Purgatory

[Kaily]

I’m sure there are threads on this, but for some reason the search button doesn’t seem to be working on here. Any word I type in to search for, it comes up as no matches.

Anyway, I was wondering if Karl Keating was aware of this blogger critiquing his explanation of purgatory, and what is the most logical and philosophical argument to give to someone that thinks this is a silly doctrine?

Here is the link to the person critiquing what Karl Keating says:

truefreethinker.com/articles/roman-catholic-doctrine-purgatory-part-3%E2%80%94miscellaneous-roman-catholic-comments

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ugh. Well I pasted the convo with my responses below:

The concept of Purgatory is place between the particular and general judgments not because the Bible teaches this or even hints at it but because it is the only place that Mr. Keating could find to place it. It is so incongruous with Scripture that it must be forcefully inserted, and it must be inserted because it is found nowhere in the Bible. Response: Umm, no. It’s pretty fabulously clearly stated by 1 Corinthians 3:15, as well as the many passages speaking of God’s burning love and being a refiner’s fire. Jewish wedding imagery of the bridge being washed with a cleansing bath after coming to the groom but before entering the Father’s house, as well as temple imagery mimicking the stages of the spiritual life and cleansing, all attest to this idea. If these concepts only apply to those that are already saved, but not yet in heaven, the particular judgement is implied.

Fundamentalists note that biblical references to the judgment refer only to heaven and hell. Quite true. That is because most of the references are to the general judgment.3

This is stated as opposed to the individual judgment. The problem for Mr. Keating is that references to individual judgment still say nothing about having to suffer for our own sins in the fires of Purgatory. Response: Wrong. 1 Corinthians 3:15 is possible the single clearest passage we have on the matter, and is alluded to elsewhere.

professional anti-Catholics…claim, instead, that the Bible speaks only of heaven and hell. Wrong again. It speaks quite plainly of a third place, where Christ went after his death, the place commonly called the Limbo of the Fathers, where the just who died before the Redemption were waiting for heaven to be opened to them (I Pet 3:19). This place was neither heaven nor hell. Even if the Limbo of the Fathers was not purgatory, its existence shoes that a temporary, intermediate state is not contrary to Scripture.” 4

The Limbo of the Fathers or Abraham’s Bosom is now empty and now there are only two places; heaven and hell. Response: Missing the point. Keating is arguing in a logical progression, and taking his quotes out of order is dishonest to the argument he is trying to make. His main goal of using that passage is merely to show that a third state is not contrary to Scripture, since this is often the first argument protestants make. After showing that a third state is possible, he continues to show how purgatory is taught. The passage isn’t mean to “prove” purgatory, as we Catholics do not use proof-texting to form out arguments.

Anyone who has not completely expiated his sins—that is, not just had them forgiven, but ‘made up’ for them, been punished for them—in this life is, to some extent, ‘unclean.’ Through repentance he may have gained the grace needed to qualify for heaven (which is to say his soul is spiritually alive), but that is not enough. He needs to be cleansed completely. By not admitting the doctrine of purgatory, one necessarily implies that even the slightest defilement results in the loss of the soul.” 5

as is fairly common in Roman Catholic writings they seem to overlook the line between the living and the dead

By made up he is making reference to Colossians 1:24 which he quotes as “in my sufferings for you, and * fill up those things that are wanting in the suffering of Christ.” This is in some way supposed to connect to Purgatory but as is fairly common in Roman Catholic writings they seem to overlook the line between the living and the dead. The living man Paul was writing to living people in the city of Colossi, from here by use of eisegesis (or, isogesis), this concept is force to breach that Biblically un-breachable chasm between the living and the dead. Response: This is absolutely ludicrous. Jesus spoke with Moses and Abraham, who were both dead. Jesus went out of his way to say that God is the God of the living, not the dead. There is no death in Christ. Hebrews says that we have a great cloud of witnesses watching us, implied as being dead. The Apocalypse shows spirits aware of what is on earth, as well as our prayers passing through angels and saints in heaven before going to the throne. The dead rose in Matthew and appeared to many. Paul apparently prays for a dead man and asks for mercy to be brought on his family on “the day.” He talks about people being baptized (many interpretations to this verse) on behalf of who? The dead. Maccabees (he has to prove it’s not Scripture, which it is) prayed for the dead. I can go on and on. He is merely making theological assertions with no support. Not only that, his entire premise is false and therefore invalidated, because THERE IS NO DEATH IN CHRIST.*

 

[jpusateri]

This critique is full of the author stating that he doesn’t understand the doctrine of Purgatory because he doesn’t agree with the exegesis given nor with Tradition.

When he applies his own exegetical lenses and discards Tradition, he doesn’t get the same answers as the Church does.

It all comes back to who has authority to interpret Scripture and where does that interpretation reside? The Catholic Church and in Sacred Tradition.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Fundamentalists think…Christ obviated6 the need for any expiation on our part, but the Bible nowhere teaches that. Having one’s sins forgiven is not the same as having the punishment for them wiped out.”7

Then what does having ones sins forgiven mean?

no parish maintains a ‘schedule of fees.’ A few people, of course, freely offer more. On average, though, a parish can expect to receive something less than five dollars by way of stipend for each memorial Mass said. These Masses are usually said on weekdays.” 8

I’m not quite sure what he means by schedule of fees but I can speak as one that worked for a Roman Catholic Church for four and a half years. The local Archbishop decides how much a Mass intention costs; $10.00 in our case. In the Mass Book we write down the intention and we would mark whether it had been paid or not and, of course, we had a receipt book specifically for Mass intention payments.
In the parish for which I worked there were seven Masses a week for which intentions were allowed, three intentions were allowed per Mass. Theoretically speaking, this means that if all the intentions were sold the parish could bring in $840 per month from these sales alone. If this does not seem like much, sadly, it is a few dollars more than I was making per month for full time work. Multiply the dollar amount per Mass by millions of Masses all over the world, then multiply it by millennia and you will see that we are talking about an incredible amount of money. Response: Umm, who cares? Is his point is that a Church should operate without any means of finance? The Church is almost broke with all the social programs she sponsors. Nothing really to respond to here except an emotional argument of "look how rich the Catholics are."

Anthony Wilhelm:

    An encounter with the living God always is painfully, totally upsetting

Purgatory is perhaps best described as the painful state or experience of encountering God after death, when we see him as he really is ‘face to face’ (1 Corinthians 13, 12), and, by contrast, ourselves as we really are, as sinful humans. An encounter with the living God always is painfully, totally upsetting.”9

Christ has made up our sins, and now accepts us totally, but we yet have the need of doing something about them ourselves, as when we hurt anyone we love…Most people realize that they have not made up for all their sins, that they still are clinging to some faults, and therefore could not expect to be perfectly happy immediately after death with the perfect, totally accepting Love we call God. 10

True, as an example, if in this life we stole something we could make up for it by giving it back. But this concept cannot be taken into the afterlife because Jesus came to do that which we could not do; make it up to God. Any denial that Jesus did so fully, or the contradictory purgatorial argument that Jesus did do so but we must still suffer in the afterlife is a denial that Jesus completed the task for which He was born and died. Jesus Himself said, “It is finished/paid in full” (John 19:30). Response: Based entirely on a flawed protestant concept of the atonement known as penal substitution. Jesus did not “suffer so we didn’t have to,” otherwise the full penalty incurred would be eternal damnation. Jesus died to propitiate, or appease, the Father, not to incur our punishment. This is why protestants get charged with “cosmic child abuse.” Actually, it is NOT “paid in full,” it is "it is finished. This bogus argument is based on the fact that when a contract was fulfilled, “telestai” was stamped on it. But it still meant “it is finished,” only in that particular context, a paid in full meaning comes out of it. Somehow this has turned into a false assumption that it means “paid in full” in every context, which I hope I have shown is ridiculous. The “it” in the Greek is gender neutral, and it unclear what “it” refers to, so for him to state that he knows clearly what it means is a prime example of his own eisegesis.

Those passing through this purgatory state know clearly that they are saved, God’s love overwhelms them, and they have a joy far more intense than anything on earth.11

In that case, one would wonder why people are in such a hurry to get their dead relatives out of Purgatory. Sure, it is not yet heaven but that is where they know they are going so why not save your money and let them enjoy this intense joy for a few centuries? (Please forgive the sarcasm). **Response: Not even going to bother with this.
**

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

A Catholic Response, Inc.:

Even though not explicitly referred to by name, the Bible does allude to it, especially in terms of purging fire.”12

As will be discussed in the next essay in this series, The Consulted Scriptures, in order to read Purgatory into the Bible in every place where any sort of flames are mentioned there is an attempt to insert Purgatory, yet to no avail.

very serious sin - mortal sin – ‘kills’ our friendship with God. By willfully committing mortal sin, we reject God, and we lose this sanctifying grace (Titus 1:16). Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross can still redeem our friendship with God; however, we must repent and seek God’s forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). If we do not repent and die in this graceless state, then we suffer the loss of eternal life. This loss is eternal punishment or hell (Matt 25:46). 13

Let us explore the logical conclusion of this concept. We are talking about a person who has completed all their Roman Catholic sacraments, who has redemptive sanctifying grace i.e., God’s forgiveness. Let’s say that this person is driving along in their car and commits adultery in their heart by lusting after the photograph of a person on a billboard, if they get into a car crash and die they will go to hell for all eternity.
This is because even though they had their sins forgiven by Jesus Christ and had redemptive sanctifying grace, they simply did not make it to the priest for confession and so they will go to hell. This is a nonsensical tactic from the Dark Ages and does not exist in the Bible. Forgiveness is forgiveness and salvation is salvation. Response: Yeah. And unless he can prove that salvation is not shown to be repeatedly throughout the Bible as a process, this black or white mentality is not found in Scripture. See Abraham for a fantastic example of how not to be protestant.

Some sin is not serious enough to kill our friendship with God, but still it is harmful. The mess caused by our sin needs correction. This correction is temporal punishment (Hebrews 12:5-11). We can be corrected and cleansed through personal penance on earth or later in Purgatory - thanks to our Redeemer, Jesus Christ. 14

Hebrews 12:511 speaks of correction or chastening but nowhere does the word of God speak of this as able to continue later in Purgatory

True, Hebrews 12:5-11 speaks of correction or chastening but nowhere does the word of God speak of this as able to continue later in Purgatory.

In comparison to hell, Purgatory could rightly be described as Paradise.15

Maybe so, but compared to heaven Purgatory is hell.

Others may object by citing that Christ’s Blood ‘cleanses us from all sin.’ [1 John 1:7] Now that is true, but His sacrifice of redemption can be applied in different ways, such as through Baptism, Confession, prayer…Another way is Purgatory. 16

If it is true then we could have Christ’s redeeming blood applied to us in Purgatory. This would mean either that an unforgiving sinner could be saved in Purgatory or that, as the case appears to be, Christ’s Blood does not cleanses us from all sin since we must still suffer for them ourselves in this life and afterwards. Response: No. Christ’s blood is applied to us in the ways that Christ has prescribed for us, and that’s it. This goes theologically even deeper back, into a misunderstanding of the nature of the Fall. We lose sanctifying grace, and sin wounds the soul. I’ll use the board analogy. Sin drives a nail into the board. Grace takes it out, but there is still a hole, which needs to be straightened out. He presumes to know the application of salvific grace in quite an arrogant fashion, it would seem. Who is he to say how God applies grace in the justification of his children? If Israel is the prototypical example of justification, then why does it take so long to enter the Promised Land? Why is there an Old Law and concessions made prior to the New? Because he is a Father, who deals with His children one step at a time. Why should His application of grace stop short after we died in a state of Grace to get rid of the "holes in the board?"

 

[brianwalden]

Wow, I started trying to reply in earnest, but then I realized the person who wrote this isn’t a free thinker at all. All he did was was quote things out of context and then offer his own opinion without any evidence to back it up. I guess he doesn’t think any of his readers are free thinkers but assumes that they swallow everything he says unquestioningly.

I mean just look at his very first argument:

Can it really be said that considerable scriptural warrant could be non-explicit?

Apparently he’s never heard of the Trinity.

I don’t have time to sort through all the garbage, are there specific points that you’re looking to respond to.

 

[Kaily]

Great responses! Nathan, you mentioned several Scriptures, could you cite those if you have time? Thanks!

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

When you make the case of purgatory, it has to be one of cumulative effect. You have to show that the concept is rife throughout Scripture. These are just a few, there are more.

2 Tim. 1:16-18 - Onesiphorus is dead but Paul asks for mercy on him “on that day.” Of course, there is no need for mercy in heaven, and there is no mercy given in hell. Where is Onesiphorus? He is in purgatory. Logical deduction

Hebrews 12 (RSV):

“22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable angels in festal gathering, 23 and to the assembly of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to a judge who is God of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks more graciously than the blood of Abel.”

Notice that the Christians has come to more than just God, but the entire host of heaven including saints. This is what we partake in through the blood of Christ. The ENTIRE body.

Rev. 21:4 - God shall wipe away their tears, and there will be no mourning or pain, but only after the coming of the new heaven and the passing away of the current heaven and earth. I Note the elimination of tears and pain only occurs at the end of time. But there is no morning or pain in heaven, and God will not wipe away their tears in hell. I wouldn’t base my entire argument on this, but it does seem to imply souls in purgatory.

Hebrews 12:29: “for our God is a consuming fire.”

Wisdom ch 3:1-6 But the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and no torment shall touch them. They seemed, in the view of the foolish, to be dead; and their passing away was thought an affliction and their going forth from us, utter destruction. But they are in peace. For if before men, indeed, they be punished, yet is their hope full of immortality; Chastised a little, they shall be greatly blessed, *because God tried them *and found them worthy of himself. As gold in the furnace, he proved them, and as sacrificial offerings he took them to himself."

Is it any wonder they don’t accept the Deuterocanonicals?

Zechariah 13:8-9: In all the land, says the LORD, two thirds of them shall be cut off and perish, and one third shall be left. I will bring the one third through fire, and I will refine them as silver is refined, and I will test them as gold is tested. They shall call upon my name, and I will hear them. I will say, “They are my people,” and they shall say, “The LORD is my God.”

In the above, if you read the entire chapter, God is speaking of the messianic age. Notice the term “the Land.” This refers to the Promised Land. Since Israel’s struggle toward the Promised Land is symbolic of our journey toward salvation, it is significant here that God cuts off those already in it, and takes the remaining faithful and leads them through a purification by fire, since that is how metal is refined. Very strong allusions here, when you look past the literal meaning, particularly combined with the passage in Wisdom.

Malachi 3:2-3: But who will endure the day of his coming? And who can stand when he appears? For he is like the refiner’s fire, or like the fuller’s lye. He will sit refining and purifying (silver), and he will purify the sons of Levi, Refining them like gold or like silver that they may offer due sacrifice to the LORD.

Okay notice above, it refers to “the Day.” This always refers to judgement day with the article in an eschatological sense, and so at a point after death the faithful are refined. Keep in mind how significant the imagery of a refiner’s fire is, because what does a refiner’s fire do? It refines IMPURITIES.

More refiner imagery just for kicks:
1 Peter 6-9: “In this you rejoice, although now for a little while you may have to suffer through various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold that is perishable even though tested by fire, may prove to be for praise, glory, and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ. Although you have not seen him you love him; even though you do not see him now yet believe in him, you rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, as you attain the goal of (your) faith, the salvation of your souls.”

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

After this, it’s time to bring in 1:corinthians 3:12-17: 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 **7 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, 8 but only as through fire. Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy.

The above passage in the context of the entire epistle is especially beautiful, because Paul is discussing the sins of the people, and develops the idea of the body as temple in the preceding chapters. Then, *in the context of Judgement day *(after death), he talks about works being judged. This refining fire that we have already established, burns away impurities, and notice in my bold highlights that there are three types of people being described. The ones who’s works pass and he makes it through, the one who is purified and barely makes it through, and the ones who committed serious sins and are destroyed by this fire. Protestant theology often argues that the saved are merely being rewarded for their good works, not judged for their bad works. However, to believe this, they have to believe that the this passage is referring to poor works being burned, and not sin, and then that the Bible makes a distinction between poor works and sin. The Bible does not make this distinction, in fact, the book of James deal indepth with works that are not up to par, and how the LACK of good works is a sin as well. Taken to it’s logical conclusion, protestant theology does not have any room for works to be judged at all, for reward or otherwise. Another fact is that this Judgement is judging the works on the basis of determining the soul’s final destination, so apparently works are being judged, and not simply appraised. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Greek word Zemioo for “suffer loss” is in reference to “punishment” and can also mean “to pay a penalty,” etc. And the “as through fire” can also translate as “the same as, in the same way as, etc.” Particularly in Greek, the above passage forms a fitting capstone to a cumulative argument.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The following passages should help show that the line between the “living” and the “dead” is nonexistent.

Premise 1: There is no death in Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:21-22: "For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

Mark 12:27: As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, (the) God of Isaac, and (the) God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled."

Apparently in the above, Jesus reasoned that the dead saints were alive, even though they are dead. Which leads us to our next passage.

Matthew 17:3 “And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.” Notice that they appeared to all the apostles, but conversed with Jesus. Leading us to our next passage.

1 Corinthians 12:26-27:
If (one) part suffers, all the parts suffer with it; if one part is honored, all the parts share its joy. Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.

So if anyone tries to make the argument that “well only Jesus talked to Moses,” he can now no longer make that distinction. In fact, even when describing Jesus as the head, he describes Christians as parts like the nose, ears, etc, which are on the head! That is how close we are united to Him. So if Christ is alive, and we are alive in Christ, the saints are alive. Do not EVER allow a protestant to call the dead in Christ “dead.” This assumption on there part is nowehere in the Bible. He may point to the parable of Lazarus, that’s about all he can do. But keep in mind that the person suffering in the underworld is not alive in Christ; he was a sinner, so he cannot use that as an analogy.

Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us rid ourselves of every burden and sin that clings to us 2 and persevere in running the race that lies before us.”

Protestants will argue that the above passage refers to living people watching us. Nope. Sorry. Nearly the entirety of the preceding chapter deals with all of the OT saints and those who were martyred for the faith, and then bam, immediately goes into the above. The heroes of the faith are WATCHING us. Not only that, but the “cloud” referred to is in reference to the Glory cloud, so they must be the dead, and yet they are multiple witnesses watching us.

Luke 15:7: I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

Revelation 5:8: “When he took it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each of the elders held a harp and gold bowls filled with incense, which are the prayers of the holy ones.”

In the above, prayers go to God through the Saints.

Revelation 8:3-4: Another angel came and stood at the altar, 3 holding a gold censer. He was given a great quantity of incense to offer, along with the prayers of all the holy ones, on the gold altar that was before the throne. The smoke of the incense along with the prayers of the holy ones went up before God from the hand of the angel.

In the above, same thing, except this time prayers go through angels to God.

Rev. 1:4. John, to the seven churches in Asia: 4 grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne…"

In the above, grace and peace come only from God, and yet pass through the 7 spirits around the throne. The 7 spirits can refer to either the Holy Spirit or to the 7 seraphim, there are strong reasons to accept either interpretation. If it refers to the 7 seraphim, however, they are acting as mediators of the grace of God. Interesting concept, yes?

Revelation 6:10: They cried out in a loud voice, “How long will it be, holy and true master, before you sit in judgment and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?”

Can you say intercessory prayer?

So the onus is on the protestant to attempt to show, ONLY from scripture, where this supposed “dividing line” between the “dead” in Christ and those on earth exist?

 

[Church_Militant]

Here’s a link to an article on my blog that began life here on CAF as a series of posts about Purgatory.

Biblical and Jewish Traditional Beliefs About Purgatory

 

[Ismael]

This critique is full of the author stating that he doesn’t understand the doctrine of Purgatory because he doesn’t agree with the exegesis given nor with Tradition.

When he applies his own exegetical lenses and discards Tradition, he doesn’t get the same answers as the Church does.

It all comes back to who has authority to interpret Scripture and where does that interpretation reside? The Catholic Church and in Sacred Tradition.

Indeed he does not understand purgatory:

His final statement shows that:

This would mean either that an unforgiving sinner could be saved in Purgatory or that, as the case appears to be, Christ’s Blood does not cleanses us from all sin since we must still suffer for them ourselves in this life and afterwards.

The first part is absurd… an unforgiving sinner would end up in hell not purgatory, since he would not be in a state of Grace; the second part is against the sacriptures, no not simpli Macabees but 1 Corinthians 3, mentioned above. Here Paul clearly alludes to purgatory.

Unfortunately this author, so popular with ‘Conservatopedia’ and semi-known apologist aginst the ‘new atheism’ also has a beef against Catholics… if his apologestics aginst atheists is as bad as the one against catholicism I pity him.

Also in a recent post he claims that the Church ‘says it follows the oral tradition from the apostles but cannot produce any’.

First of all I’d say ‘hello? early fathers anyone!?’. Also if it is ORAL tradition it’s not likely to be written (right away t least).

I’m sure there are threads on this, but for some reason the search button doesn’t seem to be working on here. Any word I type in to search for, it comes up as no matches.

Anyway, I was wondering if Karl Keating was aware of this blogger critiquing his explanation of purgatory, and what is the most logical and philosophical argument to give to someone that thinks this is a silly doctrine?

Here is the link to the person critiquing what Karl Keating says:

truefreethinker.com/articles/roman-catholic-doctrine-purgatory-part-3%E2%80%94miscellaneous-roman-catholic-comments

I doubt Karl gives a hoot about this blogger.

His replies are lame misinterpretations: he’s preaching to the choir.

 

[Ignatius]

I’m sure there are threads on this, but for some reason the search button doesn’t seem to be working on here. Any

Here you go: catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

The answers are there, some people will refuse to acknowledge the Truth, however. Our job is only sow the seeds, it is for the Holy Spirit to bring it to fruition. Don’t worry if someone doesn’t accept the Truth, you’ve done your part, just pray for the Holy Spirit to open their eyes and soften their hearts.

God Bless.

 

[essyweb]

This critique is full of the author stating that he doesn’t understand the doctrine of Purgatory because he doesn’t agree with the exegesis given nor with Tradition.