.

I think you are spot on in your analogy, but the timing of the cleansing could be something other than instantaneous, right? The passage does not assume the timing, so we can’t either. There are other passages in Scripture which do denote a particular timing of the ‘cleansing of the soul’ after death. Could the passage be relating *that *our souls are cleansed and not *when *our souls are cleansed?

I think the passage ‘could’ be read to mean instantly we are cleansed but I believe it would be a bit presumptive to do so given the fact that there are passages that tell us our souls will be cleansed after death.

Here is a website that cites a few of those passages:

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

I don’t vouch for the site, only the ‘cites’.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[happilycatholic]

Oh yeah, and this part:

the debt is totally paid, period

This gets into the negative part again. Our ‘debt’ is paid, but there is still the stain that remains. This is why we must not look at Purgatory as punishment or a “settling of debt” with God. We just simply cannot bargain or buy our way to the Father. Nothing we can endure will make us ‘righteous’ enough or ‘good’ enough. We must simply be ‘clean’, not worthy.

We will never settle the debt we owe God for our salvation, it is too great. Besides, you are correct that Christ has already done that because we just can’t.

 

[happilycatholic]

padrej:

If you’ve not heard of Dave Armstrong, you may want to peek at his website:

socrates58.blogspot.com/

It is very informative and has some REALLY interesting debates/discussions.

I don’t share all his views, but most of the time I’m in agreement with him. If nothing else, it’s interesting reading.

Blessings,

Tonya

 

[Padrej]

Oh yeah, and this part:

the debt is totally paid, period

This gets into the negative part again. Our ‘debt’ is paid, but there is still the stain that remains. This is why we must not look at Purgatory as punishment or a “settling of debt” with God. We just simply cannot bargain or buy our way to the Father. Nothing we can endure will make us ‘righteous’ enough or ‘good’ enough. We must simply be ‘clean’, not worthy.

We will never settle the debt we owe God for our salvation, it is too great. Besides, you are correct that Christ has already done that because we just can’t.

This is where Protestants and Catholics differ. To a Protestant, the debt is totally paid, no penalty. Jesus’ words on the cross translated “it is finished” literally means the debt has been paid the same single word taken from the Greek root TELEO meaning paid for or finished or accomplished. I understand the Catholic meaning that a stain remains. To a Protestant that means that you are saying the Blood of Christ cannot wash away everything. To us Jesus paid the debt that we could not pay ourselves by shedding his blood. We agree that nothing we do will ever make us good enough, but when God looks at us he sees the Blood of Christ over us and does not see our sin but only a clean pure spotless person. That is what we believe. Hence there is no need for a Protestant to need the belief in Purgatory as the believe the Blood of Christ takes away all and leaves NOTHING, no stains. Just that simple.

I like that you are willing to be candid with your side, I hope you can see and understand where many Protestants come from even though you may not agree.

 

[happilycatholic]

This is where Protestants and Catholics differ. To a Protestant, the debt is totally paid, no penalty. Jesus’ words on the cross translated “it is finished” literally means the debt has been paid the same single word taken from the Greek root TELEO meaning paid for or finished or accomplished. I understand the Catholic meaning that a stain remains. To a Protestant that means that you are saying the Blood of Christ cannot wash away everything. To us Jesus paid the debt that we could not pay ourselves by shedding his blood. We agree that nothing we do will ever make us good enough, but when God looks at us he sees the Blood of Christ over us and does not see our sin but only a clean pure spotless person. That is what we believe. Hence there is no need for a Protestant to need the belief in Purgatory as the believe the Blood of Christ takes away all and leaves NOTHING, no stains. Just that simple.

I like that you are willing to be candid with your side, I hope you can see and understand where many Protestants come from even though you may not agree.

Yes, I totally do see where you are coming from. But we do not owe a debt to begin with, we are both in agreement with that. So why would you believe that Purgatory is a work camp where we go to work off debt?

The only difference between your analogy and mine is exactly what remains after we’ve sinned. If you believe that nothing remains, then you beleive that our sins affect no one, not even ourselves. I know you don’t think that.

What remains is the earthly harm caused to our souls and the souls of others by sin: Grief, dispair, pain, axiety. Who knows, something I’ve said or done might have even caused a death somewhere down the line or it may have caused someone great despair they’ll never recover from. I have no way of knowing how the sins I’ve committed have affected the lives of those the sin has touched. I could have even caused someone else to sin or a hundred other people to sin.

When we sin, the affects of that single sin are perpetual until we are cleansed. The affects of the first sin I committed are still being felt by those whom it affected, including myself. Think of the possibilities of one little lie and all the people it could touch and all the scenarios that could be played out due to that one little lie. The possibilities are endless.

Christ’s atonement doesn’t remove the damage that sin causes here on earth and to our souls. Christ’s blood cleanses the evil intent that caused the sin that keeps us from eternal life with the Father. Christ’s blood makes it possible to be with God even though we sin. But it doesn’t take away the consequences here on earth.

Blessings,

T.

Edit: Boy did I misuse affect and effect in this one!

 

[happilycatholic]

I just thought of a great analogy for my last post:

In the words of Dr. Phil: "We must ‘own’ our mistakes." We must take responsibility for the damage we’ve caused by the sins we’ve committed.

Maybe in this way, this most dreadful, painful way, we are cleansed and the sin and its consequences is then stricken for all time.

Maybe we will feel all the consequences of each and every sin that we have yet to atone for completely. That is all the more reason to try to wipe away the stain of sin now. Because you will end the perpetual cycle of sin now and less people will be affected.

 

[Padrej]

Yes, I totally do see where you are coming from. But we do not owe a debt to begin with, we are both in agreement with that. So why would you believe that Purgatory is a work camp where we go to work off debt?
First off We don’t look as Purgatory as “work camp” to work off debt. Jesus described sin as debt in Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer, Mat.6:12 “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”
**
The only difference between your analogy and mine is exactly what remains after we’ve sinned. If you believe that nothing remains, then you beleive that our sins affect no one, not even ourselves. I know you don’t think that.
** I do believe that sin effects others, Ultimately all sin IS against God, as David said in Psalm 51 “against you and you ALONE have I sinned.” Now did he commit adultery against Uriah and Bathsheba and Murder Uriah? Most certainly it effected them in a BIG way. Is you answer “yes” then why would David say, “Against you and you alone have I sinned.” He certainly was not speaking to Nathan the prophet or Bathsheba, he was speaking to God against whom we all sin.

What remains is the earthly harm caused to our souls and the souls of others by sin: Grief, dispair, pain, axiety. Who knows, something I’ve said or done might have even caused a death somewhere down the line or it may have caused someone great despair they’ll never recover from. I have no way of knowing how the sins I’ve committed have affected the lives of those the sin has touched. I could have even caused someone else to sin or a hundred other people to sin.

When we sin, the affects of that single sin are perpetual until we are cleansed. The affects of the first sin I committed are still being felt by those whom it affected, including myself. Think of the possibilities of one little lie and all the people it could touch and all the scenarios that could be played out due to that one little lie. The possibilities are endless.

**This is where we turn to Hebrews 9 and 10 that explains Christ perfect sacrifice and how the prior sacrifices were not good enough. Hebrews 10: 11-18 states:
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

So if Christ made a once for all sacrifice why do you need indulgences as Gos is not remembering your sins or their consequences after death? It says clearly “I will remember them no more”**

Christ’s atonement doesn’t remove the damage that sin causes here on earth and to our souls.
Where does it say THAT in scripture???
Christ’s blood cleanses the evil intent that caused the sin that keeps us from eternal life with the Father. Christ’s blood makes it possible to be with God even though we sin. But it doesn’t take away the consequences here on earth.
** I do not disagree that we do have some earthly consequences for sin. as I have used the sexually active analogy to illustrate before. I could get an STD as a consequence but still be forgiven.**

Blessings,

T.

Edit: Boy did I misuse affect and effect in this one!
I can forgive that debt

 

[Padrej]

Question: If sin is NOT a debt, (as some are claiming) why do Catholics use the parable of the unforgiving servant from Matthew 18:21-35 to justify Purgatory? They quote particularly verse 34 that says that you will not be let out until you pay the last penny/copper/until all is due (depending on the translation). Doesn’t paying something indicate that there is a debt to pay? Do we not call punishment handed out to criminals their “debt to society”? How can it be a debt on one hand and not a debt when the rest of the passage speaks of “debt.”
Just wondering.

 

[happilycatholic]

**

First off We don’t look as Purgatory as “work camp” to work off debt. Jesus described sin as debt in Matthew’s version of the Lord’s prayer, Mat.6:12 "Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors."

**

Yeah, you pretty much do.

**

I do believe that sin effects others, Ultimately all sin IS against God, as David said in Psalm 51 “against you and you ALONE have I sinned.” Now did he commit adultery against Uriah and Bathsheba and Murder Uriah? Most certainly it effected them in a BIG way. Is you answer “yes” then why would David say, “Against you and you alone have I sinned.” He certainly was not speaking to Nathan the prophet or Bathsheba, he was speaking to God against whom we all sin.

**

I’m not sure the point you are making here since it doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. I know sin is against God and God alone. However, the effects of sin on those it touches cannot be denied. So, what’s your point?

**

**This is where we turn to Hebrews 9 and 10 that explains Christ perfect sacrifice and how the prior sacrifices were not good enough. Hebrews 10: 11-18 states:
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
15 But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before,
16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” 18 Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

So if Christ made a once for all sacrifice why do you need indulgences as Gos is not remembering your sins or their consequences after death? It says clearly “I will remember them no more”**

**

Because the debt owed to God for the sin is paid and there is redemption and eternal life after sin, if you repent. You just got through making the point that all sin is against God. But what about the affects of sin here on earth? What about the people you hurt and otherwise affect with the sins you commit? Do you honestly think God is the only one affect by your sins?

Christ’s atonement doesn’t remove the damage that sin causes here on earth and to our souls.
Where does it say THAT in scripture???

Kind of a no-brainer, wouldn’t you say?

Well, you find a passage that says Christ’s atonement takes away the hurt and pain you cause others when you sin and I’ll believe that Christ’s atonement removes the damage caused by sin.

Christ wasn’t crucified so that we could avoid the temporal effects of sin. Christ suffered and died on the Cross for our salvation, not for warm and fuzzy living here on earth.

Christ’s blood cleanses the evil intent that caused the sin that keeps us from eternal life with the Father. Christ’s blood makes it possible to be with God even though we sin. But it doesn’t take away the consequences here on earth.
I do not disagree that we do have some earthly consequences for sin. as I have used the sexually active analogy to illustrate before. I could get an STD as a consequence but still be forgiven.

Given this statement, I’m not sure why we are still in disagreement.

 

[happilycatholic]

Question: If sin is NOT a debt, (as some are claiming) why do Catholics use the parable of the unforgiving servant from Matthew 18:21-35 to justify Purgatory? They quote particularly verse 34 that says that you will not be let out until you pay the last penny/copper/until all is due (depending on the translation). Doesn’t paying something indicate that there is a debt to pay? Do we not call punishment handed out to criminals their “debt to society”? How can it be a debt on one hand and not a debt when the rest of the passage speaks of “debt.”
Just wondering.

Number 1: I did not say sin is not debt. I said the debt owed by sin is paid [by Christ on the Cross IF we accept the grace given through the sacraments.] Sorry i was obviously unclear.

Number 2.: The Church does not use these passages as evidence for Purgatory. They use the following refs:

604 Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.
605 Cf. 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7.
606 St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31.
607 2 Macc 12:46.
608 Cf. Council of Lyons II (1274): DS 856.
609 St. John Chrysostom, Hom. in 1 Cor. 41, 5: PG 61, 361; cf. Job 1:5.

Number 3: The passages you quote are evidence that by unforgiveness, we gain a ticket straight to hell. Unforgiveness is not a venial sin, but a mortal one. And it is THE worst if you believe this:

Matthew 6:15: “But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”

So these passages are hardly evidence of Purgatory. As the servant has committed a mortal sin and now must “pay his debt in prison and be tormented” til his debt is paid in full. This would indicate ETERNAL TORMENT.

Fullness of Truth. It’s a wonderful thang.

 

[happilycatholic]

Question: If sin is NOT a debt, (as some are claiming) why do Catholics use the parable of the unforgiving servant from Matthew 18:21-35 to justify Purgatory? They quote particularly verse 34 that says that you will not be let out until you pay the last penny/copper/until all is due (depending on the translation). Doesn’t paying something indicate that there is a debt to pay? Do we not call punishment handed out to criminals their “debt to society”? How can it be a debt on one hand and not a debt when the rest of the passage speaks of “debt.”
Just wondering.

Padrej, if you want to know real answers, why don’t you just read the Catechism and not try to apply Protestant theology to it?

Either you believe the debt is paid or you do not. I do. That’s why I don’t believe in the debt/punishment analogy of Purgatory. For you, it’s a complete negation of the evidence of Purgatory. That is the application of Protestant theology:

No debt = nothing owed= no Purgatory.

Here’s the catholic theology:

Stain = cleansing = Purgatory.

It’s quite simple. No debt, no “payment”, no punishment because the debt has been paid and the sin forgiven. All that’s left are the affects it caused here on earth and to your soul. These affects follow you into the afterlife.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Are you trying to prove that Purgatory DOES exist or that it DOESN’T? Or are you tyring to prove that the Church defines it as punishment cause I’ve proven you wrong time after time.

 

[Padrej]

Padrej, if you want to know real answers, why don’t you just read the Catechism and not try to apply Protestant theology to it?

Either you believe the debt is paid or you do not. I do. That’s why I don’t believe in the debt/punishment analogy of Purgatory. For you, it’s a complete negation of the evidence of Purgatory. That is the application of Protestant theology:

No debt = nothing owed= no Purgatory.

Here’s the catholic theology:

Stain = cleansing = Purgatory.

It’s quite simple. No debt, no “payment”, no punishment because the debt has been paid and the sin forgiven. All that’s left are the affects it caused here on earth and to your soul. These affects follow you into the afterlife.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Are you trying to prove that Purgatory DOES exist or that it DOESN’T? Or are you tyring to prove that the Church defines it as punishment cause I’ve proven you wrong time after time.

Tonya
Please understand I do read the Catholic Catechism, I served at one point a parish (Anglican) that used the Catholic Catechism as its formal Catechism even though they were strict Anglicans.

The question I posed was to point out that Catholics used that one section to justify to us Protestants Purgatory as a sin debt that you owe when even you in your response say:
“Stain = cleansing = Purgatory.
It’s quite simple. No debt, no “payment”, no punishment because the debt has been paid and the sin forgiven. All that’s left are the affects it caused here on earth and to your soul. These affects follow you into the afterlife.”

For YEARS I have heard Catholics say that what remains is the punishment the debt stains etc. Event the Catechism agrees with what has been quoted on this thread and Vatican one and two documents both verify that Purgatory is punishment. Then we get new Catholic websites posted on this thread (some of them) that come out and weasel word around it and still use “temporal punishment” that is mentioned in the Catechism but I will admit are somewhat helpful in explaining some parts of Catholic theology on Purgatory. Granted they may quote Maccabees and other passages of scripture and go on from there. What I am writing is not meant to inflame you as it seems to be doing. I am not in any way imposing Protestant theology to the Catholic Catechism but merely making comparison.
You seem to paint all Protestants with a broad brush, if I may be so bold, that is rather unfair to say that we think that “Purgatory is a work camp;” (from your response to and earlier post “you pretty much do”) I for one do not believe that and no seminary of the Protestant persuasion would teach such.
So to answer what am I trying to prove, which has obviously slipped by you in the reading of all the posts; it is the differing views that Protestants have, NOT who is right and who is wrong in some sophomoric way to point a finger and say, “see I told you I was right and you were wrong, Naaa.” I would hope that we could carry on some kind of civil discussion on this forum on this vein rather than attack and say “if you want to know real answers, why don’t you just read the Catechism and not try to apply Protestant theology to it”

 

[Padrej]

---

Yeah, you pretty much do.
** Broad brush painting- very unfair**

---

I’m not sure the point you are making here since it doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. I know sin is against God and God alone. However, the effects of sin on those it touches cannot be denied. So, what’s your point?
You first confession is to God, then to your fellow man. That would be Catechism 101

---

Because the debt owed to God for the sin is paid and there is redemption and eternal life after sin, if you repent. You just got through making the point that all sin is against God. But what about the affects of sin here on earth? What about the people you hurt and otherwise affect with the sins you commit? Do you honestly think God is the only one affect by your sins?

NO I am not saying that An I know you don’t believe that either, that is not what that passage is saying from Hebrews, it was about the atonement of Christ taking all your sin debt and punishment totally away. you still have to make things right with your neighbor.

Kind of a no-brainer, wouldn’t you say?
** That is where I was challenging YOU to find a passage that says that Christ’s blood does not cleanse us totally.**

Well, you find a passage that says Christ’s atonement takes away the hurt and pain you cause others when you sin and I’ll believe that Christ’s atonement removes the damage caused by sin.
** It is not there because we do get hurt by others just as the Father in heaven is hurt by our sins. BUT, We are told to be merciful/perfect as He is perfect/merciful so we cannot hold on to that hurt because God does not. Just think if God said, “wait, Tony hurt me bad when she did x last week I am not going to forgive her even though she repented of it in confessional” do you think that is how it works? I don’t think so. So yes Christ’s Blood IF YOU ALLOW IT will remove the damage caused by another’s sin against you. That forgiveness is a choice that only you can give, either you hold on to the anger or you let it go. **

Christ wasn’t crucified so that we could avoid the temporal effects of sin. Christ suffered and died on the Cross for our salvation, not for warm and fuzzy living here on earth.
** Certain effects of sin we do have to endure on earth. Protestants will not argue with that on any level.**

Given this statement, I’m not sure why we are still in disagreement.

 

[catholicsuffer]

 

[Padrej]

happilycatholic;5878221:

These prayers are not “beliefs of my Church”. They are simply prayers and who knows who wrote them. It doesn’t matter. Our doctrines are contained in the Scripture and defined in the Catechism.

**If you claim that the prayers are NOT the beliefs of your church, WHY then would they be found in Catholic liturgies and Catholic missals and Catholic prayerbooks. (That is the exact source of the prayers I posted) Are you now saying that the Catholic Church is in the habit of placing prayers in these things which run counter to Catholic theology? I highly doubt that this is the case. Why would these same books get an Imprimatur from some Catholic cardinal or bishop if they did not meet such a standard. **

Did I say you said it? I never quoted you and therefore didn’t put words in your mouth.
Ok fair enough you are painting most protestants with a broad brush and that is upsetting.

Are you serious right now?! Look up atonement sir. You are again applying your own definition of “punishment” to the matter. What exactly was Christ being “punished” for? Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was for the atonement of our sins so we wouldn’t ‘have’ to endure the ETERNAL punishment of sin. We still have temporal punishment to go through. You simply do not understand the catholic definition of punishment. You think the punishment Christ endured was the physical. You are wrong, dead wrong. Christ actually ‘felt’ the punishment of sin, that is the separation from God. Why do you think He cried out for God? Because He’d been beaten, scorged, and pierced with nails? NO! It was because He felt the punishment of sin.
**I have no problem with this, you are mirroring Fulton Sheen here in his book “the Seven Last Words.” He leaves out the temporal punishment though.
BTW how do you know WHAT I think? you claim “you think” followed by “you are dead wrong” Those are pretty inflammatory words you are using. The Church both Protestant and Catholic has believed that Christ was both human and divine so to say that he did not feel the pain of the Crucifixion would be a falsehood, you are correct that he did not cry out because of THAT pain but because of the separation from God and because of the weight of sin. No protestant will argue that. **

Thank you Padrej, but with all due respect back at you, I don’t agree with you. That’s all. The theory you project onto Purgatory is VERY Protestant and not in the least catholic.
You are entitled to disagree but please tell me the points at which you claim that I project this Protestant thought or theology onto Purgatory. Once again you make a broad statement instead of taking something line by line so that we can get a CLEAR understanding of what you feel is Protestant and what is not.

Apologetics, just like theology, differs from person to person. Just like it does here. Javl has a different POV of Purgatory than I do. My apologetics are different from his because my opinions and interpretation (theology) is different.(Javi’s lines up with what the church has taught for almost 2000 years both Vatican one and 2) Catholic theology is contained in official Church documents found most conveniently on the Vatican website and hasn’t changed in 2000 years. You know, The Deposit of Faith.
**Your theology IS what is being taught today at some seminaries but it has been labeled “liberal theology.” In this same theology it also teaches that you cannot take the Bible literally that there is no Hell because a loving God would not send a person to Hell, it does not take into consideration that WE send ourselves there by choice. This same theology teaches that when the Book Of Revelations describes heaven as being 1500 square you cannot take that literally either as a cube cannot exist in space. So with all due respect there are some seminaries that do teach your beliefs, they do not line up 100% with what the church has historically been teaching for 2000 years but it is close. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy go for it. No skin off my back. **

I’m not saying that we as human beings don’t see Purgatory as punishment. But what we ‘think’ and how we ‘see’ things is not important.
It must be or else why does it keep getting brought back up?

I have not tried to define Sola Scriptura for you or your belief in the Rapture (if you do believe in such a thing.)
The Rapture is a totally other subject that if most Protestant knew its origin would NEVER espouse it. Sola Scriptura is a Lutheran thing BTW I am NOT Lutheran, once again I am getting painted with a broad brush.
You are on a catholic site trying to tell a catholic what she believes. I’m quite sorry, but I do take offense to that. My point can’t be coming from anywhere but a defensive position. I’ve done nothing but attempt to explain to you my view, which is EXACTLY the view of the Church.
**The point that I have been trying to make with you is you don’t need to try and defend anything. From the moment you started on this thread you even told every Catholic that they were wrong and how THEY interpreted the catechism was even wrong. I had no problem with the way any of those guys interpreted the catechism, we were all in agreement. Even after showing a print out of this thread to a local Catholic priest, he says your interpretation is off and the rest of us on correct. According to the Priest, Javi’s posts have been the closest to true teaching along with Nathan’s **
You only have to read it.

Just because you have a differing interpretation doesn’t mean it is the correct one. And believe it or not, there are some catholics who are misinformed. (not referring to you Javl )
Is suppose now the priest that disagrees with you is misinformed too?

Not trying to butt into your conversation, but I wanted to say thank you for the education. You thread well!

 

[happilycatholic]

**

**If you claim that the prayers are NOT the beliefs of your church, WHY then would they be found in Catholic liturgies and Catholic missals and Catholic prayerbooks. (That is the exact source of the prayers I posted) Are you now saying that the Catholic Church is in the habit of placing prayers in these things which run counter to Catholic theology? I highly doubt that this is the case. Why would these same books get an Imprimatur from some Catholic cardinal or bishop if they did not meet such a standard. **

 

[happilycatholic]

I will address this one last thing though:

**

**The point that I have been trying to make with you is you don’t need to try and defend anything. From the moment you started on this thread you even told every Catholic that they were wrong and how THEY interpreted the catechism was even wrong. **

**

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.

****I had no problem with the way any of those guys interpreted the catechism, we were all in agreement. ****

Yeah, well that’s makes perfect sense doesn’t it?

****Even after showing a print out of this thread to a local Catholic priest, he says your interpretation is off and the rest of us on correct. According to the Priest, Javi’s posts have been the closest to true teaching along with Nathan’s ****

**Really? Well, I took mine to an RCIA class and was told this is a common misconception in the Church and was THANKED for bringing it in because 90% of the converts thought the punishment aspect was still taught. But clearly from the Catechism IT’S NOT. **

I can’t help it if priests are still using fire and brimstone tactics to win hearts and souls. What they should be preaching and teaching is TRUTH instead of what they personally believe. You have yet to show me ANYTHING FROM VATICAN II WHICH STATES PURGATORY IS PUNISHMENT!!!/quote

 

[happilycatholic]

I challenge anyone here to find in the Catechism where it defines Purgatory as punishment. I also challenge you to then explain why the Holy Father approved (with imprimatur) a document that CLEARLY TEACHES a difference between the cleansing in Purgatory from the punishment of the eternally damned.

Can anyone here explain WHY the Church defines Purgatory this way. The Church has EVERY opportunity to define Purgatory AS PUNISHMENT, but DOES NOT!!!

Why?