Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Churchmouse]

I am not saying he was in purgatory… I am saying that Jesus mentions “three” places the souls are at… not just two…re-read the scriptures and notice the “third” place.
and comment on that point…

It doesn’t matter how many times the same scripture is mentioned… you need to address it as it indicates… that Jesus brings in more than just two places: Heaven and Hell…

Where is that third place?

You’re imposing a fallacious argument. Yes, during OT times there were three places, heaven (where God resides), Abraham’s Bosom (the part of Sheol where the righteous OT saints resided), and the hell of the damned (again in Sheol, separated by a chasm, a gap, but evidently close to Abraham’s Bosom, according to Luke 16). Now are you arguing that because there was a “third place” at one time, that Christ must have made another “third place” just so there could be “three”??? Bringing up a “third place” doesn’t move this discussion further because none of these places is purgatory. And if one has ceased to exist (Abraham’s Bosom), it doesn’t bring any relevance to the possibility of another “third place.” You really don’t have a point.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I do not know why Churchmouse is trying to claim that the Fathers at this Council used only Scripture. I do not know what he is trying to prove, given the fact that these men were Catholic and clearly believed in the Tradition of the previous Fathers.

You’re equivocating.

Hey, I love the early Church Fathers. Many are great Christians who did their best to present and further the pure and simple gospel of Christ. Yet, they certainly weren’t fallible and they didn’t always agree with each other. Furthermore, being the “Catholics” that they were, it is nice to use them as hostile witnesses against later and present-day Catholics who claim distinctives, such as purgatory. Surely, we can’t simply assume that they taught it early on, can we. Neither can we package a term, such as “Tradition”, because some used the *word *in various ways and then claim that it fits later applications. Sorry, but if they didn’t teach something early on and if “Tradition” is simply the understanding of Scripture by earlier Christians, don’t make it seem as if “Tradition” is something else, especially when there is nothing in the passage cfrancis submits that even alludes to such a thing.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

These are your statements re: the formulation of the Trinity in which you and I believe. Looking at the excerpt I provided, it is clear that your assertion that it was Scripture alone that was used to defeat the Arians and formulate this doctrine is unfounded. Your reply in #485 reveals you are seeing what you wish to see, not what is there and obvious.

You know, if we can get past the rhetoric you write above, I am confident that if I leave this as is, the reader will see that I am correct in my understanding of the passage you submitted. Furthermore, I am convinced that this person can and will see that you are not. Sure, some will have to put their biases in check, but again, I can leave the dialogue right now confidently, knowing that the reader can determine who is rightly seeing what.

Before I begin, 2 things:

1. you have rightly corrected me in that it was Eusebius’ followers who appealed to The Shepherd.
2. We both agree that Scripture was used in the councils

Well, #1 was pretty obvious and, yes, Scripture was definitely the medium used.

If Scripture alone was the deciding factor, the lone rule used, there was no need for the Bishops to write anything other than that which is contained in Scripture. Further, if Scripture alone was thought to be all that was needed, the Bishops would not think that what they wrote would even be considered authoritative. Why would anyone, reading the proceedings of Nicea, pay any attention to what the Bishops wrote if all the reader had to do was see what Scripture said? These Bishops knew that what they wrote - yes, based on Scripture, but not Scripture alone - was not Scripture but would carry authority.

Everything the bishops wrote was culled from and extrapolated using Scripture. The context of the passages reveals this clearly. As I told you in my last post, a simple click of the footnote numbers within the very passage you submitted gives the “SCRIPTURE” verses used. In the next paragraph, once again, it contextualizes what was elucidated, but it was elucidated via what was found in Scripture. If one were to ask the question "Why did the bishops write that Jesus is of the substance of the Father?" The answer would be: “Because they saw a clearer elucidation of it using the words ‘of God.’”

Again, we both agree Scripture was used, but the writing clearly reveals it was not Scripture alone, else the council would not need:

• Tradition (writings from “their fathers”, bishops’ refutes from 130 yrs ago, including the Bishops of Rome and Nicea)

Ah, you see what I mean! You inflict your own distinctives into the text. No one denies that tradition, in and of itself, is helpful, but you assume that “their fathers” were privy to some extra-biblical understanding that led to the formula. In order to substantiate your argument, you must first prove that “their fathers” used the “Tradition” you claim. Otherwise, the passage you submitted sounds as if Scripture was used during their day and they are simply appealing to the way “their fathers” exegeted Scripture as well. Are you willing to submit evidence of extra-biblical traditions being used for this purpose? As you said, we are clear that Scripture was used, now howsabout the “Tradition”?

• Their own formulation based on all the above ("with still greater clearness, briefly declared…, words which the Arians complained were not in Scripture)

Whoa, hold on there! Words not found in Scripture doesn’t doesn’t demand that these words are found in tradition. That’s a leap in logic. Again, you are reading something into the text which isn’t there.

Hopefully you will admit what is plainly written in the above account, and that it was not Scripture alone that was used.

Rather, I hope you will read the passage you submitted again and realize that your arguments are based on assumptions. On the other hand, my argument stands and there for the reading, as is yours. One can compare what you said and realize that Scripture is what is appealed to by these bishops. Their appeal to past bishops are only in matters of commonalities and not regarding some extra-biblical traditions. Again, it remains an assumption of yours that you read back into the account.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man seems to come up often in these discussions, and certainly it is too simplistic to offer it as a proof for Purgatory.

The parable does provide sufficient evidence of the Jewish notion of an intermediate state, and that’s significant. The notion was inherited by the Church and, with the development of Christology and interaction with the idea of penance and purification, the intermediate state gradually developed in the West into the doctrine of Purgatory. The East likewise inherited the notion of the intermediate state, but the development did not include the punitive aspect of purification that was found in the West.

Today the notion of the intermediate state has reached a thoroughly Christological expression. Take Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s thought, for example: Purgatory is in some sense “in” and “with” Christ. Jesus himself is the “bosom” of the Father (cf. Abraham’s bosom). To be with Jesus is to be with him in the Paradise that Christ promised to the good thief. Bringing in an interpretation of 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, Christ himself is the fire that reveals and tests, the fire “as through” which men are saved.

If anything, the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man show the importance of the immediate state in Judaism and early Christianity, an importance that endures in both Catholic and Orthodox Churches. So it raises the question – what happened to the intermediate state in Evangelical/Protestant Christianity? Does it still survive, at least Christologically?

I don’t really get the argument that—if there was a third realm at one time, that must mean there can still be a third realm. I know that the Orthodox believe that a “foretaste” of heavenly glory is present today, but it surely isn’t purgatorial. Jewish sages later indulged the possibility of a purificational state, but when one realizes that Jews, for the most part, are universalist, because hell is temporary and purificational, not eternal and damned, one can see how far it has strayed. Why attempt commonalities when each view is distinct and distant from the other?

(Edited) And although I would agree that Christ purifies, the issue is one of afterlife purgation of which I reject. Purgatory has gone through many stages, from a place in the middle ages, to the present-day “state.” Still,1 Corinthians 3:10-15 presents the works as being the object of purification and not the man. Staples had stated that you can’t take the “works” from the soul, as if they are attached and not independent, but I have yet to see a worker “attached” to his work and what are being tested is evidently the materials the worker used to build on the foundation and not the man himself.
CM

 

[Churchmouse]

2 Maccabees 12:43-45 Praying for the dead

I find all sorts of problems with this. Read here: churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/purging-purgatory-from-2-maccabees.html

1 Corinthians 15:29 Baptism for the dead(offering their sufferings for the dead)

Are there other verses to substantiate this one? Or is Paul being facetious?

2 Timothy 1:16-18 St. Paul praying for the dead

This one has always been a pet-peeve of mine considering what Catholic apologists say about Onesiphorus and what a Catholic tradition says. The former saying that Paul is praying for a dead Onesiphorus and the latter saying that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D., which would be 14 years after Paul died. I guess that would mean that a dead Paul prayed for a living Onesiphorus and, thus, a big contradiction . I wrote about this one too. Read here: churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/2-timothy-116-19-onesiphorus-in.html

Daniel 12:10 Purification

Wisdom 3:5-6 Purification

Sirach 2:3-5 Purification

Zechariah 13:8-9 Those who will be saved will be purged beforehand

Baruch 3:4 Praying after death for mercy

This amounts to verse slinging considering you don’t comment on what you see in the verses. Is it simply because it speaks of purification? Remember, purification can happen in life. But, at least for the passages I consider Scripture, how do you know that the “many” in Daniel 12 aren’t those who have been saved via Christ? The subsequent verses imply that those made pure are still living. Where do you see the “afterlife” part of it?

Zechariah 13:8-9 is self-explanatory. Observe: two-thirds die and one-third is alive. The latter, the one-third, those who are alive are put in the fire and refined, tested like gold. Don’t overlook the fact that these (the “one-third”) are presented as still living.

I won’t comment on the other passages,those from the apocryphal books, considering I don’t hold them as relevant. I can take the time and look at the context of each, but I won’t bother right now.

CM

 

[Church_Militant]

I don’t really get the argument that—if there was a third realm at one time, that must mean there can still be a third realm. I know that the Orthodox believe that a “foretaste” of heavenly glory is present today, but it surely isn’t purgatorial. Jewish sages later indulged the possibility of a purificational state, but when one realizes that Jews, for the most part, are universalist, because hell is temporary and purificational, not eternal and damned, one can see how far it has strayed. Why attempt commonalities when each view is distinct and distant from the other?

Then by all means show me where the Old Testament tells them that there is an eternal hell?

(Edited)

Anti-Catholic polemics? Is that all you’ve got? Personally I’d appreciate it a lot if you’d speak of Pope Benedict XVI with more Christian respect since you claim to be a believer. Remember what St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 13.

1] Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2] And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3] And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8] Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9] For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10] But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11] When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12] For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13] And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

(Edited)

… Purgatory has gone through many stages, from a place in the middle ages, to the present-day “state.”

Really? You rather desperately need to check your facts again, because that is dead wrong. More likely it is a both/and.

Still,1 Corinthians 3:10-15 presents the works as being the object of purification and not the man. Staples had stated that you can’t take the “works” from the soul, as if they are attached and not independent, but I have yet to see a worker “attached” to his work and what are being tested is evidently the materials the worker used to build on the foundation and not the man himself.
CM

Really? Have you ever seen someone who flees a burning building, trying to “pass through fire”? They may be saved…but I don’t know many who come out unscathed. Please feel free to try it and let us know how that works out for you, okay?

Furthermore, there is a scriptural precedent that was just recently a Mass reading for us Catholics.

Is 6:1-2a, 3-8

In the year King Uzziah died,
I saw the Lord seated on a high and lofty throne,
with the train of his garment filling the temple.
Seraphim were stationed above. They cried one to the other,
“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts!
All the earth is filled with his glory!”
At the sound of that cry, the frame of the door shook
and the house was filled with smoke.
Then I said, “Woe is me, I am doomed!
For I am a man of unclean lips,
living among a people of unclean lips;
yet my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!”
Then one of the seraphim flew to me,
holding an ember that he had taken with tongs from the altar.
He touched my mouth with it, and said,
“See, now that this has touched your lips,
your wickedness is removed, your sin purged.”

 

[Byzman]

You’re equivocating.

Hey, I love the early Church Fathers. Many are great Christians who did their best to present and further the pure and simple gospel of Christ. Yet, they certainly weren’t fallible and they didn’t always agree with each other. Furthermore, being the “Catholics” that they were, it is nice to use them as hostile witnesses against later and present-day Catholics who claim distinctives, such as purgatory. Surely, we can’t simply assume that they taught it early on, can we. Neither can we package a term, such as “Tradition”, because some used the *word *in various ways and then claim that it fits later applications. Sorry, but if they didn’t teach something early on and if “Tradition” is simply the understanding of Scripture by earlier Christians, don’t make it seem as if “Tradition” is something else, especially when there is nothing in the passage cfrancis submits that even alludes to such a thing.

CM

I notice that you put Catholics in quotes…are you trying to make a point with that? So you say that they are a hostile witness to us present day Catholics, show me where. Did they believe in praying for the dead?

Tradition is that which is held and taught and passed down to the next generation of believers. Yes, the Early Church Fathers taught and held to the belief of Sacred Tradition. Are you saying they did not? Protestants dont even realize that they too submit to Tradition. Is not the Canon of the Bible Sacred Tradition? Think about it. Protestants, too, pass down from generation to generation a set of Scripture they believe to belong in the Canon. Guess what? That’s Tradition!

 

[Byzman]

This amounts to verse slinging considering you don’t comment on what you see in the verses. Is it simply because it speaks of purification? Remember, purification can happen in life. But, at least for the passages I consider Scripture, how do you know that the “many” in Daniel 12 aren’t those who have been saved via Christ? The subsequent verses imply that those made pure are still living. Where do you see the “afterlife” part of it?

Zechariah 13:8-9 is self-explanatory. Observe: two-thirds die and one-third is alive. The latter, the one-third, those who are alive are put in the fire and refined, tested like gold. Don’t overlook the fact that these (the “one-third”) are presented as still living.

I won’t comment on the other passages,those from the apocryphal books, considering I don’t hold them as relevant. I can take the time and look at the context of each, but I won’t bother right now.

CM

Obviously you dont remember my posts about Purgatory being here and now also. I was trying to make a point that purification is Scriptural. Which would be a good understanding of Purgatory being here and now, but we cannot also separate from those who departed this life because praying for the dead gives us another understanding as to the nature of Purgatory in the afterlife.

 

[Byzman]

I find all sorts of problems with this. Read here: churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/purging-purgatory-from-2-maccabees.html

Are there other verses to substantiate this one? Or is Paul being facetious?

This one has always been a pet-peeve of mine considering what Catholic apologists say about Onesiphorus and what a Catholic tradition says. The former saying that Paul is praying for a dead Onesiphorus and the latter saying that Onesiphorus died in 81 A.D., which would be 14 years after Paul died. I guess that would mean that a dead Paul prayed for a living Onesiphorus and, thus, a big contradiction . I wrote about this one too. Read here: churchmouse57.blogspot.com/2006/07/2-timothy-116-19-onesiphorus-in.html

CM

I looked over your blogs…you have weak arguments. Your only argument is from a small limited source of Onesiphorus. That is not even enough for anything academically.

Your opinion of Maccabees is confusing. You say that those who die in Mortal Sin are in need of no prayers because they are lost, that is Catholic teaching, but how do you know these men died in Mortal Sin? Could it not have been venial? If they did it not with full knowledge as to the grave matter of this sin…that would mean venial.

 

[Byzman]

This is a matter of interpretation. There is a sin (singular) that leads to death and we shouldn’t pray about it. It sounds to me like the only sin there is no forgiveness for, namely blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. I’ve also heard some who muse that this refers to one who is sins are so uncontrolled that God may take one’s life.

Yet, as you can see, the verse doesn’t necessarily mean what you think it does. Why should I believe your interpretation of the verse and do you have anything else to substantiate it?

CM

I like you commentary here(sarcasm). You say that there is only one sin(singular) that leads to death(Blashemy of the Holy Spirit). Well tell me, since there is a singular form of sin that leads to death, what is the only sin(singular) that leads NOT unto death? Because I would sure like to know so I can commit it freely and knowingly.

By the way text in question, St. John is mainly speaking in general.

 

[Byzman]

Still,1 Corinthians 3:10-15 presents the works as being the object of purification and not the man. Staples had stated that you can’t take the “works” from the soul, as if they are attached and not independent, but I have yet to see a worker “attached” to his work and what are being tested is evidently the materials the worker used to build on the foundation and not the man himself.
CM

Matthew 25:31-46

When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Our works mean quite a bit to the person. Otherwise if our works were independent from the person, why than would the person be rewarded or punished for his or her own works?

 

[Churchmouse]

Then by all means show me where the Old Testament tells them that there is an eternal hell?Anti-Catholic polemics? Is that all you’ve got? Personally I’d appreciate it a lot if you’d speak of Pope Benedict XVI with more Christian respect since you claim to be a believer. Remember what St. Paul says in 1st Corinthians 13.Which is pretty much what the Catholic Church has been telling you “reformed” n-Cs for the last 500 years or so. That’s what’s wrong with your doctrines. :shrug:Really? You rather desperately need to check your facts again, because that is dead wrong. More likely it is a both/and.Really? Have you ever seen someone who flees a burning building, trying to “pass through fire”? They may be saved…but I don’t know many who come out unscathed. Please feel free to try it and let us know how that works out for you, okay?

Furthermore, there is a scriptural precedent that was just recently a Mass reading for us Catholics.

Michael, thank you for your response. Now, once you tone down the “shouting” aspect of your post, I just may respond right back .

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I notice that you put Catholics in quotes…are you trying to make a point with that? So you say that they are a hostile witness to us present day Catholics, show me where. Did they believe in praying for the dead?

Yes, I am emphasizing what you asserted. No one doubts that they were a part of the Catholic church, but being “Catholics” doesn’t mean that they believed in every distinctive promulgated by the RCC. And I know that the norm is to say that they didn’t speak about one thing or the other because it wasn’t an issue at the time, but I’m sure you will agree that doesn’t prove a thing. Maybe it wasn’t spoken about because there was no such belief.

As far as prayer for the dead goes, you’d be hardpressed to prove that everyone prayed for the dead. Sure, there is evidence that some in the early church prayed for the dead, but does praying for the dead automatically prove they believed in a purgatory? Not if you’re familiar with the nature of the prayers and the refrigerium aspect of it. I wrote about that here: churchmouse57.blogspot.com/search/label/maccabees

Tradition is that which is held and taught and passed down to the next generation of believers. Yes, the Early Church Fathers taught and held to the belief of Sacred Tradition. Are you saying they did not? Protestants dont even realize that they too submit to Tradition. Is not the Canon of the Bible Sacred Tradition? Think about it. Protestants, too, pass down from generation to generation a set of Scripture they believe to belong in the Canon. Guess what? That’s Tradition!

Byzman, please don’t give me that. There is a huge difference between handing down something that can substantiated via it’s history vs. the claims that there are extra-biblical supports used which cannot be substantiated. Not the same thing.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

Obviously you dont remember my posts about Purgatory being here and now also. I was trying to make a point that purification is Scriptural. Which would be a good understanding of Purgatory being here and now, but we cannot also separate from those who departed this life because praying for the dead gives us another understanding as to the nature of Purgatory in the afterlife.

Well, purification IS Scriptural! No one is saying that it isn’t. But as to whether the purification happens via a purificational process, where one continues the process until they have provided satisfaction in the afterlife is not.

Again, read the link to the article I wrote about praying for the dead. Praying for the dead doesn’t mean that they were being prayed from a purgatory.

CM

 

[cfrancis]

Our readers are still waiting for your evidence that Scripture alone was used to both define the doctrine of the Trinity and refute the Arians.

You know, if we can get past the rhetoric you write above, I am confident that if I leave this as is, the reader will see that I am correct in my understanding of the passage you submitted. Furthermore, I am convinced that this person can and will see that you are not. Sure, some will have to put their biases in check, but again, I can leave the dialogue right now confidently, knowing that the reader can determine who is rightly seeing what.

I agree - though I can’t understand why recalling your own words re: Scripture alone, you deem rhetoric. It’s simply the distinctive between us.

Well, #1 was pretty obvious and, yes, Scripture was definitely the medium used.

No one is arguing that Scripture was used. You are arguing that Scripture alone was used. You still have not provided any evidence to this point.

Everything the bishops wrote was culled from and extrapolated using Scripture. The context of the passages reveals this clearly. As I told you in my last post, a simple click of the footnote numbers within the very passage you submitted gives the “SCRIPTURE” verses used. In the next paragraph, once again, it contextualizes what was elucidated, but it was elucidated via what was found in Scripture. If one were to ask the question "Why did the bishops write that Jesus is of the substance of the Father?" The answer would be: “Because they saw a clearer elucidation of it using the words ‘of God.’”

Your condescending tone aside, I understand the references to Scripture, and it’s not a problem - again, we both agree that Scripture was used.
Perhaps I’m reading your statement incorrectly, but when you say, "“Because they saw a clearer elucidation of it using the words ‘of God.’” I can’t help but think your biases are getting the best of you. The passage presented clearly presents two sides, both using Scripture to support their position. If Scripture contained “a clearer elucidation of it [the Trinity, the nature of Jesus, etc…] using the words ‘of God” the Council does not need to formulate anything; it simply needs to present the Scriptures to the Arians and say “clearly Scripture…”
Instead, the Council, using Scripture, using their knowledge of what they were taught by their predecessors, created what we know as the definition of the Trinity.

Ah, you see what I mean! You inflict your own distinctives into the text. No one denies that tradition, in and of itself, is helpful, but you assume that “their fathers” were privy to some extra-biblical understanding that led to the formula. In order to substantiate your argument, you must first prove that “their fathers” used the “Tradition” you claim. Otherwise, the passage you submitted sounds as if Scripture was used during their day and they are simply appealing to the way “their fathers” exegeted Scripture as well. Are you willing to submit evidence of extra-biblical traditions being used for this purpose? As you said, we are clear that Scripture was used, now howsabout the “Tradition”?

And you assume that there is no reason for the passage to mention another source for the definition of the Trinity. If Scripture alone was the source for the decision, why does the Council even need to mention something else, especially if, as you say, that something else is really just Scripture? It seems you “inflict your own distinctives into the text”.

Whoa, hold on there! Words not found in Scripture doesn’t doesn’t demand that these words are found in tradition. That’s a leap in logic. Again, you are reading something into the text which isn’t there.

Your argument here makes my point. Refer to the passage again. The Arians are upset because they’ve ben refuted, not by Scripture alone, but by a combination of Scripture and [insert your word of choice here]. The Council’s response isn’t, “No, no, we’re just using Scripture here…” but rather, “Dude, get over it, 'cuz you too went extra-Biblical when you came up with this screwy idea.”
Call it what you want, but it’s not Scripture alone.

 

[Churchmouse]

I looked over your blogs…you have weak arguments.

I wouldn’t expect you to say any less regardless .

Your only argument is from a small limited source of Onesiphorus. That is not even enough for anything academically.

Surely you must realize that the text doesn’t say anything about Onesiphorus actually being dead. Paul could have tossed up a prayer to an Onesiphorus who was home at the time for all we know. Yet, which one should we listen to: The Catholic apologists who claims this is evidence of praying for the soul of the dead, when he cannot be for sure that Onesiphorus is truly dead? Or should we listen to the Catholic tradition which states he suffered martyrdom in 81 A.D., years after Paul died? It can’t be both.

Your opinion of Maccabees is confusing. You say that those who die in Mortal Sin are in need of no prayers because they are lost, that is Catholic teaching, but how do you know these men died in Mortal Sin? Could it not have been venial? If they did it not with full knowledge as to the grave matter of this sin…that would mean venial.

They are in clear violation of the 1st commandment. This reminds me of the story of Uzzah, who tried to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling. Well, he tried to do what we would see as a good thing, but he died on the spot. In the same manner, what is considered a “good thing” doesn’t mean that it doesn’t bring death. No, I think it is very evident that these men were destroyed for their idolatry and to imply that the “good thing” they did (the battle) or their insufficient knowledge would merit them a venial sin is read into with purgatory already in mind. These men were Jews and fully aware against of the Law and its prohibitions.

CM

 

[cfrancis]

Methinks you are reading too much into this passage. WHERE is the “tradition” that substantiated what Scripture teaches about the Trinity? If you cannot produce it then it is simply assumption on your part. The “instruction” in the passage could be nothing more than what was produced through the Scriptures themselves. “…as we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures” sounds remarkably like an acknowledgement that the bishops who preceded them also found them via Scripture.

You’re struggling far too much with what is clearly stated in the passage:
`"According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith.

There are four sources here:
1 - According as we received from the bishops who preceded us…in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth]
2 - According as we received from the bishops who preceded us…when we were baptized
3 - as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures
4 - and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself

In other words, the passage is saying, "we learned from others (1 and 2) as also we learned by ourselves, both from Scripture (3) and from our duties (4). If you check the link, the source, you’ll see the passage moves straight to the creed. So the passage is clearly saying that the four sources agree and point to the same Truth, not that only Scripture revealed the Truth. That would be reading into the text that which is not there.

 

[Churchmouse]

Matthew 25:31-46

Our works mean quite a bit to the person. Otherwise if our works were independent from the person, why than would the person be rewarded or punished for his or her own works?

You’re ignoring the context of 1 Corinthians 3 by comparing with a passage that speaks of the general judgment. Sure, Matthew 25 clearly shows that a salvation independent of works is dead and that the sheep and the goats will be separated by their works, but they sure aren’t being “purified.” One group goes to heaven and the other to hell. However, 1 Corinthians 3 speaks in the context of the Christian worker (a saved individual/a sheep) who builds on the foundation of Christ. Here, it is the “works” and not the individual that is subjected to the fire. The works are independent of the soul of the Christian worker and the passage clearly reveals this.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

You’re struggling far too much with what is clearly stated in the passage:

“I’m” struggling??? Again, I will let the reader decide who is truly struggling.

`"According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal of our faith.

There are four sources here:
1 - According as we received from the bishops who preceded us…in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth]
2 - According as we received from the bishops who preceded us…when we were baptized
3 - as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred Scriptures
4 - and in accordance with what we have both believed and taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal office itself

In other words, the passage is saying, "we learned from others (1 and 2) as also we learned by ourselves, both from Scripture (3) and from our duties (4). If you check the link, the source, you’ll see the passage moves straight to the creed. So the passage is clearly saying that the four sources agree and point to the same Truth, not that only Scripture revealed the Truth. That would be reading into the text that which is not there.

It’s odd that way you separate context to come up with what you wish to see. You cannot separate #3 from your #1 and 2. It clearly states “…as also we have ourselves learned from sacred Scripture.” Your #1 and 2 are qualified by your #3. It’s a simple process to deduct or it seems you are reading in too much, as I stated in my last post. Let me ask you: In your #1, what are the “instructions [in the knowledge of the truth]”? What were these instructions? And what did they “receive” from those bishops who “preceded” them? Can you answer these questions? Now, go further and add “…as also we ourselves have learned from the Sacred Scriptures.” Do you get my drift? IOW, they are saying that the “instructions” and what they “received” are what they have learned from the Sacred Scriptures as those who came before them and taught them. It is so clear that I don’t know how one can sidestep it. As for the creed, there is no dilemma considering the Scriptural basis FOR the creed.

CM

 

[Monte1945]

Well, purification IS Scriptural! No one is saying that it isn’t. But as to whether the purification happens via a purificational process, where one continues the process until they have provided satisfaction in the afterlife is not.

Again, read the link to the article I wrote about praying for the dead. Praying for the dead doesn’t mean that they were being prayed from a purgatory.

CM

How about the Jewish beliefs and how they still have the same idea?

Then why is Kaddish recited for only 11 months, when the mourning period is 12 months? According to Jewish tradition, the soul must spend some time purifying itself before it can enter the World to Come. The maximum time required for purification is 12 months, for the most evil person. To recite Kaddish for 12 months would imply that the parent was the type who needed 12 months of purification! To avoid this implication, the Sages decreed that a son should recite Kaddish for only eleven months.

It is their Faith from which Jesus came… yes?