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

[happilycatholic]

In speaking to one of my Deacons I think I understand the rift here. In my statement that Purgatory is not punishment I offended those who believe that statement takes away consequences for sin. However, as my Deacon says, the view that Purgatory is as simple as repentance negates the whole reason for what Purgatory really is and that is to make us perfect before God. Punishment means reprentance and we are already suffering that whether we know it or not.

When we sin we should not feel ‘guilt’ for what we’ve actually done or even the victims of our sins whether that be ourselves or others, but rather we should feel bad for the act of disobedience to God. Frequently because we are human in every way, we feel the earthly consequence of our sins, not the spiritual ones. In Purgatory we will feel that ‘guilt’ as God’s righteousness. It will burn our souls as it forges us into perfect beings.

If you feel that this is punishment, then you should believe so. The Church stops short of defining this ‘forging’ process as punishment in the catechism. It does not mean that it is necessarily incorrect for you to do so. However, it is not incorrect to see this process as purification which is a gift of mercy from God necessary for our final sanctification and something not defined as punishment.

I was told the references to previous councils in the catechism are references to prayer for the dead and the communion of saints and thereby meant to convey that Purgatory exists and that those in Purgatory benefit from our prayers. These footnotes do not in any way condone a notion that Purgatory is or is not punishment. They are there to prove that the Early Church believed in Purgatory and prayers for the dead, period.

What is important is that we understand that our sins come with consequences that could follow us after death. With those consequences comes much pain and suffering as we will feel all the consequences when we are forged into perfect beings before God.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[Padrej]

Now, let’s get this straight before I point this out…it is NOT a personal attack on padrej, but rather on his comments. How we are to divide that I’m not sure, but that is what is meant. We as a forum communtiy here by the nature of said forum discussion are indeed allowed to question a post and/or challenge a post so here goes:

Please look closely at the part in red. “Repugnant to the Word of God” If this does not seek to damage our beliefs as catholics, what is the purpose of it? This states that the catholic Church teaches something that is repugnant to the Word of God. That is it is immoral, disgusting, offensive and in the least, contridictory to the Word of God.

As padrej claims to be an Anglican bishop, I would think he vehemently adheres to this position as stated in the 39 Articles of Faith. So not only is he simply disputing our belief in Purgatory, but states that our Church is teaching a blasphemy.

I am not questioning his Christianity nor his allegience to his church. I am questioning his attitute toward the catholic faith with regard to the belief in the existance of Purgatory.

You be the judge.

Something you need to understand about Anglicans. Not all Anglicans adhere to every article of the 39 articles, nor are we sworn to; they are viewed as the historic document that founded our faith. Unlike the Catholic church we are not bound to uphold it like cannon law, our cannon law is a separate book. The articles are good guidelines. If you also read I served an Anglican parish that used the Catholic Catechism as its catechism. (I noticed that you did not post this in this above). It would be more akin to a Catholic church in one area offering Latin mass and another in a different town using strictly the English language from the missal.

There is another article, in the 39, that states that the sacrament cannot be worshiped or carried about. Some use this to say that we cannot have a monstrance and Blessed Sacrament, but yet those same persons “carry about” communion to the sick. So within Anglicanism this is where you get what you call "“High church” and “Low church.” The High churchmen use incense and invoke saints, pray the rosary, have benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, have Marian prayers during the liturgy etc; while a Low churchman has none of the above and is more prayer service oriented and preaching and communion once a month.

So to take a quote of the 39 articles where I was showing what protestant beliefs were on the subject and then highlighting the last line, is in my view, another attempt to malign my character as a person trying to subvert Catholics. I do not, nor have I EVER, said your church teaches blasphemy (as you erroneously claim), the founders of the Anglican church may have thought such; as I stated the 39 articles that are in our prayer book are listed under the heading of “Historic Documents.”

 

[Javl]

In speaking to one of my Deacons I think I understand the rift here. In my statement that Purgatory is not punishment I offended those who believe that statement takes away consequences for sin. However, as my Deacon says, the view that Purgatory is as simple as repentance negates the whole reason for what Purgatory really is and that is to make us perfect before God. Punishment means reprentance and we are already suffering that whether we know it or not.

When we sin we should not feel ‘guilt’ for what we’ve actually done or even the victims of our sins whether that be ourselves or others, but rather we should feel bad for the act of disobedience to God. Frequently because we are human in every way, we feel the earthly consequence of our sins, not the spiritual ones. In Purgatory we will feel that ‘guilt’ as God’s righteousness. It will burn our souls as it forges us into perfect beings.

If you feel that this is punishment, then you should believe so. The Church stops short of defining this ‘forging’ process as punishment in the catechism. It does not mean that it is necessarily incorrect for you to do so. However, it is not incorrect to see this process as purification which is a gift of mercy from God necessary for our final sanctification and something not defined as punishment.

I was told the references to previous councils in the catechism are references to prayer for the dead and the communion of saints and thereby meant to convey that Purgatory exists and that those in Purgatory benefit from our prayers. These footnotes do not in any way condone a notion that Purgatory is or is not punishment. They are there to prove that the Early Church believed in Purgatory and prayers for the dead, period.

What is important is that we understand that our sins come with consequences that could follow us after death. With those consequences comes much pain and suffering as we will feel all the consequences when we are forged into perfect beings before God.

God Bless,

~Tonya

Tonya:
Thank you for your response. First off, I am not teaching outside of what the church
teaches. I am faithful to the Magisterium. Second, in the CCC 1032, St. John Crysostom
says that we pray for the dead, who are being purified, to bring them some consolation.
Now, if they are being purified, why do they need to be consoled? Purification is a happy
occasion. But, purification in Purgatory is a form of punishment by fire for the consequences of our forgiven sins. God’s Justice demands some sort of payment for
these consequences. For some, the punishment takes place in life. For others, it occurs in Purgatory. This punishment is NOT the same as the punishment in Hell, but it
is a punishment nevertheless. This explanation is exactly what the Magisterium teaches
and what has been taught since the doctrine of Purgatory was defined.

Len

P.S. It is the Magisterium that defines doctrine and dogma. It is infallible in its pronounce-
ments. Therefore, we must accept everything the Magisterium teaches, since it speaks in the name of God ( Jesus ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Padrej]

Javl:

I am really sorry but every catholic priest does not teach the same thing. We as catholics are bound to what is in the catechism, not necessarily what comes out of the mouths of popes, bishops, priests and other clergy. Why do you think we have the catechism in the first place? The catechism was first and foremost meant for the use of catechists in their teaching the lay community when coming into the Church. Next, it is meant for the “people in the pews” so to speak. Knowledge of teaching outside the catechism is useful, but not required for the understanding of the catechism.

What you are teaching requires knowlege outside the catechism. Not only that, it is outside what the Church currently teaches on the doctrine of Purgatory. There are certainly doctrines with regard to Purgatory that we are required to believe, the fact that purification should be interpreted as synonymous with punishment is not one of those doctrines.

I’m not real sure how you and others here, both catholic and non-catholic can arrive at the conclusion that the Church ‘wants’ us to believe that Purgatory is more punishment that purification. But the statement that the purification of Purgatory is “entirely different than the punishment of the damned” is a good enough indication to me that Purgatory is something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT than the punishment of the eternally damned.

So, with that said whether you decide to admit it or you don’t, you are proclaiming something different and in fact in opposition to what the catechism actually states.

It’s not that difficult.

Furthermore, I’m not using sola scriputra at all. I’m not sure why you and others have brought this into the mix, but what I did say was that you can be proven incorrect with Scripture which is what padrej has been trying to do all along.

Padrej is getting away with proving his point and using you to do it and you don’t even realize that.

You are clearly defining Purgatory in a way that the Church does not. I’m sorry, but a short read of the catechism will prove me correct on this.

I wish you the best. You should really rethink accusing someone of not being in allegience with the Magisterium. We as catholics are not bound by every thing the Pope or the Magisterium says. Only that which is doctrine, dogma or something spoken ex cathedra (which would reaffirm doctrine/dogma or establish new doctrine).

You erroneously claim that we are bound by all that is uttered by “the Magisterium” as if that meant all that is uttered by every Pope, bishop, and priest. That is just plain incorrect. The Magisterium refers to the “Teaching of the Church”, not the people who make up the Magisterium.

If what you claim is correct, then all that has been done or said by a pope, bishop, and/or a priest would be official teaching of the Magisterium. I think we both know that would be opening up ourselves to much more than either you or I can defend in a lifetime.

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/chura4.htm
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).
Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

So what you are saying here is when the Pope says something in teaching it IS NOT part of the Magisterium? If ,so why do his sermons and encyclicals continually get referenced?

I do not treat the catechism as the sole source of faith doctrine. However, it is definitely the source of what we are bound to believe as catholics. There is not a single doctrine or dogma that we are bound to as catholics that is not contained in the catechism.

We just simply are not bound to believe that Purgatory is punishment. What we are bound to believe is that Purgatory is a cleansing of the Temporal Punishment of sin. Period.
**I don’t think that a anyone is doubting that Purgatory is “cleansing.” But as has been posted repeatedly by numerous of us including the newbie FrJohnb is that it is BOTH cleansing and punishment because after death you are still working off so to speak whatever is left after the sin is absolved. As Fr John pointed out, it is punishment in the catechism you either work out in your life or after you die. **

You can choose not to believe what is in the catechism if you wish. But you cannot accuse me of teaching something other than what’s in the catechism. I have not done such a thing.

This statement speaks to who is in line with the Magisterium:

“…entirely different from the punishment of the damned”. This is what I have proclaimed.
Correct I agree 100%. Punishment of the damned IS totally different. Punishment of the damned is Hell, nobody else is disputing this either.
I’m sorry, but it is what it is. Believe it or not.

 

[Padrej]

Tonya:
Thank you for your response. First off, I am not teaching outside of what the church
teaches. I am faithful to the Magisterium. Second, in the CCC 1032, St. John Crysostom
says that we pray for the dead, who are being purified, to bring them some consolation.
Now, if they are being purified, why do they need to be consoled? Purification is a happy
occasion. But, purification in Purgatory is a form of punishment by fire for the consequences of our forgiven sins. God’s Justice demands some sort of payment for
these consequences. For some, the punishment takes place in life. For others, it occurs in Purgatory. This punishment is NOT the same as the punishment in Hell, but it
is a punishment nevertheless. This explanation is exactly what the Magisterium teaches
and what has been taught since the doctrine of Purgatory was defined.

Len

P.S. It is the Magisterium that defines doctrine and dogma. It is infallible in its pronounce-
ments. Therefore, we must accept everything the Magisterium teaches, since it speaks in the name of God ( Jesus ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/chura4.htm
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).
Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): “The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”

The Pope according to this article cited above is part of this Magisterium. His writings are constantly being referred to on matters of faith. Granted an encyclical may not be an ex cathedra document but as much as Papal encyclicals are referred to you would think they were. Even older Papal documents refer to Purgatory as a form of punishment. Only the last 2 Popes seems to have stayed away from calling Purgatory “punishment;” they call it pain and purification. This does not change the doctrine in any way until the Pope speaks ex cathedra on the matter or a council changes the catechism the punishment reference is there.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

This thread has been pruned of 12 posts because of personal attacks. I highly suggest we remain on topic or the thread will be closed.

 

[happilycatholic]

Tonya:
Thank you for your response. First off, I am not teaching outside of what the church
teaches. I am faithful to the Magisterium. Second, in the CCC 1032, St. John Crysostom
says that we pray for the dead, who are being purified, to bring them some consolation.
Now, if they are being purified, why do they need to be consoled? Purification is a happy
occasion. But, purification in Purgatory is a form of punishment by fire for the consequences of our forgiven sins. God’s Justice demands some sort of payment for
these consequences. For some, the punishment takes place in life. For others, it occurs in Purgatory. This punishment is NOT the same as the punishment in Hell, but it
is a punishment nevertheless. This explanation is exactly what the Magisterium teaches
and what has been taught since the doctrine of Purgatory was defined.

Len

P.S. It is the Magisterium that defines doctrine and dogma. It is infallible in its pronounce-
ments. Therefore, we must accept everything the Magisterium teaches, since it speaks in the name of God ( Jesus ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

You have a misconceived notion of punishment and purification Javl. I can’t help you. Everything in council documents is not doctrine/dogma. I can’t help you there either.

God Bless,

~Tonya

 

[happilycatholic]

Good Morning Padrej! I’m ready to endure my personal Purgatory (bad joke, sorry)

Okay, can I offer some instruction that prove helpful to you and it certainly would be helpful to those responding to your posts? If you will highlight the text you wish to respond to then click the little text “cloud” (for lack of a better word) which is the fourth icon from the right when you open a reply box, you can then reply to each part of the text and thereby separating your responses. This makes it easer because we don’t have to cut and paste your entire response and ours to simply respond to yours. Plus, it’s kinda cool.

So anyways:

---

ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/chura4.htm

---

By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : “He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects your rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me” (Luke 10. 16).

Vatican II taught (Dei Verbum # 10): "The task of authoritatively interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on [Scripture or Tradition], has been entrusted exclusively to the living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."

So what you are saying here is when the Pope says something in teaching it IS NOT part of the Magisterium? If ,so why do his sermons and encyclicals continually get referenced?
**

No, what I said was everything that comes out of the pope’s mouth is not doctrine/dogma. There are lots of things the pope says that we are not bound to agree with.

**

**I don’t think that a anyone is doubting that Purgatory is “cleansing.” But as has been posted repeatedly by numerous of us including the newbie FrJohnb is that it is BOTH cleansing and punishment because after death you are still working off so to speak whatever is left after the sin is absolved. As Fr John pointed out, it is punishment in the catechism you either work out in your life or after you die. **

**

I am and have always been fine to leave you and the others with that interpretation. It is you who continue to challenge me. I’ve tried to lay this down many times. I will now try again. You are free to believe what you will.

I am not the one who believe the catechism is insufficient in its teaching on the matter of Purgatory. I am not the one who claims that the lay community needs to read an encyclical or council documents to get the ‘real’ understanding of Purgatory. All I’ve ever said is that the Church’s position on Purgatory is contained and very clearly defined in the catechism and I’ve only agree with what’s in it.

You are free to add to it, take away from it, or whatever you deem necessary to make it what you will. I simply do not do that.

I’ve never once been told that I would need to read a single referenced footnote in the catechism to understand it. I was told that the doctrine of catholic faith as it is taught by the Church is wholly contained in the catechism. I was told there are numerous faith teachings that are contained in Sacred Tradition that are not contained in the catechism, but that all doctrine and dogma are very clearly defined in the catechism.

**

Correct I agree 100%. Punishment of the damned IS totally different. Punishment of the damned is Hell, nobody else is disputing this either.

**

Yay. We actually agree. I am happy.

 

[Javl]

You have a misconceived notion of punishment and purification Javl. I can’t help you. Everything in council documents is not doctrine/dogma. I can’t help you there either.

God Bless,

~Tonya

Tonya:

once again, please read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

#1479: Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same
communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them so
that the temporal punishments due to their sins may be remitted.

#1498: Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal
punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in
Purgatory.

This IS the teaching of the Magisterium. If this does not convince you of a
punishment in Purgatory, then nothing else will. I am not making it up and I DO NOT teach, or say, other than the Magisterium. Also when the Pope issues an
encyclical it may not be dogma, but it must be listened to for he is explaining or may be defining a doctrine or tenet. These can be, and ususally are, used as references. Many
of these encyclicals are written to clear up mis-understandings and mis-conceptions of
the Church’s teachings, or council pronouncements. When he issues an epistle, it is to
a particular community to set things straight, or right. It is only his letters that we can
accept or reject.

Len

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[happilycatholic]

Tonya:

once again, please read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

#1479: Since the faithful departed now being purified are also members of the same
communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them so
that the temporal punishments

 

[catholicsuffer]

Matthew 7:3-5

(NAB) Matthew 7: 3-5

Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Well thank you for the quote. And just like all of those Protestants so-call ministers you use the bible not as it should be quoted but as you wish to quote it…not as a weapon of love which the Holy Catholic Church put it together for but as a weapon of destruction for anyone who disagree with you. Well, guess we know who the hypocrite really is. Hope you at least make purgatory, but be fearful for you may not get that lucky.

 

[Javl]

 

[catholicsuffer]

newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

 

[happilycatholic]

happilycatholic;5929503:

Tonya:
Once and for all, it is NOT a pre Vatican II conception. The Magisterium DOES teach that
there is punishment in Purgatory. Please read #1498 correctly, don’t try to interpret it.

Also, anything issued by the Pope is consididered in addition to, or a continuation of,
what is in the Catechism in the matters of definition and refining of a description. But
have it your way. I will no longer discuss Purgatory with you.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

Awesome.

 

[happilycatholic]

Again, I NEVER said there isn’t punishment IN Purgatory. I said Purgatory isn’t synonymous WITH punishment.

This is rediculous. I guess people JUST CAN’T READ.

 

[happilycatholic]

You know, the true fact of the matter is that in all the Church documents I’ve read and in all the articles regarding statements of the various Holy Fathers, even in encyclicals and councils alike, there is such variation on the references to Purgatory that it is impossible to discern that there is a requirement to believe either way in this argument.

There are ECF’s whom in the same document refer to Purgatory both ways. I really think this is a matter of semantics.

I’m not sure why Javl and others pick out certain texts and cling to those as if they are doctrine and/or dogma. You simply can’t take a single word or even a terminology out of an encyclical, council documents or other Church writings and form a doctrine or dogma around that.

In other words, they take the word ‘punishment’ out of these documents and use that as a complete doctrine for Purgatory and call it a teaching of the Magisterium. This is simply flawed practice.

Yes, everysingle word can be used as ‘teaching’. After all, that is what the Church is commissioned with. But we are NOT bound to hang on every word as if it is doctrine. That is incorrect and very flawed practice.

The Holy Father is free to interpret, reinterpret and yes even change language within a doctrine. Which is what has happened with the doctrine of Purgatory. The Vatican has thought to interpret Purgatory in the way that it has in the catechism. That is, “entirely different than the punishment of the damned”.

The Holy Father had every chance to make clear the point that Javl and others here are stating is a “doctrine” of Purgatory. That is, to clearly define Purgatory as punishment. But the Magisterium DID NOT do that. Instead, it chose to clearly set forth language differentiating the purification of Purgatory from the punishment of Hell. The Church has the freedom to quote any document it wishes to quote. Even the footnotes only reference parts of documents which merely prove the existance of Purgatory, not the nature of Purgatory. It has been CLEARLY stated, even in the Councils that the Church doesn’t go into detail defining Purgatory.

Now, are we accepting of that is the question. It has been said that I have ‘interpreted’ the catechism. However, I’m not the one adding to it. I’m not the one interjecting MY OWN interpretation of other Church documents into the Magisterium’s definition of Purgatory as is set forth in the catechism. The Church DOES NOT add to the definition of Purgatory in the catechism by referencing other documents. Using that analogy is flawed. The Church uses those refereces for purposes of proving the prayers for the dead are beneficial and that indulgences are as well. Period.

This argument is now bigger than the subject itself. It has become a rediculous fight between those who hold on to past theology and those who would like to prove the Church wrong using that theology. If the Church chooses to leave the definition of punishment out, then so be it. I’m not going to try to put it back in.

I just don’t see the point in this anymore.

We are clearly free to decide for ourselves beyond these two facts: 1. Purgatory exists. 2. The dead benefit from prayers and indulgences as well as the living.

Believing that Purgatory is some kind of Hell-light is NOT part of the doctrine of Purgatory that we are bound to believe.

Just for the record, I’m not the one picking up my toys and going home just because people don’t agree with me. Even after being linched, I’m still here trying to defend my position. Go figure.

 

[Padrej]

Quick question:
It has always been my understanding that the reason for Judas Maccabeaus to call for praying for the dead was to attone for God’s punishing them in battle for having idols in their pockets. So then if Purgatory is NO form of punishment at all why would the Catholic church use 2 Maccabees as a reference?

 

[happilycatholic]

Quick question:
It has always been my understanding that the reason for Judas Maccabeaus to call for praying for the dead was to attone for God’s punishing them in battle for having idols in their pockets. So then if Purgatory is NO form of punishment at all why would the Catholic church use 2 Maccabees as a reference?

This is what the UCCB site has to say:

7 [42-45] This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (2 Macc 12:42) and sacrifices (2 Macc 12:43) for the dead are efficacious. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 36). That is, he believed that expiation could be made for certain sins of otherwise good men-soldiers who had given their lives for God’s cause. Thus, they could share in the resurrection. His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

Notice, the word expiation was used which is synonymous with atonement, just as you stated. Atonement from the punishment for carrying idols in their pockets. Atonement being the remedy for the punishment for what the men did, not the punishment itself.

There is punishment and there is atonement for it, which can thereby lesson or eleviate the punishment. This would be the state of Purgatory. Punishment would be the reason for the state.

The Church again, is using 2 Maccabees simply to prove the existance of Purgatory, not to prove any nature of Purgatory.

 

[happilycatholic]

I just thought of a great point you bring up though. These men, apparently in the midst of battle have died in the act of carrying idols in their pockets. This may be off the subject but, what now? How do they confess? Isn’t this a mortal sin? Will they go to Purgatory because they didn’t have a chance to confess?

They will obviously go to Purgatory with Temporal Punishment attached to their souls, but will they gain some kind of pardon in Purgatory? Is that possible?

 

[happilycatholic]

This is what the UCCB site has to say:

7 [42-45] This is the earliest statement of the doctrine that prayers (2 Macc 12:42) and sacrifices (2 Macc 12:43) for the dead are efficacious. The statement is made here, however, only for the purpose of proving that Judas believed in the resurrection of the just (2 Macc 7:9, 14, 23, 36). That is, he believed that expiation could be made for certain sins of otherwise good men-soldiers who had given their lives for God’s cause. Thus, they could share in the resurrection. His belief was similar to, but not quite the same as, the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

Notice, the word expiation was used which is synonymous with atonement, just as you stated. Atonement from the punishment for carrying idols in their pockets. Atonement being the remedy for the punishment for what the men did, not the punishment itself.

There is punishment and there is atonement for it, which can thereby lesson or eleviate the punishment. This would be the state of Purgatory. Punishment would be the reason for the state.

The Church again, is using 2 Maccabees simply to prove the existance of Purgatory, not to prove any nature of Purgatory.

Catholic Answers/This Rock concurs:

This book also tells us more about atonement beyond the grave by asserting the existence of purgatory (12:38ff). It also asserts the resurrection of the just and tells us what we need to know about the fate of the unjust (7:9, 14,23,29; 14:46). Thus, for example, in 2 Maccabees 12:43 there is Judas’ act of faith in the resurrection and salvation of his fallen soldiers, but he realizes that they must atone for their sins in the next life, and he wishes to help them in this and asks for prayers from the living. This text explicitly states that there is an interim stage where souls are purified and that they can be helped by suffrages offered by the living.