Staples White debate on Purgatory

[Church_Militant]

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

CM

There’s no shouting. I use a slightly different size font for ease of reading and the coloration is my own personal preference.

SHOUTING LOOKS LIKE THIS…

Here is what the forum Moderator has posted on that subject.

**A Note About Fonts and Colors.

**It has come to my attention that some members have stated that any font larger than the standard (this: Arial 2) is yelling or shouting.

This is not true.

It is expected that all members will choose fonts that are clean and easy to read in the size posted. As you can see, I personally use a size 3 Arial font because though a little larger it makes for a clean and readable post without seeming cramped and hard to read.

Yelling in a forum, by definition, consists firstly of posting in ALL CAPS.

Beyond that, it is only when a font is excessively large and/or **bold **that I feel that it becomes problematic.

Most fonts will fall into that problematic category at size 4
or greater, but as you can see, not all.

The following is the same selection of all the fonts at size 3.
Notice the difference please.

Most fonts will fall into that problematic category at size 4
or greater, but as you can see, not all.

Having displayed this for you all, I am expecting to see less complaints (generally just posted within threads) accusing others of yelling because they choose a different font and size.

While I have your eye…
A word about font colors.

Please be very sure that whatever color of font that you select is easy enough on the eye that others will find it clean and readable.

Some colors obviously will never work for that, will they?

Please understand that if I stumble across a post with a problematic font/color I will change it without prejudice. However, please do take the hint, okay?

Perhaps when you drop the condescension and issue dodging maybe you’ll actually attempt to respond with something other than rhetoric and polemics.

 

[Mickey]

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

Everyone here knows that Michael always posts with the utmost charity and respect. What are you talking about?

 

[TertiumQuid]

James, I’ve not heard it mentioned but I’ve only heard a couple Q&A episodes since the debate. And the rest of your post is trademark aomin polemics so I’ll file it accordingly.

I thought James White thought he heard someone mention it. During White’s Mon. Feb. 1 “post mortem” he seemed to mention some caller that for whatever reason he thought was me that called the show after the debate? I got the impression that he thought the caller mentioned the debate? Either that or Mr. White was trying to suggest I was a robotic CAL groupie since that fit the fictional caricature he painted of me. Anyway, I’d ask him if he heard anything.

Hi Marco,

I think you misunderstood the Feb. 1 broadcast.

The silence of Catholic Answers about the debate is very telling. Had they thought they did as well as many of you suggest, it would’ve at least been mentioned a few times.

 

[Mickey]

The silence of Catholic Answers about the debate is very telling. Had they thought they did as well as many of you suggest, it would’ve at least been mentioned a few times.

It would not matter what is posted here. Mr White believes that he destroys anyone who **dares **to debate him.

He is in massive denial!

 

[Pete_Holter]

Dr. White makes the point that all are tested by the fire. So he thinks it should be the case that either all are passing through purgatory or none are passing through purgatory. But the fact that the testing is by fire in both cases is not sufficient to make this case. Here he is:

“Further, the insertion of the Roman concepts into the passage turns it on its head. Remember, those with works of gold, silver, and precious stones, that is, Christian workers who had godly motivations, appear in this passage. Their works are subject to the same testing as the others. If this fire is at all relevant to purgatory, and certainly historically that has been the understanding, then are we to assume that even those with godly motives suffer? Are there no saints involved in building upon the foundation? Modern Roman Catholics have started to move away from the term fire though this was inarguably what attracted the attention of Rome in the passage in the first place, and seek to focus more upon the suffering of a loss so that only the second group is seen as being relevant to purgatory.”

Did not Paul preach only one Christ, the One Who was crucified? And yet, through the distinguishing mark of God’s call, was He not “a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the Power of God and the Wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:23-24)? “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Corinthians 1:18).

Are we not one and the same people, and yet as made separable by God’s grace, also “the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life” (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

Was there not one flood? And yet on account of the Ark, the falling rain was to most the harbinger of death; but to the eight who were thus “brought safely through water,” an entrance into new life (1 Peter 3:20).

Is there not one voice of Christ with which He will cause all to rise from their graves? “[A]ll who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come out” (John 5:28-29). But “those who have done good [will come out] to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil [will come out] to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:29).

Both may grieve, but the one who grieves a “godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas” the one who grieves a “worldly grief produces death” (2 Corinthians 7:10).

So also, there is but one purging fire of God’s judgment that all are tested by in 1 Corinthians; but it only operates as a purging fire in the case of those whose work is actually purged, i.e., “burned up.” The judgment becomes to those inwardly clad in gold, silver, and precious stones: a reward bestowed without scathing. To the others: a total loss. For, although saved, even what they thought they had, was taken away (cf. Luke 8:18). In the former case, the purging fire found nothing to purge and hence there was no purgation, no purgatory. In the latter case, the unworthy work was purged from the person and, therefore, he did suffer purgation, or purgatory.

We should not be looking to the testing by fire alone in order to distinguish between the two different encounters, as if there were no other distinguishing marks; but to this together with the building material that we bring, and concomitant action of the fire that follows. It is the survival of the work in the one case and the destruction of the work in the other that differentiates the varying experiences of the ones under the fiery judgment. The pleasant experience of the one is that of being found whole; the painful experience of the other is that of suffering the purgation of the sinful predilections of the heart.

In Christ Alone,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

Dr. White continues:

Of course, this is made possible by the constant repetition of the assertion, “Rome has never really officially declared the meaning of this passage, nor that there is fire in purgatory, nor that purgatory is a place, nor that we experience time in purgatory, etc., etc., etc.”

Here are some thoughts that may be helpful.

It is both objective and subjective. Purgatory is objective on account of the substance and activity of the fire, which are God’s. It is subjective on account of the material being acted upon, which is ours.

It is both a process and a place. It is a process in that the burning action of the fire and the consumption of our work by it are what make it a purgation. It is a place in that our soul is not going to be nowhere, but somewhere while this purgation is transpiring. Where the fire burns and consumes, there is purgatory. The Catechism of the Council of Trent refers to the fire itself as the “location”: “Among [the abodes of hell] is also the fire of purgatory” (Article V – He Descended into Hell, The Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead). And I think that this is enough for us to know. Thomas Aquinas noted: “Nothing is clearly stated in Scripture about the situation of Purgatory *, nor is it possible to offer convincing arguments on this question” (Summa Theologica, Supplement to the Third Part, Appendix II: Purgatory); and the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia states: “Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition” (Purgatory), making it clear that the Church’s teaching is not definitive as to this aspect of its nature.

It is both timeless, and yet happens through time. Timeless in that it is outside of our time. Through time in that those things occurring and existing outside of our time relate to us through our time. However conceived, the teaching of the Church is that it is “temporary” in nature.

You fought the fight in me. You chased me down and finished the race. I was blind but now I see: Jesus, You kept the faith in me.

Not I, but the grace of God that is with me,
Pete*

 

[MarcoPolo]

Had they thought they did as well as many of you suggest, it would’ve at least been mentioned a few times.

We are aware James yearns very much for publicity from Catholic Answers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

“Further, the insertion of the Roman concepts into the passage turns it on its head. Remember, those with works of gold, silver, and precious stones, that is, Christian workers who had godly motivations, appear in this passage. Their works are subject to the same testing as the others. If this fire is at all relevant to purgatory, and certainly historically that has been the understanding, then are we to assume that even those with godly motives suffer? Are there no saints involved in building upon the foundation? Modern Roman Catholics have started to move away from the term fire though this was inarguably what attracted the attention of Rome in the passage in the first place, and seek to focus more upon the suffering of a loss so that only the second group is seen as being relevant to purgatory.”

I remember this quote as well, and it does nothing to discredit the purifying nature of the chapter. There’s a lot of the usual bombast in this quote too, which is particularly off-base when it says Catholics are steering clear of the figure of “fire” to describe Purgatory. Perhaps he has not read Catechism 1031.

Anyway, if I purge his quote of such polemical impurities , we’re left with his claim that the Catholic interpretation forces us to believe people without works of wood/hay/straw still suffer purgation. But here’s why I think he is mistaken. According to the text, a person is purged on condition that he has works attached to him that need purging. So in essence, if someone dies in total, complete devotion and purity in Christ, he could pass through the testing “fire” unscathed because verse 15 wouldn’t apply to him. He would only receive “reward.” Only verse 14 would apply to him which does not include suffering.

Verse, 15, again, reads:*If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.*Every translation I know begins the verse with this conditional language. So James White is mistaken to assert that a Catholic would have to interpret 3:15 as saying even those unworthy of Purgatory would suffer the refinement of Purgatory.

Thanks for some of the additional transcriptions, Pete!

 

[Vincent]

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?

Jesus employed the images for his parable as though the images suitably represented man’s reality after death. It’s therefore not surprising that the early Church received the preexisting Jewish notion of the intermediate state as self-evident: Luke places these images on the lips of Christ. The authority of Christ is the basis for preserving some form of the intermediate state. Does it remain in Evangelical/Protestant thought?

(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

The possibility of purification in the afterlife stems from the basis that after death the justified encounter the Christ who judges and purifies.

The sad reality of sin in the life of the justified evinces, to use Ratzinger’s language, that one’s openness to Christ can be buried under a “latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands”. A short examination of conscience is enough to convince us of the attachments that manifest who we are.

If our souls survive crossing the line of death, then our openness to Christ and our ordered and disordered attachments will survive as well. Purification in the afterlife is thus a consequence, since after death comes judgment: the encounter with the same Christ who purifies before death.

The journey from the Jewish idea of the intermediate state to a place of refreshment and purification to a transitional state fits the contours of the development of doctrine. They all coalesce when examined through the lens of Christology, as I mentioned in my last post.

As far as a worker being attached to his works . . . . A doctoral student who accidentally erases the file with his thesis wouldn’t be too happy, I imagine.

 

[Byzman]

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

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

Show me a Church Father that remained true to the Catholic Faith that would say anything different that the Church teaches. I dont think you understand the concept of praying for the dead at all.

You did not even answer my question. I will ask it differently. Is the Canon of Scripture part of Sacred Tradition?

 

[Byzman]

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

I was not even talking, nor did I bring 1 Corinthians 3 up. I was only bringing up the fact that our works are dependant upon the person, for you said they weren’t.

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.

The text I use from Matthew shows as you state now,

salvation independent of works is dead and that the sheep and the goats will be separated by their works

Sounds a little contradictory, doesn’t it?

 

[Byzman]

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

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.
CM

Again, we do not know when Onesiphorus died because you give only one source portraying it as Cathollic tradition.

 

[Churchmouse]

Again, we do not know when Onesiphorus died because you give only one source portraying it as Cathollic tradition.

They why did you submit the passage? If indeed we don’t know when he died then why are you assuming that Paul is praying for the dead? Again, the purpose of mentioning this is only to show the contradiction between Catholic apologetics and Catholic tradition.

This source puts his death at around 74 A.D. which still doesn’t change the fact that Paul seems to have died first.

This source says 80 A.D. saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0906.shtml

I’m sure there are others, but evidently the tradition seems to be that he died after Paul.

CM

 

[Churchmouse]

I was not even talking, nor did I bring 1 Corinthians 3 up. I was only bringing up the fact that our works are dependant upon the person, for you said they weren’t.

Isn’t this the theme of the thread? And didn’t you bring Matthew up in the context of “works”? I never said that works aren’t relevant, but only that 1 Corinthians 3 is clearly stating that the works are the subject of the fire, not the man.

The text I use from Matthew shows as you state now,

But again, not in the context of purification. You’re going back and forth. Matthew shows how works separate the sheep and goats at the general judgment. There is no purgatory, but only heaven and hell.

Sounds a little contradictory, doesn’t it?

Nope, because it is the context of salvation and not of purgatory.

CM

 

[Byzman]

Isn’t this the theme of the thread? And didn’t you bring Matthew up in the context of “works”? I never said that works aren’t relevant, but only that 1 Corinthians 3 is clearly stating that the works are the subject of the fire, not the man.
CM

I am saying that you cannot separate a man from his works…as you do here.

 

[Churchmouse]

Show me a Church Father that remained true to the Catholic Faith that would say anything different that the Church teaches.

You would be asking for the world at this point. Should I fill the forum with citations from Church Fathers that contradict the concept of purgatory (to keep in theme). Or what about other RC distinctives.

I dont think you understand the concept of praying for the dead at all.

Your asserting it doesn’t prove I don’t. Did you read any of the links to my articles?

You did not even answer my question. I will ask it differently. Is the Canon of Scripture part of Sacred Tradition?

I already answered that whether you want to accept it or not. I said…“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.” There were criterions used on books which were passed through the churches, but the writings were there.

CM

 

[Byzman]

They why did you submit the passage? If indeed we don’t know when he died then why are you assuming that Paul is praying for the dead? Again, the purpose of mentioning this is only to show the contradiction between Catholic apologetics and Catholic tradition. CM

I bring it up because St. Paul is clearly speaking of Onesiphorus not in the present.

 

[Byzman]

You would be asking for the world at this point. Should I fill the forum with citations from Church Fathers that contradict the concept of purgatory (to keep in theme). Or what about other RC distinctives. CM

Than find ONE!

 

[Byzman]

I already answered that whether you want to accept it or not. I said…“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.” There were criterions used on books which were passed through the churches, but the writings were there.

CM

You did not answer my question…is that which is contained in the Canon part of Sacred Tradition? Rather, let me reform the question for a Reformer(no pun intended), are the books that are contained in the Canon of Scripture liable to be taken out? Or does tradition say no?

 

[Churchmouse]

Jesus employed the images for his parable as though the images suitably represented man’s reality after death. It’s therefore not surprising that the early Church received the preexisting Jewish notion of the intermediate state as self-evident: Luke places these images on the lips of Christ. The authority of Christ is the basis for preserving some form of the intermediate state. Does it remain in Evangelical/Protestant thought?

Again, to assume that a third realm must exist because one existed at one time is quite the assumption. Again, Luke 16 speaks of Sheol of which Lazarus was comforted in the Abraham’s Bosom side of Sheol, therefore not purgatory. You wrongfully assert that it was an “intermediate state” as if to imply a transition that is purgatorial, of which the text contradicts. Again, there is no reason to believe that an intermediate state is needed, much less that the “authority of Christ” demands it.

The possibility of purification in the afterlife stems from the basis that after death the justified encounter the Christ who judges and purifies.

It is based on an assumption that Christ cannot do the same while the justified are living and on the Catholic view of sin.

The sad reality of sin in the life of the justified evinces, to use Ratzinger’s language, that one’s openness to Christ can be buried under a “latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands”. A short examination of conscience is enough to convince us of the attachments that manifest who we are.

I won’t comment on this because to evoke any honest feelings towards Ratzinger’s words is looked upon as disrespectful (as I found in a warning from the moderators). It’s a shame that one cannot use words that are honestly stated and without ill-intent. It’s as if one cannot disagree with Ratzinger and cannot use valid words to state the form of philosophy the man uses.

If our souls survive crossing the line of death, then our openness to Christ and our ordered and disordered attachments will survive as well. Purification in the afterlife is thus a consequence, since after death comes judgment: the encounter with the same Christ who purifies before death.

Again, you lose me with stuff like this. It’s as if I’m supposed to follow a line of logic that assumes much and proves little. I would rather if someone just showed me what the early church believed regarding such a place, state, or realm.

The journey from the Jewish idea of the intermediate state to a place of refreshment and purification to a transitional state fits the contours of the development of doctrine. They all coalesce when examined through the lens of Christology, as I mentioned in my last post.

You’re still assuming. The Jewish intermediate state was evidently a foretaste heaven for the righteous awaiting the Christ. They were comforted there. How it goes from that to a purificational state, demanding yet another third state, is a leap in logic and one that cannot be proven.

As far as a worker being attached to his works . . . . A doctoral student who accidentally erases the file with his thesis wouldn’t be too happy, I imagine.

Well, unless he got erased in the process as well, I don’t see this a good analogy. No disrespect.

CM