Purgatory is Biblical

[Sir_Knight]

You (though really Salza) are reading compassion into the story to fit his theory. If Salza had not made this statement, there would be nowhere else to find this parable so mistakenly interpreted.

The parable is CORRECTLY interpreted and if you look at the links that he offered, it was a concept offered long before him.

The parable does not say anything about the rich man having compassion, in fact it illustrates very graphically that the one thing that the rich man did NOT have is compassion, by his treatment of Lazarus.

What do you call wanting your loved ones to be spared the same fate as you even if it buys you nothing? COMPASSION!

If the rich man had compassion, he would have died with that compassion, and would be in Purgatory. But we know from the story that the rich man did not have compassion in his life time, so he could not have died with the merits of compassion within him, (where they would still exist in Purgatory.)

The mistake is believing that someone who shows no compassion in this life, will be given a grace to show compassion while in the torments of hell. That is the opposite of Church teaching.

The Church teaches that those in hell receive no grace from God. Being concerned about your loved ones is a sign of grace from God.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

The parable is CORRECTLY interpreted and if you look at the links that he offered, it was a concept offered long before him.

None of his links were to an authoritative source (or any source) saying the rich man was in Purgatory. I think Salza in a fine apologist, but his inclusion of this parable in his list of references to purgatory was overly hasty and ill advised.

 

[EnterCanaan]

Purgatory is a fable

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So a man dies only once, then the judgment. If you are chosen of God, you are saved, if you are not, then you are dead. there is no middle. the word of God, which is the bible, is the law of God, IT IS OUR JUDGMENT EVERYDAY OF OUR LIVES. Live by the word, as the word judges you everyday. There is no secondary judgment, you die, then you are judged, good or bad, up or down. How in the world, can a dead man, with a little bit of sin, able to purge his own sin after the death. If he couldn’t do it alive, then the wages of sin is death, too late. if he couldnt do it alive, then it is appointed to that man to die only once and THE JUDGMENT. the judgment is not put on hold, it is not modified, it is not going to wait for you.

The wages of sin is death, if you die, and you are unsaved, then you are dead, if you die and you are chosen of God, then you are saved, no middle ground.

when a person is saved, they have a new resurrected soul, and the stain of original sin is justified, however your body is still sin cursed, as we do not recieve a glorified body until the last day. So even a saved man, still struggles with the sin his body desires.

this sin, if you are chosen of God, is accounted for. ALL SIN, past present and future, are covered by the sacrifice of Jesus, in which case that is all you need, as He did all the work, and you are saved. you go to heaven, your sin is already accounted for, no middle ground, we are not saved by our work, and purgatory is simply a place to work of sin, it is a fable, it is a comfort to those who would not search the scripture for themselves.

if you die unsaved, without recieving a new resurrected soul, then nothing you do will fix that, you cannot contribute to Gods work, you can’t accept Gods work, you can’t take a giant step towards salvation, you can’t do anything nice enough. YOU MUST NOT TRUST IN WHAT YOU DO, DO NOT TRUST IS ANYTHING YOU DO TO GET YOU SAVED!!. That is not being a child of God, that is contrary to the bible, purgatory itself implies that YOU CAN purge your final sins before entering heaven. HOW CAN YOU PURGE SIN, YOUR DEAD. THE DEAD DO NOT HAVE THAT POWER.

and the wages of sin is death, and it appointed to man to die once and then the judgment.

comparing scripture to scripture gives a clear picture.

Purgatory is comforting fable. It leads you to believe that not all hope is lost, well then that is your faith, and as we learn in Hebrews 11:1

(King James Version)
Hebrews 11
1Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

your faith has substance, substance implies work, and we are not saved by our work, your faith in purgatory means absolutely nothing, it is a fable for those who would be comforted because they are in fear of the truth.

If you want the answer, look at this passage and compare them:
Galatians 2:16 (King James Version)
16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith **of **Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith **of **Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

compare this verse from the KJ to that of any other bible, it is mistranslated to read,

by the faith IN Christ,

which implies that simply by believin in christ, you are saved, but that is work because it has substance, and substance implies energy is expelled, and expelled energy is work.

It is by the faith OF Christ, which is a whole nother ballgame all together.

To conclude, one of the most widely misunderstood teachings is works and works of the law.

DO NOT DISTINGUISH.

ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN, THAT YOU DO, IS CALLED WORK.

anything under the sun. I think that encompasses pretty much all the definitions people will throw around trying to be geniouses and justify themselves

all work under the sun is of no avail, it is fleshly, it is you, and you are nothing.

Now the answer, which is much more difficult to distinguish, is that when you become saved, which is totally the work of God, then as a RESULT…

get that, as a RESULT RESULT RESULT RESULT RESULT, of becoming a saved man, THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN, you produce good works.

by the faith of Christ in you, do you produce those works which are considered good.

god bless.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are correct. People assume that the rich man had compassion. The parable does not state this at all. It just states that he desires his brothers to repent lest they come to this place of torment.

Which ILLUSTRATES that he had compassion which is a grace from God and since those in hell are forever cut off from God’ graces, he could not have been in hell.

He does not desire this brothers to enter hell with him because if they do, then he will be held responsible for his part in corrupting them. He will have to suffer more in hell if they join him in hell so he prefers them to repent and be saved instead. His only motive is to alleviate his own suffering. He actually has no compassion for his brothers at all. If his brothers repent and are saved, then that is better for the rich man than for them to join him in hell and cause him more suffering.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6187083#post6187083 …Some have argued that he didn’t want them joining him because he set the bad example for them and if they ended up in hell, his suffering would increase. There are a couple of problems with this opinion. First off, nowhere does it say that he was the cause of his brothers going astray. He may have, or he may not have. There is nothing in the story to indicate it one way or the other and we just can’t ASSUME and add to the story to make it fit our conclusion that he didn’t want them joining him because he set the bad example for them and if they ended up in hell, his suffering would increase.

This is why Jesus states immediately (the next sentence) after this parable:

“Then He said to the disciples, “It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! 2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”

If I cause/convince/enable another person to sin, then I will be held responsible for my part in corrupting this person/helping him to sin.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6187083#post6187083 …
we know how those in hell act and they want others to share their fate even if it increases their own suffering. We see this in the writings of the saints and it is confirmed by scripture itself. Some will argue that this applies only to the demons and not human souls but, again, that is an ASSUMPTION that is NOT supported by scripture or any church teaching or saint writings. In absence of any supporting references that human souls act differently, the conclusion has to be that they act the same.

Just as those in heaven are aware of our actions and rejoice when sinners turn from sin – that applies to both human souls in heaven and the angels in heaven. Unless, we are told specifically that there is a difference, the conclusion is that it is the same. Thus, those in hell (human and demon) want others to share their fate even if it increases their own suffering.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Which ILLUSTRATES that he had compassion which is a grace from God and since those in hell are forever cut off from God’ graces, he could not have been in hell.

You are ignoring all of the cogent reasons clearly explaining the error of this belief. My reason for insisting on the error of this belief is aimed first at the false presumption of knowing a man’s motives (while he is in torments, or otherwise,) and basing a doctrinal truth on that presumption, which is in no way supported by the Scripture context. Secondly to take a radical departure from consistent church teaching, which has always held that the rich man was in hell, based solely on this specious reasoning, despite the very clarity of the parable on this point. Thirdly, because it negates the entire message of the parable for the sake of some slender (really non-existent) reference it pretends to have supporting Purgatory. There are plenty of authentic, biblical references to Purgatory without destroying all credibility in Purgatory by insisting this parable is among them. And finally, there has so far been no authoritative support forthcoming for this novel and unheard of theory either from the early Church Fathers, the Saints, or any other Magisterial source.

We have been assured that Salza (the author of this theory) is esteemed by modern magazines, and that he might have an early Church Father reference… somewhere… yet so far… nothing…

 

[Sir_Knight]

The church put together the books, she did not create them. Prophets were long before Jesus. God was long before the prophets. So His Word was long before it was written. The Bible is a book that comprehends all the books of the Bible. Since the books are His Word then the Bible is His Word. “Let there be light” are the first and oldest words we know. So if the Bible is His word, then “Let there be light” is the first Bible, therefore, the Bible (also called His Word), created the Church. His Word is Jesus so The Word (The Bible) created the Church., and not the Church created Jesus. God created the Church, and God is Jesus. Since God is Jesus, and Jesus is His Word, and His Word is the Bible, and God existed long before the Church, then the Bible (the Word) existed long before the Church. Of course, that Bible did not contain so many words like ours today. It was smaller, but it was there. By saying that the Church created the Bible is like saying that the Church created God, which sounds atheistic to me. So what you said is wrong.

That is the most convoluted logic that I have ever heard and misguided in many ways …

1. 
   *]
   

   The church put together the books, she did not create them.

   That is not entirely correct. The NT was written by the Church leaders so they did create some of the bible.
   
   *]
   

   Prophets were long before Jesus.

   That is incorrect. I refer you to John 8:58 where Jesus said: Jesus answered, “I tell you for certain that even before Abraham was, I was, and I am.” (Contemporary English Version)
   
   *]
   

   God was long before the prophets.

   No argument there.
   
   *]
   

   So His Word was long before it was written.

   Agreed. The spoken word existed before it was written down.
   
   *]
   

   The Bible is a book that comprehends all the books of the Bible. Since the books are His Word then the Bible is His Word.

   Yes, the bible is the infallible word of God.
   
   *]
   

   “Let there be light” are the first and oldest words we know. So if the Bible is His word, then “Let there be light” is the first Bible,

   No. “Let there be light” are the first words recorded in the bible but they are not the bible. A steering wheel is part of a car. It is NOT the car. A car can be used to drive you somewhere. A steering wheel can not drive you anywhere without the other parts of the car working together. “Let there be light” are words found in the bible but they are not the bible.
   
   *]
   

   therefore, the Bible (also called His Word), created the Church. His Word is Jesus so The Word (The Bible) created the Church., and not the Church created Jesus.

   Jesus is NOT the Bible. As a matter of fact, the Bible makes it very clear in the Acts of the Apostles that Jesus is the Church saying that He and His Church are one.
   
   *]
   

   God created the Church, and God is Jesus. Since God is Jesus, and Jesus is His Word, and His Word is the Bible, and God existed long before the Church, then the Bible (the Word) existed long before the Church. Of course, that Bible did not contain so many words like ours today. It was smaller, but it was there.

   This is where your reasoning breaks down. The bible contains the Word of God in written form. The Word of God existed BEFORE the bible was formulated.
   
   *]
   

   By saying that the Church created the Bible is like saying that the Church created God, which sounds atheistic to me. So what you said is wrong.

   Jesus establihed the Church prior to ascending to heaven – that is recorded in the bible. The bible was created in the late 4th century BY the Church. That is historical fact. Prior to that, there was no bible. There were various sacred writings containing the Word of God but there was no bible.

 

[Sir_Knight]

You are ignoring all of the cogent reasons clearly explaining the error of this belief.

I am not ignoring them, I am proving them incorrect.

My reason for insisting on the error of this belief is aimed first at the false presumption of knowing a man’s motives (while he is in torments, or otherwise,) and basing a doctrinal truth on that presumption, which is in no way supported by the Scripture context.

We are not assuming anything. We see that after being informed that nothing will improve his condition, the man STILL cares about his brothers. He doesn’t want them to share his faith. Those in hell don’t care about anything and want others to share their suffering. This man doesn’t. He is acting in a completely opposite manner from those that are in purgatory – proving that he could not be in purgatory. This is SUPPORTED by the scripture passage.

Secondly to take a radical departure from consistent church teaching, which has always held that the rich man was in hell, based solely on this specious reasoning, despite the very clarity of the parable on this point.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6187083#post6187083 … We can not take the opinions of the early Church Fathers because it has been demonstrated that they used the terms “hell” and “purgatory” interchangeably. So the argument can not be used to say that this Church Father or that Church Father believed that the Rich Man was in hell because they could have said “hell” and meant “purgatory”.

So, we can’t go by that.

And, while the writings of the saints certainly have merit, those insights are NOT infallible (as was shown in this thread) and those insights need to be discarded if they conflict with either Church teaching or conclusions drawn from Church teaching – which is what we have done … the Rich Man exhibited compassion toward his brothers and since compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces, he can not be in hell.

Thirdly, because it negates the entire message of the parable for the sake of some slender (really non-existent) reference it pretends to have supporting Purgatory. There are plenty of authentic, biblical references to Purgatory without destroying all credibility in Purgatory by insisting this parable is among them.

The message of the parable remains. The good that we fail to do in to life will be expected of us to a much greater degree in the after life.

And finally, there has so far been no authoritative support forthcoming for this novel and unheard of theory either from the early Church Fathers, the Saints, or any other Magisterial source.

Doesn’t matter. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6187083#post6187083 … the Church has never infallibly ruled on this matter, so we can’t go by that. What the Church does teach is that compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces.

We can use those Church teachings to draw some conclusions. The Rich Man, plead for a chance for his brothers to be spared the same fate as him even though it would not profit him in anyway. He CARED about his brothers. He demonstrated the God-given grace of compassion – which he would not have if he was in hell. Thus, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn is that he was not in hell because those in hell do not care about anybody.

We have been assured that Salza (the author of this theory) is esteemed by modern magazines, and that he might have an early Church Father reference… somewhere… yet so far… nothing…

Not to take any credit away from Salza, but while researching this, I found a number of other places that also expressed this belief. Additionally, if a man like Salza claims that he has supporting references, you can take that to the bank.

 

[Sir_Knight]

CORRECTION: I meant to say above …

We are not assuming anything. We see that after being informed that nothing will improve his condition, the man STILL cares about his brothers. He doesn’t want them to share his faith. Those in hell don’t care about anything and want others to share their suffering. This man doesn’t. He is acting in a completely opposite manner from those that are in purgatory – proving that he could not be in hell. This is SUPPORTED by the scripture passage.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Sir Knight:

The message of the parable remains. The good that we fail to do in to life will be expected of us to a much greater degree in the after life.

That is NOT the message of the parable. What exactly does that even mean?

This is the harvest when one studiously avoids learning from the early Church Fathers, the Saints, and the Magisterium and limits oneself to the teachings of the internet.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is the harvest when one studiously avoids learning from the early Church Fathers, the Saints, and the Magisterium and limits oneself to the teachings of the internet.

The message of the Church Fathers is unclear because they used the term “purgatory” and “hell” interchangeably so they could have meant purgatory when they said “hell”.

It has been shown that the writings of the saints are not infallible and cases have been shown where their writings actually conflict with official infallible Church teaching.

As far as the teachings of the Magisterium – that is EXACTLY what we are doing. The teaching is that compassion is a grace from God and those in hell are forever cut off from God’s graces and since the Rich Man demonstrated compassion, he could not have been in hell. The conclusion could not be any simplier or clearer AND in COMPLETE agreement with Church teaching.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

The message of the Church Fathers is unclear because they used the term “purgatory” and “hell” interchangeably so they could have meant purgatory when they said “hell”.

No, it has been proven already that the ECF’s used death and hell interchangeably. None of the ECF’s ever confused hell and purgatory.

Regardless of that, the ECF’s have much to say on this parable, and none of it is about purgatory.

BTW, I see you are unable to explain yourself regarding what you say is the meaning of the parable, as I asked. Perhaps you realized that your statement was not orthodox Catholicism.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, it has been proven already that the ECF’s used death and hell interchangeably. None of the ECF’s ever confused hell and purgatory.

Jesus descended into hell. Jesus descended to the dead – i.e., PURGATORY! Death, hell & purgatory have been used interchangeably

Regardless of that, the ECF’s have much to say on this parable, and none of it is about purgatory.

Again, we don’t know that because the terms were used interchangeably.

BTW, I see you are unable to explain yourself regarding what you say is the meaning of the parable, as I asked. Perhaps you realized that your statement was not orthodox Catholicism.

I wasn’t “unable” – I didn’t see the need. I do not have the time to keep re-addressing all of the points which I already addressed.

Regarding the point, it has been revealed in a number of apparitions (which I don’t have the time to look up now) that we can pay our debt for sin in this life with pennies on the dollar, so to speak, compared to what will be required of us in the next life. And, the point of the parable was to focus on Jesus rising from the dead – which is the point that the parable ends with.

 

[SHW]

St. Catherine Emmerich’s vision on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:

From: The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, Volume Three of Four

members.cox.net/studyhisword/RichManAndLazarus.pdf

As you can see from her vision, the rich man was merciless to Lazarus while they both were on earth.

It is true that a few people believe/d that the rich man was/is in purgatory. However, most taught/teach that the rich man was/is in hell. Our present pope, Benedict XVI, in Spe Salvi, explains the background for this parable:

In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (cf. Lk 16:19-31), Jesus admonishes us through the image of a soul destroyed by arrogance and opulence, who has created an impassable chasm between himself and the poor man; the chasm of being trapped within material pleasures; the chasm of forgetting the other, of incapacity to love, which then becomes a burning and unquenchable thirst. We must note that in this parable Jesus is not referring to the final destiny after the Last Judgement, but is taking up a notion found, inter alia, in early Judaism, namely that of an intermediate state between death and resurrection, a state in which the final sentence is yet to be pronounced.

1. This early Jewish idea of an intermediate state includes the view that these souls are not simply in a sort of temporary custody but, as the parable of the rich man illustrates, are already being punished or are experiencing a provisional form of bliss. There is also the idea that this state can involve purification and healing which mature the soul for communion with God. The early Church took up these concepts, and in the Western Church they gradually developed into the doctrine of Purgatory. We do not need to examine here the complex historical paths of this development; it is enough to ask what it actually means. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms. There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37]. On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are[38]. From: tinyurl.com/3a4hpq

 

[AmbroseSJ]

SHW:

St. Catherine Emmerich’s vision on the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus:

From: The Life of Jesus Christ and Biblical Revelations, Volume Three of Four

members.cox.net/studyhisword/…AndLazarus.pdf

That’s very interesting SHW! Thanks for the link. Although this is private revelation, it indeed has the ring of truth, and harmonizes with the Scriptures beautifully.

 

[EnterCanaan]

The Rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16

The parable describes two individuals. The rich man has all of the joys and comforts this present world can bring, but he is not saved. The poor man, Lazarus, has none of the good things of this world, but he is a saved man. Finally, both men die. The rich man is buried, and Lazarus is carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom (Luke 16:22). To be in the bosom of Abraham is a picture of being in the highest blessing in the presence of God. To be buried is to be placed in the grave. The parable then continues with a conversation between the dead rich man and Abraham (GOD), who is in heaven. Remember, “grave” and “death” is the same thing as hell. Therefore, it is not incorrect to say that the rich man was in hell (Luke 16:23)

But you must understand, that lifting up his eyes and seeing Lazarus in Abraham’s bosom, and speaking to Abraham, are all hypothetical. That is, God has set up a completely imaginary tableau, or a three dimensional picture, or in other words a parable, in order to convey spiritual truth. These truths include important doctrines such as the following.
#1 The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus with a drop of water to cool his tongue (Luke 16:24). There is NO MERCY or GRACE to those who have died unsaved.
#2 There is a great gulf between heaven and hell. Heaven is eternal life. Hell is death forevermore. Never, never will those who are dead ever come to life again.
#3 The rich man wanted Abraham to send Lazarus to his five brothers because he thought that such a miracle will cause them to become believers. The truth is, they have Moses and the prophets, the Old Testament. If they will not believe the Bible, then they will not believe even if they witness some great miracle.
#4 The rich man is tormented in this flame. The Greek word that is translated “tormented” is used only in verse 24, in verse 25 (“thou art tormented”), in Luke 2:48, and in Acts 20:38. The “flame” emphasizes the rich man is being punished by God, who is a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29). The word “torment,” which is defined by its usage in Acts 20:38 and Luke 2:48, indicates the nature and character of the torment he is experiencing. Now we will look carefully at this word and its usage in these two verses.
Acts 20:38: Sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more. And they accompanied him unto the ship.
Luke 2:48: And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

In both of these verses, the word that is translated as “tormented” in Luke 16 is translated as “sorrowing.” This sorrowing has nothing to do with physical pain. It is the sorrow of not seeing a loved one again. The rich man was in torment because he was sorrowing that he could never again have the joys and comforts he had experienced in his life on earth. While Lazarus was safe and secure with the greatest blessings forevermore.

In other words, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us nothing at all about eternal pain in a place called hell. It is teaching us about the penalty of losing all the blessings of this life, and gaining none of the blessings of eternal life.

this is in harmony with Jude 1:7 that teaches that Sodom and Gomorah are set forth as an example of Eternal fire.

Eternal fire is all cunsuming. Nothing is left, the Rich man would not be alive in some etherreal state in pain and torment and compassionate for his fellow brothers. the Rich man is nothing. That is why this PARABLE is used. EArthly story with a spiritual meaning.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

EnterCanaan:

In other words, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus teaches us nothing at all about eternal pain in a place called hell. It is teaching us about the penalty of losing all the blessings of this life, and gaining none of the blessings of eternal life.

You are right on the mark EnterCanaan!

 

[zach_dunn]

Purgatory is a fable

If you really want to convince anyone you are right, you probably should not try to make us Catholics look stupid . . .

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So a man dies only once, then the judgment. If you are chosen of God, you are saved, if you are not, then you are dead. there is no middle.

You seem to assume that Catholics believe the people in Purgatory will be there forever, you are wrong. Everyone that is in Purgatory will go to heaven, Purgatory will no last forever, it will cease to exist after the Judgment. So, when you die, you get judged for good or ill; nowhere in the Bible does it say that immediately after the Particular (first) Judgment does one go to Heaven. Catholics believe that if you are judged worthy of Heaven but you are not yet “clean” enough for Heaven [see Rev 21:27], you are purified by God’s love in Purgatory until you are clean enough.

the word of God, which is the bible,

You exclude a vital part of God’s word with this statement, you exclude Sacred Tradition so we are assured that you will not be able to have the full understanding of the Bible.

is the law of God, IT IS OUR JUDGMENT EVERYDAY OF OUR LIVES. Live by the word, as the word judges you everyday.

The Bible does not judge us, Christ does. He judges us according to standards laid out by the Bible.

There is no secondary judgment, you die, then you are judged, good or bad, up or down.

You are wrong on a couple accounts here. First, Catholics do not believe that Purgatory is a “secondary judgment,” once you are judged after death you know where you will end up for good or bad. Purgatory is merely a process, it is not even a “place” — in the sense of the word that we use — as I said, it is a process by which we are purified of all venial sin or the punishment due to sin that we did not “make up” for by penance.

You also are wrong in asserting that there are not two judgments. There are, Purgatory is not a judgment, but there are two: the Particular and Final Judgments. The first comes immediately after death [Heb 9:27] and the second comes on the Last Day when Christ will judge every resurrected human [Mt 25:31-34]. To learn more about the Catholic belief on death (specifically Purgatory and the Judgments), you could make use of paragraphs 1021 — 1065 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I’ve run out of time for answering you post, so I’ll have to finish this up tomorrow if I can.

 

[Cristian_B]

You are wrong on a couple accounts here. First, Catholics do not believe that Purgatory is a “secondary judgment,” once you are judged after death you know where you will end up for good or bad. Purgatory is merely a process, it is not even a “place” — in the sense of the word that we use — as I said, it is a process by which we are purified of all venial sin or the punishment due to sin that we did not “make up” for by penance.

Purified? I thought Jesus’ blood completely cleans us. Looks like I was wrong. Ups, sorry, I forgot that according to you the Bible is wrong.

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)

Because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:14)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

According to you, we are not being made perfect with the blood of Jesus, so we need fire to be made perfect. So you are saying that His blood isn’t enough for us to be forgiven.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Purified? I thought Jesus’ blood completely cleans us. Looks like I was wrong. Ups, sorry, I forgot that according to you the Bible is wrong.

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)

Because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:14)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

According to you, we are not being made perfect with the blood of Jesus, so we need fire to be made perfect. So you are saying that His blood isn’t enough for us to be forgiven.

sigh There are soooo many threads on Purgatory, and so many articles on this website about the Catholic teachings on Purgatory, yet we still see an infinite number of posts like the one above…

Evangelicals, and other Protestants never tire of the same “arguments” against purgatory, even though they are COMPLETELY OFF THE MARK.

They confuse Purgatory with Salvation, or think Catholics do. Nevertheless, I will say it one more time; Purgatory is for the temporal punishment due to sin. It has nothing to do with salvation. The purification of Purgatory has nothing to do with purification from sin, it is purification from the temporal punishment due to sin. Sin that has already been forgiven, still has temporal punishment. Sometimes that temporal punishment is purified here on earth with penance, or indulgences. Sometimes it remains after death for purification in purgatory.

It is amazing to me that Protestants, who have so little doctrine to remember, can not remember how Catholic doctrine works, while Catholics must know their own formidable doctrines, along with all of the Protestant denomination doctrines to argue intelligently. Isn’t arguing intelligently important to Protestants?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Purified? I thought Jesus’ blood completely cleans us. Looks like I was wrong. Ups, sorry, I forgot that according to you the Bible is wrong.

For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. (1 Peter 1:18-19)

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (Hebrews 10:10)

Because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. (Hebrews 10:14)

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

According to you, we are not being made perfect with the blood of Jesus, so we need fire to be made perfect. So you are saying that His blood isn’t enough for us to be forgiven.

You forgot to quote Hebrews 10:26-27 …

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries.

… Christ’s blood doesn’t cleanse the sins that we commit after we come to the faith (see BIBLICAL quote above). We have to atone for those sins ourselves. And where does that atonement happen? In purgatory!