Purgatory: a place of torment or not?

[humble_catholic]

First off, I am not Protestant, and secondly, I’m not trying to bait ANYONE into believing or not in “purgatory”. I only, and am still asking for someone, anyone, to please refer me to the writer and the verse(s) where Jesus clearly tells his apostles about purgatory and of purging ones sins,so I may read of it too and believe.

As for John 6, you are right, Jesus lost a lot of believers because they thought He meant it literally and thought it a form of cannibalism,so they left.So, what’s your point?Perhaps the Holy Spirit is giving me these spiritual truths to pass on to those who do not,and will not accept what is truth.Do you not remember that Jesus was rejected for bringing the Word of God to the people also? I’m sorry if I am not making any friends here, that was not my intention. I am trying to find out where these thoughts come from.

Yes I understand the Bible was written long ago, but people have used their own thinking and have passed it on to others. I am merely trying to do what Jesus said and taught. Remember when Jesus said in Matthew 18:3 “unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” What do you suppose He meant by that?

Wrong Barry , Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach and their teachings would be protected by the Holy Spirit . If you don’t believe what the apostles passed down to their successors (the apostolic fathers) then you don’t believe Christ himself Barry.
It is 100% apparent from ignatius’s teachings that they were taught to believe that Christ meant that verse on the eucharist literally as the flesh and blood of Christ.

Not only that but the eucharist must be a valid eucharist performed either by the bishop or a presbytery under the bishop. No other eucharist is valid. So Barry do u trust What Christ said to his apostles enoigh to partake of a valid eucharist or will u follow your personal beliefs as to what Christianity is.

Christ taught one truth, passed it down to his apostles and his church . The bible wasnt meant to be interpreted without the church’s authority .
Do you submit to Christ and to the church’s authority Barry or do you say to Christ "I love you lord but sorry, I don’t believe in everything that your apostles passed down to us, so I will form my own interpretation of scripture separated from your historic church.

This is what it comes down to my brother in Christ

 

[BarryI]

Wrong Barry , Christ gave the apostles the authority to teach and their teachings would be protected by the Holy Spirit . If you don’t believe what the apostles passed down to their successors (the apostolic fathers) then you don’t believe Christ himself Barry.
It is 100% apparent from ignatius’s teachings that they were taught to believe that Christ meant that verse on the eucharist literally as the flesh and blood of Christ.

Not only that but the eucharist must be a valid eucharist performed either by the bishop or a presbytery under the bishop. No other eucharist is valid. So Barry do u trust What Christ said to his apostles enoigh to partake of a valid eucharist or will u follow your personal beliefs as to what Christianity is.

Christ taught one truth, passed it down to his apostles and his church . The bible wasnt meant to be interpreted without the church’s authority .
Do you submit to Christ and to the church’s authority Barry or do you say to Christ "I love you lord but sorry, I don’t believe in everything that your apostles passed down to us, so I will form my own interpretation of scripture separated from your historic church.

This is what it comes down to my brother in Christ

Let us then speak of truth. If Christ had said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life which is true. It wasn’t until a time a few hundred years after He said that did the Church begin to implement that into a Mass ritual. So I ask you,if the Church teaches this as truth,then I guess all of the Catholics will not have everlasting life as there is no wine given at communion. Now I now you are going to tell me that by the priest up on the altar transforming the host into body and blood, but that is not what Christ gave the Apostles. He didn’t say "here, eat this bread as this is my body and blood,did He?No he gave them wine and said “drink, for this is my blood”. So then, the Church decided to forego that part and implement their own “rules” as to how this will take place?Looks to me as a half truth.The church is only doing half of what Jesus did. The only one who participates in the wine is the priest.What is one to think?

 

[minion]

Perhaps I’m missing something here, but I’m confused by your reply

It’s a logical deduction. The verse from Maccabees shows the Jews prayed for the dead. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity has its roots in Judaism. Therefore, as a Christian, you can theologically deduce that your prayers for the dead aren’t wasted.

But, if Heaven and Hell and exists, then you know prayers for the dead can’t help them. The saints in Heaven don’t need your prayers, because they’re in heaven. The souls in Hell can’t be helped by your prayers, because they’re beyond help. Therefore, you can deduce there is a state for souls where your prayers can help them. The Catholic Church calls it Purgatory - a place where souls are purged of sins before you enter heaven.

Then, we all know not everyone on the planet has heard of Jesus. The Aztecs, the Mayans, etc. We can’t honestly expect every single person who has never heard of Jesus to go to hell; that’s simply ridiculous and completely unjust. But how can they be held accountable for sins if they never heard of Jesus, but still can go to heaven? They can’t, hence a need for purgation of their sins, Purgatory, before entering heaven. Notice as well that some religions teach the concept of reincarnation - a continuous cycle of rebirth after death, slowly bringing to a state of Nirvana (ie. heaven). While I think their understanding of the afterlife is wrong, it sounds to me even some other non-Christian religions had a vague understanding of Purgatory.

Also. How do you know of they are in Heaven or hell?

We don’t. That’s why we’re praying, in case the souls are in Purgatory. The Jews did it, so why not Christians?

He didn’t . That is a personal choice, but it refers to Exodus 20:13. Now its not to say one who is a soldier will kill, but the reality of it is :He takes an oath to fight for whoever he is fighting for and possibly kill another.So he knows he may kill.And that my friend is kind of where it touches on being a soldier.You are armed with weapons designed to kill,period.They’re not kiving you foam rubber bullets and bombs.

The Old Testament is replete with soldiers killing people. David killed Goliath, Uriah, Joshua…it keeps going. I’m not saying I like it, but fact is fact. The Bible is okay with soldiers killing (typically in defense, though not always).

Let us then speak of truth. If Christ had said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life which is true. It wasn’t until a time a few hundred years after He said that did the Church begin to implement that into a Mass ritual.?

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” -1 Corinthians 10:16

The Eucharist might not have been as well formalized as it is now since Christianity had to go underground a lot (because of various persecutions), but it’s right there.

 

[R_C]

Let us then speak of truth. If Christ had said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life which is true. It wasn’t until a time a few hundred years after He said that did the Church begin to implement that into a Mass ritual.

That is factually inaccurate. If you want to argue about history, at least study first

To me it is quite amusing how you are so bold as to criticize what the Holy Roman Church has done for twenty centuries based on your personal opinion. Have you tried to read the Church Fathers? Obviously you haven’t, otherwise you would be immediately aware that what the Catholic Church does today is what the Church did in the first centuries, literally from apostolic days. To say otherwise means only one thing: that you have not studied the history of the Church well enough. But then you can only bring forth a shallow argument which discourages those who study the history of the Early Church from even engaging in discussion on it.

Nobody has the truth in their pockets, we are all looking for the truth. The difference is that we follow the apostle’s teaching to hold on to the tradition we have received by letter and word of mouth, while you do what Peter said regarding the epistles of St Paul:

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[humble_catholic]

Let us then speak of truth. If Christ had said whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood will have everlasting life which is true. It wasn’t until a time a few hundred years after He said that did the Church begin to implement that into a Mass ritual. So I ask you,if the Church teaches this as truth,then I guess all of the Catholics will not have everlasting life as there is no wine given at communion. Now I now you are going to tell me that by the priest up on the altar transforming the host into body and blood, but that is not what Christ gave the Apostles. He didn’t say "here, eat this bread as this is my body and blood,did He?No he gave them wine and said “drink, for this is my blood”. So then, the Church decided to forego that part and implement their own “rules” as to how this will take place?Looks to me as a half truth.The church is only doing half of what Jesus did. The only one who participates in the wine is the priest.What is one to think?

Barry, again this isn’t what christian history tells us.
Remember good ole ignatious speaking in 110 ad . He wasnt telling his audience something that was new and that they have never heard before. When he spoke to his fellow Christians in 110 ad about the eucharist he didn’t say “well my fellow Christians, you should believe that the eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus because this is a new teaching that I just made up”".

No in fact he was speaking to them because it was something that he knew that was allready implemented before him and was taught to him by his mentor, the apostle John, which tells us that it was believed and taught from the beginning.

Now if you disagree with John, then you disagree with Johns teacher who is Christ Jesus himself. This shows that the belief of the eucharist was believed from the very beginning which the Catholic Church teaches today . There is no way to get around this Barry.

So my question still stands, do you accept the fullness of the truth that was passed down to us by Christ himself through his Disciples and passed to the apostolic fathers etc etc or do you accept your own private interpretation of the eucharist as it was passed down to you from a church that doesn’t have apostolic succession?

Forget for one second the Catholic-Protestant argument and just see the doctrine for what it is, something that was taught by the apostles to their students and passed down accurately to Christians for over 2000 years and is in fact biblical .

And no where does it say that only the priest can participate in the eucharist. The eucharist was meant for all of church members to participate in.
What ignatius was saying is that the eucharist is valid only performed by the bishop or someone authorized under him. Again this touches upon what paul said to the Corinthians about following what the apostles passed down to them either by word of mouth or by the written word.

Ignatius was a student of the apostle John and his teachings were passed down authoritatively to ignatius and ignatius was ordained the bishop of Antioch . Please read about the process of ordination . Clement of Rome in 90 ad wrote about how the apostles wanted to protect against teaching errors and how they ordained future teachers to prevent this.

Can you at least admit to this? And if not show us the historic proof that the eucharist wasnt believed to be the real presence of our Lord and Savior .

 

[humble_catholic]

That is factually inaccurate. If you want to argue about history, at least study first

To me it is quite amusing how you are so bold as to criticize what the Holy Roman Church has done for twenty centuries based on your personal opinion. Have you tried to read the Church Fathers? Obviously you haven’t, otherwise you would be immediately aware that what the Catholic Church does today is what the Church did in the first centuries, literally from apostolic days. To say otherwise means only one thing: that you have not studied the history of the Church well enough. But then you can only bring forth a shallow argument which discourages those who study the history of the Early Church from even engaging in discussion on it.

Nobody has the truth in their pockets, we are all looking for the truth. The difference is that we follow the apostle’s teaching to hold on to the tradition we have received by letter and word of mouth, while you do what Peter said regarding the epistles of St Paul:

This is the key R_C
The bible itself doesn’t say that the written word alone is the full deposit of faith.
People can’t just throw away the first 1500 years of Christian Church history and make believe it doesn’t matter or that it didn’t exist.

Why do all Mainstream Christians believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God ?
Because the Catholic Church put the bible together and determined which books belonged there. The bible is actually a Catholic Church canonized book. If not then pastors today can choose to take out any book from the bible because it doesn’t agree with what they personally believe that Christianity is. They don’t because they accept the Canon of the bible based on the catholic Church’s authority to determine its canon.

If you read the history of the ancient Christian Church you will see that whenever any individual started to teach a doctrine that they privately interpreted outside of the church, they were labeled heretics. The docetist didn’t believe in a bodily resurrection of Christ and you can see where ignatius of Antioch labels them heretics not only for that but also for their belief that the eucharist isn’t the flesh of our lord and savior.

Now comb throughout Early Christian history and show us one instance where the belief in the eucharist was labelled heretical?
You won’t find one instance.
The belief that it was symbolic is a modern invention from man 1500 years after Christ and his apostles .

 

[humble_catholic]

Barry, authoritative interpretation and apostolic succession is explained here from scripture as well as from the earliest Hriatian Church leaders.

scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Remember Clement of Rome was writing to the Corinthians in 90ad and was a student of the apostles Peter and Paul.

This is Clemente in 98ad

““And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, ‘I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.’… Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry…For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.” Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).”"

This is ignatius in 110 ad

““For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).”"

Now lets turn to scripture itself to show us how Christ wanted us to obey the authority of the church and its leaders that he gave us throigh apostolic succession.

""Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

Rom. 15:16 – Paul says he is a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of the ordained which is distinguishable from the universal priesthood of the laity. Notice the Gentiles are the “sacrifice” and Paul does the “offering.”

1 Cor. 5:3-5; 16:22; 1 Tim. 1:20; Gal 1:8; Matt 18:17 – these verses show the authority of the elders to excommunicate / anathemize (“deliver to satan”).

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God. It is not self-appointed authority.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 5:20 - Paul says we are “ambassadors” for Christ. This means that the apostles and their successors share an actual participation in Christ’s mission, which includes healing, forgiving sins, and confecting the sacraments.

2 Cor. 10:6 – in reference to the ordained, Paul says that they are ready to punish every disobedience. The Church has the authority excommunicate those who disobey her.

2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

1 Peter 2:18 - Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.

1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 - Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.

2 Peter 2:10 - Peter warns the faithful about despising authority. He is referring to the apostolic authority granted to them by Christ.

3 John 9 - John points out that Diotrephes does not acknowledge John’s apostolic authority and declares that this is evil.

Deut. 17:10-13 - the Lord commands His faithful Israel to obey the priests that He puts in charge, and do to all that they direct and instruct. The Lord warns that those who do not obey His priests shall die.

Num. 16:1-35 - Korah incited a “protestant” rebellion against God’s chosen Moses in an effort to confuse the distinction between the ministerial and universal offices of priesthood, and Korah and his followers perished. (This effort to blind the distinctions between the priests and the laity is still pursued by dissidents today.)

Sirach 7:29-30 - with all your soul fear the Lord and honor His priests, love your Maker and do not forsake His ministers. God is not threatened by the authority He gives His children! God, as our Loving Father, invites us to participate in His plan of salvation with His Son Jesus. Without authority in the Church, there is error, chaos and confusion."""

 

[BarryI]

It’s a logical deduction. The verse from Maccabees shows the Jews prayed for the dead. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity has its roots in Judaism. Therefore, as a Christian, you can theologically deduce that your prayers for the dead aren’t wasted.

But, if Heaven and Hell and exists, then you know prayers for the dead can’t help them. The saints in Heaven don’t need your prayers, because they’re in heaven. The souls in Hell can’t be helped by your prayers, because they’re beyond help. Therefore, you can deduce there is a state for souls where your prayers can help them. The Catholic Church calls it Purgatory - a place where souls are purged of sins before you enter heaven.

Then, we all know not everyone on the planet has heard of Jesus. The Aztecs, the Mayans, etc. We can’t honestly expect every single person who has never heard of Jesus to go to hell; that’s simply ridiculous and completely unjust. But how can they be held accountable for sins if they never heard of Jesus, but still can go to heaven? They can’t, hence a need for purgation of their sins, Purgatory, before entering heaven. Notice as well that some religions teach the concept of reincarnation - a continuous cycle of rebirth after death, slowly bringing to a state of Nirvana (ie. heaven). While I think their understanding of the afterlife is wrong, it sounds to me even some other non-Christian religions had a vague understanding of Purgatory.

We don’t. That’s why we’re praying, in case the souls are in Purgatory. The Jews did it, so why not Christians?

The Old Testament is replete with soldiers killing people. David killed Goliath, Uriah, Joshua…it keeps going. I’m not saying I like it, but fact is fact. The Bible is okay with soldiers killing (typically in defense, though not always).

“The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” -1 Corinthians 10:16

The Eucharist might not have been as well formalized as it is now since Christianity had to go underground a lot (because of various persecutions), but it’s right there.

Once again , what the heck is Judgement day then. By what you’re saying, if you are dead and already in hell , so to speak, why, would you then be resurrected to face judgement day ? And as for the cup of blessing in 1 Corinthians, they all drank from it literally. How can you partake in it if you don’t drink it?

 

[steve_b]

I can only quote on the passage from Matthew here as I am at work and cannot review the others right now, but Jesus here was talking about Judgement Day nothing about a purging of sins.

When we die, we don’t lay in the ground till the end of the world. Our body goes to dust, but our soul is immortal. Immortal means it has a beginning but no end. Therefore, the soul doesn’t die, it doesn’t sleep. Immediately after death of the body, our soul is individually judged and either enters heaven, purgatory for purification (which ultimately the soul will be in heaven), or hell. The following as you can see takes place after death, but before heaven. It obviously isn’t heaven, and it obviously isn’t hell because one is saved after going through the process.

:
1 Corinthians 3 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

It doesn’t say how long this process takes, only that it takes place on the Day, and it is specific for the individual, it doesn’t look pleasant, it isn’t permanent, but it is effective, because the individual does make it through the purification process to heaven after this takes place.

 

[BarryI]

When we die, we don’t lay in the ground till the end of the world. Our body goes to dust, but our soul is immortal. Immortal means it has a beginning but no end. Therefore, the soul doesn’t die, it doesn’t sleep. Immediately after death of the body, our soul is individually judged and either enters heaven, purgatory for purification (which ultimately the soul will be in heaven), or hell. The following as you can see takes place after death, but before heaven. It obviously isn’t heaven, and it obviously isn’t hell because one is saved after going through the process.

It doesn’t say how long this process takes, only that it takes place oign the Day, and it is specific for the individual, it doesn’t look pleasant, it isn’t permanent, but it is effective, because the individual does make it through the purification process to heaven after this takes place.

And can you tell me how you know this takes place after death? Did anyone who died come back and tell any living soul about where they are? Please I am asking for the passage where Jesus talks about this so that I too may read it and believe. Also can you tell me why, if someone is in heaven, will be resurrected on the last day to stand before Christ and be judged?if they’re supposedly already in heaven why the need to be resurrected and judged?remeber Jesus said “unless you turn and become LIKE children , you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”

 

[steve_b]

And can you tell me how you know this takes place after death? Did anyone who died come back and tell any living soul about where they are? Please I am asking for the passage where Jesus talks about this so that I too may read it and believe.

I quoted Paul.
Paul is responding to the inspiration he gets from the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit takes teaching from Jesus and gives it to Paul John 14:25-26, John 16:12-15
Ergo Jesus wants the following to be taught

1 Corinthians 3 8 He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. 9 For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building. 10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw – 13 each man’s work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. 14 If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
B:

Also can you tell me why, if someone is in heaven, will be resurrected on the last day to stand before Christ and be judged?if they’re supposedly already in heaven why the need to be resurrected and judged?remeber Jesus said “unless you turn and become LIKE children , you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”

The body is in the grave. The body is mortal. It lives it dies. The soul is immortal. Once created by God it doesn’t die, it lives forever. You need to ask yourself where is that going to be? At death of the body, body and soul seperate. The soul is judged immediately by Jesus and goes to it’s reward or punishment. There is no waiting for the soul to be judged at the end of the world. When the end of the world comes THAT day, those who are alive then, are judged then. And because it’s the end, all the bodies who ever lived, rise and are reunited with their souls…souls in hell are now in hell body and soul. Souls in heaven are in heaven body and soul. Before the end, only souls are in heaven purgatory or hell. After the end of the world, body and soul are reunited

 

[Porknpie]

And how do you know this? Can you direct me to the verse or verses and the writer so that I may review it and see if what you are saying is true. I thank you for your response and will await your reply with the Bible verse and author.

Barryl, how about a bible verse and author that says all truth is found in the bible?

Do you believe that the bible is they compendium of truth? Is that what the bible says?

Just curious.

Ps…read 2 Maccabees…they were praying for the dead. Why?

 

[R_C]

Please I am asking for the passage where Jesus talks about this

Oh, you want the passage in the Bible where Jesus talks about this because you do not respect the apostolic authority from which this teaching and the Bible itself comes? Start by reading these passages:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

Whoever listens to you listens to Me. Whoever rejects you rejects Me.

“Lord,” Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “what has happened that you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?”

His disciples came and asked him, “Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?” Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted.

No wonder then that those who lead the first Christian churches after the teaching of the apostles, for instance Iraeneus and Tertullian, write as follows regarding those who would reject the apostolic church and the successors of the apostles: the bishops and priests.

"so they proceed when they find anything in the multitude of things contained in the Scriptures which they can adopt and accommodate to their baseless speculations …] striving, as they do, to adapt the good words of revelation to their own wicked inventions.

And it is not only from the writings of the evangelists and the apostles that they endeavour to derive proofs for their opinions by means of perverse interpretations and deceitful expositions: they deal in the same way with the law and the prophets, which contain many parables and allegories that can frequently be drawn into various senses, according to the kind of exegesis to which they are subjected.

And others of them, with great craftiness, adapted such parts of Scripture to their own figments, lead away captive from the truth those who do not retain a steadfast faith in one God, the Father Almighty, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge.

In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth. By transferring passages, and dressing them up anew, and making one thing out of another, they succeed in deluding many through their wicked are in adapting the oracles of the Lord to their opinions. Their manner of acting is just as if one, when a beautiful image of a king has been constructed by some skilful artist out of precious jewels, should then take this likeness of the man all to pieces, should rearrange the gems, and so fit them together as to make them into the form of a dog or of a fox, and even that but poorly executed; and should then maintain and declare that this was the beautiful image of the king which the skilful artist constructed, pointing to the jewels which had been admirably fitted together by the first artist to form the image of the king, but have been with bad effect transferred by the latter one to the shape of a dog

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous…But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth.

It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

---

[W]hat could be unlawful for them? …] their doctrine itself, when compared with that of the Apostles, will show by its own diversity and contrariety that it has for its author neither an Apostle nor an apostolic man. The Apostles would not have differed among themselves in teaching, nor would an apostolic man have taught contrary to the Apostles, unless those who were taught by the Apostles then preached otherwise.

Therefore, they will be challenged to meet this test even by those Churches which are of much later date – for they are being established daily – and whose founder is not from among the Apostles nor from among the apostolic men; for those which agree in the same faith are reckoned as apostolic on account of the blood ties in their doctrine.

 

[R_C]

Ps…read 2 Maccabees…they were praying for the dead. Why?

Oh, but see, he cannot read 2 Maccabees, because the Bible he has does not have that book!

I know it has been part of the Bible since its Canon was put together by the successors of the apostles and reached final acceptance around the fourth century…however someone who obviously knew better decided to rip it off from the Bible, teaching that for 12 centuries all of Christianity had been wrong in reading this book as part of Sacred Scripture, and that therefore, as there is no further evidence of prayer for the dead (which, mind you, is inexact), then we should neither pray for them nor ask for their intercession.

Now Christians finally know how mistaken were those who learned the doctrine from the mouth of the Apostles rather than focusing on the Bible (true, there was no Bible back then…what??) and spread the Church throughout the world at the risk (and often at the price) of their life, in teaching us that we can and should pray to the saints of the Church Triumphant in the state of heaven as members along with us of the Communion of Saints…what a mistake, to follow this tradition for over twenty centuries instead of focusing on the Bible (which in the eyes of some reaffirm the tradition, in the eyes of others doesn’t…)…but now the true and truly biblical Christian doctrine is presented for our benefit, which teaches us how to properly worship the living God of the living, who spoke with Moses and Elijah although they were long “dead”…whom was seen with rejoicing by Abraham, although he was long “dead”…it is about time to consider removing, along with 2 Maccabees, also Revelation from the Bible, for it clearly deceives us by telling us that the angels bring to God the prayers of the saints, and that there is a crowd beyond number at the presence of God that awaits for the resurrection of the body…

 

[Michael57]

This thread has been great to read so far. I thank everyone here, even those who remain unconvinced of Purgatory.

I haven’t finished it all yet, only 2 or 3 pages, but it has been a real walk down memory lane, as this was one doctrine of the Church that the Protestants, Evangelicals, and Christian Fundamentalists couldn’t explain to me as a young man. And it kept nagging at my mind.

The scriptures hinted at it, and even C.S. Lewis wrote about it (The Great Divorce), so it played on my mind and unsettled me for years.

The only satisfactory answer lay in the tenets of the Catholic Church. This is one of several doctrines that are only satisfied in Catholicism, and it brought me into RCIA and into full communion with the Church.

I look forward to reading the remaining pages when I return from my “Family Day” at the beach.

Blessings to you all.

 

[BarryI]

Oh, you want the passage in the Bible where Jesus talks about this because you do not respect the apostolic authority from which this teaching and the Bible itself comes? Start by reading these passages:

Thank you for your rather long reply. But, I was asking for the passage where Jesus talks about purgatory to the Apostles. With something as important a subject as this, and with all the questions that would have been presented to Jesus, I’m sure he truly would have explained it to them to pass on to others, but I see no such passage. I say I refer to the Bible because that is where Jesus was quoted on all his teachings. Surely one of the 4 Gospel writers would have made this important fact known. The people Jesus taught and also the Apostles were simple men and he spoke to them in simple language, save for the parables which were only for the Apostles to know. So then, I will ask and plead my case once again, can someone give me the definitive verse written by one of the 4 Gospel writers that has Jesus giving them the idea of what is there at death.

No wonder then that those who lead the first Christian churches after the teaching of the apostles, for instance Iraeneus and Tertullian, write as follows regarding those who would reject the apostolic church and the successors of the apostles: the bishops and priests.

 

[Michael57]

Barryl,

I have seen some very good responses to your question. I understand that the references can get quite lengthy for you, so to help you out I will provide a link that I have found useful. I apologize if someone else may have posted the same, but it has helped my understanding quite a bit.

scripturecatholic.com/purgatory.html

It has two sections: the first being the scripture references that you feel you need, and the second part a series of quotes from the Early Church Fathers.

I hope that this helps you in your quest for a better understanding of this very interesting area of Catholic Faith. Also I would like to point out that doctrine in some cases takes many centuries to become formalized. Something that I found very interesting in this case (Doctrine of Purgatory) was that it took nearly 13 centuries, so it was not a “snap” decision by any stretch of the imagination.

There are also many Evangelicals that are struggling with the idea of Purgatory, and even one songwriter-singer, Larry Norman on the album “Only Visiting This Planet”. CS Lewis also puzzled over it in his literature.

God Bless you in your search for Truth! Keep digging, and reading.

 

[steve_b]

BarryI:

,

B:

Thank you for your rather long reply. But, I was asking for the passage where Jesus talks about purgatory to the Apostles. With something as important a subject as this, and with all the questions that would have been presented to Jesus, I’m sure he truly would have explained it to them to pass on to others, but I see no such passage. I say I refer to the Bible because that is where Jesus was quoted on all his teachings. Surely one of the 4 Gospel writers would have made this important fact known. The people Jesus taught and also the Apostles were simple men and he spoke to them in simple language, save for the parables which were only for the Apostles to know. So then, I will ask and plead my case once again, can someone give me the definitive verse written by one of the 4 Gospel writers that has Jesus giving them the idea of what is there at death.

What you’re asking has been pointed out already. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10809805&postcount=150 , [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) , [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) Maybe it requires explanation also not just a citation or 2.

• When Paul writes the following, [1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 Corinthians Chapter 3) as the passages above state, that came from the inspiration and teaching of the Holy Spirit, who doesn’t speak on His own but takes from Jesus and gives it to the apostle**.** Therefore, when Paul teaches this, it’s what Jesus taught. Do you understand?
• The “word” purgatory doesn’t appear, but the act of purification done to a soul after death, is clearly taught in this scripture. The Church gives this process the name purgatory or purgation.

 

[BarryI]

What you’re asking has been pointed out already. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10809805&postcount=150 , [John 14:25-26 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 14) , [John 16:12-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, John Chapter 16) Maybe it requires explanation also not just a citation or 2.

• When Paul writes the following, [1 Corinthians 3:11-15 (Douay-Rheims Bible, 1 Corinthians Chapter 3) as the passages above state, that came from the inspiration and teaching of the Holy Spirit, who doesn’t speak on His own but takes from Jesus and gives it to the apostle**.** Therefore, when Paul teaches this, it’s what Jesus taught. Do you understand?
• The “word” purgatory doesn’t appear, but the act of purification done to a soul after death, is clearly taught in this scripture. The Church gives this process the name purgatory or purgation.

Ok perhaps I understand it a little better than most of the answers I have received. In John 14 thru 18 ,Jesus was speaking to the Apostles about the Holy Spirit guiding them and reminding them of the things Jesus taught them. He didnt teach anything about a purging of sins. To do so would have been calling His Father a liar because God had said the “wages of sin is death”. Why then would someone who was forgiven for all of their sins thru death have to purge themselves of sin? Also Jesus died on the cross to pay for all of our sins. To think you have to go somewhere to be purged of your sins clearly goes against all of Jesus’ purpose. At death all of your sins are forgiven . In your passage from Paul, he was clearly pointing out to them how to build upon the foundation that was laid out before them , that they had to humble themselves and seek the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to build a strong following that would not falter. And if any did he that taught would be saved as he was out proclaiming the good news. Paul knew not eveyone would stay the course . There is clearly nothing in these passages that refers to a purging of ones sins. Sorry, I don’t see it.

 

[dronald]

Quick question about purgatory… (I’m not here to debate, just ignorant on the matter)

If we can be purged of our sins then what if Christ never existed? Couldn’t God just put us in purgatory for our sins instead of Jesus dying for us?