Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory and Protestants do not?

[Katholikos]

Red Golum wrote:

Luther didn’t like James or Revelation that much, as both books could be easily misunderstood. However he did say that both books were Scripture and needed to be treated as such.

You apparently did not care to read the materials at the sources I provided (threads right here on this forum). Or, if you read them and won’t believe Luther’s own words, please provide your source for your statements.

The WELS (Lutheran) website (quoted on “the real Luther” thread) spins Luther’s statements, to be sure, but admits that he rejected Revelation outright and “downgraded” the canonicity of Hebrews, James and Jude.

I look forward to having you post your sources. It seems I’ll need to post Luther’s prefaces to James and Jude again, on this thread, although this is way off the topic of Purgatory. Stay tuned, y’all.

JMJ Jay

 

[RedGolum]

Katholikos:

Red Golum wrote:
You apparently did not care to read the materials at the sources I provided (threads right here on this forum). Or, if you read them and won’t believe Luther’s own words, please provide your source for your statements.

Sorry, didn’t have time. And I stand corrected in part.

Here is a link to the LCMS home page that talks a bit about the NT canon.
lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=3978

I will reply more a bit later as I need to do some reading.

 

[Shibboleth]

Just a curiosity about this topic…

What is the Catholic response when someone brings up the name Palagius or semi-pelagianism? And what is the Catholic standing on Romans 8:1?

I am not arguing against purgatory, just curiosity I guess.

 

[Katholikos]

**

Part l

A look at the preface to James and Jude**

By Matt1618

[Note from Jay - I added underline for emphasis]

The following is the translation from Luthers Works, vol. 35. pages 395-398. This is his preface to James and Jude. Now in green are some comments that Luther originally made that were in editions of his Bible prior to 1530. After 1530, the first comments in Green were removed. The second comments in green made by Luther were replaced by other comments that are in maroon in the editions after 1530. I do not give commentary, but I think that Luther speaks for himself: He does not consider James Scripture, even if the book was in his Bible. The Deuterocanonical books were also in his Bible. The four books that he considered not a part of the true canon, Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were never numbered with the other 23 books of the New Testament.

I think it is plain as day that Luther considers these books as uninspired, but I will give you Luther’s full preface so you can judge for yourself whether he considers these books (here James and Jude) inspired Scripture, but he also spoke of Revelation and Hebrews as well, similarly. I bold the sections that I choose to highlight, they are not of course highlighted by Luther or the editors of Luther’s Works.

[QUOTING LUTHER] Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

In the first place it **is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works **2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to “save” the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses’ words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham’s works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham’s works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
(continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 2

In the second place** its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, **even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (ibid).

**But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. **Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a “law of liberty” [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], “Humble yourselves under he had of God” [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17], “The Spirit lusteth against envy.” And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

(Continued)

 

[Katholikos]

Part 3

In a word, **he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task **in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture.

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them [Jude 17] and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures [Jude 9, 14]. This moved the ancient Fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

 

[RedGolum]

Here is something from the Lutheran Cyclopedia about this subject (2 parts)

Antilegomena
(Gk. “spoken against”). Certain books of the NT on which there was no unanimity but some uncertainty in the early ch. regarding their canonicity. Distinguished from homologoumena (Gk. “universally accepted”). Because certain false teachers and other unauthorized persons tried to have their writings introd. into Christian congs. (cf. 2 Th 2:2), it was necessary for Christians to be alert, lest false gospels or letters be acknowledged, esp. by being ascribed to true apostles or disciples of apostles. It was due chiefly to this special vigilance that the following books were not accepted by the ch. everywhere before the latter part of the 4th c.: Ja, Jude, 2 and 3 Jn, 2 Ptr, Heb and Rv The author of Heb is not definitely known; the identity of the James who is the author of the letter was not altogether certain, and the content of the letter was misunderstood; 2 and 3 Jn are addressed to private persons and were not made accessible to larger circles; 2 Ptr was most likely written shortly before the death of the author and had no definite addressees; Jude is very short and has a very circumscribed message; and the Rv was under suspicion because of its nature. Over against these objections it is to be noted that all these books are mentioned at a very early date, some of them referred to as early as the beginning of the 2d c. as apostolic writings, and all of them finally accepted by the ch. in the course of the 4th c.

 

[RedGolum]

Part 2

Doubts have been expressed about some of them even by orthodox Luth. teachers, but in almost every case the clear apostolic doctrine, the depth of the admonitions and of the whole presentation, and the high prophetic insight into future events speak strongly in their favor. Most of the objections raised in recent cents. have been satisfactorily met by earnest searchers after the truth. See also Canon, Bible, 5, 6.
For gen. information see references under Canon, Bible; for the position of Luth. dogmaticians see C. F. Walther, “Ist derjenige für einen Ketzer oder gefährlichen Irrlehrer zu erklären, welcher nicht alle in dem Convolut des Neuen Testamentes befindlichen Bücher für kanonisch hält und erklärt?” L. u. W., II (1856), 204–216.

 

[RedGolum]

I apoligize for the abbrevations. They come from the online version of the book, and aren’t very easy to navigate if you don’t know what they are.

 

[Suzi]

What is the response when someone quotes St.Paul “absent from the body, present with the Lord”.???

 

[1962Missal]

Suzi:

What is the response when someone quotes St.Paul “absent from the body, present with the Lord”.???

I’d make sure to clarify the difference in meaning between the too-often used misquote, “To be absent from the body is to be home with the Lord”, and what Scripture actually says:

Philippians 1:23-24

23: I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. 24: But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account.

2 Corinthians 5:8

8: We are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

In the actual Scripture, to be absent from the body is not exactly equivalent to being at home with the Lord. The Scripture does not exclude the possibility of an intermediate state. The paraphrase does make the two equivalent and excludes the possibility such an intermediate state. Very misleading in a subtle way.

Justin

 

[Katholikos]

SPOKENWORD:

The error that you are making is trying to compare the physical to the spiritual. The washing of the Blood of Christ is painless in the spiritual . Its like recieving a healing from the Lord. Do you feel any pain when the Lord heals you?

And the error that you’re making here, SpokenWord, is to deny the truth of the teaching of the Church that was founded by Christ for the salvation of the world and taught by the Apostles. It is an error to believe that your own private interpretation of scripture is superior to the Church’s knowledge, which she has been teaching now for 21 centuries.

Peace be with you.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

From the LCMS website furnished by RedGolum:

Luther’s opinion regarding the canonicity and value of the “disputed books” (a category including Revelation) in the biblical canon is well known. But his personal opinion on the canonicity of these books has no bearing on his conviction that the canonical Scriptures are to be accepted as God’s Word and are normative for all that is to be taught and practiced in the church.

Whoa, Nellie. This opinion can’t be squared with Luther’s own words.

Regarding James: Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books . . .
(and other disparaging comments).

---

Regarding Jude: Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.

He created an appendix in his German translation of the Bible and put his eleven rejected OT and NT writings in it, and I assume parts of Esther and Daniel which he also rejected, separated from the scriptures he considered “inspired.” He left the pages unnumbered so that no reader could think these writings belonged in the Scriptures.

If they were to be considered “God’s word,” why would Luther have removed them from their place among the Scriptures where they had remained for many centuries, and put them into an appendix with the pages unnumbered, and written a preface explaining why he had rejected them?

The OT writings Luther rejected are not in Protestant Bibles. Why are the NT writings Luther handled in the same way found there? Luther treated all eleven of the rejected writings and parts of Esther and Daniel identically. If the NT writings are the “Word of God,” as the LCMS and others claim, then on what basis are the OT writings deemed not to be the Word of God?

Thanks for posting that link, RedGolum. Much obliged.

JMJ Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Found on a Lutheran website:
bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html

Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522) 7
About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.

First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; 8 I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.

Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly – indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important – and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.

Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; 9 although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.

Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.​

[footnotes]
7. This short preface appeared in the September Testament of 1522 and in other editions up to 1527. It was supplanted from 1530 on by a much longer preface which offers an interpretation of the symbolism of the book.

1. Luther means II Esdras, which was called IV Esdras in the Vulgate.
2. The canonicity of Revelation was disputed by Marcion, Caius of Rome, Dionysius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem and the Synod of Laodicea in A.D. 360, though it was accepted by most as Eusebius reports. In the annotations of his edition Erasmus had noted in connection with chapter 4 that the Greeks regarded the book as apocryphal.

 

[Beaver]

In the Old Testiment, the Israel crossed the Reed Sea into the desert for fourty years. Then they crossed Jordan River into the Promise Land. The desert in the story is a type in typology. It represnts purgatory for in the desert the Israelites were purified before entring the Promise Land which represent heaven. Do you think Protestant would execpt this evidence of purgatory.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

I’ll make you a deal – as soon as you show me where the Bible says that everything man needs to know is in the Bible, I’ll become a Jew. (I could never be Protestant again; it’s too illogical.) But you also have to show me how you know of your own knowledge what the Bible is – i.e., which books belong in it, especially the NT. Explain to me how you know The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles and the Epistle of Barnabas are not inspired, and how you know Philemon, a letter to a slave owner, is inspired. Remember, you have to do this of your own knowledge. You can’t just take the Catholic Church’s word for it, as all Protestants do.

Oh, and also prove that your Bible is complete, when three of Paul’s letters are missing. Maybe the penalty for sin is mentioned in one of them.

God does forget about the ***sin ***-- but he doesn’t forget about the penalty until the penalty is paid, either in this life or the next.

You read your beliefs into the Bible. Nowhere does it say there is no penalty for sin.

You believe the Bible is an instruction book that contains all that God wants us to know about our salvation.

It isn’t, and it doesn’t.

The relevant question is, what did Christians believe when there was no Bible? The Church had been teaching for about 400 years before she formed the Bible. She taught – then and now – that there is a penalty for every sin. Why? Because the Apostles taught it. And the Church is “the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth” 2 Tim 3:15. She teaches the Truth and nothing but the Truth.

JMJ Jay

The only thing I have to show you is Christs Love. I do not have to defend scriptures,scriptures will defend itself. Yes I do believe the bible contains all that God wants us to know about our salvation. Not only that but just in the book ephesians alone, it will teach you how to live the christian life. Catholicism does a great job teaching theoligy and dogma ,but does a poor job on how to live it in my oppinion. I believe you underestimate the Word of God in what it can do for you.

 

[jimmy]

Katholicos

I don’t disagree with you. I never said anything that was contrary to your post. I was just trying to way that the catholic church does not look at prugatory as a punishment. They look at it as a cleansing.

 

[Serafin]

Hi:

Have you thought maybe that Protestants reject the whole concept of “purgatory” because of the beliefs expressed by Catholics about it, and the somewhat questionable practices that have been associated with the concept in the past.

In the West the belief in the existence of real fire is common. Augustine in Ps. 37 n. 3, speaks of the pain which purgatorial fire causes as more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life, Gregory the Great speaks of those who after this life “will expiate their faults by purgatorial flames,” and he adds “'that the pain be more intolerable than any one can suffer in this life” (Ps. 3 poenit., n. 1). Following in the footsteps of Gregory, St. Thomas teaches (IV, dist. xxi, q. i, a.1) that besides the separation of the soul from the sight of God, there is the other punishment from fire. “Una poena damni, in quantum scilicet retardantur a divina visione; alia sensus secundum quod ab igne punientur”, and St. Bonaventure not only agrees with St. Thomas but adds (IV, dist. xx, p.1, a.1, q. ii) that this punishment by fire is more severe than any punishment which comes to men in this life; “Gravior est omni temporali poena. quam modo sustinet anima carni conjuncta”.

It sounds rather awful to me…but all of you may go there if you wish.

Blessings

Serafin

 

[jimmy]

serafin you missed the whole point of my posts or you did not read them. That is not part of catholic dogma . This is something that many people don’t know.

 

[Serafin]

jimmy:

serafin you missed the whole point of my posts or you did not read them. That is not part of catholic dogma . This is something that many people don’t know.

No Jimmy…that is precisely the point!

As an Anglican I believe wholeheartedly that we will all be transformed, that we will enter heaven and see God free from all attachment to sin. The concept of a a “purification…”, " we will all be transformed", after we leave this life, is to me ,and many other non RC’s quite acceptable.

The problem is that, what Catholics believe, is not just the 1 or two generic lines written about Purgatory in the Catechism…you can point just to that if you wish…but it is not the totality of Roman Catholic belief, devotion, practice in reference to Purgatory!

The way some of you write about this, it would seems Protestants just make up stuff about the RCC…for pure spite! Have you considered part of the problem may be what Catholics have communicated and written about your particular beliefs?
Protestants have more than enough to object about, just from litsening to EWTN or reading the writing of some of your canonized saints, blesseds, supposed Marian aparitions and litsening to craddle catholics discuss the topic. To us …“the rule of prayer is the rule of faith”…it involves what you say, write, your prayers, your devotions etc…that sometimes speak louder than dogmas!

You really should admit that some of what has been written and said by Catholics about Purgatory really is quite unatractive …not to mention the theological implications to Protestants.

By the way do you know the Orthodox position on Purgatory?

Blessings

Serafin