The Hope of Eternal Life Lutheran / Catholic dialogue On Purgatory

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Jon,

I’m still reading it. That thing is longer than War and Peace!

So gurnery,
What do you think of the content of the document, or at least the parts I’ve posted?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I’m still reading it. That thing is longer than War and Peace!

Lutherans and Catholics - the more things change…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I cannot fathom co-communion between Lutherans and Catholics…too big a gulf. The only way that would happen would be through ordinariate type situations in which Lutherans bend to Catholic thinking…

P.S. My Giants finally won! LOL

Lutherans and Catholics - the more things change…

 

[pablope]

Hey guys,
I already do believe in indulgences, as I’m willing to indulge your humor at my expense.

But seriously, the document does address the issue of indulgences, beginning at para. 264.
In concludes in this way:

Some might see this as nuanced and shaky. I see it as a starting point.

Jon

Well, what does the Lutherans think or teach about expiation of sin during our lifetime, before death? I

 

[joe370]

The recently released document in the title of the thread seems to offer some interesting food for though t for Lutherans and Catholics, and our quest for reconciliation. It is a long document which I am still working my way through, and I invite others to do so, as well.

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

On Purgatory

Curious as to what Catholics, Lutherans, and others if they so choose, think.

Jon

Hey Jon, I’ll definitely give it a read. Here is something I found not too long ago, written by Martin Luther, on purgatory:

“The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted [Unterricht auf etlich Artikel. WA 2, 70] many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner…” Career of the Reformer II, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Jon,

Here are my comments to some sections of the article that you have included in your OP.

1. Lutherans teach that all the justified remain sinners unto death (JDDJ, 29). Sin and the effects of sin in those who die in Christ will be removed prior to entrance into eternal glory. ** In effect, they teach the reality of purgation, even if not as a distinct intermediate state. **

If it is not a distinct intermediate state then how does it happen?

As I see it, we have the state here in on earth and the state in heaven. Where or when does this purgation take place then if it is not a distinct intermediate state considering that everyone agrees that nothing unclean enters heaven.

If we die in sin, then that process of final cleansing has to happen in a transitional state.

The rejection by the Lutheran Reformers of the doctrine of purgatory as they knew it focused on practices and abuses perceived as bound up with this teaching.

It is fair enough to reject the bad practices. But it is not so much the practice that was bad but the abuse of the practice.

Alms giving is a good practice. That some perverted the practice for their own end, does not make the practice of alms giving bad.

They judged that the doctrine of purgatory obscured the gospel of free grace.
Jon, can you explain to me why Lutheran’s think that the doctrine of purgatory obscured the gospel of free grace?

This may be due to an erroneous understanding of what the doctrine is because as far as I can ascertain, the doctrine is not in the least bit contradictory with the sheer gratuitousness of grace

The Confessions explicitly express a willingness to discuss purgatory if the doctrine were separated from these practices and abuses, although at the same time expressing doubt about the biblical foundation of any such teaching (SA II, 2.14).

I think there is something not quite right with this one.

If the doctrine is correct, and the practice follows perfectly from doctrine, I don’t see how discussing the doctrine should be separated from the practice.

As for the abuses, I don’t know why this is even mentioned considered that was over and done with many years ago.

1. The differences between Catholic and Lutheran teaching on purgatory thus focus on 1) how the living relate to those undergoing this purgation, and 2) the extent and explicit character of the binding teaching on purgation and purgatory. The more explicit the binding teaching, the greater the difficulty Lutherans have in seeing this teaching as biblical and thus binding.

But the question arises how the Lutherans can say this should be less binding when the doctrine has always been binding prior to the Protestant secession.

We need to ask here who has the authority to make binding pronouncements. If Lutherans say it should be less binding then they claim authority to declare this so.

Which again goes back to the Canon of the Bible since the only reason they can claim this to be un-biblical is because they do not hold the deuterocanonicals to be canonical.

** 211. Today, Lutheran and Catholic teaching integrates purgation with death, judgment, and
the encounter with Christ. Recent Catholic and Lutheran understandings of purgation sound remarkably similar. While the word “purgatory” remains an ecumenically charged term, and for many Catholics and Lutherans signals a sharp division, our work in this round has shown that our churches’ understandings of how the justified enter eternal glory are closer than expected. **

I don’t see how the term purgatory should be a cause for if we understand the term properly.

To me it is much like the move towards inclusive language. Feminists are up in arms with the way we use the term “man” but for hundreds of years, there has been an universal acknowledgement that it not only refers to a male person but to humanity in general.

Properly understood, I think that there should be not be any hesitancy in using the term.**

1. In light of the analysis given above, this dialogue believes that the topic of purgation,
   in and of itself, need not divide our communions

.240 **
I think it is not so much purgatory or purgation that needs to be discussed but the broader understanding of what it means to be saved.

As Beckwith and Kreeft put it : Salvation is not a matter of getting into heaven but of getting heaven in to you.

Once we see salvation in this light, then purgatory or purgation should not pose a problem because it is now seen as just another necessary and integral part of this process of being transformed into the image of Christ.

Peace!

Cory

 

[JonNC]

Well, what does the Lutherans think or teach about expiation of sin during our lifetime, before death? I

We teach that by repentence and confession, sin is forgiven for Christ’s sake. Forgiveness also takes place in the sacraments of Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, I’ll definitely give it a read. Here is something I found not too long ago, written by Martin Luther, on purgatory:

“The existence of a purgatory I have never denied. I still hold that it exists, as I have written and admitted [Unterricht auf etlich Artikel. WA 2, 70] many times, though I have found no way of proving it incontrovertibly from Scripture or reason. I find in Scripture that Christ, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Job, David, Hezekiah, and some others tasted hell in this life. This I think was purgatory, and it seems not beyond belief that some of the dead suffer in like manner…” Career of the Reformer II, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32

I think this is from 1521, but he further states this belief as late as 1528. Luther’s problem is with the lack of scriptural support, other than Maccabees, which he believed needed further support in other parts of the canon.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, Joe.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Ho Cory,
Thanks for joining in.

=benedictus2;7723454]Hi Jon,

Here are my comments to some sections of the article that you have included in your OP.

If it is not a distinct intermediate state then how does it happen?

even the Lutheran reformers stated that it isn’t known to us, as scripture doesn’t say, not even in Maccabees.

As I see it, we have the state here in on earth and the state in heaven. Where or when does this purgation take place then if it is not a distinct intermediate state considering that everyone agrees that nothing unclean enters heaven.

If we die in sin, then that process of final cleansing has to happen in a transitional state.

Lutherans speak of it as happening in death and ressurection. That said, there are some Lutherans who speculate that an instantaneous cleansing may not be consistent with our understanding with the growth in grace as a gradual event here on earth.

It is fair enough to reject the bad practices. But it is not so much the practice that was bad but the abuse of the practice.

I don’t think Lutherans would disagree with this. So, as the document goes on, it talks about prayer for the dead, etc.

Alms giving is a good practice. That some perverted the practice for their own end, does not make the practice of alms giving bad.

Correct

Jon, can you explain to me why Lutheran’s think that the doctrine of purgatory obscured the gospel of free grace?

It relates back to what the reformers saw as abuses of the mass, and indulgences, and falls in line with our understanding of justification by grace through faith.

This may be due to an erroneous understanding of what the doctrine is because as far as I can ascertain, the doctrine is not in the least bit contradictory with the sheer gratuitousness of grace

Perahps so, Cory. Maybe you could expand on this, in light of what the document says. I would very much like to hear what you think, maybe how you see the abuses of the practices surrounding the 1500’s disagreement and how they relate to the proper practices.

As for the abuses, I don’t know why this is even mentioned considered that was over and done with many years ago.

Perhaps for a historical POV.

But the question arises how the Lutherans can say this should be less binding when the doctrine has always been binding prior to the Protestant secession.

Actually, I believe the Orthodox POV regarding Purgatory is equally different from the CC POV, which is mentioned as well. If varying views on expiation of sin after death do not appear to be Church dividing with the east, then then why so with Lutherans?

We need to ask here who has the authority to make binding pronouncements. If Lutherans say it should be less binding then they claim authority to declare this so.

I think, Cory, that is the whole notion of the dialogue is to come, eventually, to terms with even this.

Which again goes back to the Canon of the Bible since the only reason they can claim this to be un-biblical is because they do not hold the deuterocanonicals to be canonical.

This is a good point. Luther and the other reformers were looking for other scriptural support. But again, even Maccabees doesn’t describe Purgatory as an intermediate state/place. Maybe it is, but Lutherans look ofr scriptural support in order to bind the conscience of the believer. Perhaps, this too can be overcome through the continuing dialogue.

I don’t see how the term purgatory should be a cause for if we understand the term properly.

Maybe it won’t be as time goes on. Certainly it has been historically.

To me it is much like the move towards inclusive language. Feminists are up in arms with the way we use the term “man” but for hundreds of years, there has been an universal acknowledgement that it not only refers to a male person but to humanity in general.

How so?

I think it is not so much purgatory or purgation that needs to be discussed but the broader understanding of what it means to be saved.

As Beckwith and Kreeft put it : Salvation is not a matter of getting into heaven but of getting heaven in to you.

Once we see salvation in this light, then purgatory or purgation should not pose a problem because it is now seen as just another necessary and integral part of this process of being transformed into the image of Christ.

I think you are right, Cory, and as the document says, Lutherans do not oppose an ubderstanding of purgation.

Peace!

Cory

And also with you,
Jon

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

So Jon is just weeks away from believing in indulgences!

As I have Told Jon before he’s a closet Catholic and just needs to come on out.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Of all the Lutherans I know, Jon is as close to Catholic as one can get. He has a Catholic aura about him …but being a Phillies fan makes him need more indulgences!

As I have Told Jon before he’s a closet Catholic and just needs to come on out.

 

[pablope]

We teach that by repentence and confession, sin is forgiven for Christ’s sake. Forgiveness also takes place in the sacraments of Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

Jon

Jon…sorry I was not clear with my question.

I was talking about forgiven sins…what does the Lutherans teach about expiating the effects of forgiven sins, on earth in our lifetime and before death? Example would be…I stole something…I confessed and was forgiven, but I must return that which I stole and make restitution. I hope I am stating my query clearly.

blessings…

Pablope

 

[benedictus2]

even the Lutheran reformers stated that it isn’t known to us, as scripture doesn’t say, not even in Maccabees.

But let’s think this through.
Earth and heaven are separate states/places (let’s call them A & B respectively)

If purgation happens in neither A nor B, then where and when does it happen? If one dies in sin then it did not happen on earth. Nothing unclean enters heaven so it must happen before entry into heaven. Therefore purgation has to be in between these two. And if in between these two then it must be an intermediate state/stage/place.

Lutherans speak of it as happening in death and ressurection.

But what does “in death and resurrection “, mean? Are you saying that purgation happens at the point of death and up until resurrection? So, where does heaven comes into play here?

Isn’t it that when we speak of resurrection we mean bodily resurrecton which does not happen till the last judgment? Or do Lutherans believe differently.

That said, there are some Lutherans who speculate that an instantaneous cleansing may not be consistent with our understanding with the growth in grace as a gradual event here on earth.

I would agree with that one I think.

I don’t think Lutherans would disagree with this. So, as the document goes on, it talks about prayer for the dead, etc.

I haven’t read the rest of the article so don’t know the Lutheran position on this but do Lutherans believe in praying for the dead?

It relates back to what the reformers saw as abuses of the mass, and indulgences, and falls in line with our understanding of justification by grace through faith.

But since the abuses are no longer, just looking at the doctrine of purgatory itself and the non abusive practices, would they still see this as obscuring the gospel of grace? I have a feeling that they still do because that statement is fairly current and they must have looked at the doctrine as it is currently practiced.
So what I would like to know is – with abuse out of the equation – is there still a conviction that this obscures the gospel of grace?

Perahps so, Cory. Maybe you could expand on this, in light of what the document says. I would very much like to hear what you think, maybe how you see the abuses of the practices surrounding the 1500’s disagreement and how they relate to the proper practices.

I will try to put together my thoughts on this tomorrow. I would like to know though the Lutheran point on my question one point above this one regarding the “obscuring of the gospel of grace” as that has a bearing on this one.

Perhaps for a historical POV.

I think to move forward, it is important to strip away the non-essentials. The historical abuses as we have seen is an aberration rather than the normal practice of the Church so the doctrine and proper practice has to be assessed based on that alone.

Actually, I believe the Orthodox POV regarding Purgatory is equally different from the CC POV, which is mentioned as well.

I can agree with the Orthodox point of view because they see this as part of the process of theosis -. which the Church does as well.
The difference I think is that the orthodox are not into defining dogmas.

If varying views on expiation of sin after death do not appear to be Church dividing with the east, then why so with Lutherans?

I think because there is a clear teaching on purgation or purification even though it is not defined as a separate stage/state/place.

But a logical approach does indicate that it happens in/as an intermediate state between earth and heaven because of the reasons I cited above.

This is a good point. Luther and the other reformers were looking for other scriptural support. But again, even Maccabees doesn’t describe Purgatory as an intermediate state/place. Maybe it is, but Lutherans look ofr scriptural support in order to bind the conscience of the believer. Perhaps, this too can be overcome through the continuing dialogue.

It needs to be taken into account how the Church has understood this. The aberrations in the 1500s was hardly Church practice from her birth till say the 14th century.

Purgatory was the teaching of the Church for over a millenium and there was no abuse of the practice. This means that this can be accepted without reserve if one looks to the broader history of the Church.

How so?

I mean here that there is no need to be hesitant about using the word purgatory in the way it was meant to be used just because of the abuses that happened in the past.
The feminists have taken umbrage over the use of the word “man” because they felt this excluded them even though “man” has always been understood as meaning humanity when used in this context.
So it is not that there is something wrong with the word, it just needs to be understood better.
I personally (extremely!) dislike inclusive language. I think Bibles that were translated in this manner lost much of the poetry in the translation and have become rather common sounding. And political correctness I just barely endure.

Peace!
Cory

 

[JonNC]

Hi Cory,

=benedictus2;7727255]]But let’s think this through.
Earth and heaven are separate states/places (let’s call them A & B respectively)

If purgation happens in neither A nor B, then where and when does it happen? If one dies in sin then it did not happen on earth. Nothing unclean enters heaven so it must happen before entry into heaven. Therefore purgation has to be in between these two. And if in between these two then it must be an intermediate state/stage/place.

Maybe so or not. Scripture doesn’t tell us, nor does it say anything about how long this takes.

The critique of the doctrine of purgatory within the Lutheran Confessions thus has three elements:

1. The doctrine of purgatory is not founded in Scripture and thus should not be binding
   teaching.
2. The concept of satisfaction with which the doctrine had been connected undercuts the
   sufficiency of the satisfaction of Christ and thus obscures the Gospel.
3. God works the transformation of the self into sinless heavenly glory through death as a
   moment in death-and-resurrection-in-Christ.

But what does “in death and resurrection “, mean? Are you saying that purgation happens at the point of death and up until resurrection? So, where does heaven comes into play here?

Isn’t it that when we speak of resurrection we mean bodily resurrecton which does not happen till the last judgment? Or do Lutherans believe differently.

For the Confessions, the sufferings that follow forgiven sin are understood in relation to one of the most fundamental soteriological categories of the Reformation: death and resurrection. Penance is “a putting to death and a raising to life” (Apol. XII, 46). What had been understood in a juridical model of punishment and satisfaction is reconceived in the model of ongoing death and resurrection. “We grant that in repentance there is a punishment, but not as a payment. Rather there is in a formal sense a punishment in repentance because regeneration itself occurs through a continuous mortification of our old nature” (Apol. XII, 148).

I haven’t read the rest of the article so don’t know the Lutheran position on this but do Lutherans believe in praying for the dead?

The document goes into this. Lutherans have never denied prayer for the dead.

I will continue to respond later, perhaps Saturday when I have more time. In the meantime, I think the document will help (better than me) to answer some of the questions you’ve asked.

Cory, I really enjoy your questions and respect your perspective. Thanks for joining in.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, couldn’t you find a Lutheran - Catholic dialogue that was at least 200 pages? I believe that it would take less time to read the entire bible, twice. LOL…LOL…Man that thing is long. Quick question: if Martin Luther believed in purgatory, even though he could find no scriptural support for it, then shouldn’t all Lutherans believe? My niece and her husband say no.

I will give the following a read tomorrow brother: THE HOPE
OF ETERNAL LIFE
Common Statement of the
Eleventh Round of the
U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue

The recently released document in the title of the thread seems to offer some interesting food for though t for Lutherans and Catholics, and our quest for reconciliation. It is a long document which I am still working my way through, and I invite others to do so, as well.

usccb.org/seia/The-Hope-of-Eternal-Life.pdf

On Purgatory

Curious as to what Catholics, Lutherans, and others if they so choose, think.

Jon

 

[benedictus2]

Maybe so or not. Scripture doesn’t tell us, nor does it say anything about how long this takes.

Yes, scripture doesn’t tell us but I think in this instance we can use simple logic. We recognize two states/stages/places – heaven and earth.

We say purgation happens in neither. Earth is the beginning, heaven is the end. Well, if we have to be clean when we get to the end then don’t you think that it could only happen in the intermediate state/stage/place?

If one must deny purgatory then one must deny purgation after death.

The critique of the doctrine of purgatory within the Lutheran Confessions thus has three elements:

1. The doctrine of purgatory is not founded in Scripture and thus should not be binding
   teaching.
2. The concept of satisfaction with which the doctrine had been connected undercuts the
   sufficiency of the satisfaction of Christ and thus obscures the Gospel.
3. God works the transformation of the self into sinless heavenly glory through death as a moment in death-and-resurrection-in-Christ.

On Point 1)
The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in Scripture either and yet that is the most basic tenet of our belief.

That doctrine was arrived at by the Church even before the Canon was completed. The same I think is true for the doctrine of purgatory.

On Point 2)
Can you explain what you mean by “the concept of satisfaction”?

On Point 3)
Can you explain more explicitly what you mean by the “moment in death-and-resurrection-in-Christ”?

1. For the Confessions, the sufferings that follow forgiven sin are understood in relation to one of the most fundamental soteriological categories of the Reformation: death and resurrection. Penance is “a putting to death and a raising to life” (Apol. XII, 46).
   1. What had been understood in a juridical model of punishment and satisfaction is reconceived in the model of ongoing death and resurrection. “We grant that in repentance there is a punishment, but not as a payment. Rather there is in a formal sense a punishment in repentance because regeneration itself occurs through a continuous mortification of our old nature” (Apol. XII, 148).

On point 1) I find this a very vague statement “Penance is a putting to death and a raising to life”. Can you concretize this statement?

On point 2) So you confirm that the Lutheran model of salvation is juridical?

The document goes into this. Lutherans have never denied prayer for the dead.

If the Lutherans agree that the dead need prayers, then obviously the dead are neither in heaven nor on earth, don’t you think? So, why the hesitancy in affirming this intermediate state/stage/place?

I will continue to respond later, perhaps Saturday when I have more time. In the meantime, I think the document will help (better than me) to answer some of the questions you’ve asked.

Take your looooongest time. I am finding it hard to keep up with the other threads as it is. Thank goodness the other threads are starting to wind down.

I’ll see if I can find time to read the actual document. From the comments of other posters apparently it is quite voluminous.

I will try to piece together by Sunday, the answer I promised in an earlier post.

Cory, I really enjoy your questions and respect your perspective. Thanks for joining in.

Jon

Ditto Jon. Very much so.

Peace of Christ!

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon, couldn’t you find a Lutheran - Catholic dialogue that was at least 200 pages? I believe that it would take less time to read the entire bible, twice. LOL…LOL…Man that thing is long.

I will give the following a read tomorrow brother: THE HOPE
OF ETERNAL LIFE
Common Statement of the
Eleventh Round of the
U.S. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Dialogue

Hi Joe,
Put Lutheran and Catholic theologians and clergy in the same room, and long documents become the order of the day.

Quick question: if Martin Luther believed in purgatory, even though he could find no scriptural support for it, then shouldn’t all Lutherans believe? My niece and her husband say no.

Shouldn’t? No, because the it isn’t found in scripture, at least not explicitly. A better word might be “couldn’t”. Even at that, however, Lutherans are not held to what Luther thought, necessarily, but by what the confessions teach, as it rightly reflects scripture, in our view. Is it *possible *for a Lutheran to believe in Purgatory? The document seems to say, in a nuanced way, since we believe in purgation, that in general terms, without defining it as an intermediate state/place or a from of “punishment”, we can. Clearly, there is a purgation/ cleansing of the last vestiges of sin upon death, in order to enter Heaven.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Jon…sorry I was not clear with my question.

I was talking about forgiven sins…what does the Lutherans teach about expiating the effects of forgiven sins, on earth in our lifetime and before death? Example would be…I stole something…I confessed and was forgiven, but I must return that which I stole and make restitution. I hope I am stating my query clearly.

blessings…

Pablope

I think it is expected that making restitution to, or seeking forgiveness from those we have wronged, when possible, as it obviously reflects contrition.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;7733991]Yes, scripture doesn’t tell us but I think in this instance we can use simple logic. We recognize two states/stages/places – heaven and earth.

We say purgation happens in neither. Earth is the beginning, heaven is the end. Well, if we have to be clean when we get to the end then don’t you think that it could only happen in the intermediate state/stage/place?

I think one can make that speculation, yet without in any way intending to be polemical, scritpure (including the deuterocanon, doesn’t state it thus. To state categorically one way or another may in some ways be limiting to what God can or can’t do.

If one must deny purgatory then one must deny purgation after death.

Does one have to accept the idea of Purgatory, in the Catholic docmatic sense, in order to not deny purgation?

On Point 1)
The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicit in Scripture either and yet that is the most basic tenet of our belief.

That doctrine was arrived at by the Church even before the Canon was completed. The same I think is true for the doctrine of purgatory.

I would contend that the doctrine of the Trinity is far more explicit than you portray here, but be that as it may, the difference on Purgatory is that there are differing, yet apparently not Church dividing, views even between east and west.

On Point 2)
Can you explain what you mean by “the concept of satisfaction”?

Gosh, I think you as a Catholic might be better equipped to define that. But the issue of satisfaction to remit temproal punishment for sins, I believe, is the reference here, the differences being discussed first in the Confutation, then following in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.
bookofconcord.org/defense_10_repentance.php

On Point 3)
Can you explain more explicitly what you mean by the “moment in death-and-resurrection-in-Christ”?

Paragraphs 187 - 190 in the document do a better job than I could.

On point 1) I find this a very vague statement “Penance is a putting to death and a raising to life”. Can you concretize this statement?

Melanchthon maybe better (again):

Paul almost everywhere, when he describes conversion or renewal, designates these two parts, mortification and quickening, as in Col. 2:11: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, namely, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. And afterward, Col 2:12: Wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God. Here are two parts. [Of these two parts he speaks plainly Rom. 6:2, 4, 11, that we are dead to sin, which takes place by contrition and its terrors, and that we should rise again with Christ, which takes place when by faith we again obtain consolation and life. And since faith is to bring consolation and peace into the conscience, according to Rom. 5:1: Being justified by faith, we have peace, it follows that there is first terror and anxiety in the conscience. Thus contrition and faith go side by side.] One is putting off the body of sins; the other is the rising again through faith. Neither ought these words, mortification, quickening, putting off the body of sins, rising again, to be understood in a Platonic way, concerning a feigned change; 47] but mortification signifies true terrors, such as those of the dying, which nature could not sustain unless it were supported by faith. So he names that as the putting off of the body of sins which we ordinarily call contrition, because in these griefs the natural concupiscence is purged away. And quickening ought not to be understood as a Platonic fancy, but as consolation which truly sustains life that is escaping in contrition. Here, therefore, are two parts: contrition and faith. For as conscience cannot be pacified except by faith, therefore faith alone quickens, according to the declaration, Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17: The just shall live by faith.

On point 2) So you confirm that the Lutheran model of salvation is juridical?

I think the above paragraphs explain that it is less juridical.

If the Lutherans agree that the dead need prayers, then obviously the dead are neither in heaven nor on earth, don’t you think? So, why the hesitancy in affirming this intermediate state/stage/place?

Again, the document explains better than I could, beginning at page 55.

Peace of Christ!

And also with you,
Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Jon the purification of Soul for those of Christian Faith who decide to live in a state of grace {the best the can anyway} the process beings here on earth

A couple things happens here on Earth or the Physical World. The purification of your Soul may reach a point when its so close to communion with God in a state of grace, that now the only fault left in you is the Flesh which counts for naught. And a few venial sins through attitude spoken words etc.

These are Souls destined for Heaven

Now when we have a Soul who is still a Catholic/Christain and has never denied God. And somehow has fell to the world in say…vanity, drug addiction, alcohol. just to throw out a few ideas out here.

This Soul isn’t destined for Heaven. They are destined for Purgatory for the final purification of the Soul.

Look at the difference per-say of a Catholic Saint like St Teresa of Avila? A soul no doubt who gained great favor with God and obviously obtained Heaven.

How could one who struggles to the end, yet has a love on God and knows this is Gods world, obtain the exact same situation as the Saint?

While there are similaries of the Purifcation of the Souls in Purgatory and on Earth. Obviously there are also every serious difference. Since the perpetual process of Original Sin and temptation continues though the flesh. Which doesn’t occur in purgatory.

How indulgences work in Purgatory? The theory is the same as salvation through intercession works here in the is world. For example St Augustines mother prayed daily for her son for 40-years and he was converted.

The thinking is the same intercession through prayer happens with puragtory.

I have also heard what the Blessed Mother stated at fatima and what Bible states and that souls will remain their in purgatory till the end of the world.

Course I could get into personal revelation but that would do little to help as far as church doctrine.

Theresa of Avile was also shown a Vision by Jesus Christ of Souls being released from Purgatory as there purification was complete and through the help if intercestion of prayer.

Its also throught the Souls can be saved of sinners with no-faith through the reparation of sinners on the First Saturday of the First Five months of the church year.

Again this is very old in the CC and this has also been confirmed at Pontevedra by Jesus Christ and the Blessed Mother through the Seer of Fatima. Though this happened in 1925 not 1917.

God Bless, Gary