Protestant Questions About Purgatory

[Techno2000]

Yes, you are correct, and I took that into consideration when I made the post. I actually believe that this is what most Catholics intend, by their use of the word “Purgatory.”

Did you read any of the Purgatory web links I gave you? They are from “Catholic Mystics” and give a different perspective than say the Catechism.

 

[grandfather]

Did you read any of the Purgatory web links I gave you? They are from “Catholic Mystics” and give a different perspective than say the Catechism.

If anyone is interested here is a personal experience that relates to the topic. It happened several years ago.

I go to pray at the Adroation Chapel in a local parish in the middle of the night. At that time my hours were 1 to 3 AM. One night no one showed up to take my place. The regular replacement slept through the alarm, but I did not know this. It was an icy night and the roads were bad. At about 3:15 I realized no one was coming and I was very tired and would be there until 5:00 when my wife comes in. I figured I better get as comfortable as possible. I had a book in my coat pocket.by St. Alphonse called Prayer the Great Means of Salvation. I had been praying for two hours and got the book and settled in determined to at least stay awake. I read the part about praying for the dead, which I confess I did a little bit now and then, but not a whole lot. His explanation of why this is necessary was very good and very clear. At about 3:40 a guy came in and I figured he got a call to be a sub. Maybe the regular guy got stuck or something. So I got up and left. Later in the morning when I woke up my wife told me of a strange experience she had, that happened to coincide with the time I was reading about praying for the dead in the chapel in front of the Eucharist. She was home in bed and was awakened by voices calling out for help. They sounded very distressed. She sat up in bed and tried to figure out where they were coming from. We live out in a rural area with no other people around the vicinity of our home. She thought they might be coming from outside the house, or inside, or even inside her mind. She sat there and listened for awhile and was confused and disturbed, unable to tell where these distressed people were calling from. She thought she might be asleep and dreaming, but knew that was not the case. She was sitting awake and listening to voices calling out for help. She got a bit scared and pulled the blankets over her head and tried to go back to sleep. She was asleep about 45 minutes later when I got home. I got in bed and she told me what happened later in the morning.

Paul writes about all the heroes of the Old Testament being justified by faith, starting with Abraham if I recall. When he gets to the end he writes something very strange. He writes, that in God’s plan they would not be made perfect without us.

 

[distracted]

Protestants who reject the notion of praying for or two the dead will resist the notion that scripture supports that thhose who die undergo some final preparation for heaven.

For sure… old beliefs die hard…

If one insists tradition has no authority in determining morality, and that ALL of one’s doctrines on morals and faith must be from scripture, . one of the following two options must be chosen. One would either have to accept the non-scriptural moral doctrine as unsupportable by scripture , or change one’s moral position on the matter …

Well, i always try to use Scirpture when dealing with Protestants because thye seem to accept nothing else… Howeer, the weird thing is, they often don’t accept Scripture either… though they would never admit it…

Monogamy is prescribed as the only form of marraige for bishops. If monogamy were demanded of all people then scripture should have stated all men should be husbands of one wife instead of bishops only.

So you are saying that a bishop is held to a higher accountability by God, than others? Not true… What God or the Church expects of a bishop in the way of sexual morals, is expected of eveyone. God is no respecter of persons…

Are you saying polygamy is OK in some situations??

 

[Protestant101]

Did you read any of the Purgatory web links I gave you? They are from “Catholic Mystics” and give a different perspective than say the Catechism.

Yes; and at the one link you gave I read:

A SEER’S ACTUAL EXPERIENCE IN PURGATORY: Early in 1992, (Father Andrew C. Wingate) while overseas, was taken to Purgatory and experienced the most painful sufferings.

This is utter blasphemy and heresy in it’s strongest form, and should likely be rejected by both Catholic and Protestant adherents. There’s no way this kind of thing can ever be proven as “truth” from either source.

 

[SIA]

Some Scriptures within the Protestant Bible can be cited as arguably supporting purgatory, such as Paul praying for the late Onesiphorus in 2 Tim 1:16.

I think 2 Macc 12:43-46, which plainly advocates prayer for the dead, makes the Catholic case stronger, but I wouldn’t say that it’s the only verse that supports the idea of purgatory.

Purgatory wasn’t a doctrine of the early church. It didn’t become doctrine until the 5th century. There is no Biblical support for it. There are only pick and paste verses that you still have to twist to get Purgatory. I don’t buy in.

 

[JRKH]

(Snip)

So you are saying that a bishop is held to a higher accountability by God, than others? Not true… What God or the Church expects of a bishop in the way of sexual morals, is expected of eveyone. God is no respecter of persons…

Are you saying polygamy is OK in some situations??

I think that what Grandfather was alluding to was this:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach; (1 Timothy 3:2)

Since Paul specifically mentions this it would appear that polygamy was practiced in, at least, some of the churches at the time. If someone believes that All teachings must come from the bible the natural assumption could be that polygamy is not only not forbidden, but an acceptable and accepted practice.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Purgatory wasn’t a doctrine of the early church. It didn’t become doctrine until the 5th century. There is no Biblical support for it. There are only pick and paste verses that you still have to twist to get Purgatory. I don’t buy in.

Nothing ever becomes “Doctrine” at the start of it’s being believed.
It isn’t as though no one believes such and such, then Blammo the Church declares it and everyone believes.
So stating when something is doctrinally declared only proves that it was widely held and taught before that, investigated by the Church for validity and THEN declared.

Peace
James

 

[SIA]

Nothing ever becomes “Doctrine” at the start of it’s being believed.
It isn’t as though no one believes such and such, then Blammo the Church declares it and everyone believes.
So stating when something is doctrinally declared only proves that it was widely held and taught before that, investigated by the Church for validity and THEN declared.

Peace
James

what about the infallibility of the pope? It didn’t become doctrine until the late 19th century. Does that mean that if one believed in it before then, he was a heretic and if one did not believe it after then, he was also a heretic? Come on here, the truth cannot change like that. Same for Purgatory.

 

[Techno2000]

Yes; and at the one link you gave I read:

This is utter blasphemy and heresy in it’s strongest form, and should likely be rejected by both Catholic and Protestant adherents. There’s no way this kind of thing can ever be proven as “truth” from either source.

How in the world is this
Blasphemy !

 

[wanner47]

what about the infallibility of the pope? It didn’t become doctrine until the late 19th century. Does that mean that if one believed in it before then, he was a heretic and if one did not believe it after then, he was also a heretic? Come on here, the truth cannot change like that. Same for Purgatory.

Short answer:

As these and many other cases demonstrate, doctrinal questions can remain in a not-yet-fully-defined state for years. The Church has never felt the need to define formally what there has been no particular pressure to define. This strikes many, particularly non-Catholics, as strange. Why weren’t things cleared up in, say, A.D. 100, so folks could know what’s what? Why didn’t Rome issue a laundry list of definitions in the early days and let it go at that? Why wasn’t an end-run made around all these troubles that plagued Christianity precisely because things were unclear? The remote reason is that God has had his own timetable and set of reasons (to which we aren’t privy) for keeping it. The same could be said about Old Testament prophets: Why didn’t they understand the fullness of the doctrine of the Trinity all at once? Or the identity of the Messiah? Or the fullness of Christian teaching? Partly because God had not revealed it all yet, and partly because their understanding of the implications of the doctrines they had needed to grow clearer over time.

This need to discern more clearly what is contained in the deposit of faith given to the Church by the apostles points us to the related subjects of infallibility and inspiration. The pope and the bishops (when teaching in union with him) have the charism of infallibility when defining matters of faith or morals; but infallibility works only negatively. Through the intervention of the Holy Spirit, the pope and bishops are prevented from teaching what is untrue, but they are not forced or told by the Holy Spirit to teach what is true. To put it another way, the pope and the bishops are not inspired the way the authors of Scripture or the prophets were. To make a new definition, to clear up some dogmatic confusion, they first have to use human reason, operating on what is known to date, to be able to teach more precisely what is to be held as true. They cannot teach what they do not know, and they learn things the same way we do. They have no access to prophetic shortcuts—they must delve by study into the riches of the words God has already given us.

Long answer

I also find your statement extremely ironic given that most Protestants believe that Truth is determined by majority vote (e.g., contraception, ordination of women, homosexual “marriage” and so forth).

 

[SIA]

Short answer:

Long answer

I also find your statement extremely ironic given that most Protestants believe that Truth is determined by majority vote (e.g., contraception, ordination of women, homosexual “marriage” and so forth).

Oh come on now. Such a long thought out intelligent and conviction filled response to my statement about infallibility and then this futile generalization about “most Protestants”. How can you claim to know that much about “most Protestants” if your are devoutly Catholic?

 

[Cathdefender]

Oh come on now. Such a long thought out intelligent and conviction filled response to my statement about infallibility and then this futile generalization about “most Protestants”. How can you claim to know that much about “most Protestants” if your are devoutly Catholic?

Because Catholics are deep in history.

 

[SIA]

Because Catholics are deep in history.

thats fine that you answered here but I was actually speaking to the one who wrote this post. See there, I won’t even complain that you folks are beginning to gang up on me here. I seriously don’t mind. Especially today!

 

[grandfather]

So you are saying that a bishop is held to a higher accountability by God, than others? Not true… What God or the Church expects of a bishop in the way of sexual morals, is expected of eveyone. God is no respecter of persons…

Are you saying polygamy is OK in some situations??

No. I am saying scripture does not impose monogamy as the only form of Christian marriage. Monogamy is imposed by the authority of the Church. If you claim everything you believe has to be taken from scripture and the Church has no authority to define morals, then you must accept polygamy. Luther said that divorce was not acceptable, but polygamy is, because he could find nowhere in scripture that prohibited it. The vast majority of Protestants hold that polygamy is not acceptable. That postion is not supportable by scripture. Luther was right. So they have a problem. They have a conflict. They hold a doctrine that is not scriptural and at the same time say all doctrine must be defined by scripture. What is their solution? They can make an exception for this one doctrine, but then there will be other exceptions. They can reject the doctrine on monogamy as unscriptural having discovered that scripture does not demand monogamy. They can try to find something in scripture that alludes to the doctrine, but it is not there. Luther was right about that. In fact polygamy was ok in the Old Testament and only bishops in the New Testament are required to have only one wife indicates polygamy is ok for the general population. If Paul wanted to require monogamy of all he could have just as easily done so. He would not have said anytihng about it if polygamy was not practiced in his day. Either you reject sola scriptura or accept polygamy as morally legitmate. I am a Catholic. The Church has the authority to define the moral norms. If I were a Protestant polygamy is an open question and the Bible can’t answer it.

 

[Gamera]

Purgatory wasn’t a doctrine of the early church. It didn’t become doctrine until the 5th century. There is no Biblical support for it. There are only pick and paste verses that you still have to twist to get Purgatory. I don’t buy in.

“Pick and paste?” Listen, even if you deny that 2 Macc 12:43-46 is Scripture, you can’t deny its value as secular historical evidence that Jews were praying for the souls of the dead before Christ was even born. How is that “twisting?” Do you have some other interpretation of 2 Macc 12:43-46, that these people weren’t really praying for the dead?

If puragtory wasn’t a belief of the earliest Christians, then why are prayers for the dead recorded among the writings of second-century Christians?

 

[ralphinal]

The first Christians beleived in it because they were Jews first. The first century Jews believed in it as a matter of faith, with the exception of the Sadducees. Modern Orthodox Jews still do. Why is this an issue? It was there from the beginning, an understood article of faith. PArt of the Communion of Saints.

 

[JRKH]

what about the infallibility of the pope? It didn’t become doctrine until the late 19th century. Does that mean that if one believed in it before then, he was a heretic and if one did not believe it after then, he was also a heretic? Come on here, the truth cannot change like that. Same for Purgatory.

Truth does not Change, it just gets calrified.
Truth does not Change, just our understanding of it.

“Come on here” - Do you really think the council just got together and declared this on some sort of whim?

Peace
James

 

[wanner47]

Oh come on now. Such a long thought out intelligent and conviction filled response to my statement about infallibility and then this futile generalization about “most Protestants”. How can you claim to know that much about “most Protestants” if your are devoutly Catholic?

My husband and I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I spent 22 years as a Protestant (ELCA), and most of my friends/family are Protestant. That’s how.

Care to actually *respond *to my comment, by the way? If Protestants have the monopoly on Truth, why have their teachings changed so radically? Why didn’t they know the “Truth” 50 years ago if they know the “Truth” now?

 

[SIA]

My husband and I converted to Catholicism in 2003. I spent 22 years as a Protestant (ELCA), and most of my friends/family are Protestant. That’s how.

Care to actually *respond *to my comment, by the way? If Protestants have the monopoly on Truth, why have their teachings changed so radically? Why didn’t they know the “Truth” 50 years ago if they know the “Truth” now?

Your question is far too broad. I cannot speak for all Protestants. I am Anglican and our doctrines and practices are purposefully held in accordance with the early church’s. I think a case can be made for all churches changing over the decades including Catholicism. And speaking of Truth, God is all truth and his Word (The Holy Scriptures) contain that truth. Those don’t change. I’m sure you knew that as a Lutheran. As far as everything else, it’s been skewed and tarnished by man. Christ is your savior bottom line. No church or saint or icon can do that for you.

 

[Gamera]

Christ is your savior bottom line. No church or saint or icon can do that for you.

Right. Catholics agree. Also, no Bible can save you – you left that part out.