M
Matariel
Guest
Do you believe in Purgatory as described in I Corinthians by St. Paul?
- Status
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Yes indeed – I actually remember the verse.
If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire (1 Cor. 3:5).
The proper typology for this verse can be found at Genesis 18 and 19 (the destruction of Sodom and story of Lot).
God told Abraham that if there merely ten righteous people in Sodom He would spare the city. When the angels visited Lot he was unable to convince even his own son in laws to escape the city. Lot had bore no fruit. Even his wife looked back (and was turned to salt) & he himself (after suffering great loss) barely escaped the flames. In fact Lot even had to plea to the angels to allow him to escape to the small town nearby because he was unable to make the journey through the mountains.
He lost everything but his two daughters, and barely escaped the fire by the skin of his teeth. Then, even his two daughters got him drunk and one after the other slept with him.
Had Lot merely made sure his own household was righteous; and convinced just a few other people of the truth the entire city would have been spared and Lot would not have met such an unfortunate fate.
Hahn didn’t even mention this typology when using this verse to bolster the concept of purgatory. That being said – I think this thread is getting a little out of hand with the back & forth insults (Protestants included). Let’s discuss these things in love shall we?
B
brkn1
Guest
If you are talking about (1 Corinthians 3:12-15) as describing purgatory, I fail to see how. It is describing a man’s works for further reward being tried by fire. It is the man’s work that is being “burned” to see if it is good, not the man’s soul or body.
If you insist that it is the man’s soul or body that gets exposed to the “purging fire”, then a person who had only gold, silver, precious stones would also get burned in such a trial.
Diamantina
New member
May a Catholic believe that the fire in purgatory is metaphorical? I was once told by a Melkite priest that though Catholics are obliged to believe in purgatory, they do not have to believe that they are suffering in fire akin to that of Hell.
I like to see Purgatory more like a school or intensive, more or less long-term, psychotherapy. Some people may have all but the dissertation and oral exams to complete their Ph.D. and go to Heaven: others may be functionally illiterate and need extensive personalized instruction before they are ready for Heaven. Some people may have just a few minor quirks and hangups: others may have antisocial personality disorder – the therapy necessary for admittance to Heaven would differ for each person. School and psychotherapy can be painful, but is not necessarily designed to be painful: fire, however, is designed to be painful for people.
B
Bonarges
Guest
From the infallible Cantate Domino:
[The Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but you will not find any Prot in Purgatory.
[The Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.
Sorry to burst anyone’s bubble, but you will not find any Prot in Purgatory.
M
MIZER
Guest
Hi Jim,
I rather like this cut and dried way of looking at things myself, it seems to be a lot easier to just say “you’re damned” and walk away. But, what I’ve found in my studies is that things are never as cut and dried as they might appear at first and my question to you is, how does a perfectly formed conscience fit into this scenerio?
C
Cinette
Guest
M
MIZER
Guest
Sola,
I agree, things get a little heated and we should remember to treat each other kindly.
First of all, even if we agree to your “typology” here, how exactly does the story of Sodom and Lot’s troubles dis-prove whatever Scott Hahn said about purgatory and the NT verse he was using for illustration? I asked for baby steps. I’m not following your thought process here. Can you break it down? I’m sure Scott Hahn baby stepped you through his thought process and was very clear using reason and logic the whole way. I’m asking you to do the same.
Secondly, just off the top of my head, which, I admit, is a pretty shallow space, as I read what you posted here I see purgatorial reference in your language when you say things like: “(after suffering great loss)”, and “He lost everything” and yet was not, in fact, consumed. He went on.
Thirdly, you fail to show how Scott Hahn took the verse he was using out of context.
Finally, you must remember that no Catholic ever has to resort to just one verse to illustrate the truth of any doctrine in question. The Bible is to be taken as a whole. Not cherry picked as another poster called what fundamentalists/protestants do on a regular basis. Therefore, even if you successfully debunk (in your own mind) 1Cor 3:5, denying that it has anything to do with purgatory, you still must contend with the other verses you have been shown as well as the entire sense of Scripture as a whole.
This is why I asked SIA to consider the fact that your faith is founded upon denial. I asked SIA and I would ask you if you could try reading the Bible from a perspective of assent instead, and see if you didn’t come to a different conclusion.
C
catholiconce
Guest
Why all the hatred some of your and others posts scare me. I fear the saftey of those who are not Roman Catholic. I fear for my life and the life of others.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
First, with regard to your last statement – you forget why the protestant reformation began? It was RCC abuses that started this whole thing (and Luther never even wanted to split – yet all I hear from Catholics is demonization of this man, pointing to his infirmities, and so forth without ever looking in the mirror). Indeed even the RCC hesitantly concedes these former abuses – since obviously the history is well recorded (though it will separate infallibility concerning doctrine with corrupt administration).
Frankly, in my experience here this is not a productive topic to harp on (I’ve never seen it end well
).With regard to Hahn, his discourse regarding 1 Cor. 3:15 was short. He didn’t really provide any exegesis; except to say the last few words of the passage (as if by fire) means there is some postmortem purification indicated by it (also using the passages that discuss refining like silver, gold, etc.).
Scripture tells us the “refining” passages refer to the work of the Holy Spirit (in believers) and there is no indication ever that gives support to the notion of some sort of purgatory. This concept is alien to Judeo-Christianity, and frankly regardless of how old it is – it’s erroneous IMO. Anyway, I don’t have time right now, but I can get into this deeper (honestly, it’s not my favorite topic, I like discussing grace and soteriology – but I’ll certainly respond to objections, provide scriptural support for my view, and so forth).
Blessings
D
distracted
Guest
Well, i think it is only a non-issue because of one thing (otherwise it would be an issue): Christ established ONE Church (not 33,000). We can either trust that Church or we cannot. It either IS the true Church or its not… I know that it is… But for those who still struggle with this & fight against it… well… i believe that is when it becomes an issue… because thye look @ the scandals or apparent scandals & say “this proves thus & so…”. It is our job to inform them of the true teachings of the Church… because salvation is NOT easily achieved outside the Church…
i heard it was higher than in the priesthood (twice as high) but not as high as the general population…
In any case… shows what happens when u point fingers… there are 3 pointing back at yourself…
D
distracted
Guest
Oh please…
D
distracted
Guest
that’s one version…
I try to find reliable versions of history, not biased anti-Catholic ones…
B
Bonarges
Guest
Could you elaborate just a bit, or rephrase the question so I can make sure I understand what you’re asking?
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
I see you use strong anti-protestant quotes from prior Popes as your signature. I have a few question. The language in your signature seems to contradict the ecumenical spirit (and language pertaining to non-Catholic Christians) of Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio Chap. 1, sect. 3 (I quote):
*For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect.
The brethren divided from us also use many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each Church or Community. These liturgical actions must be regarded as capable of giving access to the community of salvation.*
Do you disagree with Vatican II (I know some Catholics do)? If so, wouldn’t that mean you’re a poor Catholic? Lastly, why do you revel in identifying yourself by what you disdain rather than what you love? Doesn’t this contradict perfect love (which we should have for even those we consider enemies)?
B
Bonarges
Guest
The two quotes below my signature are clear expressions of truth.
I revel in, and love truth clearly expressed, and the clearest expression of Truth is Jesus Christ. So, I am indentifying myself with the Truth who is Jesus Christ. I literally could have chosen from hundreds of quotes for my signature which would have stated the exact same truth as the quotes already used. It is not as if I pulled them from a vacuum. The quotes which you posted, however, are simply not *clear *. As with other VII documents, they can be understood in a number of ways. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t true, just unclear. Even the current pontiff has stated that certain VII documents might need to be rewritten. It has also been stated by more than one pontiff that the VII documents *must *be understood in light of tradition, and not vice versa. Perfect love is not endless dialog where the truth is never stated. This seems to be the thrust of modern ecumenism, i.e, charity at the expense of truth. While I admit that the tone of my signature quotes can appear harsh, their clarity cannot be denied. And they are true, as well. Pax.
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
So even though the language of Vatican II is clearly contrary to the language you cited by these earlier Popes – it’s still consistent?
Uhhh … okay
S
sola_scriptura
Guest
Then just do what I did when I sought information regarding this – look in the history books. Fortunately with regard to the reformation the events were well recorded. That the RCC might deny the truth and its culpability is no surprise to me.
C
catholiconce
Guest
Thank you Sola .
Some Do not look at history and the facts leading up to historical events. They just beleive what others tell them and read only one side of an issue. If you look at both sides of the reformation period and then read some of the posts here some 500 years later some things never change. Martin Luther stood up to the coruption that was taking place and he was excommunicated for speaking up. JFK ,RFK and Mr King spoke up on other matters of truth and look what happened to them. These fine men wanted to stop coruption and they payed the ultimate price.
M
MIZER
Guest
Now wait just a cotton picken minute. Martin Luther was not excommunicated because he “stood up to the corruption.” The man added, literally added the word alone to his German translation of the Sacred text and he was excommunicated for that act (an act of heresy) at the point he refused to make it right.
Let us remember that the Church was, in fact, charged by Christ Himself, with the chore of feeding His lambs and tending His Sheep. At that time in history, being excummunicated for acts of heresy against the Church was as common as being executed for acts of treason against the state or the common wealth or whatever…
Nothing of what happened 500 years ago negates what Jesus Christ did 2000 years ago. He made certain promises toward the Church he said he would build and those promises, including the powers he gave it along with His own authority, remain intact.
- Status