Verses we use to defend Purgatory in question

  • Thread starter Thread starter dizzy_dave
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dizzy_dave

Guest
I was reading 2 Macc. 12 The verses we Catholics use to defend purgatory and I’m not sure why we use that as a way of defending our belief in purgatory. I am led to believe these soldiers who died, died in a state of mortal sin, if that’s true there is no forgiveness, if they died in venile sin then yes purgatory would work for them, they sinned according to the bible against the first commandment, isn’t that a mortal sin? Last time I checked you can’t get to purgatory for mortal sins, that is deserving of hell, I’m sure I’m not understanding this correctly, so can someone help clear that up? Thank you and God bless you.
 
Dizzy, what is important from 2 Macc. is the principle that one can and should pray for the dead. Also, this passage expresses the development in the understanding that our life continues after death - in death life has not ended but changed.This understanding was one of the starting points in the development in the theology of Purgatory. And one last note on Purgatory, as you were pointing to, Purgatory isn’t a second chance God gives us after we die. When we die, our choosing to accept or reject the Will of God is over (to put it bluntly it’s Heaven or Hell). For those who have been saved (they who are in Heaven) Purgatory is the state of cleansing of all our impurties that would hinder our enjoying fully the Beatific Vision - that is the fullness of God’s Love and Glory.
 
40.png
dizzy_dave:
I was reading 2 Macc. 12 The verses we Catholics use to defend purgatory and I’m not sure why we use that as a way of defending our belief in purgatory. I am led to believe these soldiers who died, died in a state of mortal sin, if that’s true there is no forgiveness, if they died in venile sin then yes purgatory would work for them, they sinned according to the bible against the first commandment, isn’t that a mortal sin? Last time I checked you can’t get to purgatory for mortal sins, that is deserving of hell, I’m sure I’m not understanding this correctly, so can someone help clear that up? Thank you and God bless you.
Click to expand...
Hold on. You don’t know that they died in a state of mortal sin. No one can judge the heart but God. Mortal sin requires grave matter, adequate knowledge and free consent. Any of thoe lacking, and it’s not mortal.

They may have only committed the sin of superstition as far as we know.
 
DeFide is right on.

One is not justified in assuming they fulfilled the three requirements for a mortal sin.

While superstition is a grave matter, and the fallen soldiers should have had adequate knowledge, they likely did not have totally free consent for any of a number of reasons.

Several mitigating factors that would have diminished the moral culpability of the soldiers who committed the sin of superstition include emotional and mental turmoil stemming from their intense fear of impending death in battle and enormous pressure from commanders to engage in superstitious practices.

The sin was venial.

CL
 
Sometimes Rev. 21:17 is used to defend purgatory. Where many not baptized for remission of sins(Acts 2:38)? If our sins were forgiven than we are no longer defiled.
 
40.png
HMarieH:
Sometimes Rev. 21:17 is used to defend purgatory.
Click to expand...
Rev. 21:17 - He also measured its wall: one hundred and forty-four cubits according to the standard unit of measurement the angel used.

Huh?
40.png
HMarieH:
Where many not baptized for remission of sins(Acts 2:38)? If our sins were forgiven than we are no longer defiled.
Click to expand...
Yes, our sins, UP TO THAT POINT, are forgiven. But we are still liable for any future sins.

NotWorthy
 
40.png
TOME:
Dizzy, what is important from 2 Macc. is the principle that one can and should pray for the dead. Also, this passage expresses the development in the understanding that our life continues after death - in death life has not ended but changed.This understanding was one of the starting points in the development in the theology of Purgatory.
Click to expand...
One point that I would query about this is that we are in the OT times here. So what were the beliefs of the times about what happened to the dead? I think it was that they went to Hades, a sort of abode of sleep. If they (Judas Maccabees & friends) believed the soldiers had not been judged yet, then there would be a point in praying for them whether there was a purgatory or not. So I’m not convinced that this is really an argument for purgatory.
 
We are of course capable of sinning after we are baptized. However if we go to God in prayer and ask for forgiveness, upon a few stipulations, it will be forgiven. Matt 18:21-35 tells a parable of two debtors. The master of the one who owed more represents Christ. This displays the forgiveness of sins on multiple occasions. Acts 8:9-22 shows Simeon, who had practiced socery, being baptized. He latter asks the apostle if he they will give him a gift of the Holy Spirit in exchange for money. Peter rebuked him and told him to repent and ask God for forgiveness. So we see Bible example of the forgiveness of sins after baptism. If that is so than few of us will have to endure purgatory.
 
40.png
HMarieH:
We are of course capable of sinning after we are baptized. However if we go to God in prayer and ask for forgiveness, upon a few stipulations, it will be forgiven. Matt 18:21-35 tells a parable of two debtors. The master of the one who owed more represents Christ. This displays the forgiveness of sins on multiple occasions. Acts 8:9-22 shows Simeon, who had practiced socery, being baptized. He latter asks the apostle if he they will give him a gift of the Holy Spirit in exchange for money. Peter rebuked him and told him to repent and ask God for forgiveness. So we see Bible example of the forgiveness of sins after baptism. If that is so than few of us will have to endure purgatory.
Click to expand...
Ref “few of us will have to endure purgatory” - unfortunately its not as simple as this. When we sin we incur two liabilities - the liablity of guilt and the liability of punishment. Forgiveness removes the liability of guilt, but does not remove the liabilty of punishment (except the liabilty for eternal punishment of mortal sin). Hence we are left with the liability of temporal punshment for venial sins, which must be paid for in various ways, either in this life or in purgatory. See the tract “Primer On Indulgences” on this web site for more on this - catholic.com/library/Primer_on_Indulgences.asp
 
Where do these two parts of sin come from, the Bible? Please use scripture to support your argument, or else it will seems as the doctrine of men. I have never heard of indulgences in the Bible. Please, by all means, show verse/verses.
 
Oh I meant to say that Rev 21:27 is used to defend purgatory, not Rev. 21:17, sorry.
 
40.png
HMarieH:
Where do these two parts of sin come from, the Bible? Please use scripture to support your argument, or else it will seems as the doctrine of men. I have never heard of indulgences in the Bible. Please, by all means, show verse/verses.
Click to expand...
HMarieH, with all due respect, I have to defend Steve99. He DID show verse/verses in that he provided you with a link to follow. His explanation was short and appropriate, but the expanded explanation at his link was packed full of Bible verses, showing this is not a “doctrine of men”. Be careful with that phrase, as well, since it seems to indicate you aren’t a subscriber to the unnegotiable Catholic understanding that God has given the church the power to bind and loosen (Matt. 16). Remember, you won’t run across the actual word “indulgences” in Scripture, but you will also not see “Trinity” either, and it is a dangerous qualifier to say that a concept must be stated so directly, as opposed to being implied as so many Christian beliefs are. Please don’t take this as an attack, but we have to be careful about examining God’s amazing plan for his church based on man-made (Protestant) rules of discussion, such as: “Show me that in the Bible.” God bless you. -Spencer
 
40.png
awfulthings9:
HMarieH, with all due respect, I have to defend Steve99. He DID show verse/verses in that he provided you with a link to follow. His explanation was short and appropriate, but the expanded explanation at his link was packed full of Bible verses, showing this is not a “doctrine of men”. Be careful with that phrase, as well, since it seems to indicate you aren’t a subscriber to the unnegotiable Catholic understanding that God has given the church the power to bind and loosen (Matt. 16). Remember, you won’t run across the actual word “indulgences” in Scripture, but you will also not see “Trinity” either, and it is a dangerous qualifier to say that a concept must be stated so directly, as opposed to being implied as so many Christian beliefs are. Please don’t take this as an attack, but we have to be careful about examining God’s amazing plan for his church based on man-made (Protestant) rules of discussion, such as: “Show me that in the Bible.” God bless you. -Spencer
Click to expand...
Exactly. I would also add that we can see this in human justice sytems, taking a parallel of sin as breaking of God’s law. If we break a human law we incur guilt and punishment. These are quite distinct things.
Suppose I rob a bank and get caught. The jury pronounces me guilty and the judge condemns me to 5 yrs in jail. After that 5 years I have paid the punishment, but the guilt clings to me. At least in the UK, if I apply for a job I will normally have to admit to the conviction in my application. If I am caught robbing a bank again the previous conviction will be brought up again for the judges consideration when I am sentenced. If someone is wrongly accused or convicted and then, exonerated the judge may often say something like the defendant leaves without a stain on his/her character (cf “stain” of sin).
Also in UK for some small crimes the guilt is removed after a certain number of years. I don’t have to declare them in a job application, they cannot be brought up in court again. It is as thought the state has “forgiven” me.
The parallel may not be exact but I hope you get the idea.
 
I am sensing sort of lack of appreciation the Bible and God, I will explain. Why do you rebuke my attitude of “show me the Bible”? 2 Tim 3:16-17 shows that the scripture is good for many things. Jesus quoted scripture, should would not also? Do you limit God and Jesus in saying that only our guilt can be forgiven and not our punishments? God can do anything, except lie to us. On the matter of indulgences they seem rather a tradition of men than a statute. Mark 7:6-13 compares tradition to obedience. Obedience is better and tradition is often the rejection of commandments.
Did God say anything about performing such things that would pardon us for Hell! Surely if this were so you have made the Crucifiction of no effect! Or do you not know that the sacrifice of bull and goats was just so useful as what you believe in, that only guilt is forgiven. It was so in the latter days, but now a greater sacrifce has been made and truely the Son of God is enough to forgive every part of sin and save even the most evil from sin. Do not limit the Lord my God for he has brought down fire upon the false prophets of Baal so he will also punish as those who disobey him.
 
40.png
HMarieH:
I am sensing sort of lack of appreciation the Bible and God, I will explain. Why do you rebuke my attitude of “show me the Bible”? 2 Tim 3:16-17 shows that the scripture is good for many things. Jesus quoted scripture, should would not also?
Click to expand...
OK, you win. Paul, in scripture, instructs us to “stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter” (2 Thess. 2:15).
And furthermore, look at the two verses preceding 2 Tim 3:16-17, which you sited, “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:14–15). As said in Catholic Answers, Paul tells Timothy to continue in what he has learned for two reasons: first, because he knows from whom he has learned it—Paul himself—and second, because he has been educated in the scriptures. The first of these is a direct appeal to apostolic tradition, the oral teaching which the apostle Paul had given Timothy.
40.png
HMarieH:
Do you limit God and Jesus in saying that only our guilt can be forgiven and not our punishments? God can do anything, except lie to us. On the matter of indulgences they seem rather a tradition of men than a statute. Mark 7:6-13 compares tradition to obedience. Obedience is better and tradition is often the rejection of commandments.
Did God say anything about performing such things that would pardon us for Hell! Surely if this were so you have made the Crucifiction of no effect! Or do you not know that the sacrifice of bull and goats was just so useful as what you believe in, that only guilt is forgiven. It was so in the latter days, but now a greater sacrifce has been made and truely the Son of God is enough to forgive every part of sin and save even the most evil from sin. Do not limit the Lord my God for he has brought down fire upon the false prophets of Baal so he will also punish as those who disobey him.
Click to expand...
In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that “as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers” (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).

Good Luck my friend.

NotWorthy
 
40.png
HMarieH:
I am sensing sort of lack of appreciation the Bible and God, I will explain. Why do you rebuke my attitude of “show me the Bible”? 2 Tim 3:16-17 shows that the scripture is good for many things. Jesus quoted scripture, should would not also?
Click to expand...
Sigh. HMarieH, I don’t think you quite followed my post. ALL Catholic doctrine can be shown implicitly in the Bible. When Protestants ask us “Where is that in the Bible?”, though, they are looking for an explicit statement. You put a demand on Steve99 to show you chapter and verse, but you didn’t even read the link he had posted, which gave a TON of chapters and verse citations. Here’s my challenge to you: Please post the chapter and verse that tells me that the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit are three persons, but one nature, working through each other, and that we are to call this the “Trinity”, or is that just an invention of men? Please show me in the Bible where the word Easter appears? Where does the Bible tell us to celebrate Christmas? or is that just a “tradition of men” that contradicts Scripture, which warns against observing certain days Gal. 4: 9-11? Please show me chapter and verse where Jesus comes right out and says that he is God, or is that a “tradition of men”? Since in 2 Tim 3:16-17, Paul was refering to the Scripture of his childhood - the Old Testament, show me where the Bible tells us that we are to add the New Testament? Was that just a decision of men? Where did Jesus tell his apostles to write everything down and compile it for us to read? If you are married, then tell me chapter and verse where we are commanded to have a priest, preacher, or justice of the peace marry us? All I see is that The Bible tells us that God joins us together, so are we “offending” him by having a mere man do it? Is that a tradition of men?

I’m going to guess you subscribe to some of the beliefs above. Why don’t you give chapter and verse for them, since that’s the same demand you put upon Steve99?
40.png
HMarieH:
Do you limit God and Jesus in saying that only our guilt can be forgiven and not our punishments? God can do anything, except lie to us. On the matter of indulgences they seem rather a tradition of men than a statute. Mark 7:6-13 compares tradition to obedience. Obedience is better and tradition is often the rejection of commandments.
Click to expand...
Again, did you even read the tract he linked for you?? I mean, I hate to sound irritated here, but you ignore half the stuff we write and completely pretended he hadn’t even posted that. Read 2 Tim 3:16-17 closely - it only says Scripture is useful, profitable, or purposeful, depending on interpretation. It doesn’t say we are to base our understanding on the Bible alone. Catholics have a deep regard for the Bible. It is the inerrant, inspired, authoritative word of God, but verses such as John 16:12-13**, **John 21:25, Hebrew 5:11-6:2, and2 John 12 (please read these) tell us that Scripture doesn’t contain EVERYTHING we need to know. Are you ignoring these verses and going by a Protestant “tradition of men” by being a “Bible-only” Christian? The verses that NotWorthy posted show that Scripture and Tradition go hand and hand. Read the Catholic Answers tract on this, as well.
40.png
HMarieH:
Did God say anything about performing such things that would pardon us for Hell! Surely if this were so you have made the Crucifiction of no effect! Or do you not know that the sacrifice of bull and goats was just so useful as what you believe in, that only guilt is forgiven. It was so in the latter days, but now a greater sacrifce has been made and truely the Son of God is enough to forgive every part of sin and save even the most evil from sin. Do not limit the Lord my God for he has brought down fire upon the false prophets of Baal so he will also punish as those who disobey him.
Click to expand...
Again, Steve99 posted an excellent tract for you. It answers your objection very well, but you just plain ignore it. You haven’t responded to it at all. Read it. Read the verses I posted. Try to find chapter and verse for the concepts I put above. If you continue to ignore these in order to change the subject, it just won’t be worth responding to your future posts. In my great regard for the Bible, I’m recalling Matt. 10-14 right now You have to be willing to consider what we post before we’re willing to consider yours.

Christ’s love be with you.
 
40.png
steve99:
One point that I would query about this is that we are in the OT times here. So what were the beliefs of the times about what happened to the dead? I think it was that they went to Hades, a sort of abode of sleep. If they (Judas Maccabees & friends) believed the soldiers had not been judged yet, then there would be a point in praying for them whether there was a purgatory or not. So I’m not convinced that this is really an argument for purgatory.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it is correct to characterize the Jewish belief of Hades (Sheol), at the time of the Maccabees (about 160 B.C.), as “a sort of abode of sleep” or unconsciousness since in the same book (2 Maccabees 15:11-16) Judas Maccabees relates “a dream, a vision worthy of belief” in which he sees the dead high priest Onias and the dead prophet Jeremiah as very active, fervently praying for the Jewish community. The book of Sirach, written before 2 Maccabees, describes both Samual and Elisha as performing wonders after their deaths. (Sirach 46:20 and 48:14)

Also, I think that the time difference between the Maccabees and Christ’s public ministry, less than 200 years, is so small that their concepts of the afterlife were probably very similar and clearly by the time of Christ’s public ministry there was a belief in a particular judgment immediately after death, as indicated in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19).
 
Steve99, my response here is going to be very general and please forgive me if it is too general and doesn’t answer your question. Also there will be a lack of refrences. However, if you study the development of the Jewish belief in the after life you’ll find that through out most of the OT, it was believed that when you died it was over for you. Remember, Jewish thought had no developed metaphysics so it would be very hard to develope a theology of the afterlife. It was believed, however, that ones life was continued through ones off spring - which is why having children was so important and to be childless was such a grave matter ( once you were dead and gone - you were really gone). Later, especially after Israel came under the cultural influence of the Greeks there began a concept the there was some sort of life after death and we see this in 2 Macc being reflected. This concept developed upto and through the time of Jesus especially through the teachings of the Pharisees. The teachings of Jesus about an eternal life, judgement, heaven and hell was actually very pharisacial. So with the verious outside cultural influences Judasim (at least the part the survived till today) came to a belief in the after life, final judgement, heaven and hell. Finally, comes the problem of names and terms that one usually finds when trying to express thoughts from one language and culture into another, thus the problems of the meanings of Sheol, Hades, Geenna etc and how these are used through out the NT.
 
Thanks to you both (Todd Easton and TOME) for those replies.

I find them most helpful.

Steve
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top