Purgatory, Quick question

[WFS5801]

What a hedonist God would be to have his only begotten Son suffer and die if there was another way. You would argue that this is not another way…but it is.

Christ did not have to suffer, it was his choice. You’re talking to the wrong person because, over Lent, I read St. Alphonsus De Liguori’s The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. St. Alphonsus makes it clear that a single drop of Christ’s Blood could have atoned for all sins all humans were capable of ever committing. Christ willed to die on the Cross, to suffer all that he suffered, because he wanted us to have no doubt how much he loves us. No one took Jesus’ life, he gave it willingly and, as St. Paul writes, “he humbled himself… even unto death on a cross.” This is my God.

I challenge you to read St. Alphonsus De Liguroi’s book to get a glimpse at Catholic devotion and understanding of Christ’s suffering for us.

That is not my God. How one can fathom the “form and substance” argument for the Eucharist to be true, for example, and not understand the simple truth that Christ died once for all is simply beyond me.

I’m not sure how we got to the Eucharist in a Purgatory thread, but Christ only died once on the Cross. His single Sacrifice was sufficient for all. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is an “unbloody” one and it also a Sacrament that gives us actual grace. Christ commanded that we “Eat his Flesh and drink his Blood” in the form of bread and wine. We believe on Faith and obey our Lord.

(Again, not quite sure what your point was.)

Perhaps that’s why we are to be like “little children.” They typically tell it simple and “like it is.” Adults love to complicate things…

White robes…washed by the blood of Christ…not spotted until bleached out in Purgatory.

Children accept the truth their Father teaches them, even if they don’t understand it. When Jesus told his Disciples “You shall eat my flesh indeed,” do you think they understood what he meant at the time? No, they didn’t. He asked if they would leave him also as the others had done, and they answered with the Faith of children, “To whom should we go, you have the words of life.”

I don’t know if you believe as Luther, that Christ merely covers our sins with his Blood, or as the Catholics, that Christ’s Blood cleanses us from all sins. But I can tell you which of the two beliefs is more consoling to me. When I have wronged my God with sin, I beg for his mercy to spare my immortal life. But I also willingly do penance to try to help heal the consequences of my sin – instinctively knowing that this penance is necessary for my own good. I fully understand that there is nothing I can do, even if I had a billion years, that could blot out the slightest offense against my eternal Father, but it is for my own good that I add a little “suffering” to show that I’m willing to (as Christ commanded us) “Take up my cross and follow him.” He also told us that Christians would have sufferings in this world. By my penances (no matter how feeble) I show my love for Christ. Honestly, now that I’m Catholic, I can’t understand the attitude “Yeah, I committed a sin, but I asked God to forgive me and now everything’s fine.” How many times can you do that and not feel that everything really isn’t fine?

 

[fred_conty]

What a hedonist God would be to have his only begotten Son suffer and die if there was another way. You would argue that this is not another way…but it is.

That is not my God. How one can fathom the “form and substance” argument for the Eucharist to be true, for example, and not understand the simple truth that Christ died once for all is simply beyond me.

Perhaps that’s why we are to be like “little children.” They typically tell it simple and “like it is.” Adults love to complicate things…

White robes…washed by the blood of Christ…not spotted until bleached out in Purgatory.

From you first statement, you think that Purgatory is an option to pay for sin and therefore the death on the cross was unnecessary for sin. Nothing could be farther from Catholic truth.

I believe what you are thinking is: Christ paid for all sin and therefore we owe nothing.

We agree that Christ paid for all sin.

But we do owe something, and that is the difference.

“… covers a multitude of sin.” St. James He says we owe something, otherwise why bother to say covers?

That we don’t owe something is a dirivative of “once saved, always saved.” Meaning if saved, then we don’t owe anything. And if we owe nothing, then there goes good works.
Including the good work of prayer which logically can be dismissed.

Now there are so many passages in the bible exhorting us to pray and do good works that I’m sure you are familiar with, so I won’t repeat them here. I think something deep inside would tell us that we must show our good will in a concrete way to prove that we are sincerely sorrowful. This is called “penance” ,a good work.

If someone damages another’s car, is it enough just to say they are sorry?

 

[excubitor]

I know. When I used to debate with my friends from my Protestant days, I spent more time explaining what the Church didn’t teach rather than what it does. And the bad part was, when I would explain to them, for instance, that you can’t buy your way into Heaven, they would say something like, “they’re keeping this secret from you.” You would think that, being of good will (which they were), they would be happy to find out that these things they were taught about the Church were not true – but, gossip dies hard, and then it becomes a “conspiracy theory” argument. And that goes nowhere. The sad part is, there are a lot of true differences between Protestants and Catholics and I would have loved to have debated on those points.

This is my big complaint with my protestant friends and family. We used to have long and in depth studies and discussions on the scriptures, but now that I am Catholic they avoid discussing Catholic distinctives. They know my devotion to the scriptures for twenty years. They know instinctively that I would have very, very solid and good reasons to convert to the Catholic church. However they avoid the issue because they do not want to be confronted with the potential need to convert themselves. These people are clearly not acting in good will. They are not men of good will at all. As you pointed out. They love things which bring down the Catholic church. That is evidence of a of a lack of good will.

 

[kepha1]

**

heathnprotstnt

**

First, how you pull Purgatory out of Matt 5:26 & Luke 12:59 is some serious mental gymnastics. Matt 5 speaks much about reconciliation and forgiveness. Keep reading. How about Matthew 18?

Calm down. These verses are about the mercy and justice of God foremost. Reconciliation and forgiveness are primary works to satisfy God’s justice. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. If the verse is primarily about reconciliation and forgiveness, then justification by faith alone is meaningless.

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

It is very clear that the parable is about forgiveness of sin (i.e., debts). It is also very clear and “obvious” that it would never be possible to pay off the debt at issue, what WE owe to GOD. The debt was 10000 talents of gold. 1 talent was the equivalent of 20 years wages…hmmm? 10000 x 20 years = a really long time. Maybe that’s where you get Purgatory…

We get the concept of purgatory from the Jews. Jesus and Paul expanded on what was already there in primitive form.

It was a debt that could NEVER be paid, which is exactly Christ’s point. Just like the Jail in Matt 5:26 and Luke 12:59. Yet, Christ was clear. The “King” forgave the servant his debt IN FULL. Needless to say, the One True God is once again sufficient for us. AMEN and AMEN!!!

AMEN and AMEN!!! But we are not talking about the debt of sin. We are talking about purification. You are arguing that the “King” paid for our sins and we don’t have to take responsibility for anything, or that Jesus is incoherently mixing the literal and metaphorical terms.

Jesus paid the debt for our sins on the Cross. You got that doctrine from us. Automatic or forensic or imputed justification is a tradition of men. You got that from 16th century aristocracs and it’s not in the Bible. The doctrine of purgatory is no threat, it can only embellish your understanding of God’s love, mercy, and justice. Keep reading…

 

[heathnprotstnt]

You’ll have to clarify your question. What do you mean “how do I explain the practice of indulgences?” And what is a “so-called” indulgence? Let me give you a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on Indulgences.

newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

This will generally explain the doctrine of indulgences in the Catholic Church. If you have a specific question I’ll be glad to do my best to answer it.

Originally Posted by WFS5801
I know. When I used to debate with my friends from my Protestant days, I spent more time explaining what the Church didn’t teach rather than what it does. And the bad part was, when I** would explain to them, for instance, that you can’t buy your way into Heaven**,…

Emphasis added to your quote above…the bold section. My unclear question…sorry…was about reconciling indulgences with that statement…

 

[heathnprotstnt]

From you first statement, you think that Purgatory is an option to pay for sin and therefore the death on the cross was unnecessary for sin. Nothing could be farther from Catholic truth.

I believe what you are thinking is: Christ paid for all sin and therefore we owe nothing.

We agree that Christ paid for all sin.

But we do owe something, and that is the difference.

“… covers a multitude of sin.” St. James He says we owe something, otherwise why bother to say covers?

I am unfamiliar with this verse. Peter and James made similiar statements but they do not fit the context in which you are using them. Can you share the specfiic ch and v?

Also, how does such a belief fit with Epehsians 2:9 and Romans 3:9-27? You could never do enough to pay your debt to God, atone or make reparations. Moving to Purgatory vs. this world won’t change that. God’s standards are simply too high. If you are a sinful creature, not yet worthy of Heaven, how can you live in a way that God will find worthy, even in Purgatory?

That we don’t owe something is a dirivative of “once saved, always saved.” Meaning if saved, then we don’t owe anything. And if we owe nothing, then there goes good works.
Including the good work of prayer which logically can be dismissed.

Now there are so many passages in the bible exhorting us to pray and do good works that I’m sure you are familiar with, so I won’t repeat them here. I think something deep inside would tell us that we must show our good will in a concrete way to prove that we are sincerely sorrowful. This is called “penance” ,a good work.

Works reflect our living as Christ commanded us. They are a reflection of one’s faith, at least that’s how I personally see it. Knowing a tree by its fruit, etc. Works do not get you to salvation…the reflect your salvation and faith.

If someone damages another’s car, is it enough just to say they are sorry?

Depends on whether you’re in a “no fault” state What if you killed an only child who was also an orphan while driving drunk? How would you make reparation? To whom would you make reparation?

 

[heathnprotstnt]

---

Calm down. These verses are about the mercy and justice of God foremost. Reconciliation and forgiveness are primary works to satisfy God’s justice. They are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. If the verse is primarily about reconciliation and forgiveness, then justification by faith alone is meaningless.

Matt. 5:26,18:34; Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.

We get the concept of purgatory from the Jews. Jesus and Paul expanded on what was already there in primitive form.

AMEN and AMEN!!! But we are not talking about the debt of sin. We are talking about purification. You are arguing that the “King” paid for our sins and we don’t have to take responsibility for anything, or that Jesus is incoherently mixing the literal and metaphorical terms.

Jesus paid the debt for our sins on the Cross. You got that doctrine from us. Automatic or forensic or imputed justification is a tradition of men. You got that from 16th century aristocracs and it’s not in the Bible. The doctrine of purgatory is no threat, it can only embellish your understanding of God’s love, mercy, and justice. Keep reading…

Calm down? Sorry. I will try to “remain calm.” Threat? No. Not aligned with Gospel of Christ’s life, death and resurrection. Yes.

With all respect you speak, in what appears to me to be, a circle. If you cannot pay a debt on Earth, as a sinner…how are you going to be purified or pay your debts as a sinner in Purgatory? I simply cannot reconcile scripture with “we will all do time.” I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[heathnprotstnt]

Christ did not have to suffer, it was his choice. You’re talking to the wrong person because, over Lent, I read St. Alphonsus De Liguori’s The Passion and Death of Jesus Christ. St. Alphonsus makes it clear that a single drop of Christ’s Blood could have atoned for all sins all humans were capable of ever committing. Christ willed to die on the Cross, to suffer all that he suffered, because he wanted us to have no doubt how much he loves us. No one took Jesus’ life, he gave it willingly and, as St. Paul writes, “he humbled himself… even unto death on a cross.” This is my God.

I challenge you to read St. Alphonsus De Liguroi’s book to get a glimpse at Catholic devotion and understanding of Christ’s suffering for us.

Yes. You are correct that Christ chose that path. He chose to accept the bitter cup and willingly followed his Father’s will. I do not doubt Christ or the Father’s love for us…it is beyond comprehension. However, I reiterate that if our salvation could have been secured in another way, a paper cut with a single drop of blood, then God is sadistic.

I’m not sure how we got to the Eucharist in a Purgatory thread, but Christ only died once on the Cross. His single Sacrifice was sufficient for all. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is an “unbloody” one and it also a Sacrament that gives us actual grace. Christ commanded that we “Eat his Flesh and drink his Blood” in the form of bread and wine. We believe on Faith and obey our Lord.

It was a comparison of the faith required and displayed by RC’s believing the “form and substance” argument of the Eucharist to, what looks like to ME, a lack of faith in the saving grace and death of our Lord and Saviour. Apparently, it was not a very good or clear comparison. In other words, I can’t understand how you accept one, the less logical and biblically supported one (to me) to be true, while you reject the other. I hope that makes sense.

Children accept the truth their Father teaches them, even if they don’t understand it. When Jesus told his Disciples “You shall eat my flesh indeed,” do you think they understood what he meant at the time? No, they didn’t. He asked if they would leave him also as the others had done, and they answered with the Faith of children, “To whom should we go, you have the words of life.”

You appear to be “cherry picking” from John 6…read the whole chapter.

I don’t know if you believe as Luther, that Christ merely covers our sins with his Blood, or as the Catholics, that Christ’s Blood cleanses us from all sins. But I can tell you which of the two beliefs is more consoling to me. When I have wronged my God with sin, I beg for his mercy to spare my immortal life. But I also willingly do penance to try to help heal the consequences of my sin – instinctively knowing that this penance is necessary for my own good. I fully understand that there is nothing I can do, even if I had a billion years, that could blot out the slightest offense against my eternal Father, but it is for my own good that I add a little “suffering” to show that I’m willing to (as Christ commanded us) “Take up my cross and follow him.” He also told us that Christians would have sufferings in this world. By my penances (no matter how feeble) I show my love for Christ. Honestly, now that I’m Catholic, I can’t understand the attitude “Yeah, I committed a sin, but I asked God to forgive me and now everything’s fine.” How many times can you do that and not feel that everything really isn’t fine?

My beliefs aligns with yours, not Luthers (as you described it). Paul writes repeatedly about his, and our, struggles with sin and our old nature. Yet he seemed quite secure in his faith and salvation. I, being far more the “chief of sinners”, and far less faithful than Paul am not as secure. However, I accept the Gospel for what it is that God’s grace and Christ’s death is sufficient. Amazing Grace indeed! I strive against the flesh and live in the Father’s will and word as best I can accordingly. I will do so until I am called home.

 

[brb3]

I, being far more the “chief of sinners”, and far less faithful than Paul am not as secure. However, I accept the Gospel for what it is that God’s grace and Christ’s death is sufficient. Amazing Grace indeed! I strive against the flesh and live in the Father’s will and word as best I can accordingly. I will do so until I am called home.

Yes, but Paul was referring to his ‘past’ life … having consented to the deaths of many Christians, before the Damascus Road conversion.

When I was a ‘heathen protestant’ … I allowed myself to think that this ‘chief of sinners’ testimony of Paul’s allowed me to continue on in my ‘post-conversion’ sins, w/o too much worry or compulsion to actual live like Paul, AFTER his conversion.

The irony … it’s the Protestants who really need a ‘purgatorial’ cleansing … yet deny its existance or need. Catholics on the otherhand believe in it … but, hope to avoid it in the next life, by really living like Paul did [once he came to faith in Christ].