Purgatory

[hoosierdaddy]

Well have you read a little book called Corinthians? Yes/No ?

Yes. And there’s nothing in there about it. Next.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

“Prove it” is a ridiculous demand to make regarding matters of faith. Prove that God exists. Prove that Jesus of Nazareth is the Word Incarnate. Prove that the bible is Scripture.

Now, did you want to rephrase the question?

Let me get this straight. It’s a ridiculous demand when I do it. But when a Catholic does it it’s just peachy.

I stand by my question. Prove it. I want to learn. Prove it.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Purgatory
1 Corinthians 3:14-15

14- If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15- If it is burned up, he will suffer loss, he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames
Where is this place? There is no loss in heaven.
There are other areas in the Bible that if one uses reason can see it alluded to.
I will try to look them up for you so you have them.
Also, I pray before reading the Bible for the Holy Spirit to help guide me to the word of God and that is something that I have found has in each case helped me more than I can tell you. When I do not do this, I have a much harder time getting the words in my heart, or finding things.

The CCC citations are 1030&1031.
The Final Purification, or Purgatory
1030- All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031- The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the final Judgment, there will be a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy(continues) hands a bit tierd from typing

Thank you for posting that. I’d like to post what I believe now.

This is talking about the judgement of seat of Christ, where saved believers go to receive rewards for their faithful service or loss for their selfishness. However, they will still be saved. The fire is symbolic of God’s judgement, of His holiness. It’s not a fire one goes into; it is the holiness of God trying each man’s work. If your belief is true, then one’s works would have to go to purgatory but not the person himself.

I hope that even though we disagree we can have a respectful discussion.

 

[mommyof4]

I stand by my question. Prove it. I want to learn. Prove it.

Did you go to any of the sites that the previous posters gave you? If not, go, look, read, and then come back and we’ll have a discussion.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Any other questions I can assist you with today? Its my pleasure to help

LOL no, that’s fine.

Like who has the Authority to establish a Church subsequent to the one Jesus Christ did?

This is off topic but since I like you I won’t report it. I do have an answer for the question though. God bless.

 

[Peterdiago]

Thank you for posting that. I’d like to post what I believe now.

Precisely what authority do you have to say that you are allowed to interpret Scripture? And especially interpret it against the interpretations of the Church which wrote it?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

catholic.com/library/Purgatory.asp

catholic.com/library/Roots_of_Purgatory.asp

scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm#1031

Read it.

Will do but somehow I have a feeling it will be contrary to Scripture. In fact, I almost…know it.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Hee, hee.

C’mon, now. Purgatory can be found in Hoosier’s Bible…sola scriptura can’t.

Don’t send him off on a snipe hunt.

How respectful. You make me almost want to take you seriously and care what you have to say. You make me almost want to believe that I can learn something from you. Hee, hee.

 

[mommyof4]

Will do but somehow I have a feeling it will be contrary to Scripture. In fact, I almost…know it.

Maybe, maybe not. At least it will give us a starting point.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Happy to – if you will **first **show me where Sola Scriptura is taught in the Bible.

That’s not the topic of the thread. Why is it ok for you to hijack a thread but when I use your tactic it’s a “mortal” sin?

Stick to the topic. BTW, it’s taught all through the Bible. Maybe if you’d look hard enough instead of refusing the truth, you’d find it. I don’t have faith though…

Hee, hee

 

[mommyof4]

catholic.com/library/purgatory.asp
“Purgatory Not in Scripture”

Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, “The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture.” This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. **The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory. **

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”** (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15)**. Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: “In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin” (2 Macc. 12:43–45). Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation,** Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.
**
Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Precisely what authority do you have to say that you are allowed to interpret Scripture? And especially interpret it against the interpretations of the Church which wrote it?

Lighten up Francis! I’m commanded to. All throughout Scripture. And if you are against doing such, then why do you interpret it? A little inconsistent aren’t we Francis?

 

[Peterdiago]

Will do but somehow I have a feeling it will be contrary to Scripture. In fact, I almost…know it.

Given the fact that those are the teachings of the Church which wrote and compiled the Bible, I find it hard to believe they will be

Then again, you are a Protestant - and so you just HAVE to believe that the Catholic Church can’t be right; because that defines what you are - a Protestant. You protest.

So, we could pretty much post anything here and you will say it is non-Scriptural. By which you mean, of course, it does not chime with your own interpretation of Scripture which is less than 500 years old and in direct contravention to the interpretation of the only body which has the right and authority to interpret Scripture.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

“Purgatory Not in Scripture”

Some Fundamentalists also charge, as though it actually proved something, “The word purgatory is nowhere found in Scripture.” This is true, and yet it does not disprove the existence of purgatory or the fact that belief in it has always been part of Church teaching. The words Trinity and Incarnation aren’t in Scripture either, yet those doctrines are clearly taught in it. Likewise, Scripture teaches that purgatory exists, even if it doesn’t use that word and even if 1 Peter 3:19 refers to a place other than purgatory.

Not only the word, but the CONCEPT of purgatory is nowhere to be found in Scripture. And…those spirits in prison were the dead from the OT times, before Jesus.

Christ refers to the sinner who “will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come” (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins. Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? “He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire” (1 Cor 3:15). Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no suffering (“fire”) there. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory alone explains this passage.

That doesn’t suggest it. To do so would against the plain teaching of the rest of Scripture. You have to interpret that verse in the light of the rest of Scripture. I already addressed the verse from 1 Cor. The Catholic doctrine of purgatory completely misses the point of the verse.

Then, of course, there is the Bible’s approval of prayers for the dead: “In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view; for if he were not expecting the dead to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death. But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin” (2 Macc. 12:43–45).

This begs the question. Is this book Scripture? I don’t believe so and therefore, I don’t believe the doctrine.

Prayers are not needed by those in heaven, and no one can help those in hell. That means some people must be in a third condition, at least temporarily. This verse so clearly illustrates the existence of purgatory that, at the time of the Reformation, Protestants had to cut the books of the Maccabees out of their Bibles in order to avoid accepting the doctrine.

How come that verse goes against the plain teaching of the rest of Scripture? My belief is that because it is wrong. It looks like the Catholic church pretty much stands on whether the Apocrypha is the Word of God. I don’t believe it is.

Prayers for the dead and the consequent doctrine of purgatory have been part of the true religion since before the time of Christ. Not only can we show it was practiced by the Jews of the time of the Maccabees, but it has even been retained by Orthodox Jews today, who recite a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death of a loved one so that the loved one may be purified. It was not the Catholic Church that added the doctrine of purgatory. Rather, any change in the original teaching has taken place in the Protestant churches, which rejected a doctrine that had always been believed by Jews and Christians.

So the Jews got purgatory from the Old Testament? The Protestants rejected this belief because it is completely contrary to the rest of Scripture. You know what? Now I understand why there is so much trouble in Ireland. And I’m not joking around.

 

[Peterdiago]

How respectful. You make me almost want to take you seriously and care what you have to say. You make me almost want to believe that I can learn something from you. Hee, hee.

Actually, the point is valid if a little crudely stated - sola scriptura can’t be found in the Bible.

BTW, it’s taught all through the Bible.

Where is it taught? Book, chapter, verse - please.

Lighten up Francis!

My name isn’t Francis, nor is that even closely related to the sobriquet I use on this forum.

I’m commanded to. All throughout Scripture.

Book, chapter, verse - please.

And if you are against doing such, then why do you interpret it? A little inconsistent aren’t we Francis?

I haven’t interpreted Scripture. In fact, on this thread, I haven’t even mentioned a Scripture passage. What I have done is tell you the interpretations of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ (the people who wrote it).

Your arguments so far have no point - you have said twice now that there are things in the Bible which are self-evident. I have now asked for book, chapter and verse. You have also accused me of something I have not done. And called me by a name which is not my own.

Where I come from, that is not the sign of a logical, rational debate - nor someone who wants to learn. That is the sign of someone messing about and being contrary for the sake of it.

 

[Peterdiago]

This begs the question. Is this book Scripture? I don’t believe so and therefore, I don’t believe the doctrine.

Shame every single Christian for 1500 years disagrees with you, isn’t it? Those books were removed by Luther because they supported Catholic doctrine - he did not reject Catholic doctrine because those books were not there. It is quite the other way around.

But, your post seems to imply that if that book WERE Scripture, then the doctrine would stand and you’d believe it.

So . . . . every Catholic here now knows what the argument is

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Given the fact that those are the teachings of the Church which wrote and compiled the Bible, I find it hard to believe they will be

This coming from a guy who has added to God’s Word. The Apocrypha is not Scripture. The Church did not write and compile the Bible. They did not write the Old Testament. The Apostles wrote the New Testament. The church then fought about it for hundreds of years trying to decide what it taught.

Then again, you are a Protestant - and so you just HAVE to believe that the Catholic Church can’t be right; because that defines what you are - a Protestant. You protest.

Yes. I am required to defend the faith against all enemies foreign and domestic…oh wait…I don’t protest so much as I fight for the truth. It is the Catholic church who protested the reformation because they didn’t want to be held accountable and brought back to the basics.

So, we could pretty much post anything here and you will say it is non-Scriptural. By which you mean, of course, it does not chime with your own interpretation of Scripture which is less than 500 years old and in direct contravention to the interpretation of the only body which has the right and authority to interpret Scripture.

If it doesn’t line up with Scripture I will say it is non-Scriptural. You should stop complaining about what I’d say and focus on posting something that is Scriptural. The right and authority? Then how come I am commanded to search the Scriptures to see whether what I am being told is true? Can you answer that? How come I am commanded to study the Word and to rightly divide it? That suggests that I have the right and the authority. Maybe you should obey Scripture instead of fighting against someone who is simply stating the truth.

 

[Andruschak]

But…can you actually prove that snipes exist? Or that they don’t exist? Or that they always existed? Or that they never existed?:whacky:

Back to the topic at hand, I think Damascus explains it better than I can:

Haggis exist. See for yourself…

haggishunt.scotsman.com/

 

[VociMike]

Let me get this straight. It’s a ridiculous demand when I do it. But when a Catholic does it it’s just peachy.

People use words loosely sometimes. I would say “demonstrate it” or “offer your evidence” but I would not say “prove it”.

I stand by my question. Prove it. I want to learn. Prove it.

I will demonstrate it, and I will do so without even using Scripture, but you have to help by answering two questions.

1. Are you perfect now?
2. Will you be perfect in heaven?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Actually, the point is valid if a little crudely stated - sola scriptura can’t be found in the Bible.

**That’s funny. One who doesn’t use the Bible alone telling me what can’t be found in the Bible. What’s also funny is one telling me it can’t be found in the Bible, but then would claim that purgatory can. **

Where is it taught? Book, chapter, verse - please.

Look all around. Or continue to disobey the Word. Pride comes before the fall.

My name isn’t Francis, nor is that even closely related to the sobriquet I use on this forum.

Lighten up and I won’t call you that.

Book, chapter, verse - please.

Psalm 119 could suggest it. I notice a lot of references to the Word but not to the Holy Catholic church.

I haven’t interpreted Scripture. In fact, on this thread, I haven’t even mentioned a Scripture passage. What I have done is tell you the interpretations of the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ (the people who wrote it).

**Other Catholics interpret Scripture. Forgive me for assuming you agreed with them. **

Your arguments so far have no point - you have said twice now that there are things in the Bible which are self-evident. I have now asked for book, chapter and verse. You have also accused me of something I have not done. And called me by a name which is not my own.

Oh quit whining. Have you seen what people have done to me? My arguments have a point. When you lose your stubbornness you may see it.

Where I come from, that is not the sign of a logical, rational debate - nor someone who wants to learn. That is the sign of someone messing about and being contrary for the sake of it.

What gives you the right or authority to make that declaration? Hmm…I wanted a logical rational debate. However, you guys didn’t. You wanted to mock me. I am not contrary for the sake of it. I am contrary because you’re wrong.