Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Monte1945]

Again, you are dictating on how I should answer and it comes out rather loaded. Yes, these men weren’t infallible and God inspired them to write Scripture. It is infallible the minute it proceeded from His mouth. There doesn’t need to be some magical force imputed into these men for this to work. God is in the beginning and at the end regardless of man. CM

God nor the Holy Ghost has a mouth to say anything. God’s Truth must come from either an angel which assumes a human body, or a person who has spoken or in the case
of the Scriptures is “written”…
(but of course written scriptures are written oral words first spoken orally by the same
authors)

Do you feel each and every word of the Bible is the perfect infallible words of God?
and if so, can some be indirect? (to imply)

Can some scripture have more than one meaning?

Were just the writers of the old and new Testements given the infallible word of God
from God?

Do you suppose there were some other men and woman who were given the word
of God and spoke it? (the other ten apostles who didn’t write any of the new testement)
but it was not written down.

How does one figure out which word of God was infallible and which was not?

Or do you suppose that each and every word which came out of every apostle
in their perspective churchs were:

1. Not the real word of God.
2. Was the word of God but not for later publication.

Just some basic questions I kind of need answered to try and get some perspective
on how we are going to use some scriptures… to deal with the purgatory issue.

If we can not agree on what we can use as a means to measure what is truth or what
truth is infallible… etc… we are not ever going to get to any conclusion. we are going
to sit here and fuss back and forth and never come to any conclusion… and if that is the case what is the point?

 

[Churchmouse]

You make this assertion several times, that Scripture alone was used. I’d like to see your evidence for this.

The evidence can be attained by simply reading the historical accounts. I don’t think you would expect me to detail every aspect of it. Just read and decide for yourself if there was anything but Scripture. If you find something else, let me know.

We agree that Scripture was used - but you claim - without providing the evidence - it was just Scripture, Scripture alone. However, your comment here is interesting: you say Arius also used Scripture, which then brings us to two sources using Scripture to arrive at different conclusions.

That’s not a dilemma. The Arians used Scripture, but they used it wrongly (even the source you provided states it). However, the councils exegeted the Scriptures to prove otherwise.

You gloss over the obvious: by what authority and on what basis was a decision made that the Council’s use of Scripture was better, more right, orthodox, as compared to Arius’?

By the authority of God’s Word. To assume which “was better, more right, orthodox” is to sidestep that Scripture was the common factor and exegesis was key.

As they both used Scripture, there had to be an extra-Scriptural “tie-breaker” so to speak.

The illumination of the Holy Spirit towards his people is that “tie-breaker.” To assume that it is towards a man or a group would be an invalid assumption.

You can do this only because of what you know from Nicea, Ephesus and Chalcedon; as each of these councils prove, a different conclusion can be reached using Scripture. That is, you’re taking the definition of Trinity we now accept and going to the evidence; you are not building the definition yourself.

Nope. I keep telling you this, but Scripture clearly teaches that each is God, that God is One, and that each are persons. If one denies it, they are denying what Scripture teaches. It has nothing to do with the councils, even though I agree with the councils.

Again, you are looking back with the answer, not attempting to come up with the answer; and you still have not provided the evidence that Nicea (or any of the Councils) relied on Scripture alone. Your assertion in that regard remains just that: an empty assertion.

It’s, once again, a loaded question. I don’t think I have to detail this for you, but you are going to have to do your own homework and be honest. Tell you what, you posted something earlier, in my next post I will prove that you seem to see what you want to see and that Scripture was the key.

CM

 

[Byzman]

The testament of history still opposes you. If a canon was truly finalized and Catholics had to follow it, they WHY was it still contested in Trent by Cardinal Seripando and his group? Trent was the council that finalized the canon for Catholics AFTER the Reformation, regardless of what any of these councils stated. Sorry but you can’t change what is so evident.

CM

So the testament, or rather, the witness of the fathers throughout history that accept books of the Deuterocanonical, do they opppose the Catholic Church?

 

[Churchmouse]

So the testament, or rather, the witness of the fathers throughout history that accept books of the Deuterocanonical, do they opppose the Catholic Church?

Not anymore than those who didn’t accept it.

CM

 

[PRmerger]

Well, this source says 33,000 not 40,000.

Incidentally, I would be quite willing and eager to digest another scholarly source which cites its own statistics on the actual number of Christian denominations.

Right now, the source that I’ve seen says more than 40,000. Protestants always squawk about this and claim the statistic is way too high. I happen to think it’s grossly underestimated.

But, if there’s another statistic out there, with scholarship to back it up, I’d be happy to discuss.

Either way, more than 3, more than 10, more than 5000, pretty much closes the door on the “the Holy Spirit will direct me to the truth of Scripture” paradigm.

 

[Byzman]

Not anymore than those who didn’t accept it.

CM

Well it is a good thing that these men remained Catholic than!

 

[Monte1945]

I really don’t get your assumption. WHY can’t there be a transition from one to the other WITHOUT the need for purgatory? That’s where you got me completely befuddled. You believe it but you can’t tell me why. CM

Because there are a number of scriptures which “indicate” there though one can
be forgiven of their sin… there can be a consequence of sin…

Let me give you an example… which seems to say, (thus I stated “indicates”)
there can be a consequence of one forigiven sin…

I fully understand that you feel that the Grace of God covers your sin completely
and that one will not have to feel any consequence of that or those sins but
we have some scriptures which indicate that might not be exactly the case.

We can look at the incident with King David, and Bathseba from what Nathan
said, when he confronted David for having ordered the murdef of Uriah, Bathseba’s wife

Natan had confronted Daivd with his sin, through a parable, and David repented and
Nathan said:

2 Samual 12

13Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD " And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.

14"However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."

Here we have a perfect example of what I call the “consequence of our sin”…

There is forgiveness of the sin… as you see in verse 13 … “the lord also has taken away your sin, and you shall not die but the child must die”

So we have the implication that we can have our sins forgiven but yet might be subject
to some punishment (but not unto death,) for our sin…

This is why I feel it might not be certain that one just shoots up into heaven… when one dies after one has their sin forgiven…

 

[Redrum]

Also, I found this interesting: (BB codes mine)
(posted earlier, post #180)

Here are some things that I found intersting as well…

1. The World Christian Encyclopedia, the current edition of which is from 2001, says 33,000 so you’ve already been beating protestants over the head all over this forum with an incorrect number according to your “source”.
2. You also constantly reference “Scripture Alone” as the source for this number of disagreements and denominations. So are you are prepared to argue that these 33,000 adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For if Sola Scriptura is the cause then you must now show that these denominations follow this Doctrine. And when we see division in the ranks of Rome, and see strong disagreements on key issues, does it follow that the Roman magisterium is to blame for the differences of viewpoint?
3. You should read your source before you go around putting a link to it through your little 40,000 number. You see The World Christian Encyclopedia includes the Catholic church in that number. In fact you can actually read this on the site that you linked me to, but I guess you didn’t even bother to read that. Here we go (Page 16):

This source lists 781 “Orthodox” denominations (i.e., Eastern Orthodoxy), predicting 887 for 2025.

This source lists 242 “Roman Catholic” denominations for 2000, predicting 245 for 2025.

Are you willing to stand by your source here as well? Did these come from the Reformation?

1. The “Protestant” is listed as having 8,973 denominations in 2000, predicting 9490 by 2025. You are now off by 24,000. We having fun yet?
2. Of the 9,000 protestant groups they include non-Trinitarian groups, Seventh-Day Adventists, “Gnostics”, Mormons (122 denominations worth) and Jehovah’s Witnesses (228 denominations) Do any of these hold to any meaningful doctrine of sola scriptura to begin with? NO. None of these do.

And now for the really good part about The World Christian Encyclopedia that you have so graciously linked me to from your messages. And I encourage everyone to check this out.

1. On page 11 (you don’t have to read far ha ha) There is some more statistics about how many martyrs have died, both catholic and protestant. And then it lists the groups responsible for killing these martyrs:

1. Secular governments and 2. atheists score big, with 55,597,000 and 31,519,000 martyr kills.
2. The Muslims are high-performers on the martyr-production scale as well with 9,101,000 to their credit.
3. Animists come in fourth with 7,469,000,
   and 5th place goes too! drum roll…
4. Yes! Roman Catholicism, with 4,951,000 kills! Infallible kills I’m sure of it folks!

So take that link off of your posts to The World Christian Encyclopedia before you go to bed tonight and I won’t bust your chops any further. And please quit trying to give protestants, who adhere to Sola Scriptura, a black eye with a number that you’ve inflated from a source that you didn’t check into.

Shake and Bake!

 

[PRmerger]

Here are some things that I found intersting as well…

1. The World Christian Encyclopedia, the current edition of which is from 2001, says 33,000 so you’ve already been beating protestants over the head all over this forum with an incorrect number according to your “source”.

Again, Red, did you read to the bottom of my source? That’s where I get my over 40,000 denominations.

And, I’d be willing to entertain a different number, if you can provide the article.

Heck, I’ll even accept 5000. I’ll cite you a list of 5000 if you’d like.

 

[PRmerger]

You also constantly reference “Scripture Alone” as the source for this number of disagreements and denominations. So are you are prepared to argue that these 33,000 adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. For if Sola Scriptura is the cause then you must now show that these denominations follow this Doctrine.

The cause of these 40,000 Christian denominations (or whatever number you want to provide me a source with that’s the valid number–however, even more than 2 disproves your paradigm) is “I don’t need no stinkin’ authority to tell me what God said.”
Not necessarily SS.

 

[cfrancis]

The evidence can be attained by simply reading the historical accounts. I don’t think you would expect me to detail every aspect of it. Just read and decide for yourself if there was anything but Scripture. If you find something else, let me know.

That’s not a dilemma. The Arians used Scripture, but they used it wrongly (even the source you provided states it). However, the councils exegeted the Scriptures to prove otherwise.

By the authority of God’s Word. To assume which “was better, more right, orthodox” is to sidestep that Scripture was the common factor and exegesis was key.

The illumination of the Holy Spirit towards his people is that “tie-breaker.” To assume that it is towards a man or a group would be an invalid assumption.

Nope. I keep telling you this, but Scripture clearly teaches that each is God, that God is One, and that each are persons. If one denies it, they are denying what Scripture teaches. It has nothing to do with the councils, even though I agree with the councils.

It’s, once again, a loaded question. I don’t think I have to detail this for you, but you are going to have to do your own homework and be honest. Tell you what, you posted something earlier, in my next post I will prove that you seem to see what you want to see and that Scripture was the key.

CM

Well, I’ve provided a historical account that clearly reveals that Scripture alone was not the used to defeat the heresies and codify the doctrine of the Trinity. In the passage I provided, you’ll find:

• Scripture (which we both agree would be used)
• Extra-scriptural writings (The Shepherd by Hermas)
• Tradition (writings from “their fathers”,bishops’ refutes from 130 yrs ago, including the Bishops of Rome and Nicea)
• Their own formulation based on all the above ("with still greater clearness, briefly declared…, words which the Arians complained were not in Scripture)

I have no problem being told I see what I want to se as long as you are willing to admit the same of yourself.

 

[PRmerger]

So take that link off of your posts to The World Christian Encyclopedia before you go to bed tonight and I won’t bust your chops any further. And please quit trying to give protestants, who adhere to Sola Scriptura, a black eye with a number that you’ve inflated from a source that you didn’t check into.

Shake and Bake!

My source is not the World Christian Encyclopedia, Red. This is my source. I think I’ve posted this about a dozen times. :yawn:

Now, if you want to follow the links to the WCE, knock yourself out.

And, give me your valid number of Christian denominations and we’ll roll with that.

Incidentally, if we take off the Mormons, JWs and decrease the 242 Catholic denominations to 1, it drops the number of Christian denominations by 1%. Hardly a blip in the obscenity, don’t you think?

This truly is a paradigm created in hell, IMHO.

 

[Redrum]

My source is not the World Christian Encyclopedia, Red. This is my source. I think I’ve posted this about a dozen times. :yawn:

Now, if you want to follow the links to the WCE, knock yourself out.

And, give me your valid number of Christian denominations and we’ll roll with that.

Incidentally, if we take off the Mormons, JWs and decrease the 242 Catholic denominations to 1, it drops the number of Christian denominations by 1%. Hardly a blip in the obscenity, don’t you think?

This truly is a paradigm created in hell, IMHO.

Have you checked that link? It brings me to a page that is entirely based on the WCE.

You are like a politician that gets caught when he doesn’t tell the truth. “Well I’ve been saying 40,000, but uh… hey look over here! If it’s 5,000 that’s still too many!”

 

[Churchmouse]

Here is an excerpt from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III , taken from Chapter VI.-General Council of Nicaea:
You’ll note that it was not Scripture alone that was used to defeat the Arians.

No, it was Scripture that was used, REGARDLESS of what the Arians thought. Observe…

"The bishops convened in council being desirous of refuting the impious assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of that which was non-existent1 09, that He is a creature and created being 110 , that there was a period in which He was not111 , and that He is mutable by nature, and being all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the holy Scriptures; namely, that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that He is, as John said, the true God 112 ,' and, as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father 113 ,’ the followers of Eusebius, drawn aside by their own vile doctrine, then began to say one to another, Let us agree, for we are also of God; There is but one God, by whom are all things 114 ; Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God’ 115 .’ They also dwelt particularly upon what is contained in The Shepherd 116 :' Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and making them to be out of that which is not.'

Keep in mind that Eusebius was a follower of Origen, of which Arianism finds its roots, and wasn’t in tune with the councils. The fact is that he was almost excommunicated but changed his tune when faced with it. Yet, to get to the heart of the matter, the part you bolded wasn’t the Christians but the Arians. THEY were the ones who consulted another source, in this case the Shepherd of Hermas. The Christians, on the other hand, were in tune with the Scriptures.

"But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious artifice, and gave a clearer elucidation of the words `of God,’ and wrote, that the Son is of the substance of God; in order that while the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; this being peculiar to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote, that He is of the substance of the Father.

"But when the Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated by the Bishops as to whether they admitted ***that the Son is not a creature, but Power, and sole Wisdom, and eternal unchangeable*** 117 Image of the Father; and that He is very God,' the Eusebians were noticed making signs to one another to shew that these declarations were equally applicable to us. For it is said, that we are the image and glory of God 118 ;’ and for always we who live 119 :' there are, also, they said, many powers; for ***it is written***-All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt 120 .’ The canker-worm and the locust are said to be ***a great power*** 121 .' And elsewhere it is written,***The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob helper*** 122 .' To which may be added that we are God's own not simply, but because ***the Son called us brethren***123 .’ The declaration that Christ is `the true God’ does not distress us, for, having come into being, He is true.

Do you see the numbers next to the statements? This is to indicate the “Scriptures” the bishops are using against the Arians. Again, Scripture is what is being used.

"Such was the corrupt opinion of the Arians; but on this the bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person; and they quoted the following words: In ***thy light we shall see light*** 124 ;' and likewise, I and the Father are one 125 .’ They then, with still greater clearness, briefly declared that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; for it is not written that the Son is of the non-existent, and that there was a time when He was not: and yet they (the Arians)** complain of having been condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion.** They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things verily of earth.

Again, Scripture is being appealed to and the Christians claim that the Arian assertions are NOT found in Scripture. Sure, they complain that the “expressions” (the language used by the Christians) are used to condemn them.

End of part one.

 

[Churchmouse]

(cont’d)

**

The bishops, on the contrary, did not find their expressions for themselves; but, received their testimony from the fathers, and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old time, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city 126 , who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature, and that He is not of one substance with the Father.

**

This is specifically talking about the “expressions.” If you click the number, you read:

Alexandria. The allusion, according to Valesius, is to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, 259–269, and to Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. The Letter of Athanasius to the Africans was written, according to Baronius, in 369. So τριῶν may suit the chronology better than τριάκοντα

Again, if you do the homework, the “expressions” were formulated via Scripture by these men.

Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts; he, at one time, favoured the Arian heresy, but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word consubstantial' was used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son127 .’"

Again, these are just “terms” used by the “bishops and learned writers” to express the “divinity of the Father and the Son.” However, it was SCRIPTURE and SCRIPTURE ALONE that was used as as defense and a constructor of the expressions formulated by the Nicene council. Now, again, to get this back to purgatory, can you provide the use of Scripture being used to claim the same? You won’t.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

The cause of these 40,000 Christian denominations (or whatever number you want to provide me a source with that’s the valid number–however, even more than 2 disproves your paradigm) is “I don’t need no stinkin’ authority to tell me what God said.”
Not necessarily SS.

PR, did you read the links I provided earlier. Catholics have a dilemma when they impose this argument (which varies with each Catholic that uses it). Catholics who use it expose themselves to the same criterions used to derive these huge numbers. To see what I mean, read Eric Svendsens articles here: ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm and here: ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

CM

 

[Monte1945]

It doesn’t answer WHY the transition is purgatory. That is the question.CM

The offical standing of the Catholic Church is that "purgatory is a "process’ and not
a plalce…

The root word for purgatory… is “purge” as to purge one’s sins …

Which is actually an inward process, as when one is in that state there is not
any human body involved…

The first process is just another word to try to describe the process…
Fire is used in the bible in a few places as to cleanse one of sin such
as impurities are purged from Gold in a fire proess…

It is an outward concrete expression to attempt to understand a divine
motion which is in the abstract…

Such as water Baptism… an outward expression but represents God in
action under neath the outware motions… (a Sacrament)

I think a close google within the bible for the word “sanctification” will give
you this idea of why the church things there is a need for a purging of
ones venial sins at the time of their body’s death…

Surely you understand that there is good indication from scriptures
of the need for purification after salvation… There are far too many scriptures
which tell of that necessity for any honest reader…

for example…:

Romans 6:18-20
18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

The church feels that we do have a responsibility to work out our salvation with trembling
and fear.

And when we come to that point of departing… there will be a point

of who we are, and who we ought to be…

There is this one scripture in luke which indicates there are three places

1. here
2. the middle place
3. Heaven…

It is in a parable from Jesus… and it does indicate to some theologians there is
three places where we can be thus one can be purgatory…

Luke 16
19"There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.

 

[Churchmouse]

Well, I’ve provided a historical account that clearly reveals that Scripture alone was not the used to defeat the heresies and codify the doctrine of the Trinity. In the passage I provided, you’ll find:

• Scripture (which we both agree would be used)
• Extra-scriptural writings (The Shepherd by Hermas)
• Tradition (writings from “their fathers”,bishops’ refutes from 130 yrs ago, including the Bishops of Rome and Nicea)
• Their own formulation based on all the above ("with still greater clearness, briefly declared…, words which the Arians complained were not in Scripture)

I have no problem being told I see what I want to se as long as you are willing to admit the same of yourself.

Read my response to your version of the account to see quite the opposite. Evidently, they used Scripture alone to derive these formulas.

• Scripture alone was used.
• The Arians used the Shepherd of Hermas, not the councils.
• They used the historical language of the bishops and not some “tradition”
• Their formulation was based strictly on what the Scriptures revealed and nothing more.

I am just reading the account for what it is, but it is evident that you submitted it without reading it correctly, as well as reading into it. Hopefully, you will admit that you read it wrong.

CM

 

[Redrum]

PR, did you read the links I provided earlier. Catholics have a dilemma when they impose this argument (which varies with each Catholic that uses it). Catholics who use it expose themselves to the same criterions used to derive these huge numbers. To see what I mean, read Eric Svendsens articles here: ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm and here: ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

CM

This is a good article, thanks. Now, PR this involves reading so try to stay focused and make good on your word that “if you can provide another article I’m willing to read”.

 

[Churchmouse]

The offical standing of the Catholic Church is that "purgatory is a "process’ and not
a plalce…

The root word for purgatory… is “purge” as to purge one’s sins …

Which is actually an inward process, as when one is in that state there is not
any human body involved…

The first process is just another word to try to describe the process…
Fire is used in the bible in a few places as to cleanse one of sin such
as impurities are purged from Gold in a fire proess…

It is an outward concrete expression to attempt to understand a divine
motion which is in the abstract…

Such as water Baptism… an outward expression but represents God in
action under neath the outware motions… (a Sacrament)

I think a close google within the bible for the word “sanctification” will give
you this idea of why the church things there is a need for a purging of
ones venial sins at the time of their body’s death…

Surely you understand that there is good indication from scriptures
of the need for purification after salvation… There are far too many scriptures
which tell of that necessity for any honest reader…

for example…:

Romans 6:18-20
18and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness. 19 I am speaking in human terms, because of your natural limitations. For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification.

The church feels that we do have a responsibility to work out our salvation with trembling
and fear.

And when we come to that point of departing… there will be a point

of who we are, and who we ought to be…

There is this one scripture in luke which indicates there are three places

1. here
2. the middle place
3. Heaven…

It is in a parable from Jesus… and it does indicate to some theologians there is
three places where we can be thus one can be purgatory…

Luke 16
19"There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores.The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.

Monte, please read through the thread before commenting. As for your Scriptural prooftexts, haven’t these been dealt with at some time or another? There is nothing that you posted that we don’t already know or that has been refuted in the past. For example, the rich man and Lazarus weren’t in purgatory. Evidently, Lazarus is being “comforted” (vs.25) and the rich man is tormented (vs.23) in the hell of the damned. If you had any familiarity with the Jewish concept of Sheol, you would know this. Even Catholic sources claim that Lazarus is in limbus patrum (the limbo of the fathers/Abraham’s Bosom) and the rich man is in the hell of the damned. No offense, but let’s not get tedious and repetitive.

CM