Purgatory? Real or Man Made

[TimothyH]

…we hold firm the expectation that what they say be confirmed by scripture, and to a lesser extent, Tradition. Jim, maybe you can help me here: Neither scripture nor the great early Councils of the undivided Church speak to the issue. Purgatory, as Rome defines it, is not a teaching of the universal early Church.

Purgatory is all over scripture if you know where to look, and is based first and foremost on the doctrine of mortal and venial sin, which has to be understood first.

But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna. (Matthew 5:22)

Jesus himself tells us that there is a relative gradation of sin, of which the first two types noted leave one open to God’s judgement. The third type however, places one in immediate danger of hell.

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly. (1 John 5:16-17)

Jesus’ best friend tells us that there is sin which is deadly and sin which is not deadly. He tells us that we should pray for our brothers who commit sin that is not deadly, but that we should not pray - our prayers are not effective - for those who commit deadly sin. Mortal sin (deadly to our soul) breaks God’s covenant and under the rules of the covenant requires punishment. Those who commit venial sin may require correction to their behavior but since they have not broken the covenant, they are not liable to immediate punishment of hell.

We know from the Bible that one must be perfect to enter heaven. Jesus tells us to be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48). And again Jesus’ best friend tells us about heaven saying “******nothing unclean will enter it” (Revelation 21:27). We cannot enjoy perfect unity with God in heaven unless we too are perfect. It doesn’t take a scripture scholar here to figure out that there is a great chasm between God’s strict demand that only absolute cleanliness and perfection stand in his presence and the sinner who, althought he has not broken God’s covenant and so does not deserve eternity in Hell, has commited sins of omission due to his own residual laziness, self love and other vices. A heaven and hell only theology leaves these people nowhere to go, and so this is where God’s mercy and love in the form of Purgatory comes in.

And whoever speaks 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 12:31)

There is forgiveness in an age to come. Is the age to come heaven? No, you don’t need forgiveness in heaven. Is the age to come hell? No, you can’t be forgiven in Hell. Is the age to come after the second coming of Christ and the end of the world? The second coming of Christ means judgement if we believe in a theology with only Heaven and Hell then judgement day is too late for forgiveness.

**If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

I’ll ask the same questions above. Where do suffer loss, yet are saved, but only through fire? Heaven? No, you don’t suffer loss in heaven. Hell? No, you can’t be saved in Hell. Hmmm…

No, you have approached Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and countless angels in festal gathering, and the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, and God the judge of all, and the spirits of the just made perfect, (Hebrews 12:22-23)

Once we start looking, I mean really reading these passages slowly and trying to understand what the words actually say, they start to stand out and we see a pattern. Same questions again, where are the spirits of the just made perfect? Heaven? No, you have to be perfect before you can get in. Hell? Obviously not. Earth? No, because all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God (Romans 3:23)

A heaven and hell only theology leaves those who have committed sin which does not break the covenant but who are not yet perfect no place to go. A theology which includes purgatory gives those who were not willfully disobedient yet still sinners a way to get into heaven.

And so Purgatory is consistent with a loving, merciful God who grants his children who with the best of intentions are still imperfect, a way to stand in his perfectly holy presence. And that is really the key. If we believe God is perfection itself, then we can’t be perfectly united to him unless we too are perfect. And if we try hard, but becasue we are human slip up from time to time, God gives us Purgatory as a way to become perfect and spend eternity with him.

Purgatory shows God’s love for us.

-Tim-

 

[JonNC]

=FidesSpesCarita;8145197]Several issues, and I am not on the attack I am honestly asking/saying:

No problem.

1. How early of a council would it have to be before any declaration would cease to be Universal?

The first 7.

1. Does it require that a thing be dogmatically (i.e. solemnly proclaimed with anathemas) proclaimed for a non-Catholic to accept that the Church teaches something?

Not sure what you mean. Give me an example.

1. The fact that it was discussed without being roundly rejected as heresy by the early church would lead me to the (admittedly weak) conclusion that it was accepted and the finer points had yet to be ironed out (like Augustine’s assertion of suffering infants after death without baptism )
   Perhaps, but the finer details seem to be different from Church to Church (not talking western non-catholic)

4) Will you at least concede the point that, like the trinity, despite not being explicitly spelled out in scripture it DOES logically follow the many references given above that there is an “alternate” or third place to which some people go after death?

While I would disagree that the Trinity is not explicit, yes, I can see the logic.

1. Even today the Catholic Church does not have a GOOD explanation for what/where purgatory is. IIRC Pope Benedict recently stated his opinion that perhaps purgation is merely approaching Christ and having His love burn away the impurities within.

I could agree with the Pope in this way.

P.S. Thanks for your patience. I find it appalling sometimes the lack of charity shown in these discussions you consistently get into by some of the Catholic members. Sometimes we can be a bit excessive in our fervor for the faith and forget that not everyone sees things the way we do and fail in our attempts to calmly and rationally explain ourselves.

I treasure the charitable conversations I have with many good Catholic siblings here. Makes it worthwhile.

Jon

 

[Publisher]

I don’t wish to be offensive, but this is your opinion, your interpretation of what you think the Scriptures mean. So you could be wrong. You don’t claim infallibility for your interpretation – right?

The ancient Catholic Church teaches, as she has always taught, that every sin, mortal or venial, even if forgiven, has a penalty. The purification of the soul after death is necessary to “burn away” any remaining temporal punishment that may be due and unexpiated at the time of death. Believe it or not as you wish. The early Church, taught by the Apostles, taught in turn the purification of the soul after death, and that the suffrages of the living could assist the dead, See 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, which records that a collection was taken as a sin offering on behalf of the dead.

King David’s sin was forgiven, but he was nevertheless punished for it. See 2 Samuel 12:13-14. “David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’” "And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because of this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die.”

The Church is not so silly as to speak of days or years in the hereafter. She has never defined anything with regard to the meaning of an Indulgence of so many days or years. Historically, the terminology arose out of the remissions of the canonical penances which were imposed for periods of time; i.e., for so many years and so many quarantines (Lents), in the early Church. Formal canonical penances have not been imposed for centuries; however, they are imposed privately in Confession.

Peace,

Jim Dandy

Whatever “purgation” necessary to enter into the Presence is through the merits and work of Christ…we are “Cleaned from ALL sin”…“IN CHRIST, there is therefore no condemnation to those who are Christ Jesus…” If it occurs…it occurs at the moment of death as we leave behind this mortal body…the “wages of sin is death”…the “temporal punishment” is death…if Christ has expiated us…cleansed us from all sin by His work on the cross…we are already “purged” in the fire of the Holy Spirit…“he will baptiz with fire and the Holy Spirit”…if eduring a "temporal punishment…or “purging” makes the work of Christ and His Holy Spirit more sensible…I have no problem with it…but when we speak of “purgatory”…it’s always in the sense of “tempral”…our “temporal” life was exchanged for New Life in Christ…“the old has passed away…we become New Creations in Christ”…He purges us from all sin…and we are now “translated into the Kingdom of His Dear Son.”

It matters not to me on That Day if I must undergo a ‘purgation’…I will already be in the Presence…“absent from the body is to be with the Lord”…I will accept all things from the Father’s Hand…He does all things well…

I just find it difficult to comprehend a “separate place” for the “purgation” to occur…what better place than in His Presence…His cleansing purifying Holy Spirit which works in us now.

As has been stated by Catholics before…if one makes it to purgatory…one is assured of heaven…in Him we have Eternal Life now…so receiving a final “purge” in the Presence would be something quite welcome…not anything to fear…but rather to rejoice in…so my “belief” or “unbelief” in purgatory…really has no impact on my life in this world…or the next…I am a beloved son of the Father NOW…and will be “there” as well…so I’m in very Good Hands you see?

 

[SteveVH]

As for necessary for salvation, OF COURSE IT IS. Because these people in Purgatory need our prayers. Us praying for them is also what God the father wants us to do.

God Bless

Those who enter purgatory are already saved and assurred of heaven, otherwise they would be in hell. So purgatory is not necessary for salvation, but necessary in order to enter into heaven.

 

[ddarko]

Those who enter purgatory are already saved and assurred of heaven, otherwise they would be in hell. So purgatory is not necessary for salvation, but necessary in order to enter into heaven.

I meant salvation in terms of good works for those who are praying. Not pray for salvation of those in purgatory. They merely need our prayers to alleviate the time spent in purgatory.

The original question was understood as why the CONCEPT of purgatory was important to be held true.

Sorry about the ambiguity there.

God Bless

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Sure he counts, and Luther makes reference to him, but as with all teachers, we hold firm the expectation that what they say be confirmed by scripture, and to a lesser extent, Tradition. Jim, maybe you can help me here: Neither scripture nor the great early Councils of the undivided Church speak to the issue. Purgatory, as Rome defines it, is not
a teaching of the universal early Church. Neither are indulgences. Whom do I believe (not you, I know your reasoning and belief)?

Jon

Friend Jon,

It seems to me that you are confusing the belief itself with the ***name ***that was eventually given to it, with regard to both Purgatory and Indulgences. The name that was ultimately given to belief in the purification of souls after death, for example, is nowhere to be found in the early Church, nor is it in her Scriptures. But prayers for the dead, which imply that souls do indeed undergo purification after death, were part of the beliefs of the Church from the time the Apostles walked the earth… Purgatory – not the name, but the concept – is in the Scriptures, if one is willing to recognize it.

For example, this prayer is carved into the tomb of the Valerii in the necropolis under the Basilica of Saint Peter in Rome, near St.Peter’s tomb:

Peter pray for the pious Christian men buried near your body. Source: The Tomb of St. Peter, Margherita Guarducci, George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd, London, Toronto, Sydney, 1959, p. 147.

As others have argued on this thread, I think persuasively, prayers such as this – and the Catacombs are full of them – demonstrate belief in purification of the soul of the departed after death. The plea to St. Peter asking him to pray for these pious Christian men buried near him has to mean that the carver believed the men were neither in heaven nor in hell where prayers are useless. Ergo, they believed in the concept that the Church later named Purgatory – and Peter himself was not long dead.

The Orthodox have aways prayed for the dead as well, even as they deny the existence of Purgatory. The word is from the hated Latin, ya know, and it’s Catholic. Consequently, they have no word for their belief. Pity. They don’t have to use our word, they could invent one of their own. But IMO, disunity prevents it. But that’s another thread.

On another thread, I quoted J.H. Newman on Indulgences for you, I’ll address Indulgences again in a separate post tomorrow…

And Jon, I recommend that you look at these questions at the beginning point – for purification of the soul after death (Purgatory), look to the Jews and then to the Church. The Bible, as you know, was not collected, canonized and named until A.D. 382, 393, 397, 419.

Let me know if I am at all close to understanding your dilemma.

Regards, Jim Dandy

 

[followingtheway]

As a Southern Baptist (Looking forward to convert) I have been told by my pastors purgatory is a false man made catholic teaching.

Well…it was made by a man…name Jesus Christ And when you convert we welcome you with open arms! :grouphug:

But If I want you Bible verses on Purgatory, here you go! -

Lk 12:59; 1 Cor 3:15; 1 Pet 1:7; Mt 5:25-26 … temporary agony.
Heb 12:6-11 … God’s painful discipline.
Mt 12:32 … Jesus says that blasphemy against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, in this life or the next and in Heaven there is already forgiveness and in Hell there is none. Implying a 3rd place
1 Pet 3:19 … purgatory
Rev 21:27 … nothing unclean shall enter heaven.
Heb 12:23 … souls in heaven are perfect.
Col 1:24; 2 Sam 12:14 … “extra” suffering.
2 Mac 12:43-46 … sacrifice for the dead.
2 Tim 1:15-18 … prayer for Onesiphorus for “that Day.”
1 Jn 5:14-17 … mortal/venial sins

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND Purgatory is NOT Limbo!

God bless :byzsoc:

David

 

[swariffin]

As a Southern Baptist (Looking forward to convert) I have been told by my pastors purgatory is a false man made catholic teaching. I have come to believe that is false. I do believe in Purgatory, so does my Baptist Mom and my Baptist Grandmother. With this thread I wish some scripture upon Purgatory. I know of one scripture that supports purgatory and its 1 Corinthians 3:15. Talks about a man saved only through the fire. BUT, that can easily be told as a parable. Is there any more scripture that relates to Purgatory? Thanks!

Do you remember when Jesus said that there is a sin that is not forgiven in this world nor in the world to come? It was when Jesus mentioned the sin against the Holy Spirit. I forget the verse, but I can come back to it later on. I don’t have my bible with me today (shame on me). Keep in mind that in Heaven, there cannot be any sin. Heaven is absolutely free from sin.

So, if Jesus mentioned there are sins that CANNOT be forgiven in the world to come, then consequently, there are sins that CAN be forgiven in the world to come, correct? Where in the world to come that sins can still exist?. Heaven— Definitely NO. There cannot be any sins in Heaven. Hell? No. All who enter Hell are doomed forever. There cannot be any forgiveness to anybody from hell, since hell is equivalent to the devil itself. In this case, there must be somewhere (perhaps sometimes too) between this real world of us, and Heaven. In such world, sins can still be forgiven and such world does not equal to this real world nor Heaven nor hell.

NB; Timothy has mentioned it in Mat 13:31. I think I just reiterate what Tim has said.

 

[Michael19682]

Forgive me if I reiterate anything already stated in these threads, but I too have thought about purgatory and there are several compelling reasons to believe in it. The first is implied by scripture if you accept figurative and generalizable language: Mk 10:5 “…Because of your hardness of hearts he [Moses] wrote this commandment…” This suffices to prove that we may take doctrine figuratively when appropriate to the needs of Charity towards neighbor…in this case the need might be of relieving the conscience of a person who for some reason thinks he is going to perdition. If the concept (be it reality or not) of purgatory gets him in a better, less depressed slough of despondency, then we have in it possible justification for doctrine given even the slenderest of scriptural support. Ultimately this person can pass through a ‘purgatory on earth’ so as to get to a ‘heaven on earth’, and then to his final destination Heaven itself. That medicinal value, if you will, is enough for me.

The parable of the talents Mt 25:14-30 gives me the belief that there is hierarchy in heaven, with the fittest being the greatest: only the servant who buried his talent was cast into the darkness. Likewise Lk 7:28 tells us explicitly that their are strata in heaven, here called a kingdom of God. So, why not see purgatory as a lesser heaven, or its anteroom where people wait and pay off their debts to sin? If heaven has its greatest and its least, and so does earth, why not all of creation’s categories.

Even Hell, according to the Christian Dante, was house to certain noble Pagans, who were permitted a glimmer of light. Purgatory is thus a psychologically naturalistic as well as scriptural inference

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

No problem.

Cool, I know I can come off offensive sometimes so I try to avoid that.

The first 7.

Makes sense.

Not sure what you mean. Give me an example.

Well, for instance, the Church has pretty consistently taught against the concept of polygenism to explain the wives of Cain and Abel, but it has not been dogmatically defined. Would you require a dogmatic definition to accept that the Church has taught against something or would you accept the teachings of popes and bishops as authoritative (to a point, obviously)?

Perhaps, but the finer details seem to be different from Church to Church (not talking western non-catholic)

The finer details may not be agreed upon, but is the principle consistent?

While I would disagree that the Trinity is not explicit, yes, I can see the logic.

Yeah, it is just the easiest example I could think of at the time.

I could agree with the Pope in this way.

Well, as far as I can recall, there has never been ANY official declaration on the nature of purgatory, only that it exists. The “sentences” that people would serve out in purgatory (3 weeks, etc.) were not intended to be taken literally (although I admit that they came to be understood as actual time frames in purgation) but to correlate with penances of the early days, which could last days, weeks or months.

So I suppose that my main question is more like this “In light of the longstanding tradition of the existence of purgatory (despite various interpretations of such a place) and in light of the biblical texts which give examples of ‘neither heaven nor hell but some other place’ do you still feel that purgatory could be invented?”

I treasure the charitable conversations I have with many good Catholic siblings here. Makes it worthwhile.

Jon

As do I.

 

[JonNC]

=FidesSpesCarita;8148253]Cool, I know I can come off offensive sometimes so I try to avoid that.

Not in my experience.

Well, for instance, the Church has pretty consistently taught against the concept of polygenism to explain the wives of Cain and Abel, but it has not been dogmatically defined. Would you require a dogmatic definition to accept that the Church has taught against something or would you accept the teachings of popes and bishops as authoritative (to a point, obviously)?

Not necessarily. In fact, sometimes its the dogmatic definitions that seem to “get in the way” of closer unity, maybe on both sides. For example, many Lutherans such as myself accept in theory the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, not unlike Luther. But we find the dogmatic declaration to be troublesome (binding the hearts of the believer, etc.). As I said, it goes both ways, I’m sure.

The finer details may not be agreed upon, but is the principle consistent?

It depends on what you mean by the principals. In the document I posted, it lists some of the principals we agree on:

1. Common Affirmations
2. When misconceptions are stripped away and the continuing reflections of our churches are taken into account, the difference between our churches on the doctrine of purgatory is seen in a new light.
   Agreements
3. Catholics and Lutherans agree:
4. During this life, the justified “are not exempt from a lifelong struggle against the
   contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (see Gal. 5:16; Rom. 7:7-10)” (JDDJ, 28; cf. Trent DS 1515 and 1690 and LC, Baptism, paras. 65-67236).
5. This struggle is rightly described by a variety of categories: e.g., penitence,
   healing, daily dying and rising with Christ.
6. Borne in Christ, the painful aspects of this struggle are a participation in Christ’s
   suffering and death. Catholic teachings call these pains temporal punishments; the Lutheran Confessions grant they can, “in a formal sense,”237 be called punishments.
7. This ongoing struggle does not indicate an insufficiency in Christ’s saving work,
   but is an aspect of our being conformed to Christ and his saving work.238
8. The effects of sin in the justified are fully removed only as they die, undergo
   judgment, and encounter the purifying love of Christ. The justified are transformed from their condition at death to the condition with which they will be blessed in eternal glory. All, even martyrs and saints of the highest order, will find the encounter with the Risen Christ transformative in ways beyond human comprehension.
   6. Christ transforms those who enter into eternal life. This change is a work of
   God’s grace. It can be rightly understood as our final and perfect conformation to Christ (Phil 3:21). The fire of Christ’s love burns away all that is incompatible with living in the direct presence of God. It is the complete death of the old person, leaving only the new person in Christ.
9. Scripture tells us little about the process of the transformation from this life to
   entrance into eternal life. Categories of space and time can be applied only
   analogously.

Most notably is #6, which I bolded. This seems to speak of a general prinicpal that we agree on, without the specifics we don’t. And my observation is that this is often the case between us. For instance, we agree on the real presence, yet disagree in our expressions regarding it, Transubstantiation vs Sacramental Union.

Yeah, it is just the easiest example I could think of at the time.

One poster recently pointed to Jesus’ baptism as an explicit example of the Trinity: God the Son being baptized, God the Holy Spirit desending as a dove, God the Father speaks from on high. Pretty cool, I thought.

Well, as far as I can recall, there has never been ANY official declaration on the nature of purgatory, only that it exists. The “sentences” that people would serve out in purgatory (3 weeks, etc.) were not intended to be taken literally (although I admit that they came to be understood as actual time frames in purgation) but to correlate with penances of the early days, which could last days, weeks or months.

Would you say that it was this literal taking is what led to some of the things that surround the doctrine of Purgatory - Indulgences, Mass fairs, etc.? It seems that this was a big problem for the reformers and for Lutherans, that it seemed these things took the place of “the fire of Christ’s love” that cleanses. Does that seem a reasonable and understandable observation?

So I suppose that my main question is more like this “In light of the longstanding tradition of the existence of purgatory (despite various interpretations of such a place) and in light of the biblical texts which give examples of ‘neither heaven nor hell but some other place’ do you still feel that purgatory could be invented?”

I would not use the word “invented”, though some in my communion may. Like Transubstantiation, I see it as a human expression of a reality (cleansing) for which no specific description is given us either in scripture, or frankly, the early Tradition of the Church. I certainly see it as a possibility, but without that description by scripture and even Tradition, my question becomes why the dogmatic definition? Is it possible for us to agree on the underlying principal, and accept the differences in specifics in a way that is not Church dividing, or on the other hand, relativist?

Jon

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

Not in my experience.

Not necessarily. In fact, sometimes its the dogmatic definitions that seem to “get in the way” of closer unity, maybe on both sides. For example, many Lutherans such as myself accept in theory the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, not unlike Luther. But we find the dogmatic declaration to be troublesome (binding the hearts of the believer, etc.). As I said, it goes both ways, I’m sure.

Agreed. They can definitely get in the way. But the way I see it is if a thing is true, it is true and no amount of “quibbling” can change that. For instance many people are put off by the statement that the only way to heaven is through Christ, yet that fact remains as a fundamental truth.

It depends on what you mean by the principals. In the document I posted, it lists some of the principals we agree on:

Most notably is #6, which I bolded. This seems to speak of a general prinicpal that we agree on, without the specifics we don’t. And my observation is that this is often the case between us. For instance, we agree on the real presence, yet disagree in our expressions regarding it, Transubstantiation vs Sacramental Union.

Yes, that is what I mean by the principle of purgatory: that we require final “cleansing” prior to attaining our place in Christ’s kingdom.

One poster recently pointed to Jesus’ baptism as an explicit example of the Trinity: God the Son being baptized, God the Holy Spirit desending as a dove, God the Father speaks from on high. Pretty cool, I thought.

And yet the Mormon Church takes that verse in a completely different way, so it is clearly not quite as explicit as you or I would see it.

Would you say that it was this literal taking is what led to some of the things that surround the doctrine of Purgatory - Indulgences, Mass fairs, etc.? It seems that this was a big problem for the reformers and for Lutherans, that it seemed these things took the place of “the fire of Christ’s love” that cleanses. Does that seem a reasonable and understandable observation?

No, I would say that the indulgence issue, mass fairs, etc. were more a case of poor formation of Christians at the time. For instance the sale of indulgences was not truly a “selling” of indulgences that would release you from time in purgatory, it was the charitable giving of funds to the poor that had an indulgence attached to it. Due to the INCREDIBLE level of confusion surrounding that particular indulgence it has been revoked to prevent that. Essentially just a lack of understanding of some of these issues by much of the laity and many of the clergy caused abuses to become rampant and not so much the literal definition of purgatory, etc.

At least that is how I see it.

I would not use the word “invented”, though some in my communion may. Like Transubstantiation, I see it as a human expression of a reality (cleansing) for which no specific description is given us either in scripture, or frankly, the early Tradition of the Church. I certainly see it as a possibility, but without that description by scripture and even Tradition, my question becomes why the dogmatic definition? Is it possible for us to agree on the underlying principal, and accept the differences in specifics in a way that is not Church dividing, or on the other hand, relativist?

Jon

Well, I think that we already do agree on the underlying principle. As Catholics we just take it to, what we see, as its rational and logical end while many others take the stance that you hold and see it as a possibility that is almost impossible to define or understand and are willing to leave it at that. Which is not to call it intellectual laziness, only devoting a persons time to things seen as more important.

I dont think that either of us are being relativistic about this, I just see it as a discussion of finer points. Somewhat like if two men were to look at a painting and one says “Wow, this painting is simply beautiful!” and the other says “Yes, his use of the color palette is reminiscent of the usage during the baroque period with a clear influence of modernism shown in the rendering of the flowers and a subtle influence of abstractism right there where he paints that womans expression.” Neither would be wrong, just one stands back and appreciates a thing without needing to “understand” it, while the other feels a desire to understand in order to try to appreciate it more. Neither is wrong and neither is bad, simply different.

 

[ddarko]

Not necessarily. In fact, sometimes its the dogmatic definitions that seem to “get in the way” of closer unity, maybe on both sides. For example, many Lutherans such as myself accept in theory the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, not unlike Luther. But we find the dogmatic declaration to be troublesome (binding the hearts of the believer, etc.). As I said, it goes both ways, I’m sure.

Jon,

While seeking unity is a noble thing to do, that does not mean we should proclaim things that are TRUE as UNCERTAIN, NON-BINDING etc.

As I said, your problem is that you have thrown away TWO important elements of your Faith. Tradition and Church. You have to go back to the starting point Christ, NOT LUTHER, NOT SCRIPTURE. CHRIST!

Then you make your way forward.

As long as Lutherans (or reformers in general) keep trying to go backward from Scripture, they will always be incomplete in their truths. To complain that therefore the Catholic Church must not proclaim things definitively is moot.

One major duty entrusted to the Church by Christ is to inform the faithful. Do you complain against a letter by St. Paul because he ended up defining things too distinctly? No, right? Same applies here. The Church has the same teaching authority that the early Apostles had. Therefore, they are RESPONSIBLE for defining things with clarity to the faithful.

Since you, using the guidance of Luther, have rejected Christ’s Apostles i.e. the Church, now you are finding it hard to understand what to believe. The problem is not with the church. The ball is in your court.

You have to for a moment step out of your current understanding and actually answer the following question REASONABLY.

“Why do I believe in Christianity?”

Where the reformers got it wrong was when they answered the question as

“Because the Bible tells me so”

That is obviously not a logical answer.

My sincere advice to you as a fellow Christian is to therefore look in to the above matter. Otherwise we can keep debating every Dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church and any other doctrines that will be declared in the future. You will never be able to say which church to believe other than “I believe in this denomination because it’s teachings agree with what I see in the Bible”.

But that’s not Christianity. You don’t believe in the Church because you like the teaching. We also do not believe in Christianity because the Bible tells us so (It would infact be circular logic to do so).

So try to meditate, research and answer the question

“Why do I believe in Christianity?”

and all your problems with Catholicism will be no more. Also, please don’t hesitate to PM me if you want to discuss this further.

God Bless

 

[JonNC]

=ddarko;8148993]Jon,

While seeking unity is a noble thing to do, that does not mean we should proclaim things that are TRUE as UNCERTAIN, NON-BINDING etc.

That’s fine.

As I said, your problem is that you have thrown away TWO important elements of your Faith. Tradition and Church. You have to go back to the starting point Christ, NOT LUTHER, NOT SCRIPTURE. CHRIST!

I just don’t think presuming to tell memy problem leads to good dialogue.

The question is, how do you know, from just a few exchanges on a forum, that I have “thrown away” Tradition and the Church? You assume, because I don’t see these two important aspects of my faith in the same way that you do, that I reject them. Frankly, I’ve made no assumptions about you or your faith, except to assume that you honestly by faith accept the teachings of the CC, and respect you for it.

As long as Lutherans (or reformers in general) keep trying to go backward from Scripture, they will always be incomplete in their truths. To complain that therefore the Catholic Church must not proclaim things definitively is moot.

Compare your responses to that of FidesSpesCarita. Notice here, that you cut off dialogue. You may not intend to do so, but I would contend that if either side in the dialogues between our communions used this as a baseline, very little would transpire.
Did you look at the list of convergences in that document? Can you imagine that happening 100 years ago?

One major duty entrusted to the Church by Christ is to inform the faithful. Do you complain against a letter by St. Paul because he ended up defining things too distinctly? No, right? Same applies here. The Church has the same teaching authority that the early Apostles had. Therefore, they are RESPONSIBLE for defining things with clarity to the faithful.

Not a complaint at all. Question, do the other patriarchates have that same authority, since they came from the same apostles? And what if the specifics of doctrine, as is the case with Purgatory, differ between the them? Whom shall I believe?

Since you, using the guidance of Luther, have rejected Christ’s Apostles i.e. the Church, now you are finding it hard to understand what to believe. The problem is not with the church. The ball is in your court.

Again, an assumption about me, based on nothing more than a few exchanges on an internet forum. Where did I say I was finding it hard to understand? By asking questions of FSC?

You have to for a moment step out of your current understanding and actually answer the following question REASONABLY.

“Why do I believe in Christianity?”

Where the reformers got it wrong was when they answered the question as

“Because the Bible tells me so”

That is obviously not a logical answer.

“Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.”

My sincere advice to you as a fellow Christian is to therefore look in to the above matter. Otherwise we can keep debating every Dogma and doctrine of the Catholic Church and any other doctrines that will be declared in the future. You will never be able to say which church to believe other than “I believe in this denomination because it’s teachings agree with what I see in the Bible”.

But that’s not Christianity. You don’t believe in the Church because you like the teaching. We also do not believe in Christianity because the Bible tells us so (It would infact be circular logic to do so).

I appreciate your sincere advice.

So try to meditate, research and answer the question

“Why do I believe in Christianity?”

and all your problems with Catholicism will be no more. Also, please don’t hesitate to PM me if you want to discuss this further.

I honestly appreciate the offer.

God Bless

And His blessings also with you,
Jon

 

[Nicea325]

As a Southern Baptist (Looking forward to convert) I have been told by my pastors purgatory is a false man made catholic teaching. I have come to believe that is false. I do believe in Purgatory, so does my Baptist Mom and my Baptist Grandmother. With this thread I wish some scripture upon Purgatory. I know of one scripture that supports purgatory and its 1 Corinthians 3:15. Talks about a man saved only through the fire. BUT, that can easily be told as a parable. Is there any more scripture that relates to Purgatory? Thanks!

If purgatory is a false man-made Catholic doctrine,I am curious to know why those who profess such a position,fail to show when,where and who invented the false doctrine of purgatory? I find it amazing how some claim it is false,yet cannot back it up with any historical evidence? As one of my history professors once said:

To claim something is false is easy, yet proving it as a historical fact is another thing all together.

 

[JonNC]

If purgatory is a false man-made Catholic doctrine,I am curious to know why those who profess such a position,fail to show when,where and who invented the false doctrine of purgatory? I find it amazing how some claim it is false,yet cannot back it up with any historical evidence? As one of my history professors once said:

To claim something is false is easy, yet proving it as a historical fact is another thing all together.

Blessings, my friend,

And this is why I rejected the term “invented” when given the opportunity by FidesSpesCarita to claim that it is. The problem with the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is not that it is false, but rather that it is not explicit in scripture or, I would contend, early Church Tradition, at least not in the way it has been described in the past few hundred years up until recently.

Jon

 

[SteveVH]

I meant salvation in terms of good works for those who are praying. Not pray for salvation of those in purgatory. They merely need our prayers to alleviate the time spent in purgatory.

The original question was understood as why the CONCEPT of purgatory was important to be held true.

Sorry about the ambiguity there.

God Bless

I’m with you.

 

[Nicea325]

Blessings, my friend,

And this is why I rejected the term “invented” when given the opportunity by FidesSpesCarita to claim that it is. The problem with the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is not that it is false, but rather that it is not explicit in scripture or, I would contend, early Church Tradition, at least not in the way it has been described in the past few hundred years up until recently.

Jon

And blessings to you Jon. I understand your argument,but Jon one has to understand that scripture does not teach everything must be explicitly laid out nor was it written in such a manner. The doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation are not explicitly explained in scripture;the church is the one which gave us the complexity of the three distinct persons of the Trinitarian doctrine. It is implicit in scripture,not explicit.

In terms of description? That is called doctrinal development. Simply because something is explained or defined over time does not negate it all. The doctrine of the Trinity was not explained as elaborately or defined very well prior to it being ratified at Nicaea in 325 A.D. Did it make false,since it was not understood the same prior to 325 A.D.? One of the issues I encounter with many Protestants (not you in particular) is the failure to understand doctrinal development. Doctrines are defined and ratified when they are being challenged or violated,it is not an invention,but a clear and precise explanation. Regardless at what point in time and space it happens (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381,Ephesus 431,etc).

 

[rinnie]

As a Southern Baptist (Looking forward to convert) I have been told by my pastors purgatory is a false man made catholic teaching. I have come to believe that is false. I do believe in Purgatory, so does my Baptist Mom and my Baptist Grandmother. With this thread I wish some scripture upon Purgatory. I know of one scripture that supports purgatory and its 1 Corinthians 3:15. Talks about a man saved only through the fire. BUT, that can easily be told as a parable. Is there any more scripture that relates to Purgatory? Thanks!

Purgatory is not a place it is a state of being. But a state of being can also be a place in your mind, you see what I mean.

I have tried to figure out Purgatory for the last year and believe I can figure it out now.

Purgatory is as the bible states the final cleansing that we need to enter heaven.

WHen you die, if you are deemed worthy and forgiven from sin, but still have the desire to sin that desire must be completely washed away.

Like for instance say you went out to the casino and gambled all of your money away, and it became a sin for you because it got out of control.

So when you confessed the sin, and was forgiven from the sin, the joy you got out of the sin is still left behind. See what I am saying, you can find no joy whatsoever in that sin.

The reason is, if you still find Joy in the sin, you have not been completely cleansed of that sin, That is what Purgatory does, simply because nothing unclean can enter heaven.

Now why do we know purgatory exists, because we pray for our dead, Why if it can’t help them? See what I mean.

If there is only heaven and hell you can’t pray them into heaven they are there, and you can’t pray them out of hell.

Purgatory is a gift from God. It means you are forgiven from your sin, but need the final cleansing to be completely free from ever seeing a reason to commit it again. You have to actually hate that sin and Love God more.

But where peope get confused Purgatory does not have to be believed in order to enter heaven. You can enter heaven without Purgatory, we can be cleansed here on earth before we die, by the Prayers and Grace of God.

 

[brumano]

As a Southern Baptist (Looking forward to convert) I have been told by my pastors purgatory is a false man made catholic teaching. I have come to believe that is false. I do believe in Purgatory, so does my Baptist Mom and my Baptist Grandmother. With this thread I wish some scripture upon Purgatory. I know of one scripture that supports purgatory and its 1 Corinthians 3:15. Talks about a man saved only through the fire. BUT, that can easily be told as a parable

. Is there any more scripture that relates to Purgatory? Thanks!

I guess if you agree that it does in a parabolic line: “make settlement with thy adversary while ye are yet in the way with him lest he hail thee to the judge and the judge to the jailer I tell you thou shall not come out until the last farthing has been paid.”