Purgatory Article

[fide]

If you sincerely want to find the Truth concerning something beyond the confines of this world/creation, I suggest you loosen a bit, your “requirements,” and simply listen and collect data as a “logical” scientist might, in search of a theory that could explain to him, events he cannot now understand.

Even after success, and he does find a theory that “explains” and predicts the data, time will begin to reveal that some data in the future does not fit his theory. What to do…what to do…

Maybe some of his data points are in error - false measurements - misunderstandings in his laboratory…

 

[MT1926]

I cannot argue with someone who utters this phrase: “logical opinion.”

Who’s arguing? I thought we were having a discussion?

You yourself asked everyone here…

please forgive my misspelling.

Yet you give me no leeway in my questions even when I freely admitted…

I will admit I am no expert on the subject, but I am willing to learn.

The definition I found of non sequitur states “totally unreasonable”. Why are you unwilling to point out what is totally unreasonable about the verse?

No offense but it clearly looks like you are pulling two words out of everything I wrote, just to come up with an excuse to avoid my questions.

You claim to be a highly logical person and accuse us of not using logic yet break all of the the habits of a logical person.

1. The logical person has thus trained himself to always pay attention to the details — even in situations that are familiar — lest he make a careless judgment. Did you notice that the first half of the verse does not give us the details of when and were the sins against the son of man are forgiven?
2. He gets his facts straight. Like I asked please present the explicit facts that sins can only be forgiven in this age?
3. He ensures they accurately depict their ideas. Does your original post give us a clear picture of why you believe Tim created a logical fallacy?
4. He knows which of his ideas are based on things that actually exist. Once again please present the explicit facts that sins can only be forgiven in this age?
5. He matches his ideas to facts. Can you please point out the Biblical facts you have provided us in your current posts?
6. He communicate his ideas to others using words that accurately convey those ideas. Do you believe a person who cuts off communication with another because they believe the other person is to far beneath them is a logical person?
7. He doesn’t automatically assume their audience fully understands the meaning of their statements. They speak in complete sentences and gear THEIR language to their audience. Do you believe this is what you have done here?
8. He uses precise language so that his listeners know exactly what he is talking about and can adequately evaluate the truth of his claims. Are you giving us the opportunity to evaluate the truth of your claims here?
9. He states directly what a speaker or writer has in mind. Have you given us your interpretation of the verse yet?
10. He seeks to arrive at truth. Can you honestly say you have addressed all angles of this verse to arrive at the truth?

Like I said I’m no expert, but I love to research and learn. From what I have seen in my research, it doesn’t seem like your conclusions follow the habits and skills used by logical people.

Sorry if I’m not willing to blindly jump on board the logic train, but you gotta give me more facts before I’m willing to accept your line of reasoning.

God Bless

 

[Arkansan]

This is the written word, not ordinary speech.

It’s a record of an actual conversation that took place.

 

[veritatisstella]

the logical fallacy is a simple non-sequitur. if i propose the following… “That broom will not dance”. This does NOT “imply” that some brooms dance. Yet the author offers as evidence that “some” sins are forgiven after death since the scripture says this particular sin will NOT be forgiven after death.

Actually I agree with you that the conclusion “Purgatory exists” does not follow of necessity by rules of deductive logic from the words of Jesus: “And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

But the existence of Purgatory can be shown to at least be implied here. Jesus said sin X will be forgiven, but sin Y will not be forgiven either in this age or the age to come. The fact that He added “in the age to come” implies that His audience believed some sins could be forgiven in the age to come. The books of Maccabees also show it is historically likely that His audience held this belief. So if it were true that no sins could be forgiven in the age to come, why did Jesus tell His audience who believed otherwise that one particular sin would not be forgiven in the age to come, instead of telling them that no sins would be forgiven in the age to come? Conclusion: perhaps that was because there are some sins that can be forgiven in the age to come. I think Jesus would have told people that no sins will be forgiven in the age to come if that really were the case.

 

[graphite]

I will address several posts since I have been restricted by this forum in # of posts.

@fide, I sincerely want to know the truth. From your statement, “if you sincerely want to know the truth…”, I will NOT infer that you mean I do not wish to know the truth. But to ignore bad logic around such an important topic, in my opinion, is evidence that some indeed do NOT want to know the truth, but instead, only see what they want to see. Also, in this, there is no way “time will begin to reveal” anything that is illogical.

@MT1926, I have offered an argument. I mean this in the logical sense. I am not “arguing” with you in the confrontational sense. Yes, we are having a discussion. My argument is that the claim that the author of the article, Tim Staples, makes by saying (in written word, NOT in spoken word as Arkansan states by conflating the original text vs. the Article itself) “This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.” has committed a logical fallacy and I would expect the author to admit that and to retract it. He cannot use the scripture presented to claim this is evidence of Purgatory through what is a clear logical error. If there are other arguments for Purgatory, that is fine, we can discuss. But, this particular claim is erroneous.

Also, “non sequitur” simply stated “literally” means “it doesn’t follow”. Nothing about “totally unreasonable”. The author makes an erroneous inference by claiming the passage implies that Purgatory exists for reasons I have already covered. Logic really matters here and if we can’t use basic logic here, then there is no reason to discuss (argue further). For it is foolish to argue with fools (who ignore logic) since they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience. By saying this, I am not being prideful. Instead, I uphold reason as a God given gift of order in an otherwise chaotic world. As Proverbs 26:4 says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.”

Gorgias, forget the “broom will not dance” for a moment. I am not taking this out of context by any means. The author writes, regarding the following quote

And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come (Matthew 12:32, emphasis added).

from that, the author makes this claim: “This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.”

This is the full context of the claim and I reiterate, this is a simple logical fallacy. The claim by the author is, in propositional logic, that X → !Z where X is “speaks against the holy spirit” and Z is “will be forgiven in the age to come” (and ! means NOT and → means ‘then’)… that this implies there there is some sin !X → Z
Let me reiterate: X → !Z does NOT imply !X → Z. This is the logical fallacy that was made.

I will not argue further the point in question at risk of repeating myself continually.

 

[guanophore]

the logical fallacy is a simple non-sequitur. if i propose the following… “That broom will not dance”. This does NOT “imply” that some brooms dance. Yet the author offers as evidence that “some” sins are forgiven after death since the scripture says this particular sin will NOT be forgiven after death. I hope you can follow this, it’s quite simple logic.

No, it does not make sense. Jesus is talking to people who already accepted that some sins were forgiven in the next life.

I can understand why you would be reading into it and a lot of people do that who don’t know much about logic.

We are not “reading into it”, graphite. The New Testament was written by Catholics. It reflects the Catholic faith. When we read it, we understand what is written though the context in which it was written, which is Catholic faith.

 

[graphite]

False, my friend, @guanophore. The “New Testament was written by Catholics”? c’mon man.

 

[Wesrock]

Modern Jews believe in purgatory (don’t know if they call it that specifically, as that word comes from Latin). The article demonstrated that the Jews of Jesus’ day did already believe that some sins could be atoned for after death. Put Jesus’ quote in that context, it’s clear he had that understanding as well. The line shouldn’t be taken in isolation. And the assertion certainly isn’t a non sequitur. The early Church held to this belief. There are Biblical passages (multiple cited in that article) consistent with it. It’s not just a matter of proof texting.

 

[Wesrock]

False, my friend, @guanophore. The “New Testament was written by Catholics”? c’mon man.

They were part of the one, holy, apostolic, Catholic and Orthodox Church. What, do you think the authors were non-Christians?

 

[fide]

@fide, I sincerely want to know the truth. From your statement, “if you sincerely want to know the truth…”, I will NOT infer that you mean I do not wish to know the truth. But to ignore bad logic around such an important topic, in my opinion, is evidence that some indeed do NOT want to know the truth, but instead, only see what they want to see. Also, in this, there is no way “time will begin to reveal” anything that is illogical.

One can come to know about God, that He exists, and is eternal, and other logical perceptions. But one cannot come to know God in HIs inner life - a knowing which is salvific, and preparation for our eternal destiny as human persons created in His image and likeness - by human reason alone. His gift of grace is needed for this - a gift unmerited on our part, but a gift that can be sought, hungered for, thirsted for, longed for. Grace reveals insights that are not illogical, but are beyond the limits of logic - they are beyond the natural creation, they are supernatural, spiritual, divine.

 

[graphite]

Some of this may be true. But, my claim is simple. The author committed a logical fallacy. The attributes of God are above logic, yes, but not “against” it.

 

[guanophore]

Conditionally vs. absolutely? please expound on that. Whether or not this is the “sole piece of the argument” is of no consequence. The author committed a simple logical fallacy here and I’m calling him out. This is really important stuff here.

I agree that it important, but not for the reason you may think. You see, we believe that the “author” is God, and not capable of making a mistake.

And it is not an “argument” it is a teaching. Jesus is teaching His disciples about matters of faith. The teaching builds upon teachings that have already been given, it does not occur in a vacuum. This may be of “no consequence” to you, but for disciples that want to learn how to follow God, it is important to relate what He teaches to what He has already taught.

The quote in question is actually, “This declaration of our Lord implies there are at leastsome sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.” and the immediately preceding quotation.

I will agree it is not the best sentence construction I have ever seen, but I don’t see your point.

Jesus made a declaration, to people who already believed it, that there are certain sins that cannot be forgiven in the next life.

Thank you for that, but what does this have to do with my claim?

I can’t see what your “claim” has to do with any of it. You “claim” there is a debate, that happens in a vacuum, but this is not the case.

“Why wouldn’t St. Matthew Just have said will not be forgiven PERIOD”… does that matter?

Yes.

Jesus instruction was based on a foundation of previous instruction. He was speaking to an audience that already accepted these ideas.

it is wrong to declare that this “implies” some sins can be forgiven after death.

Who are you to decide this? God is the one who forgives sins, and God is the one who gets to teach us that this happens. I am sorry if you don’t like it.

The teaching is based upon a previously accepted doctrine. Jesus makes reference to this prior revelation.

this does not follow and should be admitted as bad logic by the author himself.

Perhaps you can take it up with him on his website. I don’t expect you will get very far.

 

[graphite]

I am not saying the argument is made by Jesus, but instead, by Tim Staples, the author. You are doing the same thing some others have by conflating these. It is the author that has made the argument we are “discussing”.

 

[guanophore]

This is the written word, not ordinary speech.

The sayings of Christ that are written in the Gospels are based on what the disciples memorized from what He said. It was oral teaching, put into writing much later. I agree,though, it is not “ordinary speech”. It is divine instruction, and no, there is no effort to follow the “rules of logic”. In fact, some of His teachings seem to defy logic.

This can’t be the ONLY reference to Purgatory since it is NOT a reference to Purgatory as I have argued.

There are other references to purgatory, in addition to this one. You may not wish to accept that it is, and that is your purogative, but the Catholic Church teaches purgatory exists, because Jesus and the Apostles taught this. The teachings of Jesus are not altered because you think they do not observe the rules of logic!

it is NOT a reference to Purgatory as I have argued.

Is this your major motivation, graphite? Are you here on CAF to “argue” against the Catholic faith? And if not, what is the point of your thread here? Do you honestly believe you will convince people who have believed this for 2000 years that it is no longer true because it does not meet your “rules”?

I cannot argue with someone who utters this phrase: “logical opinion.”

Why not? Have you made some sort of unfounded presupposition that it is impossible to have an opinion that follows the rules of logic?

The author says, “From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come” (CCC 1031)."

Does anyone else find this to be difficult to swallow?

No. But that could be because we already believed in that doctrine before that sentence was written. The phrase reflects what we believe, it is not the Source of it.

I sincerely want to know the truth.

Have you ever considered that there are ways of knowing the truth other than logic?

But to ignore bad logic around such an important topic, in my opinion, is evidence that some indeed do NOT want to know the truth,

One has to wonder why the forgiveness of sins in the next life is so important to you. Do you not intend to repent of them here?

“This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.” has committed a logical fallacy and I would expect the author to admit that and to retract it.

You have failed to show why this is a unfounded leap.

 

[guanophore]

He cannot use the scripture presented to claim this is evidence of Purgatory through what is a clear logical error.

Well, he can, and he did, and so have many theologians and scripture scholars for 2000 years.

If there are other arguments for Purgatory, that is fine, we can discuss. But, this particular claim is erroneous.

You are not obligated to accept what Jesus taught.

Also, “non sequitur” simply stated “literally” means “it doesn’t follow”.

Suppose that following the author’s reasoning is based on one’s perceptions? Suppose the reader understands this within the context of the doctrine of Purgatory one has already received?

the passage implies that Purgatory exists

Yes. The teaching was addressed to those who already accepted this doctrine.

Logic really matters here and if we can’t use basic logic here, then there is no reason to discuss (argue further).

Perhaps your are right.

For it is foolish to argue with fools (who ignore logic) since they will pull you down to their level and beat you with experience.

God forbid that our experience of the One True God might not suit your rules of logic!

It sounds to me like you only want to know truth that fits into the narrow confines of your self inflicted parameters.

I am not being prideful. Instead, I uphold reason as a God given gift of order in an otherwise chaotic world.

Indeed, this is a very Catholic notion, but reason has limitations. And logic is not the only kind of reason.

This is the full context of the claim

Actually, it is not. The full context of both that Scripture and of Tim’s article is the Catholic faith. You cannot understand and accept either without that appropriate context.

I will not argue further the point in question at risk of repeating myself continually.

There is no need to, really. We do not accept your point as valid. So where do you go from here? A self asserted truth seeker who really does not want the truth?

 

[guanophore]

False, my friend, The “New Testament was written by Catholics”? c’mon man.

Yes. There are no books contained in it that were not written, preserved, and promulgated by Catholics. It was written to, for, and about Catholics. It is all about the Catholic faith. It is best understood in the context of the faith that produced it.

Perhaps you can put to use all that marvellous “logic” you claim to espouse and demonstrate how anyone but Catholics could have written the New Testament?

I am not saying the argument is made by Jesus, but instead, by Tim Staples, the author. You are doing the same thing some others have by conflating these. It is the author that has made the argument we are “discussing”.

The author is reflecting the teachings of the Catholic Church, which reflect the teaching of Jesus. I don’t know if “conflating” is the best description.

I don’t understand why you are saying this is such a “big deal” . Why does not matter if you refuse to accept what Jesus teaches about purgatory?

 

[graphite]

1. again, you are conflating. I’m nearing the end of my patience with this conversation. It’s the article, NOT the passage, that I have a problem with. The logical fallacy is NOT in the scripture, but in Tim Staples article
2. You say there are “other references”. I don’t care. Perhaps there are. I’m saying, this particular case is NOT a “reference to Purgatory”.
3. My motivation is truth.
4. logic is not up for “opinion” and so it is meaningless to continue a dialogue with someone who believes that is the case.
5. regarding “we already believed…”, whether or not you already believed it is of no consequence. You cannot offer bad logic as evidence that X exists whether or not you “already believed it”.
6. Logic, Reason is what we have. God’s WORD word is NOT illogical.
7. “You have failed to show…” I have succeeded and any reasonable person must admit it. The logic says it all.

 

[guanophore]

again, you are conflating. I’m nearing the end of my patience with this conversation. It’s the article, NOT the passage, that I have a problem with. The logical fallacy is NOT in the scripture, but in Tim Staples article

For a person who wants to know the Truth, you are awfully short on PATIENCE!

In fact it appears you are much more invested, in converting Catholics to YOUR truth!

The article reflects the faith of the Church, which reflects the Teaching of Christ. So you are saying that Jesus’ teaching does not meet your rules of logic.

You say there are “other references”. I don’t care. Perhaps there are. I’m saying, this particular case is NOT a “reference to Purgatory”.

Again, an odd thing to say by a person who claims to want to know the Truth. On the contrary, you seem to be so fixated on your believe that Tim Staples is not meeting your rules of logic, you are missing the big picture.

You can assert, and believe, that it is not a reference to Purgatory, but your position will not change what Jesus taught.

My motivation is truth.

Perhaps your own “truth”, rather than anything like purgatory, which would be revealed by God.

logic is not up for “opinion” and so it is meaningless to continue a dialog with someone who believes that is the case.

A person can hold an opinion that meets the rules of logic.

But perhaps you are right, it may be you are incapable of having a productive dialogue.

regarding “we already believed…”, whether or not you already believed it is of no consequence.

It may not be to you but for those who are teaching the faith, like Jesus, the Catholic Church, and Tim Staples, it makes all the difference. Doctrines build upon previous revelation, and are cumulative. The verse has the context of previous belief, which is one of the points Tim was making.

 

[guanophore]

You cannot offer bad logic as evidence that X exists whether or not you “already believed it”.

No one is offering any kind of logic. We are telling you that the doctrine of purgatory already existed, that Jesus was talking to people who accepted that doctrine, and Tim is saying that Jesus uses this implication because they understood it from the context.

Logic, Reason is what we have.

It may be all YOU have, but the rest of us have more!

God’s WORD word is NOT illogical.

Of course not, but it does not necessarily follow the “rules of logic” all the time, either. It reveals divine mysteries that are beyond human logic. Logic can be very limiting.

“You have failed to show…” I have succeeded and any reasonable person must admit it. The logic says it all.

Well, I commend you to knowing it all through your logic.

If you decide at some point you want to learn about the Catholic faith, let us know. The Catholic Church is well into science and logic, and developed the scientific method.

 

[veritatisstella]

The logical fallacy is NOT in the scripture, but in Tim Staples article

Tim Staples argued “This declaration of our Lord implies there are at least some sins that can be forgiven in the next life to a people who already believed it.”[emphasis added] I don’t think it’s a logical fallacy when the only claim he made is that the text of Scripture, taken together with other evidence implies purgatory. He never said it absolutely proves it.