Why do Catholics believe in Purgatory and Protestants do not?

[GKC]

Becky:

I didn’t ask for an anonymous customer review from Amazon.com I am asking for a primary source with a direct quote from CS Lewis himself. TIA

Thank you GKC for providing the source(s)-I’ll check them out.

You are very welcome. Note, again, in LETTERS, that Lewis nuances the concept a little. He does the same in the ENGLISH LITERATURE, but he certainly accepts the idea.

GKC

 

[Katholikos]

Veronica Anne:

Yes… actually, it was Christians speaking and writing to Christians and non-Christians.

Not Catholics to Catholics, per se.

Sorry, Veronica Anne, but all Christians were Catholic when the NT was being written. It was written by Catholics to Catholics. Others calling themselves Christians appeared centuries later.

If I write a letter, and I address it to you, wouldn’t you believe that it was you to whom I wrote it? Why would you think I also wrote it to non-Christians if I didn’t address it to them?

It was some Christians in the 1500’s who decided to take out the books in the already canonized Hebrew Scriptures (what some folks call the “Old Testament”) that talked about things that they did not agree with, even though the Christian church had canonized those books as well hundreds and hundreds of years earlier.

It was one man, Martin Luther, who declared in about 1522 that seven writings plus parts of Esther and Daniel, were not Scripture and removed them from the Bible. He put these writings, plus Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation – which he also declared were not scripture – at the back of his German translation of the Bible in a separate section. He left the pages unnumbered to indicate that they were not to be considered as scripture.

One of those books was Maccabees, which talked about praying for folks after they had died.

“Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin” 2 Maccabees 12:45b.

We Christians all have our spiritual roots in Judaism. There’s no need to toss out the entire revelation of God from before Christ was born. HE sure didn’t!! Sigh.

The Catholic Church inherited 46 books of Scripture from Jesus and the Apostles. These were used in the first-century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way. The CC canonized these same 46 books of Scripture and named them the Old Testament.

Martin Luther removed seven complete books and parts of Esther and Daniel. And that’s why Protestant Bibles have only 66 books and the Catholic Bible – the original Bible – has 73 books.

Peace be to all who post at Catholic Answers, JMJ Jay

 

[II_Paradox_II]

Katholikos:

Sorry, Veronica Anne, but all Christians were Catholic when the NT was being written. It was written by Catholics to Catholics. Others calling themselves Christians appeared centuries later.

Katholicos -

The name “Christian” was used very early according to Acts 11:26 (I think you are saying that the term wasn’t used until later… disregard this if you aren’t arguing that).

“And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.”

ken

 

[1962Missal]

homer:

Purgatory is an imaginary half way place between heaven and hell, where unforgiven sin is purged away.
The Bible states clearly that Christ purged our sins on the cross.

When he had by himself PURGED OUR SINS. (Hebrews 1:3)
There is therefore now NO CONDEMNATION to them that are in Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:1 and John 5:24)

The purgatory was simply invented in 1439 by the Catholic church to keep people in a constant state of fear and also to recieve money from indulgences for it is known that the more money you pay, the faster the intended person will get out of purgatory.

But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. (Acts 8:20)

Homer, it appears that your hens have come home to roost. Your hit and run tactics have left you with no one with whom to dialogue.

 

[Calvin]

Katholikos:

The Catholic Church inherited 46 books of Scripture from Jesus and the Apostles. These were used in the first-century synagogues where Jesus and the Apostles were trained in Judaism and later taught The Way.

No they didn’t.

You must have missed my other post in the Bible thread where you made this same claim.

Now the Church has the authority to create whatever canon She wishes but you can’t re-write history: Jesus and the Apostles used the Palestinian canon. The 46 books you are referring to were in the Alexandrian canon. The Alexandrian canon was written in Greek, (barring a miracle) Jesus couldn’t have even read it! Also, as any Baptist will tell you, Jesus never quoted from the deutrocanonicals. So there is no historical or textual evidence that He, personally, accepted those books.

And as far as I know the CC has never claimed Jesus personally used the deutrocanonicals. They recognized the canon based on the authority He gave to Peter and his successors, not because of a historical argument about what Jesus used or did not use. The CC chose to recognize the Alexandrian canon. Luther chose to recognize the Palestinian canon. Both canons were in use during the first century in synagogues. The authority behind the Alexandrian canon is the Catholic Church. The authority behind the Palestinian canon is the Reformation. You decide which authority you wish to accept.

-C

 

[Genuflecter]

I apologize if somebody already responded something like this, but there were just too many posts in this thread to get through them all.

I think “some” Protestants do believe in Purgatory, but just don’t know it.

I got these three points from a “different” Catholic apologetics website:

“In essence, there are only three points on the matter which the Catholic Church insists: (1) that there is a purification after death, (2) that this purification involves some kind of pain or discomfort, and (3) that God assists those in this purification in response to the actions of the living. Among the things the Church does not insist on are the ideas that purgatory is a place or that it takes time.” If there’s an element of time at all, it may be instantaneous or it may be lengthy.

My point is this:

I. Many, but not all Protestants believe nothing impure can enter Heaven. However, some believe we enter Heaven with sins forgiven, but impurity intact; only covered with bright garments (figuratively speaking I presume). Like Martin Luther said, “Dung heaps covered in snow.” Although, I don’t know if he was referring specifically to man Heaven.

II. Many, but not all Protestants also believe we are impure in this life. However, some believe we are made pure and “white as snow” the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior. Of course this doesn’t explain our desire to sin, which often remains even after our sins are forgiven.

III. If we are not pure now, but we are still “us” when we enter Heaven, this would imply that we are somehow transformed. Given what the Church says about Purgatory (specifically point # 1) and what many Protestants believe about the state of man on Earth vs. the state of man in Heaven (points I and II), I would conclude that “some” Protestants believe in the existence of Purgatory. Many Protestants believe that entering Heaven is like passing through fire. There’s scripture on this somewhere, but I don’t know the exact book for verse.

But, I would also say that most of them would still disagree with the nature of Purgatory. That is that it involves pain and our prayers are at all relevant to ones journey through this process.

As others have probably stated, a good synopsis of what the Church teaches in regards to Purgatory can be found in The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1030-1032.

 

[ralphinal]

Calvin:

No they didn’t.

You must have missed my other post in the Bible thread where you made this same claim.

Now the Church has the authority to create whatever canon She wishes but you can’t re-write history: Jesus and the Apostles used the Palestinian canon. The 46 books you are referring to were in the Alexandrian canon. The Alexandrian canon was written in Greek, (barring a miracle) Jesus couldn’t have even read it! Also, as any Baptist will tell you, Jesus never quoted from the deutrocanonicals. So there is no historical or textual evidence that He, personally, accepted those books.

And as far as I know the CC has never claimed Jesus personally used the deutrocanonicals. They recognized the canon based on the authority He gave to Peter and his successors, not because of a historical argument about what Jesus used or did not use. The CC chose to recognize the Alexandrian canon. Luther chose to recognize the Palestinian canon. Both canons were in use during the first century in synagogues. The authority behind the Alexandrian canon is the Catholic Church. The authority behind the Palestinian canon is the Reformation. You decide which authority you wish to accept.

-C

Actually, most historians feel that Greek was commonly spoken/read by the people of Isreal in that time. Remember, it was not long after the Babalonian exile, so foriegn influence would have been great. Second, the Church does beleive that the time Christ quoted scripture, more often then not he quoted the deuterocanonicals. Test it yourself. In a Protestant Bible, trace the quotes of Christ back and see if they are direct translations (they are in my Catholic Bible). If your translation is true to its origional, there will be differences. If not, look up what Biblical Scholars, such as Scott Hahn and Father Mitch Paqua, say. Any scholar with academic honesty will agree with the Catholic teaching. The Protestant Canon was formed by the Jewish leaders in the same council that condemned Christianity as a heresy. It was a part of the removal of all “non Hebrew” influences on the Jewish culture.

 

[ralphinal]

I should have put this in my last post. Look at this.

catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp

Note the quote by the Protestant scholar.

 

[Calvin]

ralphinal:

Actually, most historians feel that Greek was commonly spoken/read by the people of Isreal in that time. Remember, it was not long after the Babalonian exile, so foriegn influence would have been great. Second, the Church does beleive that the time Christ quoted scripture, more often then not he quoted the deuterocanonicals. Test it yourself. In a Protestant Bible, trace the quotes of Christ back and see if they are direct translations (they are in my Catholic Bible). If your translation is true to its origional, there will be differences. If not, look up what Biblical Scholars, such as Scott Hahn and Father Mitch Paqua, say. Any scholar with academic honesty will agree with the Catholic teaching. The Protestant Canon was formed by the Jewish leaders in the same council that condemned Christianity as a heresy. It was a part of the removal of all “non Hebrew” influences on the Jewish culture.

This is a fair point.

If you go and look at my post in the historical bible thread, I recount a discussion I had with an Orthodox priest who challenged me with the argument: “these were the same Jews who rejected Jesus, why should we accept their canon?”

I think the point that he made was a very valid point.

My argument with Katholicos is a historical one. When Luther rejected the deuterocanonicals it wasn’t an arbitrary decision like “oh these books don’t agree with my theology so I’m gonna chuck 'em!” It was because he decided the Palestinian canon was preferable to the Alexandrian canon. All I’m trying to say is that there was a method to Luther’s madness.

Now, in fairness, there are some Protestant scholars (Fundamentalists actually) who think that Jesus may have spoken Greek. But according to Josephus, the canon that was used in Judea is not the same as the LXX. So it is important to remember that much of this is speculation. I think Luther is not WAY off base if he concluded (like many other scholars) that Jesus, Himself, used the Palestinian canon.

We have to remember (Catholic and Protestant scholars should agree with this) that there is a difference between the words spoken by Jesus and the words recorded by the Gospel writers. The Gospels are not transcripts. Katholicos and I would agree that they are Catholic documents written to a Catholic audience. And this is where it is important to note: the Catholic audience outside of Judea would have used the LXX not the Palestinian canon. So many of the quotes in the Gospels were cited in Greek to be familiar to a Greek audience.

In a similar manner, in some of my other posts I have quoted from the New American, Douay-Rheims, or Vulgate Bibles even though those are not what I use in personal devotion or study. Those are the versions I know this audience uses so I quote from them.

-C

P.S. This was like 400 years after the Babylonian exile and the Babylonians didn’t speak Greek so I’m not sure what that reference was all about.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

Katholikos:

Every sin - confessed and unconfessed, forgiven and unforgiven --has a penalty.

My doctrine came from the Church founded by Christ and taught by the Apostles. Yours sprang full blown from your own “infallible” interpretation of the Scriptures. You’ve made yourself the authority. You’re your own pope.

Works salvation was condemned by the Catholic Church as early as the Council of Orange in 529 A.D. (a thousand years before a single Protestant existed) and again at the Council of Trent, 1545-63.

**COUNCIL OF TRENT - ON JUSTIFICATION **
**CANON I.- If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema. **

Please learn what the Catholic Church teaches before you condemn her for what she doesn’t teach.

Peace be with you, Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

JAY, Yes there is a penalty for all sin. The difference is confessed sin penalty is paid in full by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. The penalty for unconfesed sin is death. I make no such claim being infallable,it is you that says it. If you cannot speak in a spirit of love,then you are not being the light that God called you to be, all we will be is a noisy symbol

 

[dfhauer]

SPOKENWORD:

JAY, Yes there is a penalty for all sin. The difference is confessed sin penalty is paid in full by the precious blood of Jesus Christ. The penalty for unconfesed sin is death. I make no such claim being infallable,it is you that says it. If you cannot speak in a spirit of love,then you are not being the light that God called you to be, all we will be is a noisy symbol

If I might add something in my wandering thoughts…

I think there are two different issues at play here. The first is the penalty of sin and the second is the spiritual repercussion. As an illustration, I might look at something impure and then confess that. The penalty of death is revoked in confessing and being absolved, but the consequence of that action remains, that my mind and my relations with others will now be colored by what I have just put into my mind. There is no amount of confessing that will change that.

When we are before God, these stains on our character and mind still remain. Before God, at least for myself, the idea of not having my character and mind completely clean and pure is anathema. It is something I would not want. So, I would much rather be cleansed fully before approaching the heavenly throne, that I might embrace God completely without concern over the ugliness of my own character. This is the idea of purgatory.

Does that make any sense?

in pacem Christi,
df

 

[GKC]

Greetings, dfhauer,

Does that make sense?

Yes.

GKC

Anglicanus Catholicus

 

[SPOKENWORD]

dfhauer:

If I might add something in my wandering thoughts…

I think there are two different issues at play here. The first is the penalty of sin and the second is the spiritual repercussion. As an illustration, I might look at something impure and then confess that. The penalty of death is revoked in confessing and being absolved, but the consequence of that action remains, that my mind and my relations with others will now be colored by what I have just put into my mind. There is no amount of confessing that will change that.

When we are before God, these stains on our character and mind still remain. Before God, at least for myself, the idea of not having my character and mind completely clean and pure is anathema. It is something I would not want. So, I would much rather be cleansed fully before approaching the heavenly throne, that I might embrace God completely without concern over the ugliness of my own character. This is the idea of purgatory.

Does that make any sense?

in pacem Christi,
df

Really what you are saying is yes Jesus forgives of our sins,but somehow we have to do something else to have them purified. The blood of Christ was not enough and that Christ is going to purify our sins through our works or suffering.Doesnt make any sense. You are making a judgement that only Christ knows and assuming that we have a penalty to pay. Has any saint ever come back to this earth to verify your belief?. I know that when I come before the throne as a christian my sins are forgotten as though they never existed. I say that because thats what the Word of God says. Im not going to dwell on speculation. God Bless.

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

Really what you are saying is yes Jesus forgives of our sins,but somehow we have to do something else to have them purified. The blood of Christ was not enough and that Christ is going to purify our sins through our works or suffering.Doesnt make any sense. You are making a judgement that only Christ knows and assuming that we have a penalty to pay. Has any saint ever come back to this earth to verify your belief?. I know that when I come before the throne as a christian my sins are forgotten as though they never existed. I say that because thats what the Word of God says. Im not going to dwell on speculation. God Bless.

Look at it this way. Purgatory isn’t something aside from the blood of Christ, but the experience of being purified in the blood of Christ. Do you think healing is painless? Imagine the agony that patients in a burn unit go through, not only while healing, but as a direct result of the healing process, itself. Where does the Bible say that our “washing” in the blood of Chirst is a pleasant experience?

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

Look at it this way. Purgatory isn’t something aside from the blood of Christ, but the experience of being purified in the blood of Christ. Do you think healing is painless? Imagine the agony that patients in a burn unit go through, not only while healing, but as a direct result of the healing process, itself. Where does the Bible say that our “washing” in the blood of Chirst is a pleasant experience?

Justin

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?

 

[1962Missal]

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.

How do you know that?

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

How do you know that?

Justin

I have experienced it. Praise God.

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

I have experienced it. Praise God.

I am happy that you have experienced the grace of God. May I ask if you feel confident to generalize from the experience of initial justification to the experience of final sanctification, and from your particular case to the universal?

Justin

 

[SPOKENWORD]

1962Missal:

I am happy that you have experienced the grace of God. May I ask if you feel confident to generalize from the experience of initial justification to the experience of final sanctification, and from your particular case to the universal?

Justin

How come your motor is in gear and mine is not. Do you think I burnt the moderators hearts out?

 

[1962Missal]

SPOKENWORD:

How come your motor is in gear and mine is not. Do you think I burnt the moderators hearts out?

I’ve no idea. Certainly not due to any unusual cleverness on my part.

Justin