Protestants spend more time in Purgatory than Catholics

[distracted]

No jealousy – money is not my personal focus in life (does it surprise you to learn all people don’t worship money?).

i doubt you are being fully honest. All humans appreciate money…

(that doesn’t mean they make it their primary focus in life… but ALL humans would prefer to have a lot of money… if only so they can do more good in the world…)

 

[distracted]

To love Him, is to have a PR with Him - He’s not some rotting, stinking, bag of bones from 1970 years ago. But that is what is is left, if we are to be impersonal - we are left with some useless dead guy of no obvious importance; & with a mere head-religion, & not one that fills the heart as well.​

What the …?? Jesus rose and ascended into Heaven… What the devil are you talking about??

He was never anything but a Jew.​

never said he wasn’t…

In no sense was He a Christian

Whatever…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

There is only one truth. One can say that your rendering of any verse in the Bible is erroneous if it conflicts with the one truth which is taught by the one true Church, commissioned by Christ himself to do the teaching “until the end of the age”. The challenge for you is to question your personal interpretation and ask yourself why you think your personal beliefs are correct, while the beliefs of the ancient church and her millions of followers, including the early fathers who were direct disciples of the Apostles themselves, are (were) incorrect.

When one takes the Holy Text as a whole, and does not cherry pick the verses one will accept, then it is obvious that the Protestant rejection of purgatory is nonsense, originally instituted a scant 500 years ago, to effect belief in a particular agenda, set forth by a very small contingency of protesters.

The singular truth which is that purgatory exists as an expiation of our sins demanding temporal punishment, which may remain at our death is the only logical and sensible explanation as to what happens when a person of faith, dies while his soul is still in an imperfect state. And this is what the scripture bears out. “Nothing unclean will enter heaven.” Look at King David. The man was as great a sinner as he was a man of faith. Did his faith alone save him to the point that he suffered no divine punishment for his actions? No. What about Moses, did his faith alone mean that God would not punish him for his disobedience? No, not at all. At the point non-Catholics are obstinate in their refusal to believe not only in Christ but in the Church He founded which is his mystical body, then one must realize that one is not believing in the whole of Christ, which is the very Word of God. John 1:1. That is a problem.

Can you say with all honesty that your love of God is perfect?

Well, where does it say in the Bible that Jesus incurred 100% of the what would be due? Jesus fullfilled the covenant and by doing so he opened the gates of heaven. Nowhere, and by no one (before the 16th century) were we told that our sins are expiated in full, by the one time event which is illustrated by the non-Catholic understanding of “being saved” or being “born again.”

This is earlier than some Catholic dogmas were dogmatised. Your argument may undemine what a Protestant says, but only as the cost of destroying the branch you sit on.​

As for expiation in full - to deny that Christ expiated our sins in full, & did everything for our salvation

• denies what the NT teaches
• makes all His work as our Redeemer & the Satisfaction for our sins totally needless
• is heresy
• puts fallible human ideas in place of Divine Revelation
• upholds one dogma at the expence of denying others
• is a foreign body in Catholic tradition, like a hair in a bowl of soup
• is not even necessary, since the all-sufficient Work of Christ as Saviour & Redeemer does not exclude human activity
  The real question between us & Evangelical Protestants is whether there is in fact created human activity involved in salvation; not whether in principle the work of Christ allows it. The Work of Christ does not exclude secondary causes, because it is not a material object. Milk in a glass is a material object - if the glass is full of milk, no room is left for fruit juice, unless the glass is emptied of the milk. All three take up space, so that where one is, the others can’t be.

The Work of Christ is not like that - it does not occupy space, any more than a thought or a prayer do. Nor does our activity in Christ. So Christ can perfectly well do everything for our salvation, & He has, without “squeezing out” or excluding our obedience to His perfect, finished, all-sufficient, Work. If His Work, & ours, both took up space, they could be like lorries on course for a crash into one another - but they do not, because neither is a material object. So His Will “contains” our wills, & graces & purifies & empowers them - they operate “within” it & Him, not in opposition to His, but only in union with & subjection to His; without Him, they, & we, can do nothing.

So the all-sufficiency of the Work of Christ on the Cross is not only theologically possible - it is doctrinally necessary for Catholicism, if the CC is to be Biblical, Christian, & Evangelical. (As an incidental benefit, admitting its truth is helpful for re-union with our brethren in Christ; & may do something to lessen suspicion of Catholicism among them )

As for Faith Alone, Protestants can deal with that.

Our love of God must be perfect before we can gain entrance into heaven. What I don’t understand is how you (and other non-Catholics) can think that human faith, with all of it’s many flaws, can be equivalent to perfect love.

Does the CC say this? That’s not what I’ve been taught. Hmmmmmm can you offer the cite from the catechism or a papal encyclical that says purgatory is not punishment? Perhaps it’s a problem of semantics. I don’t know. I understand that the pain of purgatory is different then the pain of hell but that it is, at the same time, similar in that one is separated from God in both states. If pain can be defined as punishment then it is not incorrect to say that purgatory is punishment, in a sense.

My reading of this thread may be deficient. Did someone say this with a straight face?

How can anyone say that we are not in need of this refinement, knowing how hopelessly flawed the human race is, before standing in the very presence of the Glory of God?

If God the Father sees us in Christ, & only in Christ, it is not obvious that we need refinement. ISTM there is a genuine issue here, that can’t be shrugged off (as sometimes it has been by Catholics) by saying that if God the Father sees us in Christ - & therefore (on the Protestant POV) as having the merits of Christ imputed to us - then God the Father is seeing something that is not true: namely, that we are not really justified, but are reckoned as just, without being just in fact.​

IMHO, imputation is more of a problem for Catholic doctrine & dogma than the assertions about being seen in Christ. It has also been pointed out that Western soteriology is fond of forensic ideas of how God works. Imputation is one those ideas - but there are other ideas than the forensic kind; such as theosis. This is significant because it means that there are several possible ways of expressing what is meant by justification, & not only the forensic one; which relativises forensic ideas to some extent; which has implications for how Protestants - & us RCs - think about justification (& so, about soteriology generally).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

What the …?? Jesus rose and ascended into Heaven… What the devil are you talking about??

The difference between​

• historic faith
• personal faith
  If Jesus is a dead guy from 2000 or so years ago, He is no more relevant to Christians than Julius Caesar or Cleopatra; He becomes someone in the remote past - interesting perhaps, maybe even important; but not of immense, vital, life-changing importance; & certainly not someone worth belonging to in every detail, or worth telling the world about. No one preaches salvation by the precious blood of Nebuchadnezzar, or justification by the infinite merits of Alexander the Great, or that Augustus Caesar was raised from the dead, or that Attila the Hun sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. This is obvious - apologies are in order for saying it.

But if one has faith in Him only as someone from the past, that is the kind of religion one left with - a “Jesus-as-irrelevant-if-interesting-but-not-alive-today” religion; a religion in which - for all practical purposes - we might as well forget about the Resurrection, the Ascension, & what they did & do; for practical purposes, we might as well forget Him, because if He is alive in the past, & not living & powerful in the lives of His followers now as well, then He is not worth bothering with, except as some person in the remote past.

Personal faith is what protects us from historic faith. PF is a name for the faith someone has who knows Him in the present & as Saviour & Lord. PF also protects us from another thing: knowing Him, not for ourselves, but only at second-hand; & also, from knowing Him only as part of a group. Catholics are often alive to individualism - but less careful to avoid the opposite mistake, collectivism. The NT contains emphases on communal ***and ***on individual life & piety - it does not encourage disregard of either. IMO, Catholic over-emphasis on the social, communal, character of the Church is one reason people leave it, & find personal faith, sometimes for the first time, among Evangelical Protestants.

PF is another, & an essential, aspect of the life of faith - it is not contrary to the communal character of the Church; it is contrary to a life of faith in which Christ is not known as a Person, but only as an impersonal Force or Power, like electricity, or Fate, or Necessity. One of the problems with “impersonal faith”, is that it encourages dead formalism, of the “I’m RC because my parents were RC” type. PF is contrary to IF - not to communion with the Church. Personal faith in a Saviour Who is a Person united by grace with the person of the Christian, is what keeps that person’s life of faith - & so, the Church’s - lively, fruitful, fresh.

Faith, & the Saviour, & the life of faith, are all called “personal”, because one cannot love or be loved except personally; “personal” does not mean “private”, still less “anti-communal”; it means “personal, & not impersonal”. Yet “personal Saviour” is a phrase that bothers plenty of Catholics

never said he wasn’t…

Some do - see earlier on the thread​

Whatever…

He was certainly no kind of Christian. If He was not a pagan either, there are not many possibilities left. And I doubt you think He was from some distant planet, or that He was non-existent. He could have been a Samaritan, perhaps… But if He was human at all, & not a vampire or zombie - or even an angelic being of some kind - He must have been a Jew ​

If He was not a Jew - why maintain that He was human at all ? There is no evidence to suggest He was not a Jew, a good deal to support the idea that He was, & nothing positively to suggest He was not. Why would a Gentile, etc., be circumcised ? A proselyte to Judaism might be - but no one is suggesting He was a proselyte. If He was genuinely a man, He must necessarily have been a member of the human race we belong to, & so, lived in conditions to which at least some other humans were subject - such as the conditions of Palestine under Roman occupation & ruled by client-kings & Roman officials, before 70 AD. As He attended the Temple in Jerusalem - a Jewish building for the religion of the Jews - & not (AFA is known) - the Samaritan Temple or any of the pagan shrines - He seems to have been a Jew.

His Jewishness is necessary even on theoretical grounds - a non-Jewish Jesus is not in any real continuity with a Jewish form of religion; to deny His Jewishness, is to make the NT community He founded entirely unrelated to the one that He & His disciples came from. A non-Jewish Jesus is in no more continuity with Judaism than Mohammed was. How can a non-Jewish Jesus be seen as fulfilling texts belonging to a culture to which He did not belong in the first place ?

 

[sola_scriptura]

i doubt you are being fully honest. All humans appreciate money…

(that doesn’t mean they make it their primary focus in life… but ALL humans would prefer to have a lot of money… if only so they can do more good in the world…)

Hmmm … perhaps? However, that is not my source of contention with Scott Hahn as you inferred. I simply disagreed with his rendering of purgatory. Then you began down an ad hom slippery slope of attacking my motives rather than argument? Logical fallacy at it’s most obvious.

I’ve yet to here a challenge to the typology I drew between the story of Sodom and Lot and 1 Cor. 3:15?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The Catholic church and many of the Early Church fathers disagreed; especially about Mary.

There’s a problem here:​

Disagreement is a relational term - for disagreement to occur, Statement A & Statement B must be brought into relation with one another. Take either away, & they no longer disagree, as they are no longer being related to one another

A NT example: the death of Judas in Matthew & in Acts. We see a problem because we have both accounts of the event, within a single pair of covers. So we can contrast one with the other. The various ancient Churches did not always have complete NTs to consult - and if a Church is in that position, the books it lacks won’t raise difficulties by being contrasted with what’s in the books it does have. And a difficulty raised by such contrast, won’t be a problem for belief in inerrancy - so a bishop of that Church will be in a position to say the NT is inerrant, since the NT available* to him* raises no problems to make him think it’s not. Fill in the blanks - including supporting testimonies - & hey presto: “the Fathers believed the Bible was inerrant”. Result: later Christians are saddled with a doctrine that is not true

That is what has happened with statements about the BVM - some Fathers believed some ideas about her; others believed other ideas about her. But all the Fathers did not believe all ideas about her. IOW, some statements about what the Fathers believed about her are founded on a blunder in logic: that what is true, when said of certain statements about what certain Fathers believed about her, is true of all statements about what all Fathers believed about her. Many Fathers believed many of the same ideas about her - but they did **not all believe **all **the same ideas about her.

If this is escaped by saying, “Justin Martyr did not explicitly say he believed in her Assumption - but he would have, had the idea been put to him”, “Tertullian did not explicitly say he believed her to be conceived immaculate, - but he would have, had the idea been put to him”, & so on with other Fathers & other dogmas: well, maybe - but also, maybe not; there is no way we can tell. By the standards of 2008, an orthodox Father of 250 might be a heretic; or might think all of us Christians today to be heretics; we have no way of telling that either.

Catholics (& all sorts of Christians) too often ignore logical & historical difficulties like these. So those who notice them, & long for help with them, don’t get the help. Which means that a number of problems people have with belief are not faced, so are not attended to, & not resolved. If apologists are to be any use, they cannot ignore such issues - they are morally obliged by their function as apologists at least to look at problems, even if they have not the foggiest clue to a solution.

 

[distracted]

Huh? What’s that all about …

Distracted … you must have been distracted when you read my post

no actually, the only time i am NOT distracted is when i am defending Catholicism… I have studied it and Church history and i am definitely NOT distracted about religion anymore…

 

[sola_scriptura]

no actually, the only time i am NOT distracted is when i am defending Catholicism… I have studied it and Church history and i am definitely NOT distracted about religion anymore…

The reason I was confused is because your question that I responded to in that post was “is the Pope Catholic” (or words to that effect)? I assume this question was aimed at another poster – because I never mentioned anything that might give rise to such a question.

I was merely stating (in so many words) … huh???

Again, I guess you mistakenly put my name in that quote … but if that question was aimed at me, I guess I’d like to know why you asked me such a thing?

 

[SIA]

There’s a problem here:​

Disagreement is a relational term - for disagreement to occur, Statement A & Statement B must be brought into relation with one another. Take either away, & they no longer disagree, as they are no longer being related to one another

A NT example: the death of Judas in Matthew & in Acts. We see a problem because we have both accounts of the event, within a single pair of covers. So we can contrast one with the other. The various ancient Churches did not always have complete NTs to consult - and if a Church is in that position, the books it lacks won’t raise difficulties by being contrasted with what’s in the books it does have. And a difficulty raised by such contrast, won’t be a problem for belief in inerrancy - so a bishop of that Church will be in a position to say the NT is inerrant, since the NT available* to him* raises no problems to make him think it’s not. Fill in the blanks - including supporting testimonies - & hey presto: “the Fathers believed the Bible was inerrant”. Result: later Christians are saddled with a doctrine that is not true

That is what has happened with statements about the BVM - some Fathers believed some ideas about her; others believed other ideas about her. But all the Fathers did not believe all ideas about her. IOW, some statements about what the Fathers believed about her are founded on a blunder in logic: that what is true, when said of certain statements about what certain Fathers believed about her, is true of all statements about what all Fathers believed about her. Many Fathers believed many of the same ideas about her - but they did ***not ***all believe **all **the same ideas about her.

If this is escaped by saying, “Justin Martyr did not explicitly say he believed in her Assumption - but he would have, had the idea been put to him”, “Tertullian did not explicitly say he believed her to be conceived immaculate, - but he would have, had the idea been put to him”, & so on with other Fathers & other dogmas: well, maybe - but also, maybe not; there is no way we can tell. By the standards of 2008, an orthodox Father of 250 might be a heretic; or might think all of us Christians today to be heretics; we have no way of telling that either.

Catholics (& all sorts of Christians) too often ignore logical & historical difficulties like these. So those who notice them, & long for help with them, don’t get the help. Which means that a number of problems people have with belief are not faced, so are not attended to, & not resolved. If apologists are to be any use, they cannot ignore such issues - they are morally obliged by their function as apologists at least to look at problems, even if they have not the foggiest clue to a solution.

For gosh sake, when do th semantics and mental gymnastics end?

 

[distracted]

For gosh sake, when do th semantics and mental gymnastics end?

an hour after death

 

[Greg27]

If purgatory exists, I think there will also be plenty of Catholics there as well; those for example who did not honestly confess every grave sin on their conscience (I am sure even the devout do grave sins that injure people in ways they don’t necessarily see at the time, or afterward; the ways we hurt and injure others can be subtle and unseen, as well as the ways we sin against ourselves). I think if heaven exists, then the vast majority of people, Catholic or otherwise, will lack the requisite virtues to enter, and purgatory will be the life lessons and also the lessons in restorative justice and penance the person not in true and unforgiven mortal sin (the ‘fundamental option’ against God) will have to endure before being allowed to enter. Purgatory in some form will be the default destination for all but a very narrow few, if these states exist.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Says the Jewish canon

We are not bound by the Jewish Canon. We are bound by the Christian Canon.

 

[reteeks21]

Well, at least we will be amongst friends.

 

[ClosterNJ]

I’m appauled at such a statement. It reaks of a lack of knowledge of our catechism and the Church itself. Our catechism speaks that the possiblity of salvation exists for not only protestants but non-Christian people who are ignorant of Christ. We as Catholics have no right as well as no idea as to who is going to heaven or hell. Father Corapi is correct when he says: “Better to live as a good protestant than a lousy Catholic.”

I hope you don’t actually believe this and that you’re just trying, in a weird way, to be funny. I have known wonderful, caring, Christ-filled protestants who are much better people than myself, with deep faith in Christ, and I think they have a better chance at heaven than myself sometimes. Our Catholicism does not call us to Pharisaic condemnation of others but charity and love.

Amen , We are not to judge others, lest we are judged by our own standards. IAs a Roman Catholic I firmly disagree with my Protestant Brethren’s non acceptance of apolstolic authority but I have no right to judge them (I can only comment on other peoples actions). As Pope Benedict said they are our brothers in faith but the protestant churhes are defficient.

 

[distracted]

Well, at least we will be amongst friends.

how do you know… been to Purgatory yet??

 

[distracted]

*]personal faith​

If Jesus is a dead guy from 2000 or so years ago, He is no more relevant to Christians than Julius Caesar or Cleopatra; He becomes someone in the remote past - interesting perhaps, maybe even important; but not of immense, vital, life-changing importance; & certainly not someone worth belonging to in every detail, or worth telling the world about. ?

sorry but right now i don’t have time to read your lengthy post… but i read this part & a little further…

i am a human being and as such, am frankly getting a little weary always defending the Catholic faith, especially to those who persist in rejecting it… though i know it is a necessary work for all Catholics… & will continue on regardless.

anyway… i hate to waste time bs-ing, as it were… i hate to waste time or words or effort… In fact it is a sin to waste anything… so i will get to the point…

All i can say with absolute certainty - and what it boils down to for me is that i never really KNEW Jesus until i got “into” my Catholic faith… when i started going to Mass every dya… spending time with Him at the Blessed Sacrament… (etc)…

I can tell that a lot of you Protestants at the forums, those who constantly fight against the Catholic faith… are missing out… and maybe you don’t even care… I mean some of you have this attitude of… Well, i am going to fight those *^%%& Catholics even though i know they are right about some things…

Just calling it as i see it… All i can say is…

He who fights Jesus… well, need i say more??

i think of Uzzah improperly touching the Ark…

 

[richard377]

AS far as I knew non Catholics could not be saved, Purgatory is reserved to those whose souls needs to be cleansed but that is for those who have died in the grace of God and not non Catholics like protestants who reject water baptism and believe they are saved in faith alone, believing that their salvation cannot be lost! How can that be? It’s not even biblical, Paul said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

 

[distracted]

AS far as I knew non Catholics could not be saved, Purgatory is reserved to those whose souls needs to be cleansed but that is for those who have died in the grace of God and not non Catholics like protestants who reject water baptism and believe they are saved in faith alone, believing that their salvation cannot be lost! How can that be? It’s not even biblical, Paul said to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

not sure i am understanding your post exactly… but assuming i am…

The Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can be saved… although it is more difficult for them to be saved… because they don’t know/have all Jesus wanted us to know / have - about Himself & salvation… (purification, etc…).

and non-Catholoic Christians ARE part of the Church in an indirect way…

it is only when they know or suspect that the Catholic Church is the one Christ founded… and reject it … that their salvation is in jeopardy…

 

[VARC]

Why because Luther said so?

Luther removed these books because they presented problems for him.

Oh, and I forgot, he decided to follow the Jewish canon that was formulated in AD90.

Who cares if the early Christians held these books to be canonical. The post-christian Jews know better than the early Christians as to what makes up the Christian canon.

You are mistaken. Most Fathers did not count Maccabees as canonical including St Athansasius, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Hilary of Potiers, St Gregory of Nazianz, and St Jerome.

 

[distracted]

You are mistaken. Most Fathers did not count Maccabees as canonical including St Athansasius, St Cyril of Jerusalem, St Hilary of Potiers, St Gregory of Nazianz, and St Jerome.

i’ve never heard that…

but even if true… The Church considers them canonical now… and that is what counts…

which brings up an interesting point… Some things change in the Church but some things do not… Those things that do not change… should be more focused on than the things that … (wont say change) evolve… or are developed…