Matthew 12:31-32, how does this point to purgatory!?

[Atemi]

Um . . . you need to do your homework.

Indeed I have and nothing forwarded at the link shows Purgatory as a doctrine of the Apostolic era.

As well, you might want to do some research on that religion called Judaism, of which Catholic Christianity is but the legitimate continuation. The doctrine of Purgatory is a direct inheritance from the Jewish religion.

Embracing the errors of ancient Judaism does not do much for your argument.

Some of ancient Judaism taught that Gehenna was temporary and people were punished there for a limited time…often not exceeding 12 months!

LOL.

And what did our Lord teach about Gehenna? How long does it last? Twelve months?

Is Christ’s Gehenna the Roman Catholic Purgatory?

Surely, no.

Citing the teachings of erroneous, apostate Judaism as proof of Christian doctrine is not wise, IMO.

As a devout Orthodox Jew, Jesus would have prayed for the dead that they may be “loosed from their sins”.

Putting words in our Lord’s mouth that the Holy Spirit specifically never recorded Him saying is very bad form for one who would say he is a disciple. We must follow what our Lord actually did teach, not what some would theorize Him teaching.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Idolatry is a mortal sin in historical Catholicism. If the modern RCC has recently changed that, I don’t know.

No. Idolatry is a grave matter. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is a **grave matter **and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." So in this case, the grave matter is “idolatry” but it would not be a mortal sin unless the sinners had full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Clearly the matter was grave; not just because they had idols in general but because they specifically broke Dut 7:25 by rescuing the idols from the fire instead of burning them along with the port of Jamnia. If that was outright unrepentant rebellion against God then no sacrifice for sins is possible, only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

But when Judah prayed, he hoped that their sins were committed through ignorance or weak will. Or he hoped that perhaps they repented before death. Since they died fighting for the God’s cause, it’s nice to give them the benefit of the doubt, which is what Judah (and other Jews and Catholics) typically do.

 

[Atemi]

No. Idolatry is a grave matter. For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: Mortal sin is sin whose object is a **grave matter **and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent." So in this case, the grave matter is “idolatry” but it would not be a mortal sin unless the sinners had full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Clearly the matter was grave; not just because they had idols in general but because they specifically broke Dut 7:25 by rescuing the idols from the fire instead of burning them along with the port of Jamnia. If that was outright unrepentant rebellion against God then no sacrifice for sins is possible, only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

I suppose somone may try to make the case that the idolators didn’t consent to place their faith in idols or place those chains around their neck…the whole lot of them.

But when Judah prayed, he hoped that their sins were committed through ignorance or weak will.

That is only your private addition ot the text.

Can you cite the verse you speak of?

Or he hoped that perhaps they repented before death.

He did?

Can you cite the verse you speak of?

Since they died fighting for the God’s cause, it’s nice to give them the benefit of the doubt, which is what Judah (and other Jews and Catholics) typically do.

That sounds nice and all but that is not the point. To discuss Judas’ personal mental state is irrelvant to the topic at hand.

The previous poster claimed that Judas prayed and sought out an indulgence for his men because they were in Purgatory.

That has been clearly shown to be false.

 

[Steadfast_love]

I suppose somone may try to make the case that the idolators didn’t consent to place their faith in idols or place those chains around their neck…the whole lot of them.

You really think they worshiped the Jamnian gods? Even after burning their city, putting people to the sword, promising vengeance before the siege, promising more vengeance after withdrawing and remaining faithful to an army that’s bent on Jamnian destruction? That’s a bit of a stretch. Unless you’ve got proof I think it’s more likely that they did exactly what the Bible says: they attacked and burnt Jamnia but some kept plundered amulets on their persons.

Remember: even if they didn’t commit idolatry, they still broke God’s laws by including the amulets with the rest of the plunder. (Dut 7:25)
With respect to mortal sin the question is: did they have **full knowledge **and deliberate consent? Not if they mistook the Jamnian amulets as acceptable plunder, and as we’ll see, there is scriptural evidence that the leadership was not as clear on Jamnian amulets as they should have been.

But when Judah prayed, he hoped that their sins were committed through ignorance or weak will.

That is only your private addition ot the text.
Can you cite the verse you speak of?

It’s from the five verses that follow the one you cited.
41: So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; “Hidden” – Judas didn’t know about the amulets. 42: and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. Now that he knows about the amulets, he gives fair warning: “This is not allowed!” Any ambiguity which permitted his troops to slide into venial sin is gone. Henceforth, anyone who keeps the amulets after being “exhorted” and “seeing with their own eyes” has full knowledge.
43: He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. Having prayed with his mouth, he puts his money where his mouth is.

More importantly, he gives everyone a last chance to sort their gear. Anything people keep from here on out is kept by deliberate consent. Before, someone might have accidentally included an amulet along with handful of jewelry and put them on for safe keeping – a common mistake when you’re burning a city, putting people to the sword and grabbing as much plunder as you can carry. So it could have been a mistake but now that they have time to sort their gear and make a sin offering? It can only be deliberate consent.

See? We’ve only gone three verses and he’s done what any good Catholic priest would do with a sinful flock: explain the sin so they have full knowledge and give them opportunity to choose rightly with deliberate consent. 44: For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. He thinks they have an actual chance at resurrection. 45: But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin. He thought that their sins were “blottable” so he prayed and spent good money on a sin offering and hopes that God will resurrect them.

This clearly shows that Judas believed that their sin could be blotted out and that a lack of **full knowledge **or deliberate consent could be partly to blame.

What I have not shown is that he hoped that they might have committed a mortal sin but repented before death. Strictly that would require a verse that said something like: “Judas believed the scriptures including the parts about repentance and God’s mercy.” The best I can do off the top of my head is point to is the repentance and forgiveness in 2 Mac 12:12 where he forgives an army of Arabs. EDIT: Even after fighting a battle with them!

 

[PhilVaz]

Atemi << The previous poster claimed that Judas prayed and sought out an indulgence for his men because they were in Purgatory. That has been clearly shown to be false. >>

The relevant question to ask is “Why were they praying for the dead?”

Answer: “It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.” (New Advent, RSV I think), or another translation has “Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.” (NAB)

Phil P

 

[Sacramentalist]

Atemi:

You’ve pretty much made up your mind that Purgatory is not an apostolic doctrine, and nothing will convince you otherwise. The doctrine has, for over 2,000 years been a teaching of Orthodox Judaism, and we have no evidence that the early Christians dissented from this. In fact, all the evidence is that the early Christians, who were most jealous to preserve the purity of their faith, did believe in this doctrine. And there’s n oreason to believe that Christ and the Apostles, as Orthodox Jews, dissented from this doctrine.

Embracing the errors of ancient Judaism does not do much for your argument.

Some of ancient Judaism taught that Gehenna was temporary and people were punished there for a limited time…often not exceeding 12 months!

LOL.

And what did our Lord teach about Gehenna? How long does it last? Twelve months?

Is Christ’s Gehenna the Roman Catholic Purgatory?

Surely, no.

Citing the teachings of erroneous, apostate Judaism as proof of Christian doctrine is not wise, IMO.

In the early Church, and historically throughout Judaism, there’s a great fluidity in terminology. “Gehenna” is a generic name for a state of the afterlife which connotes suffering and destruction. The predominant view of Judaism has been to use it in the sense of “Purgatory”, whereas Christians (following the language of Jesus) have generally used it to referr to the state of definitive damnation. However, this same fluidity is still present among Eastern Christians, whose theologians often speak of spuls being released from Hell through the prayers and suffrages of the Church.

Terminology isn’t essential here; doctrine is.

Regarding the case of the Maccabees:

To me this is a really simple case. Even if we assume, and I believe we should, that the wearers of the idols commited the mortal sin of idolatry; how do we know that theydidn’t repent of this sin before they died?

Judah offered the sacrifice in the hopes that they had repented, and we capable of eventual salvation.

Probelm solved.

BTW, the Septuagint was the Bible of the Apostolic and early Church. There’s no reason to believe that Christ and the Apostles did not believe the deuterocanon to be inspired. All indications are that they did so, and so that they believed in Purgatory.

 

[Atemi]

You really think they worshiped the Jamnian gods? Even after burning their city, putting people to the sword, promising vengeance before the siege, promising more vengeance after withdrawing and remaining faithful to an army that’s bent on Jamnian destruction? That’s a bit of a stretch. Unless you’ve got proof I think it’s more likely that they did exactly what the Bible says: they attacked and burnt Jamnia but some kept plundered amulets on their persons.

The text says:

“under the tunic of each of the dead they found amulets sacred to the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. So it was clear to all that this was why these men had been slain.”

They were wearing the amulets.

The text says what they did and why they were slain for it.

If you want to believe that ALL these men wore these amulets because they were pretty or something like that, that is up to you. If we want to know the ancient Jewish propensity to idolatry, we only need read just a little bit more of our OT.

Remember: even if they didn’t commit idolatry, they still broke God’s laws by including the amulets with the rest of the plunder. (Dut 7:25)

Agreed.

We must also remember, both worshipping idols and keeping plundered idols are BOTH abominations to God. Saying one is a really, really bad abomination, while another is only a bad abomination is silly talk. We need not go there.

With respect to mortal sin the question is: did they have **full knowledge **and deliberate consent? Not if they mistook the Jamnian amulets as acceptable plunder, and as we’ll see, there is scriptural evidence that the leadership was not as clear on Jamnian amulets as they should have been.

The ancient Jews did not believe in the convenient and novel mortal and venial sins, so to juxtapose your theology onto theirs is a great error.

You quoted the Law earlier, but now you have forgotten it again:

Lev 4 “If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, he is guilty”

“When a leader sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the commands of the LORD his God, he is guilty”

“If the whole Israelite community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the LORD’s commands, even though the community is unaware of the matter, they are guilty”

To break any one of the commands of the Law is as if you broke all of them (Jam 2:10).

Why then does God teach that “mortal” sin can be unintentional but the RCC teaches that mortal sin cannot be unintentional?

More importantly, he gives everyone a last chance to sort their gear. Anything people keep from here on out is kept by deliberate consent.

So God’s Word in His Law was not enough to do this, but Judas’ word now is?

That is not believable, IMO.

As we have already seen, God is emphatic that men are guilty of even unintentional sin.

See? We’ve only gone three verses and he’s done what any good Catholic priest would do with a sinful flock: explain the sin so they have full knowledge and give them opportunity to choose rightly with deliberate consent.

God already did that waaaaay back in Deuteronomy.

If one must now argue that the soldiers are all ignorant of the Law, and that God also nullified His Laws in Lev 4, then they are on their own.

He thought that their sins were “blottable” so he prayed and spent good money on a sin offering and hopes that God will resurrect them.

You are exactly right.

But then, that is not talking about Purgatory as any good Catholic knows that EVERYONE in Purgatory is guaranteed resurrection.

Judas did not believe that these men would be guaranteed resurrection as he wanted their sin blotted out so they would be raised. That is not Purgatory.

Sorry.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi << The previous poster claimed that Judas prayed and sought out an indulgence for his men because they were in Purgatory. That has been clearly shown to be false. >>

The relevant question to ask is “Why were they praying for the dead?”

Hello Phil,

The text tells us:

“…he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.”

Judas did what he did for their resurrection of the dead, not any “purgatory.”

Good Catholics do not pray for the dead and offer sacrifice for the dead so they will be raised. It is RC doctrine that the only ones that can be benefitted from all this prayer and sacrifice are ONLY those who they already believe will be raised.

Not so for Judas.

 

[Atemi]

Atemi:

You’ve pretty much made up your mind that Purgatory is not an apostolic doctrine, and nothing will convince you otherwise.

Of course not.

Proof from the Apostolic era would be nice. Scripture would be nice.

The doctrine has, for over 2,000 years been a teaching of Orthodox Judaism, and we have no evidence that the early Christians dissented from this.

They did not teach on Purgatory.

Surely you must know the difference between what SOME of Judaism taught, and what the RCC teaches about Purgatory.

In fact, all the evidence is that the early Christians, who were most jealous to preserve the purity of their faith, did believe in this doctrine.

There is absolutely NO evidence that the earliest Christians ever believed in Purgatory.

And there’s no reason to believe that Christ and the Apostles, as Orthodox Jews, dissented from this doctrine.

Wrong. Christ surely did dissent.

What is Christ’s Gehenna?

What is the interpretation of the ancient Jews about Gehenna?

They do not match, and where they do match…Christ is correct and a temporary Gehenna disappears.

What you call the Jewish Purgatory was actually the ancient Jewish denial of eternal damnation in Gehenna.

Error on top of error.

In the early Church, and historically throughout Judaism, there’s a great fluidity in terminology. “Gehenna” is a generic name for a state of the afterlife which connotes suffering and destruction. The predominant view of Judaism has been to use it in the sense of “Purgatory”, whereas Christians (following the language of Jesus) have generally used it to referr to the state of definitive damnation.

As we all should know by now, Gehenna and Purgatory are NOT the same place or state.

Plus, you readily admit now that Christ did indeed dissent from the common Jewish thought of His day.

However, this same fluidity is still present among Eastern Christians, whose theologians often speak of spuls being released from Hell through the prayers and suffrages of the Church.

Really?

So you are now making the argument that it is orthodox doctrine that we are to pray damned souls out of Gehenna (Hell)?

Why you are content in citing false doctrines as proof of RC doctrine is mindboggling to me.

Terminology isn’t essential here; doctrine is.

We cannot divorce the terminology from the doctrine.

To do so is to leave all intellectual honesty behind, IMO.

This is all about Gehenna. To conveniently change “Gehenna” to the RC “Purgatory” is a great error.

The erroneous Jewish belief that Gehenna was temporary was forever corrected by Christ. Now, RC apologists cite the false Jewish doctrine of Gehenna as proof of Purgatory. Christ’s divine correction cannot be nullified.

Regarding the case of the Maccabees:

To me this is a really simple case. Even if we assume, and I believe we should, that the wearers of the idols commited the mortal sin of idolatry; how do we know that theydidn’t repent of this sin before they died?

If they did not repent, no sacrifice or prayer will make God resurrect them.

If they did repent, then they are guaranteed resurrection and no prayer or sacrifice was necessary.

Either way, no prayer or sacrifice would have done anything.

BTW, this all assumes that they did not have other sin in their lives…

Judah offered the sacrifice in the hopes that they had repented, and we capable of eventual salvation.

No. Please read what the text says.

He offered the sacrifice in the hopes that their sin, a sin you admittedly recognize as mortal, would be blotted out.

(That means that Judas believed that that sin was still “on their record”).

 

[TheApologist]

Atemi,

You say that when 2 Maccabees mentions the resurrection of the dead it implies something incorrect.
When Judas prayed for them with the resurrection of the dead in mind, he wanted them to get through Purgatory and so be with God in heaven. He knew that at the resurrection of the dead they would be reunited with their bodies and so have the ultimate happiness.
If you ask me to find the verse to support this, I will retort that you need a verse to support your understanding of the resurrection of the dead in this chapter.

Also you don’t understand what Pugatory is…
It is our temporal punishment which remains after our sins have been forgiven. I agree that if the men repented(of if they weren’t aware of the act’s sinfulness) then they would get to Heaven in the end, and if they didn’t repent(and had full knowledge and consent) then they would go to HELL.
All sin also brings temporal punishment on us. In Reconciliation the guilt and eternal damning(eternal only for mortal sin) of sin is released, but the temporal punishment remains. This punishment is necessary if we are to be truly perfect when he enter Heaven.
You also state that they HAD to know how sinful it was. Please state the verse that shows that they absolutely knew how against God it was.

Just because they didn’t succeed in battle doesn’t mean they knew that they were sinful or that they didn’t repent. It seems that they failed in battle because they weren’t in God’s favor(by their own intention or not). If they repented/never knew how sinful they were then they would die in the favor of God and so go to Purgatory and have their temporal punishment. Judas prayed for them and gave an indulgence to the church for their sake. As in, he was praying for them in the next life. There is no praying for those in the next life unless it is for their quick passing to Heaven.

You still haven’t shown a truthful or reasonable reason why Judas would pray and offer a sacrafice for those who have died if they couldn’t use it.

Another reason Catholics believe this is because the Pope and the ecumenical councils have reaffirmed this…they have infallibly stated that this is a true doctrine. The Holy Spirit inspires ecumenical councils and the pope(in ex cathedra statements) to be truthful.

 

[Atemi]

You still haven’t shown a truthful or reasonable reason why Judas would pray and offer a sacrafice for those who have died if they couldn’t use it.

Of course I have.

There is no “Purgatory” in the text, nor is there room for it.

Another reason Catholics believe this is because the Pope and the ecumenical councils have reaffirmed this…they have infallibly stated that this is a true doctrine. The Holy Spirit inspires ecumenical councils and the pope(in ex cathedra statements) to be truthful.

Yes, that is the claim.

 

[TheApologist]

You say there is room, yet your argument is riddled with inaccuracies showing you don’t know the Church doctrine clearly and that you have no respect for it.

Also the Church’s “claim” of infalliblity in ecumenical councils and pope excathedra statements came from Christ’s ordination of Peter. “Whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven.” Does this ring a bell? Was Christ simply “kidding around” about giving Peter this power? Or perhaps when Christ said, “I give you the keys to the kingdom” he was also kidding about placing this power in Peter’s hands? “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” And no this is not contrasting Peter and Christ making Christ the rock. In Aramaic(what Matthew was originally written in, as we know from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea and from when Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani” in Matthew in Aramaic) Peter and rock have exactly the same meaning and word: rock, kepha. Christ was saying that His Church would be built around Peter. Peter had successors…265 of them in fact. Christ was saying that His Church would be built around Peter, the pope, and his successing popes…all 265 of them. HIS Church…no other Church. If one doesn’t follow the Church which was and is led (on earth) by Peter and his successors, then what Church does one follow? If one doesn’t not accept the Church’s teachings, what does one accept? Untruth is what I say.

 

[PhilVaz]

Atemi << “…he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.” Judas did what he did for their resurrection of the dead, not any “purgatory.” >>

No problem since those in purgatory will be resurrected. We can pray for their “resurrection to eternal life” (John 5:28-29), and we can pray they will be “loosed from sins” (2 Macc 12:46) in purgatory.

Have you told us what you think the last verse of 2 Macc 12 means?

"It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins." (RSV translation)

What does “loosed from sins” mean? Or the NAB translation has “made atonement for the dead.”

Don’t forget the Fathers on purgatory and prayers for the dead:

Church Fathers on purgatory

Basically the same Church Fathers who interpreted the Scriptures and apostolic tradition to teach the Trinity, interpreted the Scriptures and apostolic tradition in support of purgatory.

Phil P

 

[Future_Prodigy]

he is right, appealing to ancient judaism will not help your cause. Ancient judaism as he stated said Sheoul was only temporary (it was 11 months max you could stay there not 12 though) which then gave rise to the doctrine of reincarnation, whichi is still believed and held to by most conservative and orthodox jews!!! Christianity is MUCH different in this regard than ancient judaism, we can not just appeal to authority on this matter

 

[Blinky]

Maccabees is evidence that praying for the dead is a very ancient tradition and not a new “invention”.

 

[Future_Prodigy]

purgatory has NOT been stated infallibly as is the often held misconception! THe doctrine could be changed tommorow if it wanted to be!

 

[Atemi]

purgatory has NOT been stated infallibly as is the often held misconception! THe doctrine could be changed tommorow if it wanted to be!

Purgatory is, unfortunately, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[mich2]

There is no “Purgatory” in the text, nor is there room for it.

If we take some teachings found among Jewish beliefs, we know they believed in a spiritual place of purification. While such beliefs are not in themselves considered dogmatic and could even be erronious, when coupling them with teachings found within the New Testament, some of it’s beliefs can be accepted with confidence.

Taken from the Jewish site jewfaq.org/moshiach.htm#Age, it reads :

Judaism does not have much dogma about the afterlife, and leaves a great deal of room for personal opinion.

Such a statement cautions us to be careful in not accepting every teachings as being true; however, those mentioned in the New Testament ought to confirm their divine authenticity.

The spiritual afterlife is referred to in Hebrew as Olam Ha-Ba (oh-LAHM hah-BAH), the World to Come, although this term is also used to refer to the messianic age.

Notice the statement “World to come” or Age to come, refers both to the Messianic age as well as the afterlife.Therefore Jesus must have meant that the sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven even within the afterlife, nor at the Great Judgment during the Messianic Age.

**Only the very righteous go directly to Gan Eden. The average person descends to a place of punishment and/or purification, generally referred to as Gehinnom (guh-hee-NOHM) (in Yiddish, Gehenna), but sometimes as She’ol or by other names
**

Here, the average person is said to be purified before entering into Eden.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote concerning Hadies"

"1. Now as to Hades, wherein the souls of the righteous and unrighteous are detained, it is necessary to speak of it. Hades is a place in the world not regularly finished; a subterraneous region, wherein the light of this world does not shine; . . . This region is allotted as a place of custody for souls, in which angels are appointed as guardians to them, who distribute to them temporary punishments, agreeable to every one’s behavior and manners.

also;

…and of the just, which they see always smile upon them, while they wait for the rest and eternal new life in Heaven, which is to succeed this region. This place we call The Bosom of Abraham.

Since the concept of Abraham’s bosom is mentioned by Jesus Himself, I am confident in accepting Josephus’ account of Hadies.

he continues…

This is the discourse concerning Hades, wherein the souls of all men are confined until a proper season, which God hath determined, when he will make a resurrection of all men from the dead, not procuring a transmigration of souls from one body to another, but raising again those very bodies

Here, he explains the transmigration of souls (a doctrine still left as possible among some Jews) as being erronious since the resurrection is what one ought to believe. Notice, that, again, for the Jewish faith, while the resurrection is clearly a possible teaching one can accept, unlike christians, they do not claim it’s teaching as being a dogma. However, some jews, such as Josephus believed, personally accept the resurrection as a dogmatic teaching; and the latter, would at the same time claim the doctrine of reincarnation as being erronious.

Finally Josephus writes:

but allotting to the lovers of wicked works eternal punishment. To these belong the unquenchable fire, and that without end, and a certain fiery worm, never dying, and not destroying the body, but continuing its eruption out of the body with never-ceasing grief: neither will sleep give ease to these men, nor will the night afford them comfort; death will not free them from their punishment,** nor will the interceding prayers of their kindred profit them**;

Here we find, as in the Book of Maccabees, the concept of interceding prayers for the dead, which in this particular case only, does not profit the **lovers **of wicked works.

Andre

 

[Atemi]

If we take some teachings found among Jewish beliefs, we know they believed in a spiritual place of purification.

And this place they specifically defined as Gehenna. This was not Purgatory.

It was their broken understanding of Hell: eternal damnation.

Christ corrected that misunderstanding for good. We cannot go back and take a false teaching (limited Gehenna), which our Lord then corrected, and then say that error is proof of yet another place or state never even mentioned or taught in the original false teaching.

Judaism did NOT teach Purgatory for the saved only, but a limited Hell instead…even for the wicked.

Basically universalism or annihilation…neither of which is true doctrine.

We should all also note that this false doctrine about a limited Gehenna came from erroneous Jewish oral tradition…NOT the Word of God as given to them.

 

[guanophore]

Strictly speaking, I would say that no Catholic doctrine is “proved” by Scripture. The true faith, which was taught and promulgated before an iota of Scripture was written down, is reflected in the Scriptures, either implicitly or explicitly.

Might the words “in this life or in the next” just be Our Lord’s way of emphatically saying that the sin against the Spirit will never, ever be forgiven? Sure; that’s one possible interpretation.

Another, completely valid, is that there are some sins whose punishments are absolved in the next life and not in this one.

We know that the doctrine of Purgatory is true because Christ’s Church says it is, regardless of whether this doctrine is taught explicitly in the Scriptures, and regardless of whether it is contained in Matthew 12.

That’s my take, anyway.

For a more thorough defense of this doctrine, see

“Purgatory”

I think there must be a better word than “absolve” to describe this. That use of it implies that the sin may still remain, since that is the word used to set aside the sin. However, I am not sure what that word might be. I prefer the word consequence, but it is modern, and I am sure a better one has been used by the Fathers.